Self-interest is an important value to acknowledge and affirm. Self-interest protects boundaries of personal values and concerns. If self-interest is not acknowledged, then there is a more likely occasion of "sin". Sin being defined by missing the mark of affirming both self and other.
Self interest has been given a bad "rap" in many religious groups, as self-interest is in opposition to God's purposes or plan. God's purposes and plans are understood in various ways. But, God's purposes and plans are usually understood as something superior to what the individual might want to pursue. Selfishness is the height of sin in this sense, because "God comes first". But,self-interest is not necessarily selfish. Selfish is a label given to those who may not choose to have the same value or ultimate goals. There is room in free societies to "walk away" if another's goals don't fall in line with yours. This is not selfish, but self awareness. And self-awareness is the first step toward becoming concerned with one's own personal goals, what one wants to do with their life.
Self-interest protects one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is an American's right by birth. And Americans use their liberty to choose their course and determine their life. American's are self-interested, in this way. Is there anything "wrong" with this?
Religion would say that one must deny oneself and take up their cross, meaning that self-interest would be in opposition to what "God wills". And that "will" is defined depending on the Christian group one is associated with. The social gospelers would think your life should be about the business of bringing in "God's Kingdom" through social justice. Their view is social and economic equality and political liberty. But, how is this different from the "secular human rights movement" or other forms of liberal organizations that are interested in bringing in Utopian dreams?
The conservative/evangelical would believe that self-interest would be in opposition to what they regard as most important, salvation. Salvation has many meanings depending on what denomination one asks. Some believe that being "born again" is an all important goal, while other believe that one must prove their faith through their life choices of "Kingdom building", etc.
I really believe that all of these people can be and are duped if they do not acknowledge and accept that one must be self-interested, if they do not want others to determine their course of action. Self-interest acknowledges one's values, personal goals, and personal life, which must be considered whenever one commits to anything. And negotiation of these aspects of personal concerns must be brought to the table early on, otherwise, one will be labelled as un-cooperative, rebellious, etc. We, in the West, would think it would be abhorrent for a man to pay the bride's family and take her away to become his wife, without any concern about the woman's personal choice. But, some religions/cultures think this is "right".
Some cultures believe that one doesn't have a right to freedom of speech if it subverts the government. But, these cultures are not free societies. This is what has happened over the years for political dissidents. Our Constitution guarantees that Americans have the right to free speech. But, recently, free speech has come under fire, because of religious or personal offenses. And individuals need to be honest and self-aware about why they are speaking out. Why are they doing what they are doing. Be self-aware and have valid reasons why one chooses to cause political "upheaval" and another's personal pain.
Self-interest makes sure that one is free to choose and is not doing what they do for approval, or to "fit in", but are doing what they do because they choose to do what they choose to do.These people are the only ones that are "free to choose" in the first place. Those that have come to understand themselves and what they will or will not do and what is of ultimate concern are those that are free "to be" and then, are free "to do".
And it is only free societies that allow such human development and choice.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Faith and The Quadralateral
As I have been thinking along the lines of what values are most important to individuals, on what basis do individuals maintain or uphold their values? This "foundation" or "beginning" is what gives definition to values.
The four basis on which to base one's values are; Reason, Experience, Tradition and Text. Of course, without understanding that humans MUST approach any "foundation" through reason and experience, one is short-sighted.
Reason is basis of science. Science is produced by hypothesis, experiment, observation, verification, and conclusions. But, one's approach to any scientific endeavor is based on some understanding of 'universal laws" which guard the order in which man even begins to understand the "outcomes" of the experiment. But, does man understand the 'whole order' of the universe?
Experience is what the humanists base their understanding of "life" on. Experience is human existance. And human existance is understood by observation, and sense encounters. Are these observations and sense encounters different from other conscious entities?Wherein lies individual diversity? Is the human person uniquely distinct or innately similiar? Where does the elements of environment and physicality intersect? How do we know or understand consciousness? Is consciousness what makes one "human"? Is there a distinction of consciousness between the human and animal kingdom? If so, what is that difference? How did humans develop? Those who study the aspects of "man" use anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities, history, business, marketing, commerce/trade, international relations, political science, law, etc.
Tradition is narrowed as a sub-set of human experience. Tradition is understood by cultural studies, religion, religious studies, sociology, social psychology and historical texts but also crosses over into the experietial domains of commerce, trade, international relations, linguistics and history that impact that particular tradition.
Texts are those written forms of documentation of history that impact and/or form a culture.
The universals are reason and human experience, as other aspects of human existence are relative to cultural frame. And cultural frames are relative, while reason and experience are universal. What kind of faith do you have? Rational faith, existential faith, or a cultural faith?
The West allows for government that is accomadating to cultural diversity, while maintaining reasonable ways of negotiating conflict in our courts of law. The value of individuality in making the choice of cultural values is what makes for a flourishing human existence. Therefore, I have faith in liberal democracy to create the best environment for humans.
The four basis on which to base one's values are; Reason, Experience, Tradition and Text. Of course, without understanding that humans MUST approach any "foundation" through reason and experience, one is short-sighted.
Reason is basis of science. Science is produced by hypothesis, experiment, observation, verification, and conclusions. But, one's approach to any scientific endeavor is based on some understanding of 'universal laws" which guard the order in which man even begins to understand the "outcomes" of the experiment. But, does man understand the 'whole order' of the universe?
Experience is what the humanists base their understanding of "life" on. Experience is human existance. And human existance is understood by observation, and sense encounters. Are these observations and sense encounters different from other conscious entities?Wherein lies individual diversity? Is the human person uniquely distinct or innately similiar? Where does the elements of environment and physicality intersect? How do we know or understand consciousness? Is consciousness what makes one "human"? Is there a distinction of consciousness between the human and animal kingdom? If so, what is that difference? How did humans develop? Those who study the aspects of "man" use anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities, history, business, marketing, commerce/trade, international relations, political science, law, etc.
Tradition is narrowed as a sub-set of human experience. Tradition is understood by cultural studies, religion, religious studies, sociology, social psychology and historical texts but also crosses over into the experietial domains of commerce, trade, international relations, linguistics and history that impact that particular tradition.
Texts are those written forms of documentation of history that impact and/or form a culture.
The universals are reason and human experience, as other aspects of human existence are relative to cultural frame. And cultural frames are relative, while reason and experience are universal. What kind of faith do you have? Rational faith, existential faith, or a cultural faith?
The West allows for government that is accomadating to cultural diversity, while maintaining reasonable ways of negotiating conflict in our courts of law. The value of individuality in making the choice of cultural values is what makes for a flourishing human existence. Therefore, I have faith in liberal democracy to create the best environment for humans.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Questions About Trust
This morning while checking my e-mail, I had gotten a comment on the "A Few Good Men" entry. In responsing to the comment, I suggested that although support systems were important for the young lawyer to pursue justice, that trust was the foundation of receiving the support. That got me thinking...
Trust is earned by someone's belief in what you do, or who you are. Trust cannot be manipulated, as trust is about relationship. Trust is about understanding and accountability. One does not listen to those who have abused, misused, or disregarded the relationship. Relationship has to be mutually edifying for it to be healthy.
Mutuality in relationship is about allowing differences, respecting rights, supporting opportunities, and giving hope. It is the social contract, where there is equal respect and regard for another's life and values.
In all relationships, there is a give and take, at least if there is healthy mutuality. Hierarchal forms of relationship can be healthy as long as there is also respect and encouragement from "both ends", not a demand to rights, but a trust that there will be "a right". Respect is foremost in regards to trust in relationship.
I find that when workers felt their rights were being abused that they sought recourse in just compensation for their work. One wonders now, what just compensation means, when those in other countries will do the work for less. Cultural living standards differ, and the American worker is disadvantaged by his own culture's standard, which has become his own.
While the worker had sought rights and won "justice", the executive has used his power to exploit and use his position and power to maintain even a higher standard of living. There seemed to be an attitude of entitlement on both ends, which built resentment and a lack of mutual respect and trust. Outsourcing jobs was a means to make more profit for the executive to "look good" and to exploit the system he had created, and benefit the stock holders, while the worker's right to work was devalued and undermined., creating an esculating environment between the worker and the boss.
I do not know the solution, but I do know that our globalized economy has exasperated the problems in corporate and private interests. Now, the government gets involved, which compounds the problem and creates a quadmire of beauraucracy that is hard to hold accountable. The citizen cannot be informed because it takes a legal mind to understand. And sometimes I think this is a convienient way to enlarge one's pockets of interests.
There is not to be a separation between a public servant's job and the private citizen's right to know, which is what the "tea parties" have sought to "voice". This is a "voice" for public good and social justice, but there are other "voices" that do not need respect. These are the attitudes of the Taliban or the antagonist. One can have convictions or opinions without oppressing another or demanding that the other agree and behave accordingly. Sometimes when difference is too large to bridge, it is best to allow room, so disagreement and tension is dispelled.
In international relations, negotiation and diplomacy is a tedious job. Cultural divides become widened whenever religions dominant opinions, ideas and convictions. Religion can be dangerous because the religious believe that their view hold "ultimate truth or value" and to disregard it, is to disregard God. The fundamentally inclined do not trust those who do not regard God as the foremost object of desire and focus. It is difficult to negotiate with those whose opinions are underwritten by "god himself".
I find that the religious are the hardest and the most difficult to broaden and engage in "public ways", as the walls are built too high. They feel that the very definition of themselves as religious is threatened by engaging the "secular" world. Trust in life, itself, is not a value to these religious "idealists". They find their comfort in the "next world", where they are promised justice.
Justice should be sought in the here and now, as that is all we really know and have. And American government seeks justice in the here and now in seeking to establish democracy abroad.
Trust is earned by someone's belief in what you do, or who you are. Trust cannot be manipulated, as trust is about relationship. Trust is about understanding and accountability. One does not listen to those who have abused, misused, or disregarded the relationship. Relationship has to be mutually edifying for it to be healthy.
Mutuality in relationship is about allowing differences, respecting rights, supporting opportunities, and giving hope. It is the social contract, where there is equal respect and regard for another's life and values.
In all relationships, there is a give and take, at least if there is healthy mutuality. Hierarchal forms of relationship can be healthy as long as there is also respect and encouragement from "both ends", not a demand to rights, but a trust that there will be "a right". Respect is foremost in regards to trust in relationship.
I find that when workers felt their rights were being abused that they sought recourse in just compensation for their work. One wonders now, what just compensation means, when those in other countries will do the work for less. Cultural living standards differ, and the American worker is disadvantaged by his own culture's standard, which has become his own.
While the worker had sought rights and won "justice", the executive has used his power to exploit and use his position and power to maintain even a higher standard of living. There seemed to be an attitude of entitlement on both ends, which built resentment and a lack of mutual respect and trust. Outsourcing jobs was a means to make more profit for the executive to "look good" and to exploit the system he had created, and benefit the stock holders, while the worker's right to work was devalued and undermined., creating an esculating environment between the worker and the boss.
I do not know the solution, but I do know that our globalized economy has exasperated the problems in corporate and private interests. Now, the government gets involved, which compounds the problem and creates a quadmire of beauraucracy that is hard to hold accountable. The citizen cannot be informed because it takes a legal mind to understand. And sometimes I think this is a convienient way to enlarge one's pockets of interests.
There is not to be a separation between a public servant's job and the private citizen's right to know, which is what the "tea parties" have sought to "voice". This is a "voice" for public good and social justice, but there are other "voices" that do not need respect. These are the attitudes of the Taliban or the antagonist. One can have convictions or opinions without oppressing another or demanding that the other agree and behave accordingly. Sometimes when difference is too large to bridge, it is best to allow room, so disagreement and tension is dispelled.
In international relations, negotiation and diplomacy is a tedious job. Cultural divides become widened whenever religions dominant opinions, ideas and convictions. Religion can be dangerous because the religious believe that their view hold "ultimate truth or value" and to disregard it, is to disregard God. The fundamentally inclined do not trust those who do not regard God as the foremost object of desire and focus. It is difficult to negotiate with those whose opinions are underwritten by "god himself".
I find that the religious are the hardest and the most difficult to broaden and engage in "public ways", as the walls are built too high. They feel that the very definition of themselves as religious is threatened by engaging the "secular" world. Trust in life, itself, is not a value to these religious "idealists". They find their comfort in the "next world", where they are promised justice.
Justice should be sought in the here and now, as that is all we really know and have. And American government seeks justice in the here and now in seeking to establish democracy abroad.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The PROBLEM With Culture
Culture is context. Context defines who we are, as human beings. Culture determines values, as they impact how one assesses "right and wrong". In the West, we depend on reason and use science to bring understanding. American culture affirms individuals and their 'reason". This is a universal as it allows diverse views within a unified nation. Or are we unified?
Many are concerned as our country is divided by the political realm. Our strengh could become our weakness if we do not continue to be open to "reason". Whether one values Republican or Deomocratic values, as it concerns social issues, we must learn to listen and THINK! Otherwise, we are headed to divide our nation and defeat progress in legislation, and our culture's impact on other needs she has.
I find that the ultimate value of our First Amendment right to freely allow information to flow, so that we can be better informed and make rational decisions, and become more "whole individual's as it concerns our own personal development. We have the tools in America to "become" because of our freedoms. Let us use them and defend them.
If Culture becomes an icon, we are headed for totaltarianism of some kind. Government cannot enforce itself upon human beings without there being oppressive. This is why we allow certain freedoms. Religious tradtions sometimes feels threatened by progressiveness, as tradition's understanding of itself is to remain "true" or "loyal" to what has been understood to be of value. And "god" is the ultimate value of religion. "God" in the modern West is being re-defined according to science's "evolution" and understanding of the physical world. This is troubling to some, as it undermines the personal, as understood in conservative or evangelical terms. I think the personal should be undermined, as otherwise, it becomes the "god of one's idolatry". God cannot be understood in complete form, so this should comfort those who fear science's challenge to religion's value and loyalty to "god".
America is the universal standard for an "ideal" government, as the ideal is connected to the real world and it allows the personal to "exist" in the indivdiual's values, and convictions. America affirms the universals of freedom and justice for all, because of its affirmation of all voices in the public square.
Many are concerned as our country is divided by the political realm. Our strengh could become our weakness if we do not continue to be open to "reason". Whether one values Republican or Deomocratic values, as it concerns social issues, we must learn to listen and THINK! Otherwise, we are headed to divide our nation and defeat progress in legislation, and our culture's impact on other needs she has.
I find that the ultimate value of our First Amendment right to freely allow information to flow, so that we can be better informed and make rational decisions, and become more "whole individual's as it concerns our own personal development. We have the tools in America to "become" because of our freedoms. Let us use them and defend them.
If Culture becomes an icon, we are headed for totaltarianism of some kind. Government cannot enforce itself upon human beings without there being oppressive. This is why we allow certain freedoms. Religious tradtions sometimes feels threatened by progressiveness, as tradition's understanding of itself is to remain "true" or "loyal" to what has been understood to be of value. And "god" is the ultimate value of religion. "God" in the modern West is being re-defined according to science's "evolution" and understanding of the physical world. This is troubling to some, as it undermines the personal, as understood in conservative or evangelical terms. I think the personal should be undermined, as otherwise, it becomes the "god of one's idolatry". God cannot be understood in complete form, so this should comfort those who fear science's challenge to religion's value and loyalty to "god".
America is the universal standard for an "ideal" government, as the ideal is connected to the real world and it allows the personal to "exist" in the indivdiual's values, and convictions. America affirms the universals of freedom and justice for all, because of its affirmation of all voices in the public square.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Scripture's Impact on the Individual and Personal Identity in American Society
Scripture has been useful to impact the individual's "self-concept" as a special creation of God. A life filled with purpose and a future hope of rewards fill the heart of every evangelical believer. But, these understandings are a limited view of what it means to be "human".
These believers for the most part have "experienced" God's grace and seen it's manifestation within "community", where the experience is re-enforced with "belonging". Believers who believe that God inhabits these communities range the gambit from fundamentalists who believe in the literal understanding of Scripture, to the charismatic, who "finds" meaning not just within
Scripture, but also in ongoing "revelations" of the "Spirit". There are many colors in between these distinctives, which are "translated" into community through the understandings of Scripture.
Paul Tillich understood the continual "division" of the "Protestant Principle". But, the divisions have not always been along the lines of Scripture but also understandings of "god", and culture. The Jewish religion broke down in understanding of sectarians (Essenes), resurrection of the dead (Pharisees) or no resurrection (Sadduccees). Religion defines itself in numerous ways.
Individuals within traditions come to understand themselves as identified with these interpretive understandings. Meaning and significance come along with a sense of belonging and value.
But, these "messages" of significance, meaning and belonging are not just understood within religious traditions, but also other social structures, such as family, vocation and ethnicity. Individuals do not have the fullest understanding of the "human" without these social contexts. As apart from social contexts, the individual ceases to "belong" and in a sense, ceases "to be". We are known and we know, as we experience communal ways of understanding, as well as embracing the "otherness of the other".
American identity, in this sense, is a unique one, as it allows individuality in understanding and places significance of the individual's importance to society as a whole. Apart from the individual's unique understandings, giftings, and inclusion, society suffers from a lack of innovation, or creativity, which hinders the colorfulness of the "whole of society" and limits what it means to be "human".
These believers for the most part have "experienced" God's grace and seen it's manifestation within "community", where the experience is re-enforced with "belonging". Believers who believe that God inhabits these communities range the gambit from fundamentalists who believe in the literal understanding of Scripture, to the charismatic, who "finds" meaning not just within
Scripture, but also in ongoing "revelations" of the "Spirit". There are many colors in between these distinctives, which are "translated" into community through the understandings of Scripture.
Paul Tillich understood the continual "division" of the "Protestant Principle". But, the divisions have not always been along the lines of Scripture but also understandings of "god", and culture. The Jewish religion broke down in understanding of sectarians (Essenes), resurrection of the dead (Pharisees) or no resurrection (Sadduccees). Religion defines itself in numerous ways.
Individuals within traditions come to understand themselves as identified with these interpretive understandings. Meaning and significance come along with a sense of belonging and value.
But, these "messages" of significance, meaning and belonging are not just understood within religious traditions, but also other social structures, such as family, vocation and ethnicity. Individuals do not have the fullest understanding of the "human" without these social contexts. As apart from social contexts, the individual ceases to "belong" and in a sense, ceases "to be". We are known and we know, as we experience communal ways of understanding, as well as embracing the "otherness of the other".
American identity, in this sense, is a unique one, as it allows individuality in understanding and places significance of the individual's importance to society as a whole. Apart from the individual's unique understandings, giftings, and inclusion, society suffers from a lack of innovation, or creativity, which hinders the colorfulness of the "whole of society" and limits what it means to be "human".
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Unified Diversity
With all of the discussion over whether a text is "special revelation", or by what means is a particular denomination to understand faith and how that plays out in orthopraxy, it seems that there should be a loud and clear call for a "peace treaty" on absolute truth claims.
Battle scars are many where there is an absolute claim on truth. Humans suffer in many ways because we justify actions based on our own limited understanding of what constitutes right behavior.We all have personal values and convictions on what is right or wrong, but sometimes we hold these convictions with little or no reflection. When there is little of no reflection on things that matter or should matter most, which are the ideals we live by, there is limitation on life itself. Socrates said "An unexamined life, is not worth living".
What would it be like to live in a world that let everyone seek their own life, with no interference? If one could pursue interests that were the "ideals" one valued? And everyone left others alone that differed? The world, yes, would be compartmentalized by many "differences", but wouldn't that breed a culture of acceptance and value of difference? And wouldn't it reflect a larger view of "truth" and breed a culture of understanding? Living in unified diversity is what I would call "heaven", as each would "be" and "do" as he understood to be of importance and of value. Then, peace would abound and no one would have a privy or right to jusitfy "speical priviledge" or "special rights", as everyone would be equally respected under "law".
I think this is the "ideal" of our American government. While fundamentalists of all kinds feel it their duty, to warn, rebuke, correct, and convert, I think a more healthy attitude toward self and neighbor is seeking understanding dialogue. Most religions, though, are based on a limited understanding of life and the values of the "transcendent" over-ride one's duty toward others and real life in this world. Is religion dangerous? I am beginning to think so.
Battle scars are many where there is an absolute claim on truth. Humans suffer in many ways because we justify actions based on our own limited understanding of what constitutes right behavior.We all have personal values and convictions on what is right or wrong, but sometimes we hold these convictions with little or no reflection. When there is little of no reflection on things that matter or should matter most, which are the ideals we live by, there is limitation on life itself. Socrates said "An unexamined life, is not worth living".
What would it be like to live in a world that let everyone seek their own life, with no interference? If one could pursue interests that were the "ideals" one valued? And everyone left others alone that differed? The world, yes, would be compartmentalized by many "differences", but wouldn't that breed a culture of acceptance and value of difference? And wouldn't it reflect a larger view of "truth" and breed a culture of understanding? Living in unified diversity is what I would call "heaven", as each would "be" and "do" as he understood to be of importance and of value. Then, peace would abound and no one would have a privy or right to jusitfy "speical priviledge" or "special rights", as everyone would be equally respected under "law".
I think this is the "ideal" of our American government. While fundamentalists of all kinds feel it their duty, to warn, rebuke, correct, and convert, I think a more healthy attitude toward self and neighbor is seeking understanding dialogue. Most religions, though, are based on a limited understanding of life and the values of the "transcendent" over-ride one's duty toward others and real life in this world. Is religion dangerous? I am beginning to think so.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Two Sides of Suicide
Suicide is taking one's own life. There are two ways to group the identifications factors of those who commit suicide. One believes in complete individuality apart from the social or the other group has a complete identification to the social.
The social structures were made to bless life, be a support system and bring a sense of belonging. But, when social structures are used as a means of control of identity or are ignored altogether, then there will be a disvalueing of the individual life.
Our culture affirms the strong, independent, and brave person who can "go it alone". We understand this type of attitude as "manly",. We condone men when they are strong in bearing up under stress and we condemn or look down upon those men who express a need, or desire for community. These men are considered effeminate, or immature.
Just today it was reported that there were 24 suicides this month according to the Pentagon. There was a discussion about it on NPR. It seems that 1/3 had been deployed, 1/3 were deployed and 1/3 had not been deployed. It was suggested that the military encourage soldiers to seek help when they find it difficult to bear the stress. There didn't seem to be any universals as to "reasons". But, our culture does not affirm men "with problems" they can't handle alone.
Just recently, a man lost his job and killed his wife, himself and his 5 children. And we wonder why such despair? Some would consider this to be a lack of faith. Others would wonder about his personal life. There seems to be little understanding in our culture of a need for deeper relationships. We don't have the time, nor do we value them that much. The relationships we do have are those we find at our jobs, as we have little time to even know our neighbors.
On the other side of the spectrum, is the emmeshment of one's identity so deep that there remains little left of the individual. These are cultures that breed dependence, have strict social norms and enforce them with oppressive social control. God is useful to bring about a "controlling force" of obedience, or submission. These types of cultures do not value the individual or the creative, as this threatens the very identity of these groups. These groups survive in isolated contexts and have isolated views about life in general. Truth is known as special and independent to any "truth out there".
While one group will commit suicide because of a lack of social connection, the other will do so, because they think they do God service by annihlating themselves for "God's Kingdom", to prove their ultimate dedication to the deity or to the group.
Social structures are to be nurturing and safe environments, without domination, control of the individual's identity. Otherwise, it is a cult. Get out quick!
The social structures were made to bless life, be a support system and bring a sense of belonging. But, when social structures are used as a means of control of identity or are ignored altogether, then there will be a disvalueing of the individual life.
Our culture affirms the strong, independent, and brave person who can "go it alone". We understand this type of attitude as "manly",. We condone men when they are strong in bearing up under stress and we condemn or look down upon those men who express a need, or desire for community. These men are considered effeminate, or immature.
Just today it was reported that there were 24 suicides this month according to the Pentagon. There was a discussion about it on NPR. It seems that 1/3 had been deployed, 1/3 were deployed and 1/3 had not been deployed. It was suggested that the military encourage soldiers to seek help when they find it difficult to bear the stress. There didn't seem to be any universals as to "reasons". But, our culture does not affirm men "with problems" they can't handle alone.
Just recently, a man lost his job and killed his wife, himself and his 5 children. And we wonder why such despair? Some would consider this to be a lack of faith. Others would wonder about his personal life. There seems to be little understanding in our culture of a need for deeper relationships. We don't have the time, nor do we value them that much. The relationships we do have are those we find at our jobs, as we have little time to even know our neighbors.
On the other side of the spectrum, is the emmeshment of one's identity so deep that there remains little left of the individual. These are cultures that breed dependence, have strict social norms and enforce them with oppressive social control. God is useful to bring about a "controlling force" of obedience, or submission. These types of cultures do not value the individual or the creative, as this threatens the very identity of these groups. These groups survive in isolated contexts and have isolated views about life in general. Truth is known as special and independent to any "truth out there".
While one group will commit suicide because of a lack of social connection, the other will do so, because they think they do God service by annihlating themselves for "God's Kingdom", to prove their ultimate dedication to the deity or to the group.
Social structures are to be nurturing and safe environments, without domination, control of the individual's identity. Otherwise, it is a cult. Get out quick!
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.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Two Sides to the "Golden Rule"
All religious traditions have ethical concerns and many hold to a view of what the Christian understands to be the "Golden Rule". But, how one understands the "Golden Rule" is as various as the people who acknowledge it.
People hold to different values, depending on their cultural contexts and the values that are most important. In cultures where there is no freedom, whether in communist or traditionlist, the cultural climate is determined by government officials, or sacred texts. These culture's do not have "free reign" to understand the "Golden Rule" because what is done is "duty bound" to tradition or governmental authority.
In the West, we hold to individual's freedoms, where the individual can choose his "way of life" depending on the values that are most important. The "Golden Rule" could be a value of two individuals, but look different in how that is applied in one's life. This is because in politically free societies, the individual can choose how to prioritize their values. If a Republican believes in the free market, then he would affirm that value to another and argue for its "value" in regards to others; while a Democrat would argue for the "greater good", more a sense of social responsibility. While one values, individuality, choice in economic decisions, the other values a collective conscience, in regards to those same choices. Which view is more representative of the "Golden Rule"? Freedom or Responsibility? We are free to choose and that is what is great about our nation and culture. The important thing is "are we doing what we would want to be done to us"?
People hold to different values, depending on their cultural contexts and the values that are most important. In cultures where there is no freedom, whether in communist or traditionlist, the cultural climate is determined by government officials, or sacred texts. These culture's do not have "free reign" to understand the "Golden Rule" because what is done is "duty bound" to tradition or governmental authority.
In the West, we hold to individual's freedoms, where the individual can choose his "way of life" depending on the values that are most important. The "Golden Rule" could be a value of two individuals, but look different in how that is applied in one's life. This is because in politically free societies, the individual can choose how to prioritize their values. If a Republican believes in the free market, then he would affirm that value to another and argue for its "value" in regards to others; while a Democrat would argue for the "greater good", more a sense of social responsibility. While one values, individuality, choice in economic decisions, the other values a collective conscience, in regards to those same choices. Which view is more representative of the "Golden Rule"? Freedom or Responsibility? We are free to choose and that is what is great about our nation and culture. The important thing is "are we doing what we would want to be done to us"?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Geert Wilder's on T.V. Tonight
Geert Wilder was on T.V. tonight talking about his concern for the Dutch culture, because of the prominence of Muslims. This is of concern also for my husband as he was born and raised in the Netherlands. His family still resides there, where his brother-in-law has some of the same concerns. Wilders said he had nothing against the Muslims themselves, but he had tried to expose some of the Koran's message, which should alarm most Westerners. A radical message against our culture.
Now he is being charged with intolerance, in one of the most tolerant nations in the EU. While he is being charged, the Muslims have posters of Wilders with guns pointed at his head, yet, they are never held accountable. Why?
Why is the U.N. allowing Muslim nations to practice their "honor killings", when the U.N. is to
protect human rights? Is culture more important than human life?
I am beginning to think that this is not a war to win by creating a Christian culture, but in standing for human rights, which means the right of the individual in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
American values would be the height of arrogance and subversion of Islam's cultural values, as tradition rules the individual in every detail.
In the last six months, I have gone twice to the Newsmuseum in D.C. where the radio antenae to one of the towers is 'featured" along with actual footage and a minute by minute unfolding of the attack. The four story high wall is filled with newspaper headlines from around the world . We had worldwide sympathy.
What kind of culture can kill in the name of God because a woman is raped or goes out alone, or does not want an arranged marriage? What kind of culture creates suicide bombers, who give their life willingly for God? What kind of culture lies to the Infidels, as these do not deserve respect or dignity? What kind of culture would mutilate the female genitals and sew it shut, so that it can be known if there is inappropriate behavior? And then, in marriage, there is no pleasure, but pain in the marital bed?
America and the Western world need to understand that our culture, which allows tolerance, is hard pressed to deny even those who would seek to undermine our 'way of life". How do we hold to our values, and yet, protect ourselves? I don't know, and I'm concerned, as what is in store for our future.
Now he is being charged with intolerance, in one of the most tolerant nations in the EU. While he is being charged, the Muslims have posters of Wilders with guns pointed at his head, yet, they are never held accountable. Why?
Why is the U.N. allowing Muslim nations to practice their "honor killings", when the U.N. is to
protect human rights? Is culture more important than human life?
I am beginning to think that this is not a war to win by creating a Christian culture, but in standing for human rights, which means the right of the individual in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
American values would be the height of arrogance and subversion of Islam's cultural values, as tradition rules the individual in every detail.
In the last six months, I have gone twice to the Newsmuseum in D.C. where the radio antenae to one of the towers is 'featured" along with actual footage and a minute by minute unfolding of the attack. The four story high wall is filled with newspaper headlines from around the world . We had worldwide sympathy.
What kind of culture can kill in the name of God because a woman is raped or goes out alone, or does not want an arranged marriage? What kind of culture creates suicide bombers, who give their life willingly for God? What kind of culture lies to the Infidels, as these do not deserve respect or dignity? What kind of culture would mutilate the female genitals and sew it shut, so that it can be known if there is inappropriate behavior? And then, in marriage, there is no pleasure, but pain in the marital bed?
America and the Western world need to understand that our culture, which allows tolerance, is hard pressed to deny even those who would seek to undermine our 'way of life". How do we hold to our values, and yet, protect ourselves? I don't know, and I'm concerned, as what is in store for our future.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Honor and Shame as a Modern Cultural Value?
In ancient cultures, as in some "uncultured" societies, honor and shame rule the cultural landscape. These cultures, believe that social control is held by the social mores, which are bound within tradition's values.
In today's modern West, culture has become dissolved from societie's traditions, which have inhibited some social behavior that would bring shame on the individual or family. These values were what held society "together", as they underwrote man's responsibility for and in his environment.
Cultural values are maintained or upheld by the culture's religion. Religion gives the frame of reference for what culture should be about. The conditioning of children in the home, as well as within the Church was internalized as an identification factor for the child. These were maintained in ancient culture by shame or honor. Duty was the watch-word for the child trained under tradition's influence.
But, in the modern world, the child's education exposes him to a larger frame, where these values are "challenged". The young adult, then has to assess whether he will continue to be committed to his tradition's values, or where these traditions have lost their moral vision and need revision individually or socially.
Tradition has all but died in the Western world because of many societal factors. These factors range from technological advances that discourage face to face interaction, to the break-down of the family. Yesterday's social and moral challenge was the issue of slavery in our country, while today's challenge is redefining marriage.
Every time culture is challenged to change or revise its values, there are many social tensions within the tradition-bearing messengers, whether tradition's scholars, or tradition's insitutions.
Social change is not viewed by the majority as "good" or beneficial, as it revises cherished understandings of "truth", which brings a crisis in identity. While social change is challenging to all, it is necessary and needed, so that mankind can be more understanding of neighbor and enlarge his scope to 'self".
In today's modern West, culture has become dissolved from societie's traditions, which have inhibited some social behavior that would bring shame on the individual or family. These values were what held society "together", as they underwrote man's responsibility for and in his environment.
Cultural values are maintained or upheld by the culture's religion. Religion gives the frame of reference for what culture should be about. The conditioning of children in the home, as well as within the Church was internalized as an identification factor for the child. These were maintained in ancient culture by shame or honor. Duty was the watch-word for the child trained under tradition's influence.
But, in the modern world, the child's education exposes him to a larger frame, where these values are "challenged". The young adult, then has to assess whether he will continue to be committed to his tradition's values, or where these traditions have lost their moral vision and need revision individually or socially.
Tradition has all but died in the Western world because of many societal factors. These factors range from technological advances that discourage face to face interaction, to the break-down of the family. Yesterday's social and moral challenge was the issue of slavery in our country, while today's challenge is redefining marriage.
Every time culture is challenged to change or revise its values, there are many social tensions within the tradition-bearing messengers, whether tradition's scholars, or tradition's insitutions.
Social change is not viewed by the majority as "good" or beneficial, as it revises cherished understandings of "truth", which brings a crisis in identity. While social change is challenging to all, it is necessary and needed, so that mankind can be more understanding of neighbor and enlarge his scope to 'self".
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Defining Faith in Scientific Terms
Thinking about faith, I have come to understand the complexity of defining faith. I have come to understand my faith in completely ethical terms. While this does not dismiss different opportunities for playing out that ethical "commitment", faith, itself, is undefined and is meaningful only to the individuals that give meaning to their lives by the things they choose to do or commit to because of various understandings of faith. This view can be applauded by Lutherans, Anglicans and their cousins. I don't think that Roman Catholicism or the Reformed traditions understand their faith in this way, as they look to define their faith too stringently on 'other wordly" terms or " this worldly" terms.
Just recently the Roman Catholics have decided that stem cell research, the morning after pill, and in vitro fertilization are wrong for people of faith! Their tradition defines their faith from the top down, while the Reformed and charismatics define their faith from their theology or experience. Their faith is one of common understanding as well. I think both kinds of Christian traditions are limited in their frameworks! One uses the Church as a means to define everyone's behavior, while the other defines everyone's understanding or experience! Both are exclusivistic in their ways and understandings.
I think the Church at large should not be defined upon these things, as they limit everyone's personal growth. That growth should not be gauged and determined by another, but should be the fruition of the relationships that are wrought within the walls of the Church, as well as society at large. The individual cannot grow if there is limitations upon his education, because the parents define and determine the particular job the individual will do. This limits growth, as it does not allow the child freedom to explore themselves. And most of us know that young adults in college change their majors, as they become aware of another subject that intrigues them. Who are the parents, to limit that young person's growth by deciding and determining what that child may become? Some cultures, of course, allow this type of upbringing and the parents even determine the child's marriage partner. While it may help further the tradition and the families' "name", deciding or determination by the parent limits the child's awareness of himself and the "other". It breeds prejuidice toward those "outside the tradition". These kinds of cultures are not ethical in their understandings of themselves or the broader world, as they judge the outside world as "evil", "immoral", "bad", or etc. It does not breed in the child a desire to investigate, explore or value "becoming". Tradition is limiting in this way.
While Christian faith has been defined upon tradition, experience, and text, all of these hinder the broader scope of moral development in ethical understandings of those outside one's denomination or tradition. And it limits all of us in our coming to terms of peaceful co-existence!
Just recently the Roman Catholics have decided that stem cell research, the morning after pill, and in vitro fertilization are wrong for people of faith! Their tradition defines their faith from the top down, while the Reformed and charismatics define their faith from their theology or experience. Their faith is one of common understanding as well. I think both kinds of Christian traditions are limited in their frameworks! One uses the Church as a means to define everyone's behavior, while the other defines everyone's understanding or experience! Both are exclusivistic in their ways and understandings.
I think the Church at large should not be defined upon these things, as they limit everyone's personal growth. That growth should not be gauged and determined by another, but should be the fruition of the relationships that are wrought within the walls of the Church, as well as society at large. The individual cannot grow if there is limitations upon his education, because the parents define and determine the particular job the individual will do. This limits growth, as it does not allow the child freedom to explore themselves. And most of us know that young adults in college change their majors, as they become aware of another subject that intrigues them. Who are the parents, to limit that young person's growth by deciding and determining what that child may become? Some cultures, of course, allow this type of upbringing and the parents even determine the child's marriage partner. While it may help further the tradition and the families' "name", deciding or determination by the parent limits the child's awareness of himself and the "other". It breeds prejuidice toward those "outside the tradition". These kinds of cultures are not ethical in their understandings of themselves or the broader world, as they judge the outside world as "evil", "immoral", "bad", or etc. It does not breed in the child a desire to investigate, explore or value "becoming". Tradition is limiting in this way.
While Christian faith has been defined upon tradition, experience, and text, all of these hinder the broader scope of moral development in ethical understandings of those outside one's denomination or tradition. And it limits all of us in our coming to terms of peaceful co-existence!
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
A Contextualized Universalism; Faith Within Context
I have been raised in a country, which has traditionally been understood as Christian. Christian faith has been defined in many ways in our culture of diversity, as the United States was founded on the principle of the "freedom of religion". Not only has my own culture affirmed many types of faith within its borders, but postmodernity has also dissolved the understanding of a universal faith. Of course, fundamentalists/conservatives in many religous traiditons have understood their universalization in two ways; contextualizing the text by translation and/or converting others by proselytzing. I don't believe either of these ways affirms what should or ought to be true according to the "law of Christ", which is love.
The human being is made in God's image and has be gifted with reason and talents, which are innate. These gifts have to be trained and encouraged to develop, but always develop within a "context". Because man is bound within his religious/political/social context, man assumes that his reality of experience is "true". As men are educated about the larger or greater world, they learn that their way of understanding is only one among many.
Yesterday's post was about my grand-daughter's desire to become a princess. Her desire is an innate desire to become, which is a desire to develop and represents her desire to express transcendence! In Christian terms, the "incarnation" was the Christ child, God within flesh. The "sons of God' are those who develp and express their giftings. The human heart should be affirmed in its desires, and not oppressed or suppressed, as the fundamentalists do.
Fundameantlism absolutizes reason, text, tradition, and "self"! Their understanding is the absolute truth and is mainifested in their zeal to convert (at the point of sword/death). Their understanding is a culture of death to other "selves", the physical life of others, and the culture of others. Culture is neutral and should be a place of affirming worship of a transcendent BEING. There is no ONE culture that epitomizes "truth", but is only one form.
Cultural diversity should be affirmed, as long as it allows freedom of expression, without limiting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Culture expresses itself not only in the religious realm of worship, but also the political realm of interantional relations. Globalization has opened our experiential "eyes" to recognize the 'other's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These diverse ways of being in the world are all limited understandings of the 'Universal", but are a necessary part, just the same.
Diversity humbles all of us in understanding our limited "worlds" of reference and helps us to become more understanding of difference. This affirms the "way of love". Love is not defined except in affirming of the other. Of course, that does not mean that we will not question other about certain beliefs or ways of understanding, and hopefully, it will help to educate ourselves and others about the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The universal is worshipped in many forms, recognizing the human limitations to "truth" claims, which makes for humility and self-examination, which breeds a good cultural climate for dialogue and change. And this is the "way of love" and unity in diversity.
The human being is made in God's image and has be gifted with reason and talents, which are innate. These gifts have to be trained and encouraged to develop, but always develop within a "context". Because man is bound within his religious/political/social context, man assumes that his reality of experience is "true". As men are educated about the larger or greater world, they learn that their way of understanding is only one among many.
Yesterday's post was about my grand-daughter's desire to become a princess. Her desire is an innate desire to become, which is a desire to develop and represents her desire to express transcendence! In Christian terms, the "incarnation" was the Christ child, God within flesh. The "sons of God' are those who develp and express their giftings. The human heart should be affirmed in its desires, and not oppressed or suppressed, as the fundamentalists do.
Fundameantlism absolutizes reason, text, tradition, and "self"! Their understanding is the absolute truth and is mainifested in their zeal to convert (at the point of sword/death). Their understanding is a culture of death to other "selves", the physical life of others, and the culture of others. Culture is neutral and should be a place of affirming worship of a transcendent BEING. There is no ONE culture that epitomizes "truth", but is only one form.
Cultural diversity should be affirmed, as long as it allows freedom of expression, without limiting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Culture expresses itself not only in the religious realm of worship, but also the political realm of interantional relations. Globalization has opened our experiential "eyes" to recognize the 'other's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These diverse ways of being in the world are all limited understandings of the 'Universal", but are a necessary part, just the same.
Diversity humbles all of us in understanding our limited "worlds" of reference and helps us to become more understanding of difference. This affirms the "way of love". Love is not defined except in affirming of the other. Of course, that does not mean that we will not question other about certain beliefs or ways of understanding, and hopefully, it will help to educate ourselves and others about the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The universal is worshipped in many forms, recognizing the human limitations to "truth" claims, which makes for humility and self-examination, which breeds a good cultural climate for dialogue and change. And this is the "way of love" and unity in diversity.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Behavio (reason), Belief(tradition) or Belonging (experience)
Many have tried to define faith on belief systems, which has done nothing for bringing unity. Others have tried to define unity on practice, or behavior, but this attempt also does not affirm diversity. So, how are we to define and affirm a unity in diversity? Faith.
Faith is in belonging to the human race, which brings unity, while belonging to certain cultures, nationalities, cultures, or traditions, brings about the diverse ways in understanding one's faith. Faith can be in anything, but all of us have faith. Belonging is a matter of finding where we belong, where we agree about how we define our faith. Faith in our common humanity, which needs identification factors in norms of behavior (as defined by religion, culture, or community), will bring about the environment where we can engage in understanding our diverse understandings of faith.
Faith in reason, faith in tradition, or faith in experience will guide the discussion over what our faith means and how that meaning affects our behavior. Behavior cannot be limited to a certain definition, other than a respect and honoring of another's difference. Nor can faith be defined by a spcified understanding, as faith is about our understanding of life itself, which ultimately means we affirm ourselves and another's belonging to the human race.
Faith is in belonging to the human race, which brings unity, while belonging to certain cultures, nationalities, cultures, or traditions, brings about the diverse ways in understanding one's faith. Faith can be in anything, but all of us have faith. Belonging is a matter of finding where we belong, where we agree about how we define our faith. Faith in our common humanity, which needs identification factors in norms of behavior (as defined by religion, culture, or community), will bring about the environment where we can engage in understanding our diverse understandings of faith.
Faith in reason, faith in tradition, or faith in experience will guide the discussion over what our faith means and how that meaning affects our behavior. Behavior cannot be limited to a certain definition, other than a respect and honoring of another's difference. Nor can faith be defined by a spcified understanding, as faith is about our understanding of life itself, which ultimately means we affirm ourselves and another's belonging to the human race.
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Law's Intent
Ken Schenck has been writing on Romans lately. His last entry was on a "theology of Romans". If theology is understood in leadership terms, how does "that" look, according to Romans?
The Jews were to represent God to other nations. They exemplified what God was like, which illustrated his character. At least, this is the bilblical understanding. The Jews understood the "law" as that which perfected man, because the "law" represented "God". But, along comes Paul, who, as a Jew persecuted Christians stoning them because they did not "do" the requirements of the "law" (according to his understanding). Christians were following in Christ's footsteps in meeting the needs of others, and theologizing about Christ. Even though Paul was a Jew and educated as a leader (Greek) under Gamiel, he did not "do the works of the "law"", according to Paul's own self-judgment.
There are two ideas that run together concerning the understanding of the Law. One is a personal dimension of grace and mercy to others, which was understood and exemplified by Christ in his earthly life. The other side of the 'law is justice" where all were equally 'sold under sin" as Paul would term it. What does this mean?
Life is understood by the Christian as sacred because it is a gift, so all men are equal under the 'law's protection of justice". Social justice is what the law demands and human rights are to be protected and sought by all religions. This is the ethical demension to the law, which is not about morality, as defined by a text, culture, or moral model, so much as it is about treating others with respect and dignity.
Morality is about specific human behavior. One can be moral, but ethically perverse. That is, one can meet the legal demensions of the law requirements, without really giving equality under and by the law. Many times taking advantage of another is done by those who know better about the law's "ins and outs". The law can give a check to our human nature, in helping us to understand and question ourselves and motivations and at the same time protect the rights of those who aren't 'in the know". Whenever there is a flagrant disregard of the law, because of arrogance, self-satisfaction, self-indulgence, or selfishness there is also a payment that must be made by someone.
Just today it was reported that a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death because shoppers trampled him underfoot in the name of a bargain. People were seeking after their own interests at the expense of this Wal-Mart employee. Did they intend to trample him? I'm sure not . All they had in mind was their own agenda, to get that bargain before another got it. Paul would say that these shoppers who had the "law" in its allowing freedom to shop, were not "doing the law" because they were focused on something other than self reflective moderation of life. The Gentiles did not have the law, and yet were obeying its requirements. In an honor/shame culture, this would either humble or infuriate the Jewish believer by accentuating their heart.
I think Paul was using the legal language of the Jew, who boasted in its "civility" to cause a humbling attitude toward those who did not have that civilizing law. It does behoove the American to understand what this might mean to us as a culture of indulgence. I do not believe nor think that sacrifice is the "gospel", but I do think that a self-reflective look at what America is about is needed. We are a great nation. But, do we boast in our greatness, and disregard another? Is our attempt at diplomacy only in "word" and not in deed? In seeking freedom for individuals, which is the 'ideal" how much do we question our pursuit of "ends" that justify means that are only self-interested goals for advancement? We became great becasue we believed in a government for and by the people, with representatives that showed a concern for the common good.
Paul's Romans is a good dose of medicine for us all, but especially in light of America's goal-oriented, market-driven, money-making, business-protective environment.
The Jews were to represent God to other nations. They exemplified what God was like, which illustrated his character. At least, this is the bilblical understanding. The Jews understood the "law" as that which perfected man, because the "law" represented "God". But, along comes Paul, who, as a Jew persecuted Christians stoning them because they did not "do" the requirements of the "law" (according to his understanding). Christians were following in Christ's footsteps in meeting the needs of others, and theologizing about Christ. Even though Paul was a Jew and educated as a leader (Greek) under Gamiel, he did not "do the works of the "law"", according to Paul's own self-judgment.
There are two ideas that run together concerning the understanding of the Law. One is a personal dimension of grace and mercy to others, which was understood and exemplified by Christ in his earthly life. The other side of the 'law is justice" where all were equally 'sold under sin" as Paul would term it. What does this mean?
Life is understood by the Christian as sacred because it is a gift, so all men are equal under the 'law's protection of justice". Social justice is what the law demands and human rights are to be protected and sought by all religions. This is the ethical demension to the law, which is not about morality, as defined by a text, culture, or moral model, so much as it is about treating others with respect and dignity.
Morality is about specific human behavior. One can be moral, but ethically perverse. That is, one can meet the legal demensions of the law requirements, without really giving equality under and by the law. Many times taking advantage of another is done by those who know better about the law's "ins and outs". The law can give a check to our human nature, in helping us to understand and question ourselves and motivations and at the same time protect the rights of those who aren't 'in the know". Whenever there is a flagrant disregard of the law, because of arrogance, self-satisfaction, self-indulgence, or selfishness there is also a payment that must be made by someone.
Just today it was reported that a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death because shoppers trampled him underfoot in the name of a bargain. People were seeking after their own interests at the expense of this Wal-Mart employee. Did they intend to trample him? I'm sure not . All they had in mind was their own agenda, to get that bargain before another got it. Paul would say that these shoppers who had the "law" in its allowing freedom to shop, were not "doing the law" because they were focused on something other than self reflective moderation of life. The Gentiles did not have the law, and yet were obeying its requirements. In an honor/shame culture, this would either humble or infuriate the Jewish believer by accentuating their heart.
I think Paul was using the legal language of the Jew, who boasted in its "civility" to cause a humbling attitude toward those who did not have that civilizing law. It does behoove the American to understand what this might mean to us as a culture of indulgence. I do not believe nor think that sacrifice is the "gospel", but I do think that a self-reflective look at what America is about is needed. We are a great nation. But, do we boast in our greatness, and disregard another? Is our attempt at diplomacy only in "word" and not in deed? In seeking freedom for individuals, which is the 'ideal" how much do we question our pursuit of "ends" that justify means that are only self-interested goals for advancement? We became great becasue we believed in a government for and by the people, with representatives that showed a concern for the common good.
Paul's Romans is a good dose of medicine for us all, but especially in light of America's goal-oriented, market-driven, money-making, business-protective environment.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Church, The State, Progressives and Conservatives
The Church has been understood as a universal community, at least by the apostle Paul. Perhaps a better terminology is the household of God, as Ken Schenck uses in Quadralateral Thoughts.
But, how is this universality understood today? Conservatives of course point to Scriptures, while the Progressives point to science. Conservatives believe that God made one humanity in Christ, while progressives believe that we are one humanity.
Conservatives do things for the glory of God, while progressive do things for the "common good", the betterment of mankind. Conservatives tend to understand their identity in specified and special terms. Progressives understand this tendency as group identification. Group identification distinctifies one group from another, as this was what has transpired throughout the course of history with any kind of group; religious, political, cultural, etc. Humans love to create an identity by maintaining their distinct boundary markers. But, progressives question whether some boundary markers are healthy to maintain.
The question of mental health and "the common good" is the question of one's reason for boundary markers. What is a healthy boundary marker? Both conservative and progressives would agree that a good boundary marker would be the personal convictions, or commitments of a person, or the laws that define a nation's culture. Laws define what is deviant. While deviancy is an important value to uphold in a civilized society, what defines unhealthy reasons for boundary maintainence?
When one describes an individual commitment or conviction, or a nation's laws, both conservative and progressives agree that these should be respected. But, religious identifiers or boundary markers are harder to rally full agreement. Religion defines itself upon the "rules of faith", but progressives question the "rules" as being "right" in describing faith, as faith is a personal commitment to value. Religion, on the other hand, has many ways of maintaining its group identity.
Religion bases its claims of identification of beliefs, a divine figure, a culture, group "rules". Religion delights in coformity and thinks of itself in conservative circles, as exclusivist. Relgion colors one's perception and perspective and breeds prejuidice, and the prejuidice is reinforced by sacred texts, or sacred persons. Progressives are more open to define religion in objectified terms.
With many distinctions between the conservative and progressive, there has been an attempt to unify both through "purpose" or "teleos". In Chrisiian circles, this attempt has been based on "the Kingdom of God" and the "common good". The public square meets the Church on the Church's "terminology' , while using the Church's gifts for "the common good" of humanity. There is nothing wrong with this unity of purpose, as long as all individuals that are affected are informed of the specific requirements upon their life. If a "purpose" is useful for the "common good" (pragmatism), especially if it is underwritten in the conservative's mind, by "God", then the State can bring about its plans in a peaceful and unified way.
True progressives, though, would question the wisdom of combining Church and State in this way, as it brings about an intrusion of government into private lives. Privacy is a value in American culture for it repects the individual. But, both conservative and progressive moralists bring "the rule of law" upon others in the "name of God" (reconstruction, restoration, or social gospel), to teach others about God's rule. I question how this is anything other than Shai ria Law, or Constiantine's Empire...
Although I am not clear as to how I view Church and State, I question the ways in which moralists understand themselves as a "superior" breed of humanity. Whether one rules as the Taliban, or "legislating the Pentateuch", both do not breed tolerance for difference, or an openness to intepretation of that law. Laws define a nation's values, and America was founded on freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State. This separation was not to be a "wall", as a Founding Father claimed, but was to maintain the boundary of public/private, so that individuals could come to their own convictions, values, and faith, which is found within the culture's social structures of family, church and comminity. Objectifying morals transgresses the universal ethic of "doing unto others", "the categorical imperative", even when the moralists is convinced of their "rightness" of conviction. The battle of morality should be for the conservative in love from a pure heart, while the progressive should use reason to explore morality's reasonableness in scienctific discovery and philosophical discussion.
But, how is this universality understood today? Conservatives of course point to Scriptures, while the Progressives point to science. Conservatives believe that God made one humanity in Christ, while progressives believe that we are one humanity.
Conservatives do things for the glory of God, while progressive do things for the "common good", the betterment of mankind. Conservatives tend to understand their identity in specified and special terms. Progressives understand this tendency as group identification. Group identification distinctifies one group from another, as this was what has transpired throughout the course of history with any kind of group; religious, political, cultural, etc. Humans love to create an identity by maintaining their distinct boundary markers. But, progressives question whether some boundary markers are healthy to maintain.
The question of mental health and "the common good" is the question of one's reason for boundary markers. What is a healthy boundary marker? Both conservative and progressives would agree that a good boundary marker would be the personal convictions, or commitments of a person, or the laws that define a nation's culture. Laws define what is deviant. While deviancy is an important value to uphold in a civilized society, what defines unhealthy reasons for boundary maintainence?
When one describes an individual commitment or conviction, or a nation's laws, both conservative and progressives agree that these should be respected. But, religious identifiers or boundary markers are harder to rally full agreement. Religion defines itself upon the "rules of faith", but progressives question the "rules" as being "right" in describing faith, as faith is a personal commitment to value. Religion, on the other hand, has many ways of maintaining its group identity.
Religion bases its claims of identification of beliefs, a divine figure, a culture, group "rules". Religion delights in coformity and thinks of itself in conservative circles, as exclusivist. Relgion colors one's perception and perspective and breeds prejuidice, and the prejuidice is reinforced by sacred texts, or sacred persons. Progressives are more open to define religion in objectified terms.
With many distinctions between the conservative and progressive, there has been an attempt to unify both through "purpose" or "teleos". In Chrisiian circles, this attempt has been based on "the Kingdom of God" and the "common good". The public square meets the Church on the Church's "terminology' , while using the Church's gifts for "the common good" of humanity. There is nothing wrong with this unity of purpose, as long as all individuals that are affected are informed of the specific requirements upon their life. If a "purpose" is useful for the "common good" (pragmatism), especially if it is underwritten in the conservative's mind, by "God", then the State can bring about its plans in a peaceful and unified way.
True progressives, though, would question the wisdom of combining Church and State in this way, as it brings about an intrusion of government into private lives. Privacy is a value in American culture for it repects the individual. But, both conservative and progressive moralists bring "the rule of law" upon others in the "name of God" (reconstruction, restoration, or social gospel), to teach others about God's rule. I question how this is anything other than Shai ria Law, or Constiantine's Empire...
Although I am not clear as to how I view Church and State, I question the ways in which moralists understand themselves as a "superior" breed of humanity. Whether one rules as the Taliban, or "legislating the Pentateuch", both do not breed tolerance for difference, or an openness to intepretation of that law. Laws define a nation's values, and America was founded on freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State. This separation was not to be a "wall", as a Founding Father claimed, but was to maintain the boundary of public/private, so that individuals could come to their own convictions, values, and faith, which is found within the culture's social structures of family, church and comminity. Objectifying morals transgresses the universal ethic of "doing unto others", "the categorical imperative", even when the moralists is convinced of their "rightness" of conviction. The battle of morality should be for the conservative in love from a pure heart, while the progressive should use reason to explore morality's reasonableness in scienctific discovery and philosophical discussion.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Culture and Chrstian Faith
In First Things today, it was asserted that Christian faith cannot live without culture. This is true, but the question is, what kind of culture, if there is one, or is there a diversity of culture.
Culture represents the values we hold most dearly and those values are the things that we will live and die for. I think that question needs to be asked and answered, "is Christian faith about belief, belonging, or behavior"? Is there a "Christian culture"? And is Christian faith an exclusivist faith or it is just a reflection of culture itself?
I think that tradition is part of culture, which also adheres to religon and religon's "values". Muslims adhere to a strict culture that is defined by their law, which impacts their culture, in dress, and behavior. On the other hand, the West for the most part, has freedom of conviction and conscience in form of worship, which leads to diversity within culture. Is Christian faith about conformity to the Law, as in Muslim culture, or is Christian faith about diversity and freedom of expression?
The Laws that we hold to are the laws that define our identity as they are things that protect our values. Values cannot be uniform, unless one wants to limit a liberal society. A liberal society is based on reason and not "revelational texts", like theocracys are. I think that whenever a government is defined by "god", we have problems, because it lends itself to justify predjuidice and exclusivity, which undermines universal ethical decision-making. Humans, not "god" are the creators of governments, and the humans who lead the government are responsible as to the type of government that exists and how it governs. Therefore, good government is most important and good governement is only as good as it is limited.
Culture represents the values we hold most dearly and those values are the things that we will live and die for. I think that question needs to be asked and answered, "is Christian faith about belief, belonging, or behavior"? Is there a "Christian culture"? And is Christian faith an exclusivist faith or it is just a reflection of culture itself?
I think that tradition is part of culture, which also adheres to religon and religon's "values". Muslims adhere to a strict culture that is defined by their law, which impacts their culture, in dress, and behavior. On the other hand, the West for the most part, has freedom of conviction and conscience in form of worship, which leads to diversity within culture. Is Christian faith about conformity to the Law, as in Muslim culture, or is Christian faith about diversity and freedom of expression?
The Laws that we hold to are the laws that define our identity as they are things that protect our values. Values cannot be uniform, unless one wants to limit a liberal society. A liberal society is based on reason and not "revelational texts", like theocracys are. I think that whenever a government is defined by "god", we have problems, because it lends itself to justify predjuidice and exclusivity, which undermines universal ethical decision-making. Humans, not "god" are the creators of governments, and the humans who lead the government are responsible as to the type of government that exists and how it governs. Therefore, good government is most important and good governement is only as good as it is limited.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Being Human, as an ART
I read an a blog entry on "Christian art" today. The argument that I think is more palatable when it comes to art, is that any art is a representation of the human who "made it", just as the natural world testifies to God. The meaning is there and by it's very proximity to the human being, it is sacred, as it is communication.
In the Reformation, early Reformers destroyed many works of art, thinking that they were being obedient to the commandment to have no images of God. However, all images are representative, so, it is not reasonable to say that we must do away with images. And since man is made in God's image, we cannot destroy man, can we?
The argument in Christian circles centers around cultural values and virtue. All of us would agree that pornography is not appropriate for anyone. However, there are variations in our abilities to tolerate certain art forms. Some Christians have forbidden dance, as sexually titilating or T.V. as "worldly". All of these convictions are based on a false fear of the "world" and a hyper vigilence to not be associated with the things of the world. The things of the world are not "sinful" in and of themselves, it is what we do with those things, and what those things do to us. Virtue is not just about what we don't do, but what we do do. Are we tolerant towards those who have differences of opinion, Do we allow them freedom to worship as they deem fit? Is there a proper form of worship? And how do we determine these things? Scripture, when scirpture was written before certain "modern inventions"? Church authority, when Church authority are falliable human beings? or science?
Modern psychology has proven that certain art forms have an effect on people. Is this wrong, and is it understood as "sin"? If so, why? Where are the "lines" of a tolerant attitude to those who differ? Of do we only define virtue as conformity to a certain way of life?
Certainly, society's best interest, as well as the individual's good is in view when discussion is made about these issues. And as I mentioned earlier, pornography would certainly not be beneficial to either society or the individual. But, what about nude art forms? Is the body seen as beautiful as a form, or is the body seen as evil and suggestive in and of itself? I find it hard to argue from reason that the body is evil in and of itself.
Back in 1990, when my husband was attending a conference in southern Germany, the spouses were touring all of the churches in the area. There was a particular Jewish lady that asked me a question that I will never forget. She asked why the Church would spend all the money on the extravagence to embellish the churches, when there were people starving. I told her that if someone has the gift of painting as Rafael, or Micheangelo, should they be stewards of their gift in worshipping God through it, or should they feed the poor? She agreed that it would be a terrible loss to culture if they had inhibited their gift for what she had understood to be virtuous.
Virtue is seen in many forms and should not be limited by religious understandings, but is most understood and experienced in our government's unity in diversity.
In the Reformation, early Reformers destroyed many works of art, thinking that they were being obedient to the commandment to have no images of God. However, all images are representative, so, it is not reasonable to say that we must do away with images. And since man is made in God's image, we cannot destroy man, can we?
The argument in Christian circles centers around cultural values and virtue. All of us would agree that pornography is not appropriate for anyone. However, there are variations in our abilities to tolerate certain art forms. Some Christians have forbidden dance, as sexually titilating or T.V. as "worldly". All of these convictions are based on a false fear of the "world" and a hyper vigilence to not be associated with the things of the world. The things of the world are not "sinful" in and of themselves, it is what we do with those things, and what those things do to us. Virtue is not just about what we don't do, but what we do do. Are we tolerant towards those who have differences of opinion, Do we allow them freedom to worship as they deem fit? Is there a proper form of worship? And how do we determine these things? Scripture, when scirpture was written before certain "modern inventions"? Church authority, when Church authority are falliable human beings? or science?
Modern psychology has proven that certain art forms have an effect on people. Is this wrong, and is it understood as "sin"? If so, why? Where are the "lines" of a tolerant attitude to those who differ? Of do we only define virtue as conformity to a certain way of life?
Certainly, society's best interest, as well as the individual's good is in view when discussion is made about these issues. And as I mentioned earlier, pornography would certainly not be beneficial to either society or the individual. But, what about nude art forms? Is the body seen as beautiful as a form, or is the body seen as evil and suggestive in and of itself? I find it hard to argue from reason that the body is evil in and of itself.
Back in 1990, when my husband was attending a conference in southern Germany, the spouses were touring all of the churches in the area. There was a particular Jewish lady that asked me a question that I will never forget. She asked why the Church would spend all the money on the extravagence to embellish the churches, when there were people starving. I told her that if someone has the gift of painting as Rafael, or Micheangelo, should they be stewards of their gift in worshipping God through it, or should they feed the poor? She agreed that it would be a terrible loss to culture if they had inhibited their gift for what she had understood to be virtuous.
Virtue is seen in many forms and should not be limited by religious understandings, but is most understood and experienced in our government's unity in diversity.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Jesus Seminar Meets the Atheist's Inquiry
I was glad to see that the Center for Inquiry Transnational was hosting the Jesus Seminar and Jesus Project for a conference (of types)....
The inter-disciplinary approach to religious claims is an important discussion topic in today's religiously impacted culture. What one believes becomes an identification factor and identification factors, while not "wrong" in and of themselves, can lead to horrendous inhumane crimes. A culture of cruelty is cultivated in climates of identification, whether they are ethnic, religious or political. Religious identification can be extremely dangerous as God sanctioned prejuidice and is above reason's reasonableness! We cannot live in a globalized culture without addressing the "claims of truth", especially exclusivistic understandings.
I applaud these religious scholars and their hosts, the scientists. There must be an addressing of how humans come to understand themselves within their cultural, national and religious boundaries before a real unification of diversity can transpire. How important an issue is it? All of our future depends on it!
The inter-disciplinary approach to religious claims is an important discussion topic in today's religiously impacted culture. What one believes becomes an identification factor and identification factors, while not "wrong" in and of themselves, can lead to horrendous inhumane crimes. A culture of cruelty is cultivated in climates of identification, whether they are ethnic, religious or political. Religious identification can be extremely dangerous as God sanctioned prejuidice and is above reason's reasonableness! We cannot live in a globalized culture without addressing the "claims of truth", especially exclusivistic understandings.
I applaud these religious scholars and their hosts, the scientists. There must be an addressing of how humans come to understand themselves within their cultural, national and religious boundaries before a real unification of diversity can transpire. How important an issue is it? All of our future depends on it!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Scripture, Theology and Ethics
Christian faith has been defined by theological reflection uponScripture. Although theologians use Scripture as a guide or framework to develop their theology, theologians differ in what themes they use in Scripture to develop their theology. While some theologians develop their theology grounded in the historical realities of their time or situatededness, all theologians seek to explain God. While this has been a commendable excercise in past times, today's cultural climate challenges theology's connection to reality.
Today's cultural climates has stretched all areas of expertise because of globalization. We are no longer islands of culture separated by miles of distance, but are interacting on a large scale through economic exchange and global networking through the internet. This cultural climate is a unification of all cultures' in many areas, but it challenges how we go about allowing diversity of cultural expression.
Radical Muslims do not adhere to a tolerant attitude or behavior when it comes to difference. A lack of tolerance challenges all of us globally, if we do not learn to get along in our differences. I believe Han Kung has attempted to bring unity through a Global Ethic. I think this is a commenable goal.
While I agree that a Global ethic is necessary to affirm to bring unity, our diversity is no less important to affirm. How do we affirm difference, and yet, remained unified? Is this the challenge of civil discourse? Exclusivist claims to truth in culture is a danger in our climate of globalization. Therefore, it behooves all of us to develop our convictions and reasons for those convictions, while we engage others who differ with graciousness, openness, and tolerance.
I believe that the ideal of unity in diversity is also the American ideal. And I couldn't be happier, than to see democracy extend around the world!
Today's cultural climates has stretched all areas of expertise because of globalization. We are no longer islands of culture separated by miles of distance, but are interacting on a large scale through economic exchange and global networking through the internet. This cultural climate is a unification of all cultures' in many areas, but it challenges how we go about allowing diversity of cultural expression.
Radical Muslims do not adhere to a tolerant attitude or behavior when it comes to difference. A lack of tolerance challenges all of us globally, if we do not learn to get along in our differences. I believe Han Kung has attempted to bring unity through a Global Ethic. I think this is a commenable goal.
While I agree that a Global ethic is necessary to affirm to bring unity, our diversity is no less important to affirm. How do we affirm difference, and yet, remained unified? Is this the challenge of civil discourse? Exclusivist claims to truth in culture is a danger in our climate of globalization. Therefore, it behooves all of us to develop our convictions and reasons for those convictions, while we engage others who differ with graciousness, openness, and tolerance.
I believe that the ideal of unity in diversity is also the American ideal. And I couldn't be happier, than to see democracy extend around the world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
