This morning's message was on 'unity" and how important unity was/is. The commendation to corforming one's opinion to the tradition of the text of scripture and the 'form of Christ", was a unified way of understanding, which is based on "tradition", instead of "agreeing to disagree" (reason). Christ and who he has been undestood to be as the Chruch (tradition) has interpreted his life (doctrine) is to be the "form". But, is this necessarily true?
The "pastor" suggested a "faith," that was mindless and not based on reason. Reason subverts faith, in this scenario, because "ideas" were viewed as "endless speculation" and "not after Christ" (text). I disagree. Will the pastor "tolerate" (live in unity) with my disagreement? Or do I have to conform to this pastor's understanding because she is after all the "leader"? I think not.
I find that unity is not about beliefs (text and tradition), as beliefs will always be formulated differently, depending on one's frames and the forms, which represent the highest value of a certain individual. Even in using "Jesus, as the Christ" as the "form" universally, is invalidated, because there are so many ways that his life has been understood. So, unity cannot be in beliefs, because otherwise, we would have to agree about things that it is impossible to agree about. We have different ways of understanding, formulating and thinking about "reality". These ways of understanding are not absolute, as they represent certain contexts of personal, and cultural "conviction".
So, what is unity about? Unity is about attitude toward another's right to exist. The other has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Prejuidice is a pre-judging according to some "group" standardization and understanding. There is nothing wrong, in fact, it is informative in some settings to understand another groups "convictions", ideas, and opinions, as this helps the sociologist, and anthropoligist to "diagnose" how a certain culture "functions".
Functioning cultures are those that are based on an "ordered government". The differences of government depend on the ideas that "form" that government. Government is about equality and law. Therefore, government should be a way to protect individual rights under law. Other forms of government are based on absolute power, domination, and even anarchy.
Therefore, unity has to allow diversity, otherwise, unity commends conformity, which is domination of another's view and how they have come to understand and formulate their reality. And domination is not "good government'.
Showing posts with label functions and roles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label functions and roles. Show all posts
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Reflections of a Wedding Dress and Its Function
Yesterday, I went with my soon to be daughter-in-law and her mom to look at wedding dresses in Indianapolis! I enjoy these celebrations so much and really love to see the '"lovely" in the beautiful.
We left at 9:30am and didn't get home until 9:30pm, which tells you a little bit about what a great experience it was!
She had a set budget for her dress which was really "limiting to her" as far as wedding dresses go. We had been looking on the internet for used dresses for several weeks. But, because the wedding will be in September, she was a little anxious about getting this part of the shopping finished.
She had a definate syle in mind, but I knew that sometimes until one is exposed to what is "out there", one cannot be discriminating, especially on such a limited budget.
We went to 5 or 6 shops and she must have tried on 75 gowns. We found her gown at the second place we stopped, but because this is such a special occassion, I wanted to make sure that she was sure and not just buying the dress because it was in her price range. She struggled with deciding between two gowns. One was a prom dress, but it fit perfectly, was a little higher in price, but with the cleaning and alterations of the other dress, it would still fall within a similar price range. Even though she fit the prom dress perfectly and she loved it, she decided on the wedding dress. This is a wedding and not a prom, after all and even though the prom dress was beautiful, its purpose was not to 'be in a wedding'.
Wedding dresses have a special function and play a special part in setting the tone of the wedding. This is the same as the function of an individual within an organization or social structure. The question was not whether the prom gown would function as a wedding dress, although that was not it's maker's intent. It was whether it was the best for the "part". And whether the wearer of the dress would "feel" that she had sold short her "ideal" for a "function".
I think this is where dreams and pragmatism conflict, at times. Dreams are our "ideals" of life, while "how things really are" is the pragmatic experience in life. Most of us have limited "budgets" (attainment of dreams), but the question is not the "budget" but if the choice of the "pragmatic" (prom dress) is the best for the occassion (attainment of the "goal). How does pragmatism "feel" on the ones who "wear it"? Is it appropriate, or "will it "do" because of costs limitations? Are we functioning on our "budgets" (attainment of our dreams) at the costs of the pragmatic (prom dress)? And what will be the "end" (attainment of the goal, setting the tone of the wedding)?
The question is one of value, purpose, goals, function, and beauty. While goals, purposes, and function are usually forefront in our society and this is why we are a nation driven by business models, will those goals, "functions" and purposes distort values or beauty?
Values are not the considered by the unreflective, while beauty is certainly not the most important emphasis in our pragmatic society. Beauty is in the eye's of the beholder and this is why the individual is expendiable in our society, when it comes to business propositions. The individual doesn't count in a system of pragmatic interests. The individual is only a means of accomplishing the end result, which benefits the "bottom line".
While business interests do drive our nation's "purposes" there are ethical ideals that are written in our general laws. Even though individuals are protected by these laws and have a right to be informed about "government interests" and public monies, if individuals do not advantage themselves of this information, then they hinder the democratic process. Their voice is not heard and this sets up a situation where others will begin to take advantage, as many times there are loopholes to be found in our general laws.
Historically, our Nation has lived through the fights for civil liberties of many "unrepresented groups" (African Americans, woman's rights, etc.). This is what free societies are about. And fortunately, our nation's laws do protect the indivdual, because our Founding Fathers understood the individual's specificity, uniquess and right to exist apart from any other defining or limiting "function". The individual is free to choose the groups he identifies with. This is not so in socialistic or communistic systems. It is determined for you!
We are a people, because we are individuals that all have a voice. The value of the harmony of diversity, and the validity of the uniquely individual. This is freedom and justice for all and I think that my soon to be daughter in law made the right choice in choosing a dress that was designed for its future function
We left at 9:30am and didn't get home until 9:30pm, which tells you a little bit about what a great experience it was!
She had a set budget for her dress which was really "limiting to her" as far as wedding dresses go. We had been looking on the internet for used dresses for several weeks. But, because the wedding will be in September, she was a little anxious about getting this part of the shopping finished.
She had a definate syle in mind, but I knew that sometimes until one is exposed to what is "out there", one cannot be discriminating, especially on such a limited budget.
We went to 5 or 6 shops and she must have tried on 75 gowns. We found her gown at the second place we stopped, but because this is such a special occassion, I wanted to make sure that she was sure and not just buying the dress because it was in her price range. She struggled with deciding between two gowns. One was a prom dress, but it fit perfectly, was a little higher in price, but with the cleaning and alterations of the other dress, it would still fall within a similar price range. Even though she fit the prom dress perfectly and she loved it, she decided on the wedding dress. This is a wedding and not a prom, after all and even though the prom dress was beautiful, its purpose was not to 'be in a wedding'.
Wedding dresses have a special function and play a special part in setting the tone of the wedding. This is the same as the function of an individual within an organization or social structure. The question was not whether the prom gown would function as a wedding dress, although that was not it's maker's intent. It was whether it was the best for the "part". And whether the wearer of the dress would "feel" that she had sold short her "ideal" for a "function".
I think this is where dreams and pragmatism conflict, at times. Dreams are our "ideals" of life, while "how things really are" is the pragmatic experience in life. Most of us have limited "budgets" (attainment of dreams), but the question is not the "budget" but if the choice of the "pragmatic" (prom dress) is the best for the occassion (attainment of the "goal). How does pragmatism "feel" on the ones who "wear it"? Is it appropriate, or "will it "do" because of costs limitations? Are we functioning on our "budgets" (attainment of our dreams) at the costs of the pragmatic (prom dress)? And what will be the "end" (attainment of the goal, setting the tone of the wedding)?
The question is one of value, purpose, goals, function, and beauty. While goals, purposes, and function are usually forefront in our society and this is why we are a nation driven by business models, will those goals, "functions" and purposes distort values or beauty?
Values are not the considered by the unreflective, while beauty is certainly not the most important emphasis in our pragmatic society. Beauty is in the eye's of the beholder and this is why the individual is expendiable in our society, when it comes to business propositions. The individual doesn't count in a system of pragmatic interests. The individual is only a means of accomplishing the end result, which benefits the "bottom line".
While business interests do drive our nation's "purposes" there are ethical ideals that are written in our general laws. Even though individuals are protected by these laws and have a right to be informed about "government interests" and public monies, if individuals do not advantage themselves of this information, then they hinder the democratic process. Their voice is not heard and this sets up a situation where others will begin to take advantage, as many times there are loopholes to be found in our general laws.
Historically, our Nation has lived through the fights for civil liberties of many "unrepresented groups" (African Americans, woman's rights, etc.). This is what free societies are about. And fortunately, our nation's laws do protect the indivdual, because our Founding Fathers understood the individual's specificity, uniquess and right to exist apart from any other defining or limiting "function". The individual is free to choose the groups he identifies with. This is not so in socialistic or communistic systems. It is determined for you!
We are a people, because we are individuals that all have a voice. The value of the harmony of diversity, and the validity of the uniquely individual. This is freedom and justice for all and I think that my soon to be daughter in law made the right choice in choosing a dress that was designed for its future function
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Marriage as Role, Function, or Covenant?
Marriage is a sacrament in the Christian Church. Even though the Church holds this sacrament as a universal one, there are diverse views as how the marriage is to function.
Some believe that the roles and functions are defined by gender and gender determines the role. Their view takes the Scripture literally in the wife being submissive to the husband. The serpent beguiled Eve first, so, this means that Eve must submit, as she is easily decieved. This view sees "order" as primary. While there is nothing wrong with order, is there something much more important at issue when it concerns marriage?
Marriage is also understood as a covenant. Covenant was a ancient binding agreement of life for life. The exhange of life of life for life is not based on role, function or gender, but on commitment of life. This way of viewing marriage is understood in Jonathan and David's relationship. Their relationship was a protective and intimate one. Their relationship was not based on gender identification, but on what was important in the relationship. Jonathan defended David from his own father, King Saul. Saul's jealousy threatened David's life and Jonathan sought to defend, enlighten, help, and fight for David.
Those who function on an honor/shame basis, which is an "ordered" way of understanding, would see the wife's role as bringing honor or shame to the husband, but never the other way around. Shame is useful to "put someone in their place", in socially conforming to social norms. Although our culture does not function as much along those lines as in the past, there is something to be said about raising a child's conscience in regards to society and responsibility. This is where the family is important in educating the child's conscience.
I find that this is not the best way to understand marriage, as marriage should be based on friendship first and foremost, not on "forms" and confomity to a cultural norm. Relationships that are based on friendship are not defined by role and function. It is a relationship that is based on trust, respect, honor and defense. Such relationships go beyond race, gender, politics, etc. as these relationships are defined by the two people involved.
Some believe that the roles and functions are defined by gender and gender determines the role. Their view takes the Scripture literally in the wife being submissive to the husband. The serpent beguiled Eve first, so, this means that Eve must submit, as she is easily decieved. This view sees "order" as primary. While there is nothing wrong with order, is there something much more important at issue when it concerns marriage?
Marriage is also understood as a covenant. Covenant was a ancient binding agreement of life for life. The exhange of life of life for life is not based on role, function or gender, but on commitment of life. This way of viewing marriage is understood in Jonathan and David's relationship. Their relationship was a protective and intimate one. Their relationship was not based on gender identification, but on what was important in the relationship. Jonathan defended David from his own father, King Saul. Saul's jealousy threatened David's life and Jonathan sought to defend, enlighten, help, and fight for David.
Those who function on an honor/shame basis, which is an "ordered" way of understanding, would see the wife's role as bringing honor or shame to the husband, but never the other way around. Shame is useful to "put someone in their place", in socially conforming to social norms. Although our culture does not function as much along those lines as in the past, there is something to be said about raising a child's conscience in regards to society and responsibility. This is where the family is important in educating the child's conscience.
I find that this is not the best way to understand marriage, as marriage should be based on friendship first and foremost, not on "forms" and confomity to a cultural norm. Relationships that are based on friendship are not defined by role and function. It is a relationship that is based on trust, respect, honor and defense. Such relationships go beyond race, gender, politics, etc. as these relationships are defined by the two people involved.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Family Systems in the Church
Family systems theory is a term therapists use to describe dysfunctional families. These families have members, who play or function in different roles. I find this interesting in light of certain in-group/out-group belief systems within the Church.
In some Churches, their belief systems are based on lifestyles or cultural understandings of the "biblical". These are defined by membership commitments and also define how and what one is "approved" to do within the Church. I find that this type of Church functions on a dysfunctional model, according to family systems theory.
In understanding how this therapy's model applies to certain churches, one must undestand that there are roles that are to be "played". Roles are defined by their duties within the group-think, i.e., the hero, the scape-goat, the care-taker, the lost child, the adjuster...etc..
The scape-goat acts out the family tension and anger and distracts from the real issues at hand. The scape-goat is the one that get help first, as they are usually the one that are emotionally honest and usually end up addicted or pregnant. While the "acting out" is only the response to abuse, this role is the ones that can gain entrance into the family system.
The hero is the controller, the perfect one, the judgmental and arrogant one, but underneath, is just as much negativity toward himself. This type of dynamic is a set-up for abuse, as the scape-goat usually takes the blame himself, whereas the others within the system only center the scape-goat as the "sacrifice" to rid their own consciences.
The scape-goat is a bibilcal term that is useful for the Christ imagery of taking away sin, dying outside the camp. The scapegoat is in need of understanding themselves in a different more hopeful light, which will help them be free from their dependence to the system and help them become responsible for themselves.
When one is addicted to a certain role or function, then one can feel secure to play out that role throughout one's life. Counselling will help, but sometimes just a good friend to hold one accountable will be just as helpful.
Heroes love the applause and the accolades that come from "behaving properly", while acting arrogantly toward the scape-goat. The heroe's attempts at control sometimes lead to the banishment of the scape-goat, as his very existence reminds the hero, that he has limitations and is imperfect.
Value-based ethics pales in light of roles that hold sway over a person's character, like this. Therefore, the only solution is virtue based ethics where the scape-goat takes on his own responsibiltiy without taking on the other's. This is healing and brings accountability to the hero, as it reveals the emperor with no clothes. While this is a loving and kind way to resolve the dysfunction, it takes all of one's strength and resolve to stand, after having done all, and not be swayed into an unhealthy role again.
In some Churches, their belief systems are based on lifestyles or cultural understandings of the "biblical". These are defined by membership commitments and also define how and what one is "approved" to do within the Church. I find that this type of Church functions on a dysfunctional model, according to family systems theory.
In understanding how this therapy's model applies to certain churches, one must undestand that there are roles that are to be "played". Roles are defined by their duties within the group-think, i.e., the hero, the scape-goat, the care-taker, the lost child, the adjuster...etc..
The scape-goat acts out the family tension and anger and distracts from the real issues at hand. The scape-goat is the one that get help first, as they are usually the one that are emotionally honest and usually end up addicted or pregnant. While the "acting out" is only the response to abuse, this role is the ones that can gain entrance into the family system.
The hero is the controller, the perfect one, the judgmental and arrogant one, but underneath, is just as much negativity toward himself. This type of dynamic is a set-up for abuse, as the scape-goat usually takes the blame himself, whereas the others within the system only center the scape-goat as the "sacrifice" to rid their own consciences.
The scape-goat is a bibilcal term that is useful for the Christ imagery of taking away sin, dying outside the camp. The scapegoat is in need of understanding themselves in a different more hopeful light, which will help them be free from their dependence to the system and help them become responsible for themselves.
When one is addicted to a certain role or function, then one can feel secure to play out that role throughout one's life. Counselling will help, but sometimes just a good friend to hold one accountable will be just as helpful.
Heroes love the applause and the accolades that come from "behaving properly", while acting arrogantly toward the scape-goat. The heroe's attempts at control sometimes lead to the banishment of the scape-goat, as his very existence reminds the hero, that he has limitations and is imperfect.
Value-based ethics pales in light of roles that hold sway over a person's character, like this. Therefore, the only solution is virtue based ethics where the scape-goat takes on his own responsibiltiy without taking on the other's. This is healing and brings accountability to the hero, as it reveals the emperor with no clothes. While this is a loving and kind way to resolve the dysfunction, it takes all of one's strength and resolve to stand, after having done all, and not be swayed into an unhealthy role again.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Trinity, God, and the Function of Roles
I found it a little irritating that there was a discussion at Trinity Evangelical about the roles of the Trinity. The discussion was about whether the Son eternally submits to the Father. This view is a complementarian view that would influence how one views male and female roles and functions. Don't people go to great extremes to give credence to what they believe and with not verifiability to boot?
Why do we find that it is necessary to have an authority behind our opinion? Why do we think that a rationale based on our own personal conviction and reasonable explaination is not enough? Who do we want to influence to see our side of the debate and for what reason? Do we really think that some things even matter? How important are the things that we are debating? Some, I'm sure, believe that the eternal destiny of the soul is at stake. I am sorry for them.
Practical matters such as public policy, economics, government, education, national security, international relations, etc. are much more important to be informed about and to discuss because they matter in this life. We don't know about the next life, we only have a belief, that is unprovable.
I remember a time when I was so certain that what I believed was truth for all people and without their coming to understand my way of thinking, people would perish and die without God. I was passionate and committed. But, itis is not a life of rest and peace, but one filled with the responsibility for the world's salvation. The most important aspect on anyone's life was the spiritual, to the extent of denying what the real world even meant. This frame of mind is unhealthy. If God is God, and we are responsible, then I find that being responsible within our own "worlds" is all that one needs to be concerned with. We are not called to take the whole world on, but be faithful in the little that is before us.
I am not interested in Christian faith, but faith, for I believe that God does not see the kind of faith, just the trust of faith. The trust of faith is not some "jump over the moon" to prove one's faith, but a quiet rest of "what is" and a "patient diligence" in the present about what is in front of you. Great visions are not necessary, for it is the widow's mite and the prostitute's worship that meant more to God than all the Pharisees and Sadducees did all together! I find that it is in being and affirming life for oneself and others that one finds life.
So, it is not about the Trinity, or God, or the functions and roles of male and female, but a response to the grace that is given in life in the present
Why do we find that it is necessary to have an authority behind our opinion? Why do we think that a rationale based on our own personal conviction and reasonable explaination is not enough? Who do we want to influence to see our side of the debate and for what reason? Do we really think that some things even matter? How important are the things that we are debating? Some, I'm sure, believe that the eternal destiny of the soul is at stake. I am sorry for them.
Practical matters such as public policy, economics, government, education, national security, international relations, etc. are much more important to be informed about and to discuss because they matter in this life. We don't know about the next life, we only have a belief, that is unprovable.
I remember a time when I was so certain that what I believed was truth for all people and without their coming to understand my way of thinking, people would perish and die without God. I was passionate and committed. But, itis is not a life of rest and peace, but one filled with the responsibility for the world's salvation. The most important aspect on anyone's life was the spiritual, to the extent of denying what the real world even meant. This frame of mind is unhealthy. If God is God, and we are responsible, then I find that being responsible within our own "worlds" is all that one needs to be concerned with. We are not called to take the whole world on, but be faithful in the little that is before us.
I am not interested in Christian faith, but faith, for I believe that God does not see the kind of faith, just the trust of faith. The trust of faith is not some "jump over the moon" to prove one's faith, but a quiet rest of "what is" and a "patient diligence" in the present about what is in front of you. Great visions are not necessary, for it is the widow's mite and the prostitute's worship that meant more to God than all the Pharisees and Sadducees did all together! I find that it is in being and affirming life for oneself and others that one finds life.
So, it is not about the Trinity, or God, or the functions and roles of male and female, but a response to the grace that is given in life in the present
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
