Is the Necessary Element to Good Government Applicable to "God" and Parenting?

In ethics there is a question that is posed about whether something is moral just because God commands it, or because it is objectively moral, irrespective of "God". This is called the "Euthyphro dilemma". Those that believe that "God" is somehow "above the law" are subverting "good judgment. These believe that whatever God demands is a necessary "evil" for his ultimate purposes.

The Divine Command Theory is nothing less than authoritarian governance. It is a demand to obey, without question, because "faith" sanctions such obedience and piety demands it. But is authoritarian government the best form of government? Not unless, one believes that a dictator is the best leader.

Christians will argue that humans cannot see or know the best because they are limited. God is interested in "holiness" or "character", which means, in effect, that one isn't to take ownership of thier own life, but submit in their actions and attitude to whatever "life has divied out", without question, as this is "God's will in Christ Jesus concerning you". Suffering is a means to get the "dross" out of one's life. It is a means to alleviate our lives of our "idols".

Scripture teaches that God is a Father. Does a good father dictate and demand? Or does a father seek to understand, encourage, support, and help the child?

Human rights suggests that individuals are deemed significant and of value in America. We are not a collective society. We believe that good government is limited, and does not intrude into the private lives of its citizens. Americans believe in private property. As James Madison said, ""As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."

-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

Good government applies to "God" as well as parenting. Therefore, what is moral is objective, not subject to arbitrary dictates of a "god",  parent or dictator.

The Problem With "Holiness"

"Holiness" has been useful for the religious, because of their need for identification "apart from the rest of the world". Therefore, the sects continue to separate from what is "unholy" to define and refine "who they are".

The problem with "holiness" is that it distinguishes one thing from another based on some "standardization". These standards are what religion is about. Standards of behavior in how to approach God, do one's duty, dress, perform, experience, and even think, etc. Religion is a false or pretentious "form" of judgement. These judgments are "justified" by texts, traditions, and "community norms".

What is really at stake is the individual's freedom to become apart from such religious "forms". Religion imposes itself on the natural world without allowing the individual freedom to question, and come to terms with their own "way of being in the world". Democracies allow such freedom. Apart from a free society there is no individuality.

Today's world is wrought with religious zeal that finds its identity in such "faith" apart from reason. And many find themselves under domination because of false convictions that are not really theirs. This imposition is really about co-dependence and "belonging", not healthy human flourishing and development. And co-dependence is about an under-developed ego.

At least that is my "unprofessional" assessment.

Today's Talk on "Experience"

Today's talk at our honors forum was made by one of our religion professors. He admitted that his conviction had been based on reason, but recently had been "converted" to experience.

As he was talking, all I could think of was how anyone in this type of climate could survive such "supernaturalism". There would be no way to gauge how one "heard from God". I think this is the epitome of cultish mentality and could lead to abuse of power, as well as "self-delusion".

A interpretive "community of faith" was the answer given to my concerns. This suggests that faith trumps reason altogether. Quakers, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, as well as Holiness traditions hold to this type of "mentality".

The Holiness tradition, which is the tradition of this professor and the university, believes in a second work of grace, called "entire sanctification", where sin is eradicated out of the believer. When this experience happens, then there is "new insight" and understanding of Scripture that is not dependent on academic training. I started to shiver.

When I questioned how one could gauge self-deception and pride, the professor admitted that pride was indeed a problem! Pride is not a "little problem", it is a great problem, because pride is not open to another's opinion, and especially when they feel "spritiually superior" and have "heard from God". These are the things of which great cult leaders are made.

Another gauge was the rule of faith and the rule of love. But, actively loving someone takes personal knowledge, and even with personal knowledge, sometimes, even with my husband, I miss it. So, how is one to gauge if one is motivated with a right-directed "love"?

For instance, if these believe that Abraham's sacrifice was the epitome of faith and must be demanded of another as proof of entire sanctification, then they might bring immense pain and heart-ache in the "Name of God". This is nothing short of cruel, mis-guided and mis-informed fanaticism. Or what if these believed that one must "cut off his hand, or pluch out his eye" because of it possibly leading to "sin". I have been in these environments and have "submitted" to such superstition. I threw away a silver bracelet that my husband gave me for an anniversary because of an "authority" telling me it was an amulet".

I cannot agree or defend such "faith", as it is undefendable. It is based on personal/communal experience combined. This is nothing short of what soldiers experience in their bonding with others in their squad/platoon/brigade. There is nothing significantly "spiritual" happening here, as humans are social animals, that will experience persecuting situations as a bonding experience.

The Quadralateral allows for more than experience. It is based on reason, as well as experience, tradition and scripture. I find that tradition is culture and scripture is context specific, while experience can be unifying. Reason, on the other hand, can be unifying but most often can bring great division as we interpret within our own specific frames and express ourselves in unique ways.

Those that believe in such understandings and experiences, are seeking after a unifying experience and believe it is God. But it is really interpreted as God, because of the context. In another context, it would be called a "country club", or any other kind of social group.

Christians Hide Behind Christianity

I find that I have hidden behind Christian faith. It "protected me" from feeling that the world was a dark and forboding place. But, more so, it was a way of coping with my own anxiety and insecurity. It helped me find meaning, where there had been no meaning. It helped me to feel special, a sense of belonging, and met a need for "family" that would share life with me. It was, in effect, a denial of true reality and an attempt at "creating a new one" (a "new family", a "new me", a "new future", etc.).

Christians hide behind the various group identifiers that help them to form their own "bulwark of faith" against facing what is otherwise, horrendously difficult and challenging. People are self seeking. This should be an accepted fact of life in encountering others. Then, one is free to encounter another with their own agenda and then honestly evaluate, negotiate and compromise. This is forthrightness, as it doesn't try to dissolve self-interest, or sacrifice, but seeks to further goals directly and with honesty. This is the stage of social contract in moral development.

Christians love to define their life in altruistic ways. And most of the time, they seem to love to see sacrifice as "proof of" "love for God and neighbor". Problems of identifying sacrifice occur when there are various differences as to what defines the "correct" sacrifice. Judging another's "sacrifice" as insignificant is offensive and insulting, which alienates and complicates the relationship and the negotiating process.

These sacrifices are used to further "holiness" and "discipline" and 'create and define' Christian character. But, what is the difference in Christian sacrifice and altruism and a "secular" person doing the same? Christians can feel smug and "better than" others, which underwrites their own insecurities, rather than face them squarely and realistically.

I would much rather be "on the same page", knowing that a contract was a useful tool to protect both parties interest, rather than, some "spiritualized" service that undermines justice. Christians use and abuse terms, and situations because of their view of reality. Reality is defined in "other worldly ways" that are defined by "god". "God" justifies in their minds "abuse of power", as they feel morally superior. These "other worldly ways" are imposed upon all of life and others, which hinders one's ability to communicate in 'real terms" and truely know another in "real ways".

So, what do I wish for Christians? I wish that all of them would evaluate their life honestly, without any need to 'spiritualize", "or protect themselves". Life can be hard, indeed, but if one continues to "live in a bubble of unreality", then life cannot be embraced and fully lived. Christians need to be "real human beings" and stop seeking to be anything else.

Religion's "Duty" and Ethical Choice

My pastor's sermon today was about the Christian "call" to "love" all people, even those different from oneself. This is moral perfection in holiness circles, because "love fulfills the law".

Why does "love fulfill the law"? Because love will do no wrong to a neighbor. What is doing wrong to a neighbor? Breaking the law. So, love knows the neighbor and chooses to do what is right by fullfilling the law through love. There is no justice here, for love doesn't ask questions, or seek answers according to the "model of Jesus". "He was led as a lamb to slaughter". "He answered not a word"., etc.

Justice is doing what is ethical, not necessarily "moral". The higher principle of "right" applies to the other text used in my pastor's sermon. The one on Cain and Abel. Cain's sacrifice was not pleasing to the Lord and so, he slew Abel. What was point of the story? My pastor pointed out that there are many theological understandings of "why God chose Abel over Cain". But, he said this was not what the text reads. It was wrong to kill, period! The moral calls for Cain to bear consequences, which the text describes as a banishment and and a wandering upon the earth.

The theological calls for a "forgiveness", a wiping the slate clean, no matter what has resulted from the "sins of the heart". But, the ethical calls an acknowledgment of humanity's systemic need to compete for these innate desires of the human heart. The desire for God's favor, the desire to "get ahead", the desire to be the "top dog", the desire for "leadership", the desire to benefit from another's work or life, the desire to control, the desire to demand, etc. All of these desires were the warning of God to Cain before Cain did the "evil" in killing his brother. God warned that "sin was croutching at the door"....

I find that the religious justify their actions, just as those "in the world". There is no difference, just a difference in "ends", which justify in their minds, actions that would otherwise be abhorrent. The ends never justify the means, if the means is a human life.

Human life is what our laws protect, in free societies. Free societies allow choice to individuals, and do not demand "allegiance" of life, other than a "call for duty to protect" the nation against enemies.

The call for Jesus' life was a call to protect the nation (better for one to die than the whole nation). Jesus' life was a life given, but it was also a life taken. A life taken by those who benefitted through the peace it protected, as the crowds wanted Barababas to be released, not Jesus. For fear of the crowds, the rulers killed Jesus. They did what was wrong because it was expedient for the greater cause of "peace".

I find it interesting that Christians use Jesus life as an exempliary one, as his life, though lived in acknwledgement of the inclusion of sinners, was a life that allowed "evil to prevail". The theologians would not think this, no it has become the epitome of what being a Christian is about...a belief that Jesus died for me, so that I might live. Jesus was a sacrificed life, which others threw their guilt upon. He was scape-goated, so that others might find a "free conscience", not by doing what is "right", as God called for in Genesis, but doing what is in self-interest.

Theologians bring a "new understanding" in a "new time" to what the gospel's message means. Today, the ethical and scientific questions regarding "life" is at the forefront of "making meaning". I find that without ethics, we will continue to live in isolated and defined theologically justified ways. I don't consider living this way is the way of breaking down walls, but upholding them.And that certainly is not the way of love.

My Pastor's Sermon on the Impossible God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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