The Founding Fathers warned that a "free people" would not remain free without information, or education. Did the Founders mean formal education or information forthcoming from the government (or leadership)? And what is eduation after all? It seems that today, we have had those that have "set a new vision" for change, that is to globalize the "nation-state". And globalization has been done in the name of the environment, poverty, and education.
This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's future well-being.
The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.
The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".
University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?
On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".
Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.
Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.
The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.
Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?
I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".
The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.
Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '
I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!
I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
What is Wrong With "Covenant"
On another blog, I read this morning where arranged marriages could be a way to "form" intimacy. The one response was affirming of this type of "legal commitment". But, I find there are some problems with this sort of "covenant".
"Covenant" is a term that was useful in biblical times to transmit a way of understanding relationships. Blood covenants were an exchange or co-mingling of blood to symbolize and exchange of life. One would take on the other's enemies, as the "other"'s life became one's own. This was the traditional understanding of marriage. It was a mutual exhange and co-mingling of "life for life". The two became one.
Scholars have disagreed as to whether the covenant (suzerain) was unilateral or mutual. Covenant theologians understood the covenant to be undertaken by God, as God was the only one who could fulfull his own demands (basing their understanding of the perfections of God). This was where predestination came into the understanding of "bibilical theology". Reformed believers believed that God predestined some to respond to his "understaking in the covenant", while others believed in various forms of "foreknowledge".
In the Old Testament one was allowed to take the life of the other, if the other had taken life. This was the basis of justice, an eye for an eye. "An eye for an eye" limited justice to equal measure, because of human's propensity to revenge. Revenge annihilates the other, instead of training the other to limit themself.
Covenant in the New Testament meant that what was considered to be an outside demand, became an inside desire. Evangelicals, or fundamentalists would believe that one would need a "new heart" to do what was demanded "under law". Ususally, these understood the "new heart" to come about by a "re-birth" or "born again" experience. Others believed that one was "born into" the family of God by baptism, or communion of life. Holiness people understood this to be "entire sanctification". One obeyed not from duty, but desire.
But, the Enlightenment undermined the view of covenant. Humans were no longer understood to be pawns under God, King or government, but "self". Holiness people understood this "discipline" to be the "fruit of the Spirit". Rationalists understood it to be discipline of habit. All understood it to be the result of a free choice.
The scientific disciplines were developing during the "modern age" where sociology and psychology were in their beginning stages of understanding human behavior, just as the natural sciences were the result of understanding "order in the universe".
Man was no longer a puppet under God, but understood to be "created in God's image". What does that mean, except that man is created to create, decide and choose for himself?
Liberty became the watchword of the Enlightenment, not covenant. Man was a free moral agent.
Today, the human sciences are grappling again with what it means to be human. Contingency has to be considered along with individual choice. Neuroscience has to be considered alongside psychological and sociological science. No longer is man understood in one demensional ways, as a wholistic view is sought.
The modern era brought us the disciplines we use to continue to understand and form what we will know tomorrow about man, society, and his environment.
"Covenant" is a term that was useful in biblical times to transmit a way of understanding relationships. Blood covenants were an exchange or co-mingling of blood to symbolize and exchange of life. One would take on the other's enemies, as the "other"'s life became one's own. This was the traditional understanding of marriage. It was a mutual exhange and co-mingling of "life for life". The two became one.
Scholars have disagreed as to whether the covenant (suzerain) was unilateral or mutual. Covenant theologians understood the covenant to be undertaken by God, as God was the only one who could fulfull his own demands (basing their understanding of the perfections of God). This was where predestination came into the understanding of "bibilical theology". Reformed believers believed that God predestined some to respond to his "understaking in the covenant", while others believed in various forms of "foreknowledge".
In the Old Testament one was allowed to take the life of the other, if the other had taken life. This was the basis of justice, an eye for an eye. "An eye for an eye" limited justice to equal measure, because of human's propensity to revenge. Revenge annihilates the other, instead of training the other to limit themself.
Covenant in the New Testament meant that what was considered to be an outside demand, became an inside desire. Evangelicals, or fundamentalists would believe that one would need a "new heart" to do what was demanded "under law". Ususally, these understood the "new heart" to come about by a "re-birth" or "born again" experience. Others believed that one was "born into" the family of God by baptism, or communion of life. Holiness people understood this to be "entire sanctification". One obeyed not from duty, but desire.
But, the Enlightenment undermined the view of covenant. Humans were no longer understood to be pawns under God, King or government, but "self". Holiness people understood this "discipline" to be the "fruit of the Spirit". Rationalists understood it to be discipline of habit. All understood it to be the result of a free choice.
The scientific disciplines were developing during the "modern age" where sociology and psychology were in their beginning stages of understanding human behavior, just as the natural sciences were the result of understanding "order in the universe".
Man was no longer a puppet under God, but understood to be "created in God's image". What does that mean, except that man is created to create, decide and choose for himself?
Liberty became the watchword of the Enlightenment, not covenant. Man was a free moral agent.
Today, the human sciences are grappling again with what it means to be human. Contingency has to be considered along with individual choice. Neuroscience has to be considered alongside psychological and sociological science. No longer is man understood in one demensional ways, as a wholistic view is sought.
The modern era brought us the disciplines we use to continue to understand and form what we will know tomorrow about man, society, and his environment.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
How Do You Understand?
Another blogger got me thinking about how we understand the world. I didn't realize when I responded to her that my response was based on different emphasises of the Quadralateral.
Do you understand your faith by doctrine? Do you "take by faith", the doctrines in the creeds, without tearing apart the doctrinal truths to see if they correlate to sicentific inquiry? Or do you understand your faith as a lifestyl with others is lived out within the community of faith? The convictions that bind you together are those that define "your world" and sometimes it clouds your "sight" to see or understand differences in approach to faith, after all, these have given their life to these "commitments" and "values". Or do you think that faith is more about understanding and knowing God?
Doctrine is based on a tradtionalist's view, while lifestyle is an experiential view. Reason upholds a theological view, and Scripture is multivaried, depending on which view is primarily driving "faith".
But, though these views all define different people of faith, there are others that define their faith apart from belief systems, and institutions. These people would be understood as agnostic or atheistic in their belief.
The agnostic holds that though we seek God, we cannot know him, because God is beyond our capacity to understand and grasp. One must live within the contexts that define one's life and understand that all men have sought to understand and explain God, throughout the Ages. These are the scientifically minded, as they re-define God, or explain things in "new ways". The Academy defines the faith of the agnostic, as the Academy helps to keep reason humble, because of the vastness and diversity of human knowledge.
The atheists doesn't seek to understand or define God, as God is irrelvant, in their book, in helping to solve the world's problems. These like to be pragmatic in their approach to life and its problems in this world. They do not like the "sweet by and by", or "pie in the sky" promises or imaginings. But, these can be arrogant in their approach to life when it comes to their own reason, and to people of faith. And this is when problems occur in structuring government or laws that allow diversity of views that don't discriminate as to difference.
The agnostic is really atheistic in practicality because the basis of understanding the world is not faith, but the disciplines. Those that seek to understand "faith concerns" will study the philosophy of religion, or history of traditions, or religious studies, etc. And these will find in their "camp" people of faith and people without faith ( in the traditional sense).
So, how do you understand the world?
Do you understand your faith by doctrine? Do you "take by faith", the doctrines in the creeds, without tearing apart the doctrinal truths to see if they correlate to sicentific inquiry? Or do you understand your faith as a lifestyl with others is lived out within the community of faith? The convictions that bind you together are those that define "your world" and sometimes it clouds your "sight" to see or understand differences in approach to faith, after all, these have given their life to these "commitments" and "values". Or do you think that faith is more about understanding and knowing God?
Doctrine is based on a tradtionalist's view, while lifestyle is an experiential view. Reason upholds a theological view, and Scripture is multivaried, depending on which view is primarily driving "faith".
But, though these views all define different people of faith, there are others that define their faith apart from belief systems, and institutions. These people would be understood as agnostic or atheistic in their belief.
The agnostic holds that though we seek God, we cannot know him, because God is beyond our capacity to understand and grasp. One must live within the contexts that define one's life and understand that all men have sought to understand and explain God, throughout the Ages. These are the scientifically minded, as they re-define God, or explain things in "new ways". The Academy defines the faith of the agnostic, as the Academy helps to keep reason humble, because of the vastness and diversity of human knowledge.
The atheists doesn't seek to understand or define God, as God is irrelvant, in their book, in helping to solve the world's problems. These like to be pragmatic in their approach to life and its problems in this world. They do not like the "sweet by and by", or "pie in the sky" promises or imaginings. But, these can be arrogant in their approach to life when it comes to their own reason, and to people of faith. And this is when problems occur in structuring government or laws that allow diversity of views that don't discriminate as to difference.
The agnostic is really atheistic in practicality because the basis of understanding the world is not faith, but the disciplines. Those that seek to understand "faith concerns" will study the philosophy of religion, or history of traditions, or religious studies, etc. And these will find in their "camp" people of faith and people without faith ( in the traditional sense).
So, how do you understand the world?
Saturday, August 1, 2009
The "Forever" Pursuit of Finding a Universal
People like to understand universals, because only in the universal, can all things be understood. The "universal" holds the "common thread" to understand human beings and and the "world". Universals, though, will never be found apart for specificities, because we are bound within frames of references of personal and cultural histories and we "put our worlds" together differently, depending not only on these universals of personal and cultural history, but also the individual and thier value system.
Our contextuality has been understood and accepted in postmodernity. The individual is the 'universal". But, scientists, who like to explain the "world" more thoroughly, are investigating different aspects of the individual. The individual could be viewed in physical ways, metaphysical ways and social ways. Somewhere in the midst of the physical and social is the answer. The metaphysical can only be understood thorough the understanding of the "mind", as the metaphysical is about the individual's "construct" of "mind".
Universal ideology is a dangerous way to approach individual situations and contexts, as these are not understood "out there" but "in here", by the individual and within his framing of mind. Biblical scholars all understand that it is impossible to know for certain what was in the "mind" of the Prophets, the disciples, or Paul, for instance. This is the modern paradigm of understanding context, socially, historically, and contextually. But, these understandings are limited as we do not know the whole story around the "stories" contained in the biblical text. We can only surmise and think as far as probabilities. So, to extract universals from the biblical text is dangerous and misguided.
Not only is it problematic to make the Biblical text universal, but also theology has its limitations. Any theologian also, knows that there are as many theologies as there are contexts and "themes" and ways of approaching and understanding "god". This is why some think that theology is contextually bound. But, God is not a 'universal. God cannot be a universal, because of the lack of understanding to a "universal metaphysics".
I think that the Church is seeking a way to explain without explaining away, but this is almost impossible when modernity undercuts the universal in the text and the contextual undercuts the universal in theology. The only universal left is the "human", but what makes the human, "human", or a "universal". That is the biggest question facing anyone of any faith, whether of a traditional kind or an atheistic one.
Our contextuality has been understood and accepted in postmodernity. The individual is the 'universal". But, scientists, who like to explain the "world" more thoroughly, are investigating different aspects of the individual. The individual could be viewed in physical ways, metaphysical ways and social ways. Somewhere in the midst of the physical and social is the answer. The metaphysical can only be understood thorough the understanding of the "mind", as the metaphysical is about the individual's "construct" of "mind".
Universal ideology is a dangerous way to approach individual situations and contexts, as these are not understood "out there" but "in here", by the individual and within his framing of mind. Biblical scholars all understand that it is impossible to know for certain what was in the "mind" of the Prophets, the disciples, or Paul, for instance. This is the modern paradigm of understanding context, socially, historically, and contextually. But, these understandings are limited as we do not know the whole story around the "stories" contained in the biblical text. We can only surmise and think as far as probabilities. So, to extract universals from the biblical text is dangerous and misguided.
Not only is it problematic to make the Biblical text universal, but also theology has its limitations. Any theologian also, knows that there are as many theologies as there are contexts and "themes" and ways of approaching and understanding "god". This is why some think that theology is contextually bound. But, God is not a 'universal. God cannot be a universal, because of the lack of understanding to a "universal metaphysics".
I think that the Church is seeking a way to explain without explaining away, but this is almost impossible when modernity undercuts the universal in the text and the contextual undercuts the universal in theology. The only universal left is the "human", but what makes the human, "human", or a "universal". That is the biggest question facing anyone of any faith, whether of a traditional kind or an atheistic one.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Realism's Relativity
Realism is about truth based in the real experiences of life. Our experiences are the very contexts that we understand and bring meaning into our lives. Those who live in different situations think differently about "truth".
Truth is survival to those who live in poverty and disease, whereas truth is liberation for those who live under oppressive regimes. Truth is about reality, life's situatedness, and personhood. If truth is disconnected to what we experience, or our individuality, then there is cognitive disconnect from what is being touted as "universal truth".
When David ate of the shewbread in the Scriptures, he was not reprimanded, because his need for sustenence was greater than his need for the "holy". Traditionalists condemned him, but Jesus did not. Compassion looks on others in thier situatedness and does not judge, but seeks to help. On the other hand, understanding that our helpfulness can also be short-sighted unless we acknowledge that each of us is different and the differences of our experiences and understanding will always limit how much we can help.
Theology "speaks for God" in traditionalists circles, but, theology is really about "man speaking about God". We cannot attain to God's mind, or God's personhood, as we just cannot know. We only have models of experience and religious representations of God.
Some want to make absolute assertions about God and demand that others follow their suit. What transpires is tragically a "social convention" that is passed off as "God". And God's name is "used in vain" by promoting, and demanding that everyone see and experience the same thing, the same way. Apart from conformity, there is no "real salvation". I personally think this is idolatrous, for we cannot know but in part, and we certainly don't understand the "other", they way we need to.
Those who have closed minds concerning diversity/difference are doomed to oppress and stifle, while those who have no way of measurement, have no gauge, where values can even be discussed.
All of us have limited understanding and we base our understanding upon different authorities. Each authority is a limited one and we must humbly acknowledge that to one another in seeking after and commiting to "truth seeking understanding"...
Truth is survival to those who live in poverty and disease, whereas truth is liberation for those who live under oppressive regimes. Truth is about reality, life's situatedness, and personhood. If truth is disconnected to what we experience, or our individuality, then there is cognitive disconnect from what is being touted as "universal truth".
When David ate of the shewbread in the Scriptures, he was not reprimanded, because his need for sustenence was greater than his need for the "holy". Traditionalists condemned him, but Jesus did not. Compassion looks on others in thier situatedness and does not judge, but seeks to help. On the other hand, understanding that our helpfulness can also be short-sighted unless we acknowledge that each of us is different and the differences of our experiences and understanding will always limit how much we can help.
Theology "speaks for God" in traditionalists circles, but, theology is really about "man speaking about God". We cannot attain to God's mind, or God's personhood, as we just cannot know. We only have models of experience and religious representations of God.
Some want to make absolute assertions about God and demand that others follow their suit. What transpires is tragically a "social convention" that is passed off as "God". And God's name is "used in vain" by promoting, and demanding that everyone see and experience the same thing, the same way. Apart from conformity, there is no "real salvation". I personally think this is idolatrous, for we cannot know but in part, and we certainly don't understand the "other", they way we need to.
Those who have closed minds concerning diversity/difference are doomed to oppress and stifle, while those who have no way of measurement, have no gauge, where values can even be discussed.
All of us have limited understanding and we base our understanding upon different authorities. Each authority is a limited one and we must humbly acknowledge that to one another in seeking after and commiting to "truth seeking understanding"...
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Science and Theology and the Human
Some have said that science and theology are separate entities that have different tasks and should not seek to be intergrated. I would disagree.
Although both science and theology have value to man's existence, one is useful for pragmatic reasons, while the other is not, necessarily.
Science is investigative, and is based on "real world" understandings of life, while theology is no less investigative, but is not usually based on the 'real world" but the transcendental world. There is no proof of God, as in his transcendetal existence cannot be observed or evaluated. All we can observe is the world of experience in the physical realm, which is about man and his environment.
Some would understand this endeavor as an important undertaking, as it connects the transcendental to the real, which would bring about a reasoned faith. Gnosticism has bee the bane of culture, as it disconnects faith from reason altogether. Faith alone distorts purpose, and hinders human flourishing, because it separates reality from faith. These faith understandings are not believable by those who value science and the "real world". How can the interface of science and theology "work" to bring about a 'better world"?
Man and his environment intersects many disciplines in psychology and sociology and anthropology and political theory. These are integrations of "sides" of the Quadralateral.
Culture contains the religion, traditions and political realms of understanding a man in his experience/environment. How does one understand all men (universal) within their context (particularity)? All men have reason, but not all men have the same experience(s) even within the same culture. The complexity of understanding man in "God's image" is a huge undertaking. And I'm not sure that man can never be understood completely, in universal terms, as there will always be the particularity of the individual and so many factors go into that mix that it is improbale that there will ever be consensus. But, then, this is what research is about, isn't it?
Therefore, science is mandantory in theological endeavor, as theology is about man, as much as it is about God. There is no absolute universal because each man as an individual cannot be understood from afar.
Although both science and theology have value to man's existence, one is useful for pragmatic reasons, while the other is not, necessarily.
Science is investigative, and is based on "real world" understandings of life, while theology is no less investigative, but is not usually based on the 'real world" but the transcendental world. There is no proof of God, as in his transcendetal existence cannot be observed or evaluated. All we can observe is the world of experience in the physical realm, which is about man and his environment.
Some would understand this endeavor as an important undertaking, as it connects the transcendental to the real, which would bring about a reasoned faith. Gnosticism has bee the bane of culture, as it disconnects faith from reason altogether. Faith alone distorts purpose, and hinders human flourishing, because it separates reality from faith. These faith understandings are not believable by those who value science and the "real world". How can the interface of science and theology "work" to bring about a 'better world"?
Man and his environment intersects many disciplines in psychology and sociology and anthropology and political theory. These are integrations of "sides" of the Quadralateral.
Culture contains the religion, traditions and political realms of understanding a man in his experience/environment. How does one understand all men (universal) within their context (particularity)? All men have reason, but not all men have the same experience(s) even within the same culture. The complexity of understanding man in "God's image" is a huge undertaking. And I'm not sure that man can never be understood completely, in universal terms, as there will always be the particularity of the individual and so many factors go into that mix that it is improbale that there will ever be consensus. But, then, this is what research is about, isn't it?
Therefore, science is mandantory in theological endeavor, as theology is about man, as much as it is about God. There is no absolute universal because each man as an individual cannot be understood from afar.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
OOPS...Tradition and How It Came To BE
In my last post, I said that tradition grew up around the text, which is true if one is upholding the Protestant evangelical frame, as meaning was created primarily by the text's message, whereas, tradition was the early Church Fathers way of creating meaning from ancient texts and myths that became "tradition" of the Church....which is orthodoxy. And the Church Fathers had reasons for developing the Tradition in the way in which they did.
But, Scripture is about the OT, as well as the NT and this is where the rub comes in, in theological reflection and evangelicalism's faith! Calvinism developed a "complete system" of understanding Scripture 's meaning and has become the "Christian evangelical meaning", without critiquing the historical process or context of developing that system. As theological systems answer questions about meaning and value.
But, Scripture is about the OT, as well as the NT and this is where the rub comes in, in theological reflection and evangelicalism's faith! Calvinism developed a "complete system" of understanding Scripture 's meaning and has become the "Christian evangelical meaning", without critiquing the historical process or context of developing that system. As theological systems answer questions about meaning and value.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Emergent, Pre-Determined Purposes and "Truth"
In the science/religion debate, there are many ways of understanding the interface. Does science define religion, as science is the only truth? Or is religion to drive science, as science is the ultimate end? I believe both with reservation.
In the biological sciences, there is an attempt to describe organizational structure with "emergent properties". These scientific explainations to social constructs are problematic. The emergent properties just happen to be the place that those who have a creative bent, or disagree with the vision or are "pre-determined" of/by the organized structure find themselves. These "emergent" properties, while technically being "free" are "determined" by the "system". The "system" is the social structure that determines what the plan or vision will be and those who don't fit the system find themselves 'creatively' determined as "emergent". This means that the "emergents" are those who don't have a voice other than outside the mainstream, which is like the scapegoat in family systems....Is this a "just form of governing" others?
In utilatarian terms, the ends justify the means, so therefore, determining another's place within the structure is for the greater good of whatever purpose the organization deems fit. My question is; is this ethical or just? Would anyone want another determining their response, their future, and their purpose? I don't believe so. This is why applying the "truths" of biological science is misguided, if not downright evil.
In my husband's John Templeton course, he talks about social construction of reality through models. His students are taken through many ways of understanding that concept and when they get through, they understand that one must live by faith...not by reason alone!! This statement does not negate reason, but helps the student understand the limitations to reason. I find this especially fruitful in a religious institution, as it upholds "faith". And helps the student to understand that sicence does not hold ultimate truth....
In the biological sciences, there is an attempt to describe organizational structure with "emergent properties". These scientific explainations to social constructs are problematic. The emergent properties just happen to be the place that those who have a creative bent, or disagree with the vision or are "pre-determined" of/by the organized structure find themselves. These "emergent" properties, while technically being "free" are "determined" by the "system". The "system" is the social structure that determines what the plan or vision will be and those who don't fit the system find themselves 'creatively' determined as "emergent". This means that the "emergents" are those who don't have a voice other than outside the mainstream, which is like the scapegoat in family systems....Is this a "just form of governing" others?
In utilatarian terms, the ends justify the means, so therefore, determining another's place within the structure is for the greater good of whatever purpose the organization deems fit. My question is; is this ethical or just? Would anyone want another determining their response, their future, and their purpose? I don't believe so. This is why applying the "truths" of biological science is misguided, if not downright evil.
In my husband's John Templeton course, he talks about social construction of reality through models. His students are taken through many ways of understanding that concept and when they get through, they understand that one must live by faith...not by reason alone!! This statement does not negate reason, but helps the student understand the limitations to reason. I find this especially fruitful in a religious institution, as it upholds "faith". And helps the student to understand that sicence does not hold ultimate truth....
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Theology's Task Today
Theology is man's attempt to bring meaning into situation, to people or within history. This is why theology has been so diverse, as it has spoken in different ways and for different reasons.
Man seeks to understand life, this is what the natural sciences are about, but theology seeks to connect the real world to God. What is the real world?
The real world could be historical events that bring disappointment or despair. It could be a disorientation to life by a people, or it could be a people's situation. Theology can be systemized through themes of Scripture, but today's need is much broader than any of these.
Althougth there are still peoples that need hope in their specific context, there is a real need to univeralize the hisorical situation and mankind today. A universalization is akin to using our globalization for the benefit of mankind, to help bring meaning within a broader context and give more of a broader vision or perspective, so that the economic will not drive meaning and relationships.
Today Black Theology, Liberration Theology, Feminist Theology, Biblical Theology, Dogmatic Theology will not do. Texts and Cultures must be unified. There should not be a distinction of theology based on a ethnic group, such as the Jew, or the "Gentile". Theology should have a wide, and inclusive grasp that goes beyond specifics. We need a "Globalized Faith", where no one faith is primary, while allowing the diverse ways of understanding and worshipping God can be affirmed. Therefore, such universal needs of man must be recognized and addressed. I think that a theology based on the Quadralateral, psychology, history, and philosophy would meet this need.
For the "New Covenant" promises that they will all know me from the least to the greatest and no one will have to teach anyone to know the Lord for they will all know me"
Man seeks to understand life, this is what the natural sciences are about, but theology seeks to connect the real world to God. What is the real world?
The real world could be historical events that bring disappointment or despair. It could be a disorientation to life by a people, or it could be a people's situation. Theology can be systemized through themes of Scripture, but today's need is much broader than any of these.
Althougth there are still peoples that need hope in their specific context, there is a real need to univeralize the hisorical situation and mankind today. A universalization is akin to using our globalization for the benefit of mankind, to help bring meaning within a broader context and give more of a broader vision or perspective, so that the economic will not drive meaning and relationships.
Today Black Theology, Liberration Theology, Feminist Theology, Biblical Theology, Dogmatic Theology will not do. Texts and Cultures must be unified. There should not be a distinction of theology based on a ethnic group, such as the Jew, or the "Gentile". Theology should have a wide, and inclusive grasp that goes beyond specifics. We need a "Globalized Faith", where no one faith is primary, while allowing the diverse ways of understanding and worshipping God can be affirmed. Therefore, such universal needs of man must be recognized and addressed. I think that a theology based on the Quadralateral, psychology, history, and philosophy would meet this need.
For the "New Covenant" promises that they will all know me from the least to the greatest and no one will have to teach anyone to know the Lord for they will all know me"
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Theology, Science and the Disciplines
Science gifts us with "ordered" understandings, which our Founding Fathers understood during the Enlightenment. But, today's science challenges most of us in coming to terms with "order", as science reveals a "disordered structure", because of our limited capacity to understand all deminsions of reality. In past posts, I have written about how history has developed around different understandings of "truth". Today's understanding is no less of a challenge, as there have been many claims in how to reconcile science and religion.
While science has challenged the Church's understanding of itself, it is imperative in today's climate that the Church define itself in a universal, but grounded framework. The grounding has to be understood within all the discipline's scientific understandings, as otherwise, theology becomes disconnected to the "real" world of politics, psychology, philosophy, ethics, social sciences, history, and the natural sciences. But, theology must not be limited to one aspect of understanding "reality", as this would diminish the fullest understanding. The Quadralateral is a good place to direct the Academy's focus.
In the Classical "days", theology was the "queen of the sciences", where all the disciplines point back to "God" as understood as Creator. God was the epitome of understanding and wisdom. Science was useful as a means of knowing and understanding God. So, in today's Christian colleges, there is a call, a fervent call of challenge to discern the times and bring about a reformulation of theological understanding....to give a reason to believe.
While science has challenged the Church's understanding of itself, it is imperative in today's climate that the Church define itself in a universal, but grounded framework. The grounding has to be understood within all the discipline's scientific understandings, as otherwise, theology becomes disconnected to the "real" world of politics, psychology, philosophy, ethics, social sciences, history, and the natural sciences. But, theology must not be limited to one aspect of understanding "reality", as this would diminish the fullest understanding. The Quadralateral is a good place to direct the Academy's focus.
In the Classical "days", theology was the "queen of the sciences", where all the disciplines point back to "God" as understood as Creator. God was the epitome of understanding and wisdom. Science was useful as a means of knowing and understanding God. So, in today's Christian colleges, there is a call, a fervent call of challenge to discern the times and bring about a reformulation of theological understanding....to give a reason to believe.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy and Faith
I find that defining religion on theology or practice still becomes a hinderance to understanding faith. Faith, as I have said before is undefined, by belief, or practice, as far as objectively. Faith is personal commitment to value. Faith can be aligned in one's life ot a certain religion, but does not have to be. I hope that those who place all their hopes on definitions OR behavior will undstand that both are limited when it comes to judging for the outside, what comes from faith.
Why do I say that faith is not to be or can not be judged? Because, besides faith being a personal conviction and commitment, it's very expression is unique. Faith doesn' t necessarily conform to a tradition or another person's definition of faith. Faith just is. It is being itself and what I do with that being. Sometimes people are not practicing their faith, because they are dealing with issues that have hindered healthy faith. Distance to communities of faith or to orhtopraxy can be healthy, if they hide unhealthy dependency. Healthy faith is a free expression of choice. It must be voluntary, otherwise, faith is being defined by someone or something other than the individual who must possess it.
Why do I say that faith is not to be or can not be judged? Because, besides faith being a personal conviction and commitment, it's very expression is unique. Faith doesn' t necessarily conform to a tradition or another person's definition of faith. Faith just is. It is being itself and what I do with that being. Sometimes people are not practicing their faith, because they are dealing with issues that have hindered healthy faith. Distance to communities of faith or to orhtopraxy can be healthy, if they hide unhealthy dependency. Healthy faith is a free expression of choice. It must be voluntary, otherwise, faith is being defined by someone or something other than the individual who must possess it.
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
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The New Theological Frame Must Be Inclusive of All Four Quadrants of the Quadralateral
Karl Barth was a way for theology to address modernity's criticism. While modernity needs the transcendent, the transcendent needs the grounding of modernity's critique. Today's post-modernity brings us to experiential faith, which is not grounded at all.
What do I mean by this? Post-modernity has struggled to find a reason for the hope of Christian faith. Stanley Grenz grounded his understanding in the community of God. The "redeemed" were to exemplify Christ's life. The basis of "fact" was developed upon the Trinity. But, in actuality it is another type of existentialism, as it applies to the organizational structure of the Church. And the Trinity itself is a philosophical understanding of God. It is not a fact, but a representation of fact.
Fact is based on science and the historical and social sciences should give new insight into what happened in the development of Christian faith, which was grounded within a Jewish context. Judiasm itself must be understood. And then, Judiasm must be understood within the historical development of World Religions, or Traditions, which are representative of cultures.
Civilizations are representative of cultures, which are understood by the laws, values and customs that define them. And people are constructed within these contexts. Understanding other cultures is necessary in international relations, diplomacy and the globalized market. Hopefully, international law will develop a format for businesses to be boundaried by proper behavior within the global market and economy.
What do I mean by this? Post-modernity has struggled to find a reason for the hope of Christian faith. Stanley Grenz grounded his understanding in the community of God. The "redeemed" were to exemplify Christ's life. The basis of "fact" was developed upon the Trinity. But, in actuality it is another type of existentialism, as it applies to the organizational structure of the Church. And the Trinity itself is a philosophical understanding of God. It is not a fact, but a representation of fact.
Fact is based on science and the historical and social sciences should give new insight into what happened in the development of Christian faith, which was grounded within a Jewish context. Judiasm itself must be understood. And then, Judiasm must be understood within the historical development of World Religions, or Traditions, which are representative of cultures.
Civilizations are representative of cultures, which are understood by the laws, values and customs that define them. And people are constructed within these contexts. Understanding other cultures is necessary in international relations, diplomacy and the globalized market. Hopefully, international law will develop a format for businesses to be boundaried by proper behavior within the global market and economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
