Leviathan, as Our New Reality?

Yesterday, I heard something on NPR that sent chills up my spine. It was presented like a public service announcement. But, the message was one of limiting the public's right under the 'social contract". It was Leviathan.

The announcer stated that "war" is caused by "self-interest", and since "self-interest" is the culprit of "war", man is to give up his rights to "government" under "social contract". That is, one must give up personal interests, so that the public's welfare will be met.

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan under the premised that government was to be the arbitrator, determinor of the individual. The individual would be limited because government would become more centralized, therefore, supposedly understanding more of what "the public" needs.

Centralization was always of concern to the Founders and political theorists, because of the "balance and separation of powers". The limitation of government was of concern because government had abused power over the inidividual. Hobbe's "Leviathan" desired centralization because of the "state of nature". Power being a useful source of promoting peace, and security.

Hobbe's contention was the people in the 'state of nature" war for gain, security or reputation. It is only when a commonwealth is established that men are "domesticated" to act in ways of "peaceful co-existance". This is what colonization did for Western countries. Trade and commerce were easy means of bringing about domestication of certain societies. And today, it is continued by the West, some believe to pillage. But, as Hobbe's affirms, all are not created equal. So the separation and division of powers were not on "his plate". A Sovereign must rule, and the press be manipulated/controlled, so the people's natures will be controlled.

The Church becomes useful to tame the savages to "fear God", as a moral education, bringing about constitutional governments, so tribal societies can breed "independent persons" that have "comme of age". This was always the view of Catholicism. But, America was mainly a Protestant nation. Calvin was America's "theologian" par excellance.

Today, there is "war on all sides" in the areas of science (creation/evolution); in the areas of political theory (Church/State) amd in the area of man, himself, as to his nature and whether it can be trained, conditioned, reformed, or transformed. And each of these views of man have assumed biases about man and his abilities. These are philosophical and scientific wars that have to do with man, his environment and his ultimate end.

Bias Is Difficult to See and Hard to Overcome

Today another blog site, and another mis-conception.... Whenever one is seeking to prevent the previous "worldview" from holding authority over one's understanding, then one can and often does prevert hearing what is being said about that particular subject. This is a hard-line bias. And it happens whenever we have things that we need protecting, as well as agendas we want to pursue. We must ask ourselves the question about what we are protecting and what we want to pursue. These are questions that might be very revealing to motivations and attitudes about one's bias.

Bias can be just as opinionated against something as for something, and it is hard to see when one's worldview, context, values, goals and identity is at stake.

Tomorrow a friend and I are going to the Newmusuem. The times I have gone there before, I remember reading a number of quotes about bias in the media. There is also a film about Bias in the Media. I am taking my notebook to write down this information to process how I might be subject to similar short-comings and to help me reflect enough on my own bias to ask myself questions.

I share all of this to help others understand how bias is hard to see and prevent and can distort communication, views of reality, and other such important matters.

Humans are story tellers from the earliest days of communication. Needless to say that this is still the case in the modern day world. Myth is meaning making. Myth defines reality for most. And myth is just myth to some. And that is the question I need to resolve. Is myth really important or valuable to be human? I don't think so, but maybe I am biased. So, I will investigate.

An "Enlightenment" to One's Own Bias

Today, I realized that whenever one has an agenda, there is biased opinion. Things that are read, or heard are "heard" with that "frame" in mind. This "frame", in turn, predisposes one to connect and make associations, that are not in what is read or heard. This the the major problem of reporting objectively. We all have bias, don't we?

Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.

Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.

Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.

Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.

Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.

In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.

Faith Without Reason, A Disaster Waiting to Happen

The world we live in is a complex one, where plans do not play out as we planned. Humans are "free moral agents" and sometimes they use their agency to circumvent our lives. This is why America has laws that define what is appropriate behavior. Justice is defined by the "rule of law". But, what of differences in defining what law is? What is law based on? And Why?

These questions are things that are not all solved and certainly not agree upon. This is why in America we have an open discourse about how to 'live our lives" in an ordered fashion, without circumventing the freedom of others.

And what of social change and progress, revolutions and reform? How are these seen in the mix of appropriate behavior? When do we revolutionize or reform?

Social change and progress has defined the American way of life since our country's founding. Our Founding Fathers beleived and understood that freedom of religious conviction and conscience was to be affirmed, but not supported in the rules of governing. Otherwise, they would be in for religious terminology and relgious wars over things that cannot be resolved, as these are not empirically proven, but "faith facts".

Our pastor has been preaching on the faith of Abraham and the promise that followed. His emphasis it seemed today, was anti-cultural. He understands Abraham's use of "Hagar", as a cultural means of attaining "the promise" of a seed, which was to prosper every nation.

The anti-cultrual view is the traditional view of "Jesus as the Promised Messiah". Christianity was known to be a disenfranchised religion. And Jesus was useful in mythologizing his life as a "moral example", at least in the Catholic view.

The Jews had understood themselves as representative of humanity because of their alien status. These knew themselves as the "people of God", because of the fulfilled promise to Abraham. At least this is the story line.

Americans have understood their identity as one of " many nations". The term "out of many one". But the opposite is just as true, out of one, many, as in Abraham's case.

Radical faith is a faith not based on or in reason, as it seeks to historicize the life of Christ. Colossians was read about Jesus being the exact representation of God and to not be deluded by human philosophy. Colossians was the Church's apology for Christ and the "gospel'. It is Tradition abolutized apart from reason. And it is to epitomize the Christian experience, which idealizes reality apart from the 'real world' of politics. This is a hard sell to rational people.

The Old Testament Scripture was read which encouraged circumcision. The attempt, it seemed was to make a defense for the Church's stance on the "heart". The heart is the focus of holiness messages. (I'm sure Hebrews is not far behind, in this way of thinking.) Holiness people believe they have a mandate to "form" others in their image of God.

The Church is duty bound to "make disciples". which is at the costs of life and limb, because these believe that there really is a personal God, that answers prayer and that there really is a heaven and hell. These are Christian gnostics which believe that one is saved by their knowledge of the "gospel".

Salvation does happen to these but it is a "illusion" of "hope" and not real hope in a real world. It is Platonized ideology that hides behind Christian word,s, "Worldview" and forms of behavior. This is just as much a culture, as any other. And evangelical culture can be completely disconnected to reality, as their faith understanding is totally caught up in the tradition's (or denominational) understanding of the biblical text.

Faith apart from reason is misguided zealousness, and enthusiasm. This zealousness and enthusiasm is not based on reasoned thinking and study but on emotional reaction and response to cultural beliefs, which have not been analyzed appropriately.

It is only the American evangelicals that are so bent on defining Tradition apart from reason. And because a few nations that are tribalistic in mentality have responded emotionally, these believe that a revival of God has been "sent". And this re-inforces their "cause" of "winning the lost', which they believe is a supernaturalistic covenant with a personal God. This is Calvinistic undestanding of a covenantal theology.

The Sacred and Secular Faith

Religion exists because we define and distinguish between the sacred and secular. But, what if everything is seen as sacred, if used in the proper way? Isn't this view looking at life as graced?

Why do the religious have to make distinctions? Is it because the religious love to think they are especially special? Ot that their group is more holy or 'true" to Christian faith than another? Are these distinctions because this is how every group defines themselves...in contrast to another group?

Why do the religious need to feel special? Is it because they were never special in their families of origin? Is it because this is what they have always been taught and have always believed?

I think that evangelical faith is taught and caught, but it is mainly emotionally driven and experienctially focused. There is no real substance to evangelical faith. And evangelicals believe that this is good, because reason is suspect.

I remember taking a course 10 years ago. The professor was teaching on "biblical Chsitianity" and I remember wondering why he added "biblical" to Christian, as if there was any other kind of Christian.

This course set "secular philosophy" over against "biblical revelation". Tertullion's "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" was the 'battle cry of this course. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church", etc. This view sacralizes sacrifice, and marginalizes philosophy.

This view sets up a dichotomy to faith and reason. This is supernaturalism's strength and many denominations believe in this type of 'Christian faith'.

Another view is that nature itself is graced. This view does not see human nature as totally depraved and in need of supernatural rescue, but a deprivation of nature that needs nurture and grace. One is a Reformed Protestant view, while the other is a more Catholic view.

As I have been thinking about faith and reason, I have come to the conclusion that there can be no universal way that an individual develops faith. But, I think that if one comes to faith through personal experience, where revelation was of primary importance, then there is need for a develpment of reaon's need of development. Reason can be the friend of faith, because it is grounded in the "real world".

Students that come to our university can sometimes be idealistic and think that there is something "more" special about a radical faith that is separated from the 'real world" or separated from rationale or reason. This is where I believe that professors and mentors can help these young adults to understand their faith in a broader way. This is important, otherwise, some may never develop their unique gifts and much would be lost to the world.

Evangelicals can be prime culprits of this kind of thinking because evangelicalism is grounded in experience and revelation, at the expense of reason and traditon.

I think the answer is understanding how reason can be grounded in the real world and be faithful to faith, is found in our form of government, a Representative Republic. And this grounding allows faith individual expression and conscience, while the proper use of power is balanced across three branches of government. The individual has a choice or voice in the process of their representation. Otherwise, one is determined under a "Sovereign" supernaturalistic, super-intending God, without personal choice. And choice is of primary importance in the theme of 'freedom'. And freedom is what justice is about.

Is Truth a Project?

In reading "Christian Scholars Review", I came across an article on Focus on the Family's "Truth Project", by Randal Rauser.

Is truth a "Project"? Evangelicals think so, as they believe that truth can be known as propositional in Scripture. These believe that God "has spoken" his Will through 'His Word" and the "only"(:)!) thing one has to do , is to dig out the meaning of the original text and find out what "He wants".

The problem with thinking that Scripture is so forthright, is that it does not always apply directly to the situations in today's modern world. So, do we "try to find our way back" to that world, or do we try to re-interpret what was meant? Has God then, lost his ability to communicate to/through/with man in today's language and with today's "propositions"? Propositions view life through "God's control" in history. He has a plan and we are the ones to respond to His plan. He is the King and we are His servants. This is the traditional view of the Church today.

But what of evolution? What happens to our view and understanding of "God" when such a revolution in understanding happens? No longer is there a personal God, who made man specially and gave him a command. But, now, there is impersonability, chaos, dynamism, parallel universes, etc. These all challenge the "old time religion's understanding to life, personhood, and humanity itself!

Rauser suggests in his article that the training done in these "leadership classes" is nothing more than indoctrination. It limits "worldview" to binary categories that do not take into account the "real world of complexities". This is not only damaging to those who attend, by limiting their critical thinking, but it set up a mentality that oppositional to anything "other" than what they have been taught. No critical thinking skills allowed.

An example I thought was very disturbing was when there was a suggestion that Maslow's hierarchy of needs was oppositional to "God's revealed Word" in Christ. Man is not to fulfill his potential, but to "find God". Potential is viewed as a 'worldly ambition". Think of the many people that are limiting themselves and those that follow these teachings.

Truth is a 'Project" only If one believes that people are projects and not unique creations that need to be known, encouraged, embraced and loved.

Do Values Determine One's Paradigmic Understanding?

I have been thinking a lot about our American Government and the values it upholds. This is probably timely, as July 4th is just aroung the corner. We, Americans, "hold these truth to be evident, that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights".This implies that each person's understanding and values are to be commended, as a "right". But, what determines their "understanding"? Education and culture.

Culture is a frame of reference, which determines the most important values of a person. In our free society, the individual is "free" to determine his own life. It is called "self-government". Our Constitution limits our government from overt determination or covert suppression, in a number of areas; privacy, religion, freedom of expression (speech, press, assembly). Individuality marks the American experiment.

But, Americans determine their own values in various ways. Some Americans adhere to an exclusive religious claim and gain and maintain their identity through the group's approved norms. Others Americans gain their values from their specified "cultural location". These values all influence the individual's own values and determine how he views the world and life, in general.

Education in our American society has been public, private, and religiously based. Each has its own constituencies. And each has its emphasis. While private and religiously based education has been privately funded, public education has not. We believe in the right of everyone to have an education. There is no "elite class" or "tracking system" as in European countries. A lack of "tracking or limiting" education to those who are "fit" for it has its downsides, as well as its opportunities. But, Americans believe in equality of each individual to choose his place of education.

Education has been valued for its ability to prepare others for a vocation/job, as Americans are pragmatists. Pragmatism has had its impact on American opportunity, irregardless of 'fit". In Europe, education is deemed to be a service to society. Those who have higher IQ's are deemed "fit" to fulfill a certain role or function in society. These are the ones who are tracked to attend the "gymnasium" high school and later to attend the publically funded universities.

Professors are considered highly in European society, whereas, educators are not valued, on the whole in American society. Americans like their entertainment, after working their jobs to earn their living. They don't seem to care to think about "values" or if "values" are important to address as to change. Americans are open, generous, and self-focused, for the most part, because they are naive'.

Perhaps, because America is so large and many do not travel extensively and even when we do, we don't go out of our country to understand the 'wider world". Cultural differences don't exist because we are a diverse country and "anything goes", while Europeans can be in another country and hear another language and experience another culture in a matter of a few hours drive. Most Europeans are exposed to differences, in a different way, than Americans are.

So, when Americans talk of values, then we are a people who define ourselves, by the multiplicity of opportunities, and "cultures" we can be a part of. American identity is as diverse as the American population. And the individual's values are developed within a diverse, open and free society that should value critical thinking more than it does.

A Human Book That Can Be Dangerous

Last post I was personal. And in sharing my journey I do not want to give the impression that "I have no hope" or that I am distraught. No, in fact, what I have come to understand has enlarged me as a person. I am grateful for it, but it has been challenging and at times, painful.

When I call scripture a human book, I mean that humans wrote the book with certain understandings, and assumptions. Some of these are personal assumptions, just as the "image" of Father was an important one for me, because of my past. Each gospel writer have different emphasis' and different rememberances. This is not unusual, as when two people are asked about a certain situation, there are ususually areas of disagreement.

Why do I say that a human book, much less the Bible is a danger? Whenever there is something that is considered "special" or"holy" then humans tend to treat it differently. This should not be, as scripture was written by human beings, and though, inspired, were not inspired any more than what any other human being can be inspired. These writers did not become some "superman" before they wrote the scriptures. They were ordinary people who had had an extraordinary experience that had impacted their lives. Because of the impact, these writers were "inspired", but it was not a supernatural kind of inspiration. Without knowing really what the writer's intent was, nor can one understand how they "hoped in god", but we do know that these were "worldviews" as well as personal views of the writers. Therefore the text should not be accepted at face value because our world is different.

I find that faith is more enlarging and mores inclusive of others when there is an understanding of the text's limitation and not believeing that the text is somehow superior to the human being. The text cannot talk, interpret, or reason. So, understanding the text is "work". Ancient paradigms, language expressions, bring much confusion as how to apply the text Our modern West does not seek to apply it, but dismiss it altogether, while the conservative evangelical tries to obey it, with limited understanding of how wrongly their application might be. This is dangerous to the individual interpreter but also, others, as judgements will be based on this limited viewpoint.