I have been writing on a subject that I don't think I am quite finished with, suicide. Suicide, is the taking of one's life. Is this considered a fundamental right?
The religious right in America tout a "right to life" stance. They vote along pro-life lines and are politically active in conserving life in its many forms.
But, what about the "right" of suicide? The religious right believes that it is necessary to disciple others into Jesus' image. The Christ image is above all the call of the Christian faith. How is this accomplished? By crucifixtion, of course. True believers are committed to the extinct of not considering life, when it is theirs. This "death of self" is a rite of passage to the holiness message of "total consecration and total surrender", "self-denial", and "holiness/sanctification". This is really no different from the teachings of Buddhism about self-denial and coming to a state of Nirvana! So, what is so exclusivist about self-denial? it is only "religious teaching".
I believe that there are many goals that an individual can give their life to, but the individual must make that determination based upon their own personal value commitments. And they may differ from another believer's understanding of their values and goals (noble causes). An individual who does not take responsibility for his own life is prey for those who would manipulate religious teachings and use others for their own vision of what the "cause of Christ" is....and the result is a death to everything that distinguishes one individual from another. this is spirtual abuse. Dying to values that one believes in and is committed to is not what "dying to self" is about. A death to self brought on by another in the "name of God" annihlates the personhood of the individual, and this is about stealing, and killing. Certainly, the "pro-life" stance of the conservative would not uphold such religious teaching, calling suicide a God-sanctioned act. Don't we believe in a God that affirms life?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
An Apology for Those Who Have Suffered the Effects of Suicide
I must apologize. I should have known and been more sensitive. But, we all ignore some things that are right in front of us, in light of something that we are focusing on...
Ten years ago this past May, my brother committed suicide. It traumatized me and took me a long time to "get over". I'm still not over it, in the sense that it changed forever how I view God's intervention in life. And it has become a call for me to take responsibiltiy for myself. While obviously I do and have believed that social structures do influence our lives, they should not determine our lives, unless we choose for them to have that power.
Depression, though, can take its toil on motivation, and perserverance to overcome the limitations that have been place upon us from the outside. And some drug interventions do not help but exasperate the problem. My brother was on Prozac.
So, for anyone that has experienced a suicide in their extended "community", please forgive me for possibly putting any more "burden" and guilt on you than you already struggle with...You are ultimately not responsible, and even to the extent that you are, you must learn to forgive yourself and learn from it. Healing will take different people different amounts of time, so be patient and do not compare.
And please, if there is a need to talk to a 'friend", I am more than willing to be the annonomous one that has walked somewhat in your shoes.
Ten years ago this past May, my brother committed suicide. It traumatized me and took me a long time to "get over". I'm still not over it, in the sense that it changed forever how I view God's intervention in life. And it has become a call for me to take responsibiltiy for myself. While obviously I do and have believed that social structures do influence our lives, they should not determine our lives, unless we choose for them to have that power.
Depression, though, can take its toil on motivation, and perserverance to overcome the limitations that have been place upon us from the outside. And some drug interventions do not help but exasperate the problem. My brother was on Prozac.
So, for anyone that has experienced a suicide in their extended "community", please forgive me for possibly putting any more "burden" and guilt on you than you already struggle with...You are ultimately not responsible, and even to the extent that you are, you must learn to forgive yourself and learn from it. Healing will take different people different amounts of time, so be patient and do not compare.
And please, if there is a need to talk to a 'friend", I am more than willing to be the annonomous one that has walked somewhat in your shoes.
Suicide, the Market, the Eigth Commandment, and Human Value
While waitng for my husband to come our from his office this morning, I heard on the news that a woman had attempted to take her life. The reason was blamed on the market. Anaylsis was given that the woman "had other problems" besides her mortgage.
Just this morning I couldn't sleep, so I decided to get up and write on my blog. The subject was on suicide and human value. In that entry I argued that life's meaning was given within the context of community and when the social structures do not affirm the life, there can be the response of suicide. Suicide is not done within an isolated context, but an incident that illustrates what has happened over a lifetime. It's "speech/act" is of a de-valued life.
This morning"s sermon was on the Eigth Commandment, "thou shalt not steal". In the sermon, my pastor argued that the OT's boundaries were different from the NT's. The Old Testament regards the boundaries of self and other. He argued that the Sermon on the Mount asked us to "give all" without any regard for "self" in how, or what was required. In fact, if we do not give, we are stealing, in effect, for all things belong to God. While I agree with this in premise, I wondered to myself, and this was before hearing of this woman's suicide, how in disregarding another's improper behavior toward you would enlarge the "greater good"? Wouldn't it only empower evil? and make a statement to the guilty that there needs to be no guilt? My pastor went on to make an illustration of a burglary he had experienced, where this young man broke into his house on four occassions. Wouldn't it be appropriate to get him help? And wouldn't part of the help be reabilitation for his behavior?
Nations certainly don't maintain the NT's standard of "turning the other cheek", unless one adheres to pacifism. I find that the "ideal" of the Sermon on the Mount is just that "ideal" in an imperfect world. Idealism is impractical. What I really think my pastor meant and what I believe the Sermon on the Mount means is that possessions should not "own us". That means we are not making decisions based solel y on the market. But, that does not mean that we do not consider the market, otherwise there is no justice in our form of government. Justice is not what the Sermon on the Mount is about, but mercy. And certainly, my pastor was not asking us to disregard justice.
What does my blog's early morning entry, the woman's suicide, and my pastor's sermon have in common? A person's value....A person's value is worth more than the money he makes or has, and yet, if the community, state, nation, condones market values on life, then my pastor's sermon becomes an absurdity to the individual whose life has been weighed and measured by those standards and not loved and embraced as an individual.
I wonder if the woman who attempted to take her life, was only acting out what society's message to her was in the first place?
Just this morning I couldn't sleep, so I decided to get up and write on my blog. The subject was on suicide and human value. In that entry I argued that life's meaning was given within the context of community and when the social structures do not affirm the life, there can be the response of suicide. Suicide is not done within an isolated context, but an incident that illustrates what has happened over a lifetime. It's "speech/act" is of a de-valued life.
This morning"s sermon was on the Eigth Commandment, "thou shalt not steal". In the sermon, my pastor argued that the OT's boundaries were different from the NT's. The Old Testament regards the boundaries of self and other. He argued that the Sermon on the Mount asked us to "give all" without any regard for "self" in how, or what was required. In fact, if we do not give, we are stealing, in effect, for all things belong to God. While I agree with this in premise, I wondered to myself, and this was before hearing of this woman's suicide, how in disregarding another's improper behavior toward you would enlarge the "greater good"? Wouldn't it only empower evil? and make a statement to the guilty that there needs to be no guilt? My pastor went on to make an illustration of a burglary he had experienced, where this young man broke into his house on four occassions. Wouldn't it be appropriate to get him help? And wouldn't part of the help be reabilitation for his behavior?
Nations certainly don't maintain the NT's standard of "turning the other cheek", unless one adheres to pacifism. I find that the "ideal" of the Sermon on the Mount is just that "ideal" in an imperfect world. Idealism is impractical. What I really think my pastor meant and what I believe the Sermon on the Mount means is that possessions should not "own us". That means we are not making decisions based solel y on the market. But, that does not mean that we do not consider the market, otherwise there is no justice in our form of government. Justice is not what the Sermon on the Mount is about, but mercy. And certainly, my pastor was not asking us to disregard justice.
What does my blog's early morning entry, the woman's suicide, and my pastor's sermon have in common? A person's value....A person's value is worth more than the money he makes or has, and yet, if the community, state, nation, condones market values on life, then my pastor's sermon becomes an absurdity to the individual whose life has been weighed and measured by those standards and not loved and embraced as an individual.
I wonder if the woman who attempted to take her life, was only acting out what society's message to her was in the first place?
Suicide and Other Incidental Tragedies
Suicide happens in American culture more than other civilized cultures. Some may think it is due to the violent nature of our culture in video games and T.V. While I don't doubt that this influences individuals. I believe that there is a much deeper root.
My mother and I were talking yesterday about how our culture has changed. In her generation, and right up until mine, which was the Baby Boomer, people had a sense of community. Community was where you belonged. People knew each other and neighbors were, well, neighborly. But, when the 60's came along, something else transpired in American hearts. The American heart of individualism, which wrought the American spirit of independence, self-assurance, and a self-reliance brought upon its heels a Revolution of major proportions. While today's culture is known as a "death culture", the 60's was one of "sexual revolution".
Divorce was really a taboo in the 50's, but the 60's pushed the limits of the forbidden. "Free love", Woodstock, and drugs was the culture's defining "traditions". "Communal living" was the replacement for marriage and was only a bandaid in America's seeping hemmorahge in shaping tommorow's child.
The disconnection from the broader community through divorce, "free love", drugs, and a resentment to the status quo made a major impact on society. Police officiers were "pigs", because they maintained the order of our society and represented repression of "free expression". The monster of individualism as the epitome of identification was born. Society had no power over this "superman".
Children born and raised on a culture of social isolation through the disconnect of society's "communities of identification" are subject to an alienation in their souls, a broken-ness of heart and a de-valuation of life. As the children approach the transition years when stressors to identity transpires, these children have little resistance to the external challenges when their internal messages are so strong. These internal messages are messages of self-hate and self-disrespect.
These "handicapped" children struggle to maintain a sense of dignity and value in life. If their parent's marriage was not valued, then what makes them of value? Why were they born and why do they continue to live? A continual sense that they must fight to justify their very existence is a hard mountain to climb, when they should be struggling to develop their "gift and talents" and find out about the adventures in life. Depression and despondency can result leaving the child with any desire to live.
Suicide is the exclaimation point to a de-valued life. A life that had been de-valued by the social structures that were meant to maintain and bless it. Suicide, though experienced by family and friends as horrendously confusing and painful, is only an incidental result of a life that had long before been extinguished.
My mother and I were talking yesterday about how our culture has changed. In her generation, and right up until mine, which was the Baby Boomer, people had a sense of community. Community was where you belonged. People knew each other and neighbors were, well, neighborly. But, when the 60's came along, something else transpired in American hearts. The American heart of individualism, which wrought the American spirit of independence, self-assurance, and a self-reliance brought upon its heels a Revolution of major proportions. While today's culture is known as a "death culture", the 60's was one of "sexual revolution".
Divorce was really a taboo in the 50's, but the 60's pushed the limits of the forbidden. "Free love", Woodstock, and drugs was the culture's defining "traditions". "Communal living" was the replacement for marriage and was only a bandaid in America's seeping hemmorahge in shaping tommorow's child.
The disconnection from the broader community through divorce, "free love", drugs, and a resentment to the status quo made a major impact on society. Police officiers were "pigs", because they maintained the order of our society and represented repression of "free expression". The monster of individualism as the epitome of identification was born. Society had no power over this "superman".
Children born and raised on a culture of social isolation through the disconnect of society's "communities of identification" are subject to an alienation in their souls, a broken-ness of heart and a de-valuation of life. As the children approach the transition years when stressors to identity transpires, these children have little resistance to the external challenges when their internal messages are so strong. These internal messages are messages of self-hate and self-disrespect.
These "handicapped" children struggle to maintain a sense of dignity and value in life. If their parent's marriage was not valued, then what makes them of value? Why were they born and why do they continue to live? A continual sense that they must fight to justify their very existence is a hard mountain to climb, when they should be struggling to develop their "gift and talents" and find out about the adventures in life. Depression and despondency can result leaving the child with any desire to live.
Suicide is the exclaimation point to a de-valued life. A life that had been de-valued by the social structures that were meant to maintain and bless it. Suicide, though experienced by family and friends as horrendously confusing and painful, is only an incidental result of a life that had long before been extinguished.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Business Interests, Tneure Track, and Academic Freedom
Academic freedom is part of our Bill of Rights. The protection of freedom of speech is a necessity in a free society. This was understood to be protected in the university by tenure track. Tenure track assured the professor of a job. Tenure is a vote of confidence that the professor will be responsible and faithful in continuing to maintain an attitude of learning in a learning environment. Tenure allows the professor to speak of challenging subjects for the sake of education and the development of "knowledge". The Academy should be about the business of being stewards of God's gift of reason.
Tenure means that others with lesser knowledge affirm and respect knowledge and the professor in their choice of vocation. This environment breeds an openness to their educational understanding and input. This culture also breeds a humility because it affirms that God is too great to be confined within our own specific discipline or limited views, even in regards to one's specialty in disciplinary knowledge.
But, what happens if business interests interfere with accademic freedom? How can this be? Suppose there was an invention that was based upon Newton's understanding of gravity, and business interests were invested in this invention being protected. Wouldn't it limit the Academy in education, if the business interests would feel threatened by the new information of Quantum theory? At what costs, then, are the business interests? Is it only the costs of the moment's educational "loss" of Quantum theory? Or is it much more? And, is tenure track a way for business interest to over-ride their interests over the interests of education?
People have been endowed by their Creator with reason. Reason is a gift which must be developed within the Academy. The individual's development is at stake when business interests collide with the educational interests of the individual. Which is most important? The investment and monies that will be attained at the costs of the individual? Or is the individual more important than the business investment?
As a Christian, I would believe that the individual is more important than the investment, because the individual is not a commodity to be bought and sold, but a human being whose development must be nutured. We must re-assess our values as a "Christian society". Although I think it is right and good that an individual can pursue his own interests (investments), I don't believe that American culture should affirm the market to the extent it does. Academic freedom and tenure track is a value to be upheld!
Tenure means that others with lesser knowledge affirm and respect knowledge and the professor in their choice of vocation. This environment breeds an openness to their educational understanding and input. This culture also breeds a humility because it affirms that God is too great to be confined within our own specific discipline or limited views, even in regards to one's specialty in disciplinary knowledge.
But, what happens if business interests interfere with accademic freedom? How can this be? Suppose there was an invention that was based upon Newton's understanding of gravity, and business interests were invested in this invention being protected. Wouldn't it limit the Academy in education, if the business interests would feel threatened by the new information of Quantum theory? At what costs, then, are the business interests? Is it only the costs of the moment's educational "loss" of Quantum theory? Or is it much more? And, is tenure track a way for business interest to over-ride their interests over the interests of education?
People have been endowed by their Creator with reason. Reason is a gift which must be developed within the Academy. The individual's development is at stake when business interests collide with the educational interests of the individual. Which is most important? The investment and monies that will be attained at the costs of the individual? Or is the individual more important than the business investment?
As a Christian, I would believe that the individual is more important than the investment, because the individual is not a commodity to be bought and sold, but a human being whose development must be nutured. We must re-assess our values as a "Christian society". Although I think it is right and good that an individual can pursue his own interests (investments), I don't believe that American culture should affirm the market to the extent it does. Academic freedom and tenure track is a value to be upheld!
Evolutionary Faith, Personhood, and Traditional Understanding, an Oxymoron?
Christian faith has changed depending on science's understanding of the physical world. Today's challenge is in understanding what defines the human person and faith.
Child psychologist, and human developmental theories all hold that the person is developed within the confines of the social structures of family, church, and society. These identification factors have been understood for years, but have recently been underlined by research in neuroscience. What happens to us in our childhood becomes imprinted on our brains, so understanding faith becomes about how a child is raised in a tradition. Tradition's conditioning helps to develop the child's social conscience, self-concept and self awareness.
But, is tradition, in a religious sense, necessary to develop the person into a respectable, self-regulating, self-motivated and self-directed individual? No, for reason is a part of the individual, irregardless of tradition. In fact, tradition may inhibit the full development of the individual, depending on the tradition's teachings and understanding of faith.
A mature faith and personhood believes and trusts that the convictions, understandings, and commitments of the individual in the present is not about "being right with God", but about being true to oneself, in one's understanding, convictions and commitments. It is resting in who God made you to be and extending yourself in areas that are values that affirm those understandings and commitments.
Social structures and tradition can inhibit or benefit the person in development and do not have to determine the person's mature commitments, identifications, values, or understandings.
Child psychologist, and human developmental theories all hold that the person is developed within the confines of the social structures of family, church, and society. These identification factors have been understood for years, but have recently been underlined by research in neuroscience. What happens to us in our childhood becomes imprinted on our brains, so understanding faith becomes about how a child is raised in a tradition. Tradition's conditioning helps to develop the child's social conscience, self-concept and self awareness.
But, is tradition, in a religious sense, necessary to develop the person into a respectable, self-regulating, self-motivated and self-directed individual? No, for reason is a part of the individual, irregardless of tradition. In fact, tradition may inhibit the full development of the individual, depending on the tradition's teachings and understanding of faith.
A mature faith and personhood believes and trusts that the convictions, understandings, and commitments of the individual in the present is not about "being right with God", but about being true to oneself, in one's understanding, convictions and commitments. It is resting in who God made you to be and extending yourself in areas that are values that affirm those understandings and commitments.
Social structures and tradition can inhibit or benefit the person in development and do not have to determine the person's mature commitments, identifications, values, or understandings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
