For the past number of years, people have been analyzing Scripture as if "every dot and tittle" is true. The analysis assumes that the message is literally and universally true. The problem is that literalizing the life of Christ is absurd if one wants to have people that live in the "real world". The fundamentalists/evangelicals are pruod of this endeavor. But, no less proud are the literal scientific types.
These scientific types think that bringing about the "real Jesus" movement will bring in the Kingdom of God. These are the theologically and eschalogical literalists.
Others are more open to experiment upon actual "case studies" so they can further their speicific Christian disicpline to prove scientifically the "facts" of faith. And still others, are interested in building the church.
International business minds find they can "get a cut" out of the deal, as their are so many fundamentalists and evangelicals in the U.S. Play the game and get the benefit.
So many, the believers, un-believers and the ambitious are all "on board" to bring in the Kingdom of God.
But, what about those who have been so pre-ordained? How do they think and feel about such a method of crucifixion or "usefulness"? Is this loving? No, but it will train or teach or form the person into "God's image", the very image of Christ. The pietists and Kantians are enamored.
But, is this methoc kind and considerate? No, but the greater good will benefit and the "guinea pig" will learn to be "selfless". The educators and utiltarians are "lured".
And what about the poor, who are "useful" for political ends? Are they truely cared about by those that use them as a "means"?
You get the message. "Doing justly and loving mercy" is not about planning the Kingdom, or carrying out specific purposes of others. A man or woman of character cannot objectify another life in such a way, as the means de-means the very image of God. The means controls, manipulates, assumes, presumes, and thinks of an 'apology". And yet, these think they "do God's work" and "co-create with God". What they create is a monstrosity. It is evil itself, not "good".
This morning I was sent an e-mail from a friend about Shaine Clayborn, who wrote "Irresitible Revolution". This was the 'primer" of this "entry". Our university used it in thier "World Changers" course. My husband and I tried to use it to help these students understand that their lives could be used just as pursposefully, in a different way, than Shaine's "radicalism". That anything they choose to do can be useful in the world for God.
Shaine's premise is the love of God for the poor, which has become the politically and religiously correct view these days. His interest in the poor is because God is love. He has obviously experienced this love, to be able to know and share it. Fine. But, for those who do not have that "message" to impart, then what is the "Kingdom" for them?
Are others allowed to have different lives and not be "judged" as lacking commitment? Maybe this is a good "weeding out" as the radicals like to say, of those "chosen" and those "not chosen". That is fine, too. I just know I am not going to share what is not "reality" to me. And who should?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Nation-States, Values and Universiality
Today's need to look for the universal, so that our fractured state of affairs might be mended, is all important, I believe. Is there a universal? Are there unversal values?
In a scientific age, where men do not accept religion at face value, one must use the "picture" of man as an evolutionary being, and yet, hold to some aspect of "higher value", so that man is prized above the natural realm. Why would this be important?
Humans must not be equivolized to "matter alone". Otherwise, science will treat man, as just matter. There is no ethical or moral obligation to deter science from de-meaning those "outside of the power structures".
Today's climate of globalism has led many to affirm multi-culturalism without critical analysis. These have sought to understand man within context, without understanding man, himself. Is the "man" apart from culture?
Yes, man is a rational being, that acts in response to stimuli,and has certain basic needs to develop potential. But, affirming multiculturalism is a different matter.
Multiculturalism holds no values as universal, because values are contextually understood. While this may be true within the realm of religious values, it is not true within the realm of science, or universiality.
Universiality are the basics that our nation upholds; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each citizen is granted these inalienable rights. These rights are the basis of human rights and our government's desire to see that other nations comply with these universal principles.
Today's globalism that affirms such multiculturalism and relativism as The United Nations affirms all nations as equal. Lybia is an equal to America, in fact, because of America's "discriminaton" of certain nations, America suffers persecution under the label of "Empire".
This is an absurd view, because American ideals value individual liberties and independent thinking, unlike nations that condone monarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships.
What is of ulitmate value? American ideals, which uphold human rights, but within the bounds of law.
In a scientific age, where men do not accept religion at face value, one must use the "picture" of man as an evolutionary being, and yet, hold to some aspect of "higher value", so that man is prized above the natural realm. Why would this be important?
Humans must not be equivolized to "matter alone". Otherwise, science will treat man, as just matter. There is no ethical or moral obligation to deter science from de-meaning those "outside of the power structures".
Today's climate of globalism has led many to affirm multi-culturalism without critical analysis. These have sought to understand man within context, without understanding man, himself. Is the "man" apart from culture?
Yes, man is a rational being, that acts in response to stimuli,and has certain basic needs to develop potential. But, affirming multiculturalism is a different matter.
Multiculturalism holds no values as universal, because values are contextually understood. While this may be true within the realm of religious values, it is not true within the realm of science, or universiality.
Universiality are the basics that our nation upholds; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each citizen is granted these inalienable rights. These rights are the basis of human rights and our government's desire to see that other nations comply with these universal principles.
Today's globalism that affirms such multiculturalism and relativism as The United Nations affirms all nations as equal. Lybia is an equal to America, in fact, because of America's "discriminaton" of certain nations, America suffers persecution under the label of "Empire".
This is an absurd view, because American ideals value individual liberties and independent thinking, unlike nations that condone monarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships.
What is of ulitmate value? American ideals, which uphold human rights, but within the bounds of law.
Science, as the New Religion
Science has been a "blessing" to man, but just as much a curse. Science has blessed many with technological developments and medical 'miracles" that have brought convenience, and health. But, science today is really a religion.
Religion requires "worship". And worship is a form of submitting one's rationale to an "uncritical" mind-set. I think this is what had happened with the elite scientists that "fudged" on the data concerning global warming.
Science gives man answers that makes men feel comfortable and safe, as if they control their environment. And science has been "useful" in "controlling" society, just as religion was in the past. Anyone who quotes a scientific expert has the ear of the populace. But, what the populace doesn't know, for the most part, is the science itself is diverse, just as religion is.
There are certain formulas that a scientists uses to understand the physical world. But, there are many formulas, or ways of approaching the physical world. And this is what the university does in thier "discussions" about the world in all its aspects.
Man, though is more than his physical being, and this is what scientists seek to understand today. There is much that is left in question, now with the discoveries in neuroscience. How are we to understand man, when neuroscience says that the brain determines many aspects of a person's behavior? Is there to be a "committee" to determine what is to be "proper behavior", so that those that "don't fit" will be "fixed" by medicine? These are very pressing and pertinent questions concerning mankind's future.
What and how do we understand the social science that believed in the past that man was influenced by his enviornment? How much is the brain affected by experience, and how much is experience interpreted by the "form" of the brain? Is mental illness just a brain "dislocation" like an arm that is broken?
The ethical questions are many and profound in their implications. What does religion mean in such a context? Is religion just a "coping mechanism" of the brain to its environment? And how are we to know? Is it ethical to "test" on human subjects by forcing them into environments that would "force" the issue of how the brain adjusts to such "trauma"? Scientists that think such experiements are appropriate think that the benefit far outweighs the "costs" to the "guinea pig".
I fear for our future if scientists have such a view of man, where he is only a "frog" to be dissected. Men are more than "frogs", if one believes in any form of "God". And we know that experiements such as this would be against what the West has always stood for in human rights.
We have much to fear if science becomes a religion!
Religion requires "worship". And worship is a form of submitting one's rationale to an "uncritical" mind-set. I think this is what had happened with the elite scientists that "fudged" on the data concerning global warming.
Science gives man answers that makes men feel comfortable and safe, as if they control their environment. And science has been "useful" in "controlling" society, just as religion was in the past. Anyone who quotes a scientific expert has the ear of the populace. But, what the populace doesn't know, for the most part, is the science itself is diverse, just as religion is.
There are certain formulas that a scientists uses to understand the physical world. But, there are many formulas, or ways of approaching the physical world. And this is what the university does in thier "discussions" about the world in all its aspects.
Man, though is more than his physical being, and this is what scientists seek to understand today. There is much that is left in question, now with the discoveries in neuroscience. How are we to understand man, when neuroscience says that the brain determines many aspects of a person's behavior? Is there to be a "committee" to determine what is to be "proper behavior", so that those that "don't fit" will be "fixed" by medicine? These are very pressing and pertinent questions concerning mankind's future.
What and how do we understand the social science that believed in the past that man was influenced by his enviornment? How much is the brain affected by experience, and how much is experience interpreted by the "form" of the brain? Is mental illness just a brain "dislocation" like an arm that is broken?
The ethical questions are many and profound in their implications. What does religion mean in such a context? Is religion just a "coping mechanism" of the brain to its environment? And how are we to know? Is it ethical to "test" on human subjects by forcing them into environments that would "force" the issue of how the brain adjusts to such "trauma"? Scientists that think such experiements are appropriate think that the benefit far outweighs the "costs" to the "guinea pig".
I fear for our future if scientists have such a view of man, where he is only a "frog" to be dissected. Men are more than "frogs", if one believes in any form of "God". And we know that experiements such as this would be against what the West has always stood for in human rights.
We have much to fear if science becomes a religion!
Friday, December 4, 2009
Using Religion
If religious truths are true, then they should be followed by all. But, if religious truths are relative in human devleopment, then they should remain 'in their place". I am no expert, but it seems to me that since there has been research that does not appeal to the religious realm for human developemnt, then religon is an apendage, a periforal, but unnecceary "extra", as there is "no truth but God's truth". There is no "special revelation, only general revelation. And general revelation is not defined necessarily within the relgious "confines" of church and religious community.
Religion gives meaning, defines values and give man an outside source of authority. But, modern man knows that humans develop apart from religion and traditon can be understood in many different ways, as cultural or familial identification factors.
I got an e-mail from a friend today that told me of her struggle ot overcome an abusive religous environment. She talked of moving away and thinking she would never recover. She revealed how protective she and her husband were toward religious environments and religious "purposes". She encouraged me to walk carefully in regard to "belonging to a religious community", or looking for affirmation within that sort of environment. She said that her healing came from outside of religion and the community of faith, from a friend that wasn't connnected to religion. I think she has fully recovered, as she sees things clearly, now.
In her book, "Twisted Scriptures", Mary Alice Chrnalogar, a international recovery counselor of abusive discipleship programs and abusive churches, has many "signposts" that signify an abusive spiritual environment. She develops the history of the discipleship/spiritual mentoring program and shows the ill effects upon the naive and trusting.
I find that most evangelical and all fundamentalist teaching that I have been exposed to, is prone to this sort of abuse. Many do not recover their individual identity and some have break-downs because of authoritarianism, and distorted views of spritiuality. I know many who have experienced such abuse and wonder how many suffer under thei ill-effects of such environments.
This friend's husband also compromised his career because of such "commitments". Commitments that are useful for leadership and their goals, use terms such as: "covenant", "total surrender", "consecration", "full commitment", "wholehearted", "sanctified", and many other such terms. The definitions of these terms, of course, are "understood" best by leadership. And one that wants to be so commited will do whatever the leader requires to be "approved" to have passed the test to recieve the "sanction' of the "special intiation" into the religous community of faith. This is a CULT! GET OUT!
Cults breed undue dependence, and demand obedience, as their authority is derived from God, not man, or so they assert. Cults do not allow independent thinking, critical analysis, or academic development. Such "outside sources" might challenge the 'status quo" that would change the very authoritarian structure, undermining the leaders power and control over others.
Individuals need to find thier unique gifts and interests and follow these. This will be a defense against those that wish to prey upon those who seek outside approval. Everyone should come to a place where they will be settled in 'who they are', as innately gifted and created. And say with me:
"I will be, who I will be, not who some else thinks I should be and I will do what I will do, not what someone else determines for me to do. I will be free."
Religion gives meaning, defines values and give man an outside source of authority. But, modern man knows that humans develop apart from religion and traditon can be understood in many different ways, as cultural or familial identification factors.
I got an e-mail from a friend today that told me of her struggle ot overcome an abusive religous environment. She talked of moving away and thinking she would never recover. She revealed how protective she and her husband were toward religious environments and religious "purposes". She encouraged me to walk carefully in regard to "belonging to a religious community", or looking for affirmation within that sort of environment. She said that her healing came from outside of religion and the community of faith, from a friend that wasn't connnected to religion. I think she has fully recovered, as she sees things clearly, now.
In her book, "Twisted Scriptures", Mary Alice Chrnalogar, a international recovery counselor of abusive discipleship programs and abusive churches, has many "signposts" that signify an abusive spiritual environment. She develops the history of the discipleship/spiritual mentoring program and shows the ill effects upon the naive and trusting.
I find that most evangelical and all fundamentalist teaching that I have been exposed to, is prone to this sort of abuse. Many do not recover their individual identity and some have break-downs because of authoritarianism, and distorted views of spritiuality. I know many who have experienced such abuse and wonder how many suffer under thei ill-effects of such environments.
This friend's husband also compromised his career because of such "commitments". Commitments that are useful for leadership and their goals, use terms such as: "covenant", "total surrender", "consecration", "full commitment", "wholehearted", "sanctified", and many other such terms. The definitions of these terms, of course, are "understood" best by leadership. And one that wants to be so commited will do whatever the leader requires to be "approved" to have passed the test to recieve the "sanction' of the "special intiation" into the religous community of faith. This is a CULT! GET OUT!
Cults breed undue dependence, and demand obedience, as their authority is derived from God, not man, or so they assert. Cults do not allow independent thinking, critical analysis, or academic development. Such "outside sources" might challenge the 'status quo" that would change the very authoritarian structure, undermining the leaders power and control over others.
Individuals need to find thier unique gifts and interests and follow these. This will be a defense against those that wish to prey upon those who seek outside approval. Everyone should come to a place where they will be settled in 'who they are', as innately gifted and created. And say with me:
"I will be, who I will be, not who some else thinks I should be and I will do what I will do, not what someone else determines for me to do. I will be free."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Politicizing the Public Square (con.)
My last post suggested that we must allow diversity of viewpoint, if we want our Republic to survive the "cultural wars". The Establishment clause did NOT discriminate against relgious freedom, but neither did it discriminate against any other form of "being in the world". So, religion cannot be established by the government, that means a certain tradition being sanctioned under governmental power. But, religious people can form the views and opinions and have a right to assemble about political goals. This is appropriate in a free society.
We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.
Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.
Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.
Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.
What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?
We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.
Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.
Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.
Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.
What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?
Politicizing the Public Square
I watched a program the others day about child prostitution and today I received an e-mail from a friend about a program to meet the needs of orphan children, who live in the garbage dumps. On the sidebar there was a quote from a public person affirming this program's value. I started to question my response/reaction...The wealthy can "throw money" at these issues without even a blink about the money they give, as they have so much. But, those of us who are average Americans attempt to live responsibly and take care of our own and give here and there, and yet, the public square is making many demands on private citizens these days. This is the "moral climate".
Why did I not respond as I usually have in the past with tears, or thinking that this was a valuable "mission"? As I went through and tried to discern what was "in my heart", I realized that the truth of belonging and significance was of great value in motivation. Sometimes the issues we are most emphathetic toward are those we ourselves have experienced.
The other day, I had an occasion to share about research findings that support a person's activity to their identity. This seems even more pertinent in today's culture wars. The conservative continue to battle their "prime" concern of "pro life", while the liberal has underwritten their agenda with political power. It seems "the poor" are the pawns in the liberalized agenda.
No one likes to think that they do not belong, so humans seek a place and a space where they identify. Names are of importance in one's familial identity, and society approves or disapproves of the "name" because of "the standing in the community" or the larger public square. So, parents compete for prominience through their child's accomplishments or their family's status.
Accomplishments are certainly of value and any parent, teacher or mentor wants to see their
young person develop to their fullest potential, but there is something sinister about competing when the child doesn't have the interest or there is a mode of competition that devalues others because of the "game". This type of politicizing the family is tragic for the child. It teaches the child to value winning at all costs, without considering the other. Or it teaches that using any means is fine, if one can have an advantage over another. Caring about another is much more than their material accomplishments, but it is also about caring about the"person", as an individual.
young person develop to their fullest potential, but there is something sinister about competing when the child doesn't have the interest or there is a mode of competition that devalues others because of the "game". This type of politicizing the family is tragic for the child. It teaches the child to value winning at all costs, without considering the other. Or it teaches that using any means is fine, if one can have an advantage over another. Caring about another is much more than their material accomplishments, but it is also about caring about the"person", as an individual.
The public and private segments of our lives were meant to stay separate for a reason. Publicizing private pain or failings, is not humane, but cruel. Only those that are relationally involved with a person can understand all the reasons a person chooses to do what they do, or value what they value. America is a nation that values the right of individuality in choice and conviction, when it comes to private matters of worship, conscience and value.
That is not to say that others should not play an important part in their relationship toward parents, children, and or families, as friends do what they can to support, help and underwrite the parent's desires, as long as it benefits the child. Friends help, support and hold each other accountable. That's what friends are for.
Humans tend to love voyerism, especially if it concerns society's "elite". Somehow, making another look bad, makes one "feel good", but, what really needs to happen is for our lives to be full enough to not look at another's life, but our own and live for today, as fully as possible. Objectifying another's situation whether moral, material or otherwise, does not lead to a "healthy assessment".
We, Americans are free to choose our values, and our commitments. Let us allow each American the right of choice in the public square and not politicize the private. Do we allow another the freedom we want for ourselves?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
I Would Do It the Same Way Again..
Time is curious, as it seems to have no consitency in our perception. Sometimes time seems to fly and other times, time stands still. But, nevertheless, time moves one whether we percieve it to or not. Time makes many of us wiser and this is the topic of discussion today.
Wisdom comes with age, they say, because life has a way of teaching you about "life". Many of us learn and grow as we are stretched or enlarged by our formal or informal educational opprotunities. But, when I look back over my life, I cannot regret. Why?
If I went back, I would be the person I was, not the person I am, now. And because I would've been that same person, I would've responded in the same way I did back then. We can never go back. But, we can learn to grow through our mistakes and learn from them. This is wisdom.
So, today, grace is about forgiving oneself, even more so, because we must be understanding of the other as well. Otherwise, we become hardened and narrow and bent on correcting another's wrong, without understanding that we ahve make mistakes, too.
Wisdom comes with age, they say, because life has a way of teaching you about "life". Many of us learn and grow as we are stretched or enlarged by our formal or informal educational opprotunities. But, when I look back over my life, I cannot regret. Why?
If I went back, I would be the person I was, not the person I am, now. And because I would've been that same person, I would've responded in the same way I did back then. We can never go back. But, we can learn to grow through our mistakes and learn from them. This is wisdom.
So, today, grace is about forgiving oneself, even more so, because we must be understanding of the other as well. Otherwise, we become hardened and narrow and bent on correcting another's wrong, without understanding that we ahve make mistakes, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
