The Theology of Self Acceptance

In the last post, I suggested that self-reflection is needed so we do not mistake our reasons for the things we do or believe. Reasons should support our actions, because reason guards from carelessness. Carelessness is not living soberly, and that will inevitably lead to mistakes, and mis-steps. Tonight, I was thinking of what reason (theology) I had to think that Christian faith was important or of value.

The main emphasis to me was the personal aspect of God's love. God could love "even me", and that was especially good news. I was not a mistake, a product of a failed marriage, but was "planned in the councils of God's intent, purpose and plan". This was indeed inspiring and led me to give, sacrifice and serve the Church in various ways over the years, not to mention things done in secret.

God's love was not the only "good news", but that others were commanded to love me, too. And love was an expectation of mine. Love meant acceptance, which was a deep need in my human heart. I belonged and I believed. It was a reality to my psyche.

These hopes and human needs were part of my humanity, a small child's need for reassurance that she was "okay". What is true is true, as there is no special revelation, only the revelation of what really is, and that is; although my grandfather was my 'father' in all sense that I could know, my need for family, and acceptance was not met in early childhood. What to do? Continue to be victimized by such a background? No, one must move on and grow beyond their childish needs and deal with their griefs in a real world, and in a real way, not a religious way. When one suppliments anything for reality in a real world, it is a kind of denial. And denial is not getting to the root of any problem.

What does this mean? It means that there is work to be done in my psyche, and there is work to be done in my family of origin, if they are willing. And I am sure as I journey down the road to 'truth and reality, I will learn other things that need addressing and change or re-orientation.

It also means that the Church is looked at as a social institution that is not a nursery school. One must evaluate whether the Church is a place where one chooses to associate. What kind of Church does one "fit"? And how does one reconcile faith with such a view?

Faith is not about the trimmings that so many people argue over. Faith is about how one lives their life and why. The reasons are important because one must be wise, and discerning in prioritizing their values. Life is short and loved ones are important, more important than anything else.

Christian and Islamic Radicalism

Radicalism is the decline of rational faith and the beginning of emotional reactive faith claims to exclusivity.

These claims cannot be reconciled or resolved by furthering radical's claims to absolute Truth.

Absolute truth claims in the Christian tradition is based on Scripture and/or Tradition. These believe that the Church or God's "Word" is God's revelation. And these think that others must be reached to further what they deem as absolute.

Islam is no less committed to absolute claims to faith. These believers, just as radical Chrsitian believers, are willing to die for their faith. It was reported that (Hassan's talk on the Koranic worldview affirmed death more than Americans value life.) Both leave behind this world for "that world", believing that this world is somehow less than "that world".

My husband recieved an e-mail from the Netherlands that suggested that the curse of the Christian Church was a lack of commitment and a lack of conviction. This would be true to radical idealists, who do not temper their understanding to be inclusive of difference. Everyone must "dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s" in the same way. There seems to be little or no understanding of man's limitation in understanding that world since that world is understood to be revealed and they "have recieved the revelation". How the revelation comes and what it depends on is what is debated.

Some Christians such as fundmentalists believe that Jesus, as God's revelation is an absolute. And that Scripture is God's testimoney to His Son. And His Son is the only entrance into heaven, as one must be 'born again". The text is considered closed by these believers because God has revealed everything that was needed in " His Son".

Fundamentalistic Islamic believers believe that Allah is the One and Only True God and that his messenger was Muhammed. Those who do not adhere or convert to Islam are infidels. And infidels are not considered equal to Muslim believers. The Koran is understood to be the text of their faith.

Both these traditions base thier claims on absolutistic understandings of God, as revealed in a text, visions, and eye-witness accounts. Both "win" when they are willing to "die for the cause of Christ or Allah".

The Essenes were the Jewish sect that believed in a sectarian view of life. But, i am not sure whether they understood themselves in exclusivistic ways.

In today's climate of violatility, we do not need radical faith, that cannot be verified. Dialogue is not possible with these that believe that they have THE handle on Truth. The Transcendental in this view, is to be loved over the Material.

I am afraid for our future in this world, if radical claims of faith continue to be perpetuated, at the costs of many lives, and without recourse for the value of diversity.

I am not sure of how radicalism can be tempered, as the radical always thinks that when other do not believe as he does, that it just proves the validity of his faith and his "specialness" in 'knowing the Truth". Persecution is a validation, instead of a correction. These are not open to input. But, they definatley think others should be open, or else these radicals will do the persecuting.

Walled Hearts and Walled Religions

Many years ago when I was in undergraduate education as an adult, I wrote a paper for my"World Religions" course. In that paper, I wrote, "is a rose by any other name, just a sweet?" That question haunted me, but has come to have meaning to what I believe nowadays.

Is a rose by any other name, just as sweet? Yes, of course, it is. The word "rose" conjures up an image to those that have been exposed to roses and sometimes it can activate the sense of smell in our memories. But, what if someone had not known the flower by the name "rose"? If they smelled a rose, called a "chamelleon", would it smell the same? Yes! Would it be the same flower? Yes, even though it was called by a different name. The same goes for true faith and one's character.

My point in all of this "rambling" is this: is the "Christ figure" just as sweet by any other name? Is the Christ figure represented by other names, such as Gandhi, Mother Theresa, uncle Joe and aunt Harriet? Does the "image" of Christ have meaning besides the person of Jesus of Nazareth (if he is a historical person)? What is the Christ image? And does the Christ image have to be manifested in the same way as Jesus of Nazareth?

The Greek Fathers understood the image of god in man. They knew about representation within real time, not the "City of God" of St. Augustine. This is where all religions point beyond themselves to a world beyond our knowing. Some agnostics may find solace in idenifying with a community of faith as they understand the purpose of myth and myth-making. Others may find more solace in understanding their connectedness to sciences' "real reality" in this world. It really doesn't matter, as both types of agnostics will "do faith" in their own realms of influence. Both types have come to terms with faith as a real "unknown" and unknowable mystery about life in its complexity.

I named my paper "Walled Hearts and Walled Religions" because this is what I think hinders the "ideal" world, life and value. Walls bring definition, but do not bring resolution or reconciliation. Walls keep others out, while protecting one's understanding of oneself within comfortable zones of definitions, behaviors, and religious rites.

Today's world is torn because of these walls. Walls that hinder and resist. Walled hearts are not open to another's views. And walled ideas are not about academic or religious freedom. We are bound by the very definitions that we make. We enslave ourselves from our small-mindedness and our fears.

The reason I changed my major from sociology to religion and philosophy was because of an ethics course. That very ethics professor just recently died. I owe him a lot. I wrote a paper for that course about moral development and moral character. He told me at graduation that it was brillant. I found it hard to believe, but the more I have learned, the more I have come to understand that character is indeed the essence of life and it doesn't really matter about religion.

Moral behavior is more about attitude first and foremost, not behavior, as behavior is culturally bound. But, whenever moral behavior is defined by a tightly defined cultural understanding, it is a means of oppression and a hinderance to moral development. Ethics would not allow such "standards" to stand, as it is more important to protect human rights, than any cultural "ideal".

A Continued Thinking on Individualism and Collectivism

Collectivism and Individualism does not just "run" our understanding of government, or policy, but also theology.

How we understand the Church has been based on these understandings, if not directly, then presuppositionally.

Is the Church a social organization? Is the Church a "living organism"? Is membership in the Church dependent on individual choice and/or faith, or is Church membership about what "form" is required of the religious hierarchy, the traditions of the Church? Or is being a member of the Church dependent on what one does or believes, or both? Is faith dependent on or independent from organized religion and/or social intereaction?

Is the text, in a religious Tradition to be approached by the individual or the magisterum? Is the individual's devotional practice and/or personal experience to be valued? Or is submission to authority structure important in affirming one's faith?

All of these understandings and their value has formed our Traditions within Christian faith, and I think forms most organized religions. Faith itself is larger than religion, as faith is about persoal values. These values can be defined by religion, but don't have to be, they can also be defined on reason, which sometimes challenges traditional understandings of "belief systems".

Atonement theories are based on understandings of Jesus death. The meanings of these theories is like any other theory "a form of understanding and meaning making" in any discipline.

I find that the progress of natural science and our undertandng of man's understanding of the world in general, in every discipline, challenges certain traditional assumptions. This is where the broader and wider discussion on how, what, where and when policy should be made. These policy thinkers live in our "think tanks", and they hold the brightest amongst us. We should be thankful for these think tanks that question, struggle and help our government and the public to understand the issues, th questions, and the decisions of our policy makers! Then, there is a balance of power to government by the intellectual elite. But, who holds the intellectural elite accountable?

Family Systems in the Church

Family systems theory is a term therapists use to describe dysfunctional families. These families have members, who play or function in different roles. I find this interesting in light of certain in-group/out-group belief systems within the Church.

In some Churches, their belief systems are based on lifestyles or cultural understandings of the "biblical". These are defined by membership commitments and also define how and what one is "approved" to do within the Church. I find that this type of Church functions on a dysfunctional model, according to family systems theory.

In understanding how this therapy's model applies to certain churches, one must undestand that there are roles that are to be "played". Roles are defined by their duties within the group-think, i.e., the hero, the scape-goat, the care-taker, the lost child, the adjuster...etc..

The scape-goat acts out the family tension and anger and distracts from the real issues at hand. The scape-goat is the one that get help first, as they are usually the one that are emotionally honest and usually end up addicted or pregnant. While the "acting out" is only the response to abuse, this role is the ones that can gain entrance into the family system.

The hero is the controller, the perfect one, the judgmental and arrogant one, but underneath, is just as much negativity toward himself. This type of dynamic is a set-up for abuse, as the scape-goat usually takes the blame himself, whereas the others within the system only center the scape-goat as the "sacrifice" to rid their own consciences.

The scape-goat is a bibilcal term that is useful for the Christ imagery of taking away sin, dying outside the camp. The scapegoat is in need of understanding themselves in a different more hopeful light, which will help them be free from their dependence to the system and help them become responsible for themselves.

When one is addicted to a certain role or function, then one can feel secure to play out that role throughout one's life. Counselling will help, but sometimes just a good friend to hold one accountable will be just as helpful.

Heroes love the applause and the accolades that come from "behaving properly", while acting arrogantly toward the scape-goat. The heroe's attempts at control sometimes lead to the banishment of the scape-goat, as his very existence reminds the hero, that he has limitations and is imperfect.

Value-based ethics pales in light of roles that hold sway over a person's character, like this. Therefore, the only solution is virtue based ethics where the scape-goat takes on his own responsibiltiy without taking on the other's. This is healing and brings accountability to the hero, as it reveals the emperor with no clothes. While this is a loving and kind way to resolve the dysfunction, it takes all of one's strength and resolve to stand, after having done all, and not be swayed into an unhealthy role again.

Ancient Scripture's Meaning and Modern Man

Christians organize their life around different authorities and different activities. But, whenever one source becomes a pominient one, then we are headed for disaster. This is the case for the Chirstian Protestant evangleical Church, which interprets Scripture as their prime source of authority.

Christian scholars seek to understand the original meaning of the text, and in doing so they must use reason in addressing the questions of context, social history, and cultural history. I think that whenever we assume that the text is undestood in a certain traditional way (as Christian Scripture, for instance), without understanding how modern scholarship has come to understand the text(s) with their new investigative tools, then we are doomed to live within traditional frames, which limit reason's discovery for a new age.

Throughout Church history, the Church has sought to understand the Scriptures, and what Christ's life meant, this was done within the text in polemics and without the text, in apologetics. Tradition was what formulated around the text and became it's meaning. Today's apology cannot disregard scholarship, which is scientific investigation into sources, and meaningful dialogue with a diverse understanding of these issues.

Today's scholarship uses many "tools" in ascertaing what the text meant in ancient historical realms...

Ancient history is a valid area of "discovery", not just within the text alone, otherwise, we create a system of understanding that is not its original meaning nor intent, as ancient Greek values, ancient myths, etc. were incorporated into the Scripture, which was man seeking to make meaning and create value to and for his life...