On our anniversary, my husband and I decided to go to the movies to watch the new Meryl Streep movie, "Hope Springs". We think Meryl Streep is a great actress, and thought this would be a good choice for entertainment. But, instead of entertainment, I found myself wondering what meaning I could find in the movie.
The movie is about a couple who had "lost touch" with each other, as they had been married for 31 years. Their basic problem, it seemed, was their lack of communication or intimacy. Intimacy was much more than the physical act of sex, or the legal aspect of marriage. Intimacy was the communication style of the couple, which had broken down.
They sought a marriage counselor only after much "dispute" and it seemed that the marriage counselor's advice brought up many 'conflicts' within the relationship, which needed to be resolved before the marriage could "go on".
The counselor sought to bring to the forefront the question about their basic attraction to one another, what their fantasies were and encouraging the couple to compromise and cooperate with each other in meeting those desires.
All of the counselors advice made me think of "sex" within the broader context of our society, in general. America has had her conflict over what will define marriage, but is marriage a traditional/religious value, or a social construct that benefits the parties involved?
How can human relationships and natural human desires exist within a healthy context that maintains "order", while not denying the natural needs and desires of the humans involved? Does shame enter into the questions that this movie brought to the forefront? Marital difficulties, separation and divorce, masturbation, oral sex, human desire and natural needs in the context of religious framing when social structures and society itself has changed in light of "scripture and tradition"?
Humans get married at later ages than in "biblical times", leaving the question of natural human desires on the physical and emotional/social planes. Students need to finish college or find what they want to do with their lives before taking on responsiblities of a spouse and family... Are natural human desires to be accomadated by marrying earlier, self determination (however conscience allows), and is it a "shame" to allow for same sex unions? What is the best for society and human flourishing? Does tradition enlighten, or inhibit? When is inhibition and enlightenment considered a good thing? Does society exists for the individual or does the individual exists for society? That question has been a quandary....
"Hope Springs" made me think of our society and what makes for a good marriage, and and a good society. It cannot be less than mutually satisfying relationship, if marriage is to have a real meaning and impact. And both the husband and wife in "Hope Springs" illustrated what that meant for them individually. The wife had come to the "end of the highway", because she found herself more lonely married than she would be unmarried. The husband had abandoned his wife many years prior, yet would not admit it to himself for his own reasons. Marriage is about companionship, as much as sex, or a legal contract. And it makes for "stranger bedfellows" if marriage is about anything less.....
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Monday, July 19, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Observer or Observed?
My husband loves the interface of science and religion, but not to further evolution's "worldview", but faith's. He veiws science as limited, because reason cannot be absolutized.
This past week, he presented some of the material, re-organized, about "Faith and Society", a Templeton course prize winner a number of years ago.
The point he made that I find interesting in light of paternalistic views on society and governing, is on Quantum theory. He pointed out that other theories in physics are deterministic; Newtonian, Relativity, etc. But, Quantum theory is premised on probabilities. There is no determinant future and individuals in this view are potentialities. (I wonder if "free market economies" could also be understood in a "quantum" way"?)
But, one statement that he has made in the past and made this day, was that when we observe something, it changes the observed/observer. The intersubjectivity I find interesting, when we talk about "forming" individuals, because the very notion of "formation" is a type of observation, itself. One must "know" or "evalutate" another's life and determine what needs "change" and then seek to "enforce" or "promote" these values, goals, or "ideas".
Choice is of ultimate importance to quatum theory, because it is only in choice that "Schrodinger's cat" changes. Those that try to determine another's choice, are themselves surprised to find how complex individual's choices, wills, values can be.
I wonder what psychologists think about these probabilities and the changes that happen becasuse of observation of another person, since this is the way pscyhological and sociological science is done?
This past week, he presented some of the material, re-organized, about "Faith and Society", a Templeton course prize winner a number of years ago.
The point he made that I find interesting in light of paternalistic views on society and governing, is on Quantum theory. He pointed out that other theories in physics are deterministic; Newtonian, Relativity, etc. But, Quantum theory is premised on probabilities. There is no determinant future and individuals in this view are potentialities. (I wonder if "free market economies" could also be understood in a "quantum" way"?)
But, one statement that he has made in the past and made this day, was that when we observe something, it changes the observed/observer. The intersubjectivity I find interesting, when we talk about "forming" individuals, because the very notion of "formation" is a type of observation, itself. One must "know" or "evalutate" another's life and determine what needs "change" and then seek to "enforce" or "promote" these values, goals, or "ideas".
Choice is of ultimate importance to quatum theory, because it is only in choice that "Schrodinger's cat" changes. Those that try to determine another's choice, are themselves surprised to find how complex individual's choices, wills, values can be.
I wonder what psychologists think about these probabilities and the changes that happen becasuse of observation of another person, since this is the way pscyhological and sociological science is done?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Connections That Make One Wonder....
We are here in D.C. again, and while driving back from work my husband heard on a local station that Obama was to appoint a man for "intelligence analyst" that had connections to Saudi Arabia. Intelligence, our intelligence, could be undermined, when conflicts of interest, such as this exists.
Maybe Obama doesn't think that these "new friends" pose a threat to our security, but how can there not be a conflict of interest, when it comes to "connections" ? Will Muslims who defend their own with their very lives, at the costs of the "infidel's life" to be trusted with our intelligence? Maybe this is the point, we should be making friends with those who have connections to our political "enemies". Then, our "new friends" can have the conflict, in choosing to support us, and not, them. And, perhaps, the hope is that these "new friends" can vouch for us, defend our reputation to the "enemy", so that we can live in peace and security and not fear the amassing of WMD. But, can we trust those whose vision, and purpose is political control of the whole earth, under Shairia law? I am glad that Gert Wilders was allowed to come to show his film about Islam to Congress just recently.
I am, of course, speculating, but when one looks at the Obama cabinet, it looks like a re-creation of the Clintion cabinet, minus Janet Reno. Remember Reno? What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? I remember what was talked about in the Washington Times, when the Bush cabinet moved into the White House. The place was a disaster. There seemed to be little respect toward our government and its property.
Remember the Lincolm bedroom? And the pictures taken of Clinton with drug lords, criminals other questionables? What about the illegal immigrants that were hoarded into immigration offices to be "nationalized" before the election? Many were criminals.
It is so ironic that Obama can write a letter to Russia requesting their help with Iran, if we take out the missile defense in Poland and yet, Rush Limbaugh can make a statement about his disagreement with the philosophy of this adminstration and not hear the end of it from the media. Have we heard about the letter to Russia:? Fortunately, we were in the car, when the press conference with George Brown was given and the press questioned the president on the letter, and we heard a comment about it.
Today's speech talked about supporting small businesses, and checking over-spending in government contracts. This is a good idea. So, is he wanting the people who are contracted by government to cut their pay, and yet, the earmarks, which he promised to resist, are being approved for "Congress" and other special interests groups? I have a sick feeling that "change is happening" to our country and her people will be the last to know what that change really means until it is too late.
Why are there conference calls every morning with the media? Why has the census "headquarters' moved into the White House? Is the government to be run from the top down? Is this what Big Government means, that top down governing will distribute to community "improvements"?
The budget is "last year's business", we are told, but it still affects the American people, in the long run. And it affects them not when they are 'on top" but on the bottom". Perhaps this is to be a "lesson" of "compassion" for those less fortunate. But, lessons are hard to learn when the anger hinders the hearing. We are not used to being "told what to do", but "nanny state" will do so and gladly.
Maybe Obama doesn't think that these "new friends" pose a threat to our security, but how can there not be a conflict of interest, when it comes to "connections" ? Will Muslims who defend their own with their very lives, at the costs of the "infidel's life" to be trusted with our intelligence? Maybe this is the point, we should be making friends with those who have connections to our political "enemies". Then, our "new friends" can have the conflict, in choosing to support us, and not, them. And, perhaps, the hope is that these "new friends" can vouch for us, defend our reputation to the "enemy", so that we can live in peace and security and not fear the amassing of WMD. But, can we trust those whose vision, and purpose is political control of the whole earth, under Shairia law? I am glad that Gert Wilders was allowed to come to show his film about Islam to Congress just recently.
I am, of course, speculating, but when one looks at the Obama cabinet, it looks like a re-creation of the Clintion cabinet, minus Janet Reno. Remember Reno? What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? I remember what was talked about in the Washington Times, when the Bush cabinet moved into the White House. The place was a disaster. There seemed to be little respect toward our government and its property.
Remember the Lincolm bedroom? And the pictures taken of Clinton with drug lords, criminals other questionables? What about the illegal immigrants that were hoarded into immigration offices to be "nationalized" before the election? Many were criminals.
It is so ironic that Obama can write a letter to Russia requesting their help with Iran, if we take out the missile defense in Poland and yet, Rush Limbaugh can make a statement about his disagreement with the philosophy of this adminstration and not hear the end of it from the media. Have we heard about the letter to Russia:? Fortunately, we were in the car, when the press conference with George Brown was given and the press questioned the president on the letter, and we heard a comment about it.
Today's speech talked about supporting small businesses, and checking over-spending in government contracts. This is a good idea. So, is he wanting the people who are contracted by government to cut their pay, and yet, the earmarks, which he promised to resist, are being approved for "Congress" and other special interests groups? I have a sick feeling that "change is happening" to our country and her people will be the last to know what that change really means until it is too late.
Why are there conference calls every morning with the media? Why has the census "headquarters' moved into the White House? Is the government to be run from the top down? Is this what Big Government means, that top down governing will distribute to community "improvements"?
The budget is "last year's business", we are told, but it still affects the American people, in the long run. And it affects them not when they are 'on top" but on the bottom". Perhaps this is to be a "lesson" of "compassion" for those less fortunate. But, lessons are hard to learn when the anger hinders the hearing. We are not used to being "told what to do", but "nanny state" will do so and gladly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
