Because I have been thinking along the lines of American government, political philosophy, human development, and religion, I will attempt to "think through" in this post what would be the pros and cons to our form of government.
Our government allows for each individual to have rights before the law. One citizen is not know to "theoretically" have "special privileges". We are "equal before the law" The. Power to be a moral agent, independent from co-ercive power, whether government or religion. And this has its benefits because we are allowed liberty in our choices and values. "Self" can be developed in many ways. And "self rule" was the ideal of our Founding Fathers.
But, what is the downfull of such a government? Because each individual is allowed the freedom "to be" and "to do", there is not over-riding or over-arching narrative, other than liberty. Liberty is an important value, but it also can be damning if it undermines societal foundations or institutions. These insitutions are the framing of societal values. And societal values affect developing children within a society.
Family is the child's first frame of reference for every physical and emotional need being met, as well as societal values being transferred. Because our society has valued liberty and the pursuit of "gold" we have a society that has the value of work, prosperity, and human choice in vocation. These values are good ones, but have left the family stressed as to meeting all its obligations to the child.
The child is left with the sense that his value to and in society is dependent on his ability to find a successful career and make money. The endless cycle in pursuit of the "American Dream" has left the family struggling to find its identity and the child is left with the "leftovers".
The emotional needs of the child are of ultimate importance to meet, otherwise the child is not secure and will make the attempt to find security in ways that might be destructive. Obessession to be sucessful is just as much a driven and compulsive need to find acceptance and value, and deaden the pain of a negative "self", as the drug-addict driven to deaden his pain by using his drug of choice. An individual's choice of drug has as many faces as America has allowed liberties of choice.
So, while American government allows for the individual to "find himself" and to develop to his full potential on his own terms, America's values of family are not as important in our cultural values, except in conservative religious contexts.
Conserivative religious contexts, while good in defense of family values, have other obstacles to overcome. Their bias or prejuidice toward social problems in the family leaves them with little to draw compassion from their hearts, unless they happen to be compelled through thier own drivenness to be the "hero" to a particular family. While heroes are needed, if "self" finds their value and sense of self only within that context, it becomes an unhealthy one. "Self" must independent enough to evaluate reasonably what is of proirity and importance in a given situation. Religion can hinder such ;self assessment, because of it deadening affirmation of "what one believes or what one does", giving a doubly strong resitance to honest self assessment.
Maybe all humans are bent toward these tendencies to heroism, where the "self" is idealized and applauded by an attempt to cover over the deficiencies of one's past childhood memories of "self".
America has the ability to give room for diversity, but it allso allows enough room for denying values that might just be the foundations of society and a healthy functioning "Self".
Showing posts with label family values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family values. Show all posts
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The "Ideal": Is Never "the Real"
Our Founders understood that human nature is what it is, and this fact alone was what made for a great nation. Their structuring of our government was to put men under the rule of law, so that tyranny would not lead the nation, nor barbarianism undermine society's order. But, today, there seems to be another opinion about humans and it is the "ideal of alturism".
Alturism is defined as selfless concern for others. Idealists, whether religious or humanists believe that men can become alturistic, by habit formation. These believe that Aristotle's virtues meet Kant's categorical imperative. But, what does this mean practically in light of our Founders view?
Our Founders view was a realist view, as they understood that men were not to be trusted with power over others, or power within government that was not balanced. They did believe that humans were to be self-governing, that is, not by outside authority, but inside character. And that character is illustrated by the commitments that one values
Parents were to train their children through every means available so that upcoming citizens would understand the needs of their nation, as well as their personal values of choice in vocation. American youth can choose where they will go to college and what they will study. There has been no tracking in American education, as a whole.
Because the individual is valued because of liberty, the child is able to develop to his full potential, as well as his understanding of himself in personal interests. The blossoming young adult's identity becomes an ego strength that does not define thesmselves by group identification, or familial determinations, but personal values of choice. These adults can withstand the diverse responsibilities of adulthood.
In oppressive societies, there is an overintending authority that superintends the child's life, as well as the adult's. Ego development is not the goal of such governments, but a denial of indiviudality and liberty of choice, value and conscience. These forms of government believe that power is needed for social order to be maintained and their amibitions to be accomplished.
Unfortuately, our "free society" has also undermined the foundations that are needed for children to grow into independent adulthood. Our society is fraught with social ills of divorce, child negligence, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, and educational needs. These social ills affect the "ideals" that our Founders envisioned and inhibits societal flourishing. The problem becomes what to do about it.
Good government that allows liberty to develop is first and foremost, but the needs of the individual child is also important to value. Liberty cannot undermine society's need for stability, which social structures of marriage and family bring. We are in a crisis in America because the family is broken and there is no way to make it work. Many families are over-stressed by various commitments that are not easily dismissed. A father/mother is still responsible to their employer and must meet their demands. But, these demands also undermine family time and the child's need for a secure and safe place.
The needs of our society are not the "idealist" dreams and hopes, of happily ever afters, or in oppressive means of training citizens through outside authoritarianism, but real world problems and needs that aren't easily addressed by government or life in modern society.
Social ills should not undermine America's ideal of liberty, otherwise we will become pawns of a moralistic totaltalitarinism that would inhibit our very "way of life", in the name of the "common good" or "public interest"!
Alturism is defined as selfless concern for others. Idealists, whether religious or humanists believe that men can become alturistic, by habit formation. These believe that Aristotle's virtues meet Kant's categorical imperative. But, what does this mean practically in light of our Founders view?
Our Founders view was a realist view, as they understood that men were not to be trusted with power over others, or power within government that was not balanced. They did believe that humans were to be self-governing, that is, not by outside authority, but inside character. And that character is illustrated by the commitments that one values
Parents were to train their children through every means available so that upcoming citizens would understand the needs of their nation, as well as their personal values of choice in vocation. American youth can choose where they will go to college and what they will study. There has been no tracking in American education, as a whole.
Because the individual is valued because of liberty, the child is able to develop to his full potential, as well as his understanding of himself in personal interests. The blossoming young adult's identity becomes an ego strength that does not define thesmselves by group identification, or familial determinations, but personal values of choice. These adults can withstand the diverse responsibilities of adulthood.
In oppressive societies, there is an overintending authority that superintends the child's life, as well as the adult's. Ego development is not the goal of such governments, but a denial of indiviudality and liberty of choice, value and conscience. These forms of government believe that power is needed for social order to be maintained and their amibitions to be accomplished.
Unfortuately, our "free society" has also undermined the foundations that are needed for children to grow into independent adulthood. Our society is fraught with social ills of divorce, child negligence, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, and educational needs. These social ills affect the "ideals" that our Founders envisioned and inhibits societal flourishing. The problem becomes what to do about it.
Good government that allows liberty to develop is first and foremost, but the needs of the individual child is also important to value. Liberty cannot undermine society's need for stability, which social structures of marriage and family bring. We are in a crisis in America because the family is broken and there is no way to make it work. Many families are over-stressed by various commitments that are not easily dismissed. A father/mother is still responsible to their employer and must meet their demands. But, these demands also undermine family time and the child's need for a secure and safe place.
The needs of our society are not the "idealist" dreams and hopes, of happily ever afters, or in oppressive means of training citizens through outside authoritarianism, but real world problems and needs that aren't easily addressed by government or life in modern society.
Social ills should not undermine America's ideal of liberty, otherwise we will become pawns of a moralistic totaltalitarinism that would inhibit our very "way of life", in the name of the "common good" or "public interest"!
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Economics and Choice
I just recieved an "invitation" to a conference on "socio-economics" that had attached a file about psychological/sociological questions concerning economics. It was interesting. And it got me thinking about the reasons of individual choice myself.
The article posed that there was no over-arching theory that unified all the facts about economic behavior, which I didn't find very surprising. Economic behavior seems to be at odds with "neo-classical theory".
Of course, there is suggestion that one's upbringing which not only includes one's personal family, but one's culture will determine what will bring about a "rational choice". The values "caught" or taught are internalized into the individual's cognitive frame of reference in decision-making. But, I question this "universal", because, our children were all raised with the same value orientation, but have vast differences in their "rational choices" when it concerns money decisions. So, are their differences due to their birth order, their personality, their peer group influence, or their genetic determination? And how are these understood in the "cut of the pie" (statistically speaking)?
I think that it is imperative to also include the "meaning of money" in a given familial culture. Was money the most important value for the family, or was it just a "means" to an end? And what was the end? Those who have been pampered materially, but impoverished in other ways, have attached certain "meanings" to money that other would not have and give the impression that they are materialistically motivated, but really, they are motivated more by what is meant by the "meaning or value" given to money. Was there a value of liberty, when it came to the choice about money?
Self-perception is also an avenue of exploration in economic behavior. Has the family of origin given a certain perception about the value of the individual due to its emphasis on money and its behavior toward the child in its monetary decisions? But, this variable must also consider the individual child's personality/temperament in economic behavior. Is the child's personality or pre-disposition toward money 'inherited" genetically, or environmentally?
I think that beginning with the assumption that all people will base their choices on economic gain, is short-sighted. There are other values that an individual might hold that are dearer to him. And this is the ultimate mistake of those studying such matters in the West. It is assumed that ALL individuals in the West will consider economic gain as the ultimate value. The unifying value of the West is not money, but liberty. And liberty is the "environment' of capitalistic enterprise.
Moreover, an individual will also change or prioritize certain values over the course of his life, depending on what he is facing, or has to consider. The complexity is astounding, when one begins to think about all the possibilties and probabilities for the individual, much less formulate a universal theory of a whole population. This is why capitalists argue that theirs is the most "productive" means of propering society. It allows the openness and opportunity of all possibilities and probabilities in a given population and individual choice.
The article posed that there was no over-arching theory that unified all the facts about economic behavior, which I didn't find very surprising. Economic behavior seems to be at odds with "neo-classical theory".
Of course, there is suggestion that one's upbringing which not only includes one's personal family, but one's culture will determine what will bring about a "rational choice". The values "caught" or taught are internalized into the individual's cognitive frame of reference in decision-making. But, I question this "universal", because, our children were all raised with the same value orientation, but have vast differences in their "rational choices" when it concerns money decisions. So, are their differences due to their birth order, their personality, their peer group influence, or their genetic determination? And how are these understood in the "cut of the pie" (statistically speaking)?
I think that it is imperative to also include the "meaning of money" in a given familial culture. Was money the most important value for the family, or was it just a "means" to an end? And what was the end? Those who have been pampered materially, but impoverished in other ways, have attached certain "meanings" to money that other would not have and give the impression that they are materialistically motivated, but really, they are motivated more by what is meant by the "meaning or value" given to money. Was there a value of liberty, when it came to the choice about money?
Self-perception is also an avenue of exploration in economic behavior. Has the family of origin given a certain perception about the value of the individual due to its emphasis on money and its behavior toward the child in its monetary decisions? But, this variable must also consider the individual child's personality/temperament in economic behavior. Is the child's personality or pre-disposition toward money 'inherited" genetically, or environmentally?
I think that beginning with the assumption that all people will base their choices on economic gain, is short-sighted. There are other values that an individual might hold that are dearer to him. And this is the ultimate mistake of those studying such matters in the West. It is assumed that ALL individuals in the West will consider economic gain as the ultimate value. The unifying value of the West is not money, but liberty. And liberty is the "environment' of capitalistic enterprise.
Moreover, an individual will also change or prioritize certain values over the course of his life, depending on what he is facing, or has to consider. The complexity is astounding, when one begins to think about all the possibilties and probabilities for the individual, much less formulate a universal theory of a whole population. This is why capitalists argue that theirs is the most "productive" means of propering society. It allows the openness and opportunity of all possibilities and probabilities in a given population and individual choice.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Cultural Diversity Has Some Limits
As has been reported in certain science/religion journals, humans are prone to process things wholisically. (I really don't know how social scientists observe or measure such things) And, it seems that such is the case with the past 24-36 hours for me.
Sunday I read and blogged on my reading about 'the Dutch" and experiencing their culture through the eyes of an artistic Washington woman. She photographed and wrote and I resonated.
My pastor preached a sermon on the relationship of marriage and Monday I started to think again about civil unions, and Church and State issues.
Last night, being bored and alone, I watched a movie based on a factual case of teen pregnancy and its effect on a local high school. Even though the drama was a "little over the top", the message was how teen pregnancy is devastating to the whole community, as well as the teens involved. Abstenance is not realistic in an idealized and impulsive teen world that is bombarded by sexual messages wherever they turn.
And this morning it was reported that many European cultures are banning the "burka", a Muslim woman's head covering. This ban is only in public places and the reason was to protect Western culture.
What do all these experiences have in common? Culture, values, and impact on others.
Although I do resonate with Dutch culture because of their historicity and openness, I also resonate with the individualism in American culture. One must evaluate what makes for a culture and why. What is important to a culture and is that of primary importance for the whole to survive. That should be the question of what is of value to further and what is not.
This brings me to matters of dress, when it concerns certain religious garb. If there is a necessary covering because of a certain climate, which was most probably the case with the "burka", then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, when a religious tradition defines certain standards as mandantory because of the tradition's need to control the behavior of another human being, then I think it does not qualify to be upheld in a different culture. no matter the argument of "tolerance".
Religions have developed over the ages and those in power in these traditions had a vested interest in protecting their power. So, secularism would protect from a dominating religious tradition, which is necessary to remain a free society.
But, while religious traditions can protect their values for their own purposes, there are certain values that are necessary to protect for society's sake. Such is the issue of the family. Marriage is the foundation of society and it's future citizens. So, the family is certainly to be an important focus and interest for society at large. Since the family is so important many issues facing Western culture and it's families are necessary to challenge, study, and change.
The issue of teen pregnancy is of major concern and importance to society because it limits the teen's ability to further their future and it brings stress and pain on the teen's immediate family, as well as the reprecussions of the newborn's needs that might not be met by a teen mother's immature emotional responses/reactions.
Society finds itself "bringing up baby", but not in the sense of the past, when communities were close, life was slow and the child could find its place in the larger world without feeling "lost". Today social service agencies are stressed beyond measure and the Church shuns those whose behavior has not met their standard.
Conservatism wants to hold to past tradition for good reason. The family is the center of the child's identity and security. But, society has always brought challenges to past traditions and must address how to answer those challenges today. Abstinence is the "ideal", when it comes to teen sex, but the statistics do not bear out that Christian teens are any "better" at keeping their pledge of chasity than the larger teen population. This fact alone has bred many sectarian groups that try to protect their teens from such behavior. Though this is one response in our society, is this the only response the Church should sanction? Should society at large be of concern for the Church? And how is that challenge to be met?
Today's challenges reach beyond teen pregnancy, which has always challenged the mores of our society. Today the challenge to marriage and the family is homosexuality. Should homosexuals be alowed to express their innate desires within the boundaries of marriage? Or is marriage the tradition of the Church alone, and should never be condoned by the sanction of the insititution of marriage?
My pastor's sermon was about marriage and what makes a good marriage. Sex is not the recipe for a good marriage, but a relationship that is trustworthy and valued for its own sake. Children are a result of the physical intimacy of marriage, but should never be the purpose for marriage. Otherwise, many couples, whether older or barren, have no "right" to be married. We should think deeply about what our values are and why we have those values before we write off a challenge to tradition's "tradition".
Liberty of conscience was the value of our Founding Fathers. We must continue that tradition to continue the value they had of a "free society". A society that is free from domination of any kind, as tradition should not dominate a culture's values, at the expense of cultural needs for change.
At the same time, the Founder's knew that the value of tradition was the foundation of society's values, without them, society suffers superficiality and incongrence.
Sunday I read and blogged on my reading about 'the Dutch" and experiencing their culture through the eyes of an artistic Washington woman. She photographed and wrote and I resonated.
My pastor preached a sermon on the relationship of marriage and Monday I started to think again about civil unions, and Church and State issues.
Last night, being bored and alone, I watched a movie based on a factual case of teen pregnancy and its effect on a local high school. Even though the drama was a "little over the top", the message was how teen pregnancy is devastating to the whole community, as well as the teens involved. Abstenance is not realistic in an idealized and impulsive teen world that is bombarded by sexual messages wherever they turn.
And this morning it was reported that many European cultures are banning the "burka", a Muslim woman's head covering. This ban is only in public places and the reason was to protect Western culture.
What do all these experiences have in common? Culture, values, and impact on others.
Although I do resonate with Dutch culture because of their historicity and openness, I also resonate with the individualism in American culture. One must evaluate what makes for a culture and why. What is important to a culture and is that of primary importance for the whole to survive. That should be the question of what is of value to further and what is not.
This brings me to matters of dress, when it concerns certain religious garb. If there is a necessary covering because of a certain climate, which was most probably the case with the "burka", then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, when a religious tradition defines certain standards as mandantory because of the tradition's need to control the behavior of another human being, then I think it does not qualify to be upheld in a different culture. no matter the argument of "tolerance".
Religions have developed over the ages and those in power in these traditions had a vested interest in protecting their power. So, secularism would protect from a dominating religious tradition, which is necessary to remain a free society.
But, while religious traditions can protect their values for their own purposes, there are certain values that are necessary to protect for society's sake. Such is the issue of the family. Marriage is the foundation of society and it's future citizens. So, the family is certainly to be an important focus and interest for society at large. Since the family is so important many issues facing Western culture and it's families are necessary to challenge, study, and change.
The issue of teen pregnancy is of major concern and importance to society because it limits the teen's ability to further their future and it brings stress and pain on the teen's immediate family, as well as the reprecussions of the newborn's needs that might not be met by a teen mother's immature emotional responses/reactions.
Society finds itself "bringing up baby", but not in the sense of the past, when communities were close, life was slow and the child could find its place in the larger world without feeling "lost". Today social service agencies are stressed beyond measure and the Church shuns those whose behavior has not met their standard.
Conservatism wants to hold to past tradition for good reason. The family is the center of the child's identity and security. But, society has always brought challenges to past traditions and must address how to answer those challenges today. Abstinence is the "ideal", when it comes to teen sex, but the statistics do not bear out that Christian teens are any "better" at keeping their pledge of chasity than the larger teen population. This fact alone has bred many sectarian groups that try to protect their teens from such behavior. Though this is one response in our society, is this the only response the Church should sanction? Should society at large be of concern for the Church? And how is that challenge to be met?
Today's challenges reach beyond teen pregnancy, which has always challenged the mores of our society. Today the challenge to marriage and the family is homosexuality. Should homosexuals be alowed to express their innate desires within the boundaries of marriage? Or is marriage the tradition of the Church alone, and should never be condoned by the sanction of the insititution of marriage?
My pastor's sermon was about marriage and what makes a good marriage. Sex is not the recipe for a good marriage, but a relationship that is trustworthy and valued for its own sake. Children are a result of the physical intimacy of marriage, but should never be the purpose for marriage. Otherwise, many couples, whether older or barren, have no "right" to be married. We should think deeply about what our values are and why we have those values before we write off a challenge to tradition's "tradition".
Liberty of conscience was the value of our Founding Fathers. We must continue that tradition to continue the value they had of a "free society". A society that is free from domination of any kind, as tradition should not dominate a culture's values, at the expense of cultural needs for change.
At the same time, the Founder's knew that the value of tradition was the foundation of society's values, without them, society suffers superficiality and incongrence.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Our Son's Leaving
Today is a celebration of our youngest son, Nate. He has left our home, which is quite normal at his age. But, his mission is a noble one of serving our country.
Our older son had taken off work, so he, our daughter and Nate could eat breakfast together "one last time". After breakfast and Nate's last minute packing, our children and I sat in their Dad's study, one last time. And I saw Nate tear up and look away several times. I knew I was not going to make it without shedding a few myself.
As I took him to the recruiting office where he was to meet others for his ride to Indianapolis, I off-handedly remarked that he probably would not miss our small town. To my surprise, he said he had enjoyed growing up in the Mid-West, not because of the location, but because of the friends he had made. He said he would miss them. I was proud that he valued his friends and that his view of 'location, location" was "where his heart was". We have always tried to impart "family values" and relational priority.
At the recruiting station, he told me that he didn't want me to go in. He said he was in the Army now, underscoring his independence from "his Mom". I got out and he hugged me so tight and didn't even look my way, as he picked up his bag to walk away. I felt my heart torn, but I drove away giving him room to "grow", and take flight.
As he said, "I will miss the people, the friends I have made". And we will surely miss him.
Bless him.
Our older son had taken off work, so he, our daughter and Nate could eat breakfast together "one last time". After breakfast and Nate's last minute packing, our children and I sat in their Dad's study, one last time. And I saw Nate tear up and look away several times. I knew I was not going to make it without shedding a few myself.
As I took him to the recruiting office where he was to meet others for his ride to Indianapolis, I off-handedly remarked that he probably would not miss our small town. To my surprise, he said he had enjoyed growing up in the Mid-West, not because of the location, but because of the friends he had made. He said he would miss them. I was proud that he valued his friends and that his view of 'location, location" was "where his heart was". We have always tried to impart "family values" and relational priority.
At the recruiting station, he told me that he didn't want me to go in. He said he was in the Army now, underscoring his independence from "his Mom". I got out and he hugged me so tight and didn't even look my way, as he picked up his bag to walk away. I felt my heart torn, but I drove away giving him room to "grow", and take flight.
As he said, "I will miss the people, the friends I have made". And we will surely miss him.
Bless him.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Paternalism, Society's Banal "Ideal"
I believe in strong families, but unfortunately, our society has chosen other values above family values. These values have underpinned our economic prosperity and our society's flourishing materialism.
We, in America, believe in individualism, and the free market, which rewards those who persevere in their goals. This entreprenurial spirit has blessed us with many technological advantages, that have made our society more convienient. And convienience has led to our "way of life" in pursuing leisure activities. This is good and bad for our society.
While I believe that the family is the most important focus for society and human flourishing, I also believe in individuality, independence to pursue one's goals, and the free market economy that makes for prosperity.
Many think that paternalism is the way for society to function. These believe that society's institutions of government and Church should underwrite and provide for families. I do think that there should be a "safety net" for those that find themselves in circumstances beyond their control. But, I do not think that govenment or Church should underwrite irresponsibility in financial or human affairs.
Paternalistic attitudes, whether through the 'welfare state", "discipleship programs", or "elite intellectualism" is a bane on the "ideal" society, because it limits growth of individual participants in society at large. Those who are "leaders" in paternalistic and patroninzing environments must have a grandoise sense of "self". Paternalism determines goals "ahead of time" to insure "outcomes", instead of allowing human freedom, decision, and commitment. Paternalism undermines human choice, individual differences and true justice.
We, in America, believe in individualism, and the free market, which rewards those who persevere in their goals. This entreprenurial spirit has blessed us with many technological advantages, that have made our society more convienient. And convienience has led to our "way of life" in pursuing leisure activities. This is good and bad for our society.
While I believe that the family is the most important focus for society and human flourishing, I also believe in individuality, independence to pursue one's goals, and the free market economy that makes for prosperity.
Many think that paternalism is the way for society to function. These believe that society's institutions of government and Church should underwrite and provide for families. I do think that there should be a "safety net" for those that find themselves in circumstances beyond their control. But, I do not think that govenment or Church should underwrite irresponsibility in financial or human affairs.
Paternalistic attitudes, whether through the 'welfare state", "discipleship programs", or "elite intellectualism" is a bane on the "ideal" society, because it limits growth of individual participants in society at large. Those who are "leaders" in paternalistic and patroninzing environments must have a grandoise sense of "self". Paternalism determines goals "ahead of time" to insure "outcomes", instead of allowing human freedom, decision, and commitment. Paternalism undermines human choice, individual differences and true justice.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Measuring Up or Messing Up
I have learned a lot through parenting my children. But, the one thing that I didn't realize was how my 'standards" of measurement were messages of "messing up" to my children.
I didn't intend to give them a low sense of "self", in fact, I thought "self" was the problem, as a "Christian parent". After all, I was taught that all of us were "born in sin". And sin was rebellion against God and "proper authorities". I didn't see myself as a "good parent" that "had all the answers" that would "lead others", but as a struggling parent that wanted to do "right" and "please God". I assumed that "pleasing God" meant "measuring up" and therefore, my children had to "measure up".
Inadvertly, I gave my children the message that all I wanted from them was a "performance of behavior", which in reality, I probably did. I lacked heart, because I was so "caught up" in performance myself. I wanted to see obedience and submission, which was verifiable.
I was performing my parental duties before an audience of "Christian people", who in my mind were the "ultimate authorities" of "proper parenting". I have learned there is no such thing. Parents of all stripes and colors of faith commitments and those who have none, love their children and want to do well by them. Parenting is a universal model of "listening, learning and growing along with your children".
Perhaps, it was my low self-esteem and my lack of confidence and my fear of responsibility that made me an over-anxious parent. My goal growing up was to be a "good parent". But, as most of us, I have learned how much I failed my children. I didn't listen so much as hold a standard before them, which was an oppressive means of "control".
Half-way through my parenting years, we moved and I had learned and grown, but "life happened" and I found myself "unavailable" many time and in many ways. Of course, at the time, I did not think I was unavailable, I was only trying to survive myself.
So, I gave two "whammy" messages inadvertedly to my children. Early on the message was, "Shape up" and the latter message was "Ship out".
Our youngest son is going into the military shortly and as I interact with him, I groan inside with pain. The pain of lost years, lost opportunities, and anticipation of a "lost presence" in my life. I have been fortunate to have our children around us and our youngest leaving is the first "child" to"move away" and he is 22.
Why am I thinking about all of this? Because I think that Christian is a label that can mess up people's lives. Christian "confines, conforms and confuses", what should be "human". The 'human' is universal within a context. The human is parental love in context of the individual child. No performance needed. And messes are expected to bring about learning. There is nothing especially "Christian" about that. I have learned that the message of acceptance and love is what I want to give my grandchildren. No strings attached.
I didn't intend to give them a low sense of "self", in fact, I thought "self" was the problem, as a "Christian parent". After all, I was taught that all of us were "born in sin". And sin was rebellion against God and "proper authorities". I didn't see myself as a "good parent" that "had all the answers" that would "lead others", but as a struggling parent that wanted to do "right" and "please God". I assumed that "pleasing God" meant "measuring up" and therefore, my children had to "measure up".
Inadvertly, I gave my children the message that all I wanted from them was a "performance of behavior", which in reality, I probably did. I lacked heart, because I was so "caught up" in performance myself. I wanted to see obedience and submission, which was verifiable.
I was performing my parental duties before an audience of "Christian people", who in my mind were the "ultimate authorities" of "proper parenting". I have learned there is no such thing. Parents of all stripes and colors of faith commitments and those who have none, love their children and want to do well by them. Parenting is a universal model of "listening, learning and growing along with your children".
Perhaps, it was my low self-esteem and my lack of confidence and my fear of responsibility that made me an over-anxious parent. My goal growing up was to be a "good parent". But, as most of us, I have learned how much I failed my children. I didn't listen so much as hold a standard before them, which was an oppressive means of "control".
Half-way through my parenting years, we moved and I had learned and grown, but "life happened" and I found myself "unavailable" many time and in many ways. Of course, at the time, I did not think I was unavailable, I was only trying to survive myself.
So, I gave two "whammy" messages inadvertedly to my children. Early on the message was, "Shape up" and the latter message was "Ship out".
Our youngest son is going into the military shortly and as I interact with him, I groan inside with pain. The pain of lost years, lost opportunities, and anticipation of a "lost presence" in my life. I have been fortunate to have our children around us and our youngest leaving is the first "child" to"move away" and he is 22.
Why am I thinking about all of this? Because I think that Christian is a label that can mess up people's lives. Christian "confines, conforms and confuses", what should be "human". The 'human' is universal within a context. The human is parental love in context of the individual child. No performance needed. And messes are expected to bring about learning. There is nothing especially "Christian" about that. I have learned that the message of acceptance and love is what I want to give my grandchildren. No strings attached.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Freedom to Be and to Do
This morning I was thinking that in less than a week, my husband and I will be with his family in Europe. I have been packing and planning, knowing what our plans are while we are there. And I began thinking how priviledged and blessed I am to have the freedom to "be normal".
"Normal" means what any human needs for physical and emotional health. Our free society allows us to live without interference from government or fear of upheval in our life or plans. My husband and I can plan to go see his family and enjoy normal family connections.
Americans and others that have "freedom" so often take those freedoms for granted. Freedom is won by hard work and loyal commitment from those who serve in government, in the roles of government officials, or the military. I do not take their sacrifice/service for granted, as I often think about "freedom" and how valuable it is to be "normal".
So, this day, I am thankful for freedom.
"Normal" means what any human needs for physical and emotional health. Our free society allows us to live without interference from government or fear of upheval in our life or plans. My husband and I can plan to go see his family and enjoy normal family connections.
Americans and others that have "freedom" so often take those freedoms for granted. Freedom is won by hard work and loyal commitment from those who serve in government, in the roles of government officials, or the military. I do not take their sacrifice/service for granted, as I often think about "freedom" and how valuable it is to be "normal".
So, this day, I am thankful for freedom.
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Great Debate Today
The great debate today is whether there is a "supernatural gospel" or if the gospel is to be understood in naturalistic ways....and some believe there is a third way of reconciling the two, using science to investigate people and cultures. While one seeks to restore the image of God within man by freeing man from religion and helping him be "more human", the other seeks the "Christian Gospel" as the meta-narrative for the world at large. One affirms an exclusivist claim, while the other allows a plurality of views and voices.
Humans are social beings, which means that we understand and address issues, questions and understandings about life within social contexts. History is built by these social interactions. It is no less true of those who lived in biblical times. In fact, more so, as they were an oral and tribal culture.
Conservative evangleicals believe that there is something "supernatural"about the "gospel" and call it the "holy spirit". While humans do respond to messages that inspire the human heart, there is nothing "supernatural" about this, as a political message can inspire and motivate as much as a sermon.
Humans create their meanings and understand their lives by formulating "stories" that identify their "communities". This is a postmodern paradigm and leaves out the science of understanding the "why" and "how" of individual humans.
Moral development of the individual and society has been understood to be furtherd within "communities", but is not the highest attainment of the individual. The individual has to come to an individuality or "self" identification and must be allowed the freedom of choice beyond communities of "faith". Reason develops to a point of choice of commitment that identifies the person with the values they hold most dearly.
While reason and commitment is the epitome of moral and intellectual development, faith development is recognized in symbolic forms or ways. "Faith communities" are conventional level of moral develpment, where "moral models" are held to be the epitome of "community formation" and identification. Whereas, a more advanced faith development allows for diversity of viewpoints, acknowledging the fallability of all absolute claims to the transcendent.
I find that supernaturalistic claims to a faith without any development of reason to be not only misguided, but dangerous for the individual and communities. These are cults, which are bent on radicalizing their understanding without balancing thier faith with rationale.
America has allowed the freedom of conscience in regards to religion. The problem for America today is the dissolution of the family, where the child is taught the values, either directly or indirectly, of character. Children have little guidance or mentoring because of absentee parents, and the culture, as a whole has left the values that traditon maintains.
So, the Great Debate is settled in my mind. We are human and we must become "more human" by admitting our needs, fallabilities, and faults. These can only be rectified within a culture that allows for socialbility and not measured by success.
Unfortunatley, our culture has suffered due to the American Dream and its pursuit. This has damaged marriages, families, and individuals because we have sought fame and fortune at the expense of responsibility and commitment. Our moral climate is at an all time low because of it. And the stories we tell in America today are stories about "moral demise" and not "moral success".
Humans are social beings, which means that we understand and address issues, questions and understandings about life within social contexts. History is built by these social interactions. It is no less true of those who lived in biblical times. In fact, more so, as they were an oral and tribal culture.
Conservative evangleicals believe that there is something "supernatural"about the "gospel" and call it the "holy spirit". While humans do respond to messages that inspire the human heart, there is nothing "supernatural" about this, as a political message can inspire and motivate as much as a sermon.
Humans create their meanings and understand their lives by formulating "stories" that identify their "communities". This is a postmodern paradigm and leaves out the science of understanding the "why" and "how" of individual humans.
Moral development of the individual and society has been understood to be furtherd within "communities", but is not the highest attainment of the individual. The individual has to come to an individuality or "self" identification and must be allowed the freedom of choice beyond communities of "faith". Reason develops to a point of choice of commitment that identifies the person with the values they hold most dearly.
While reason and commitment is the epitome of moral and intellectual development, faith development is recognized in symbolic forms or ways. "Faith communities" are conventional level of moral develpment, where "moral models" are held to be the epitome of "community formation" and identification. Whereas, a more advanced faith development allows for diversity of viewpoints, acknowledging the fallability of all absolute claims to the transcendent.
I find that supernaturalistic claims to a faith without any development of reason to be not only misguided, but dangerous for the individual and communities. These are cults, which are bent on radicalizing their understanding without balancing thier faith with rationale.
America has allowed the freedom of conscience in regards to religion. The problem for America today is the dissolution of the family, where the child is taught the values, either directly or indirectly, of character. Children have little guidance or mentoring because of absentee parents, and the culture, as a whole has left the values that traditon maintains.
So, the Great Debate is settled in my mind. We are human and we must become "more human" by admitting our needs, fallabilities, and faults. These can only be rectified within a culture that allows for socialbility and not measured by success.
Unfortunatley, our culture has suffered due to the American Dream and its pursuit. This has damaged marriages, families, and individuals because we have sought fame and fortune at the expense of responsibility and commitment. Our moral climate is at an all time low because of it. And the stories we tell in America today are stories about "moral demise" and not "moral success".
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Freedom of Speech, Moral Order and the Challenge to Change
Our Constitution guaruntees each American the right to the freedom of speech. We experience our freedom with the diverse views that are represented in our news media and positions of power. While most choose to identify with their particular "color" of view, some choose to go across the borders of conformity to wisely discern how to challenge the prevailing view, so that it can be expanded. Do we do this as private citizens? Do we choose to watch, or buy something that is antithetical to our view, so that we can really learn what the issues are really about, instead of stereotyping and dismissing the other side of the story.
When we talk about the moral order of the social structures, whether government or family, we must challenge ourselves in our free society to not limit our views to a certain position, but challenge ourselves to discriminate, and discern, what and why something is important or of value. This is seeking an education of oneself and can only enlarge our world, expand our understanding and heighten and hone our reason to defend a certain conviction.
We have experienced many changes in our society. These changes have not come about without resistance from the status quo. Power structures which are based on matienance of what is, do not seek to change positions, no matter the costs. Change is costly, but especially to power. Change challenges us to consider something we haven't considered. Change can be uncomfortable, especially to those who do not want to learn or grow. Change for change's sake is also not wise, unless it is warranted for the right purposes. And purposes themselves, are not about moral or immoral, but, sometimes just a priority of value.
When we talk about the moral order of the social structures, whether government or family, we must challenge ourselves in our free society to not limit our views to a certain position, but challenge ourselves to discriminate, and discern, what and why something is important or of value. This is seeking an education of oneself and can only enlarge our world, expand our understanding and heighten and hone our reason to defend a certain conviction.
We have experienced many changes in our society. These changes have not come about without resistance from the status quo. Power structures which are based on matienance of what is, do not seek to change positions, no matter the costs. Change is costly, but especially to power. Change challenges us to consider something we haven't considered. Change can be uncomfortable, especially to those who do not want to learn or grow. Change for change's sake is also not wise, unless it is warranted for the right purposes. And purposes themselves, are not about moral or immoral, but, sometimes just a priority of value.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
A BLOOD DRAW and an Eye Opener
This morning I went to get my blood drawn. It was supposed to be an uneventful event.
While existing to get my needed orange juice and coffee, I noticed a couple that we first met after moving to Indiana. We hadn't seen each other for awhile, as they don't live in the area. My husband had existed before me, but had to leave for class, so I picked up the conversation with them. It was good to see them and catch up on their children. They hadn't known that we'd been in D.C. this past year. So, the chat was a free exchange of information. When I was asked what I did this year, I told them I'd worked on my thesis, but was at a loss to know what direction to take it and wondered what would I do with it anyhow, as I was approaching "old age". They laughed and said something to the effect that they had listened to someone talking about becoming millionaires in their 50's! It really took me aback, as I had not thought of this couple ever as seeking after financial gain (and possibly I'm mis-reading them, but...).
What was it that bothered me so? I think that anytime we seek something that we don't have, as a goal, we must always take guard of our hearts. Our hearts are the seat of our values, and they can easily get skewed in a furious pursuit to "get ahead". Our American culture thrives on a fast paced, highly driven, goal-oriented, money-making mentality. This is what our economy is telling us presently in the pursuit of the material.
What has been the costs? The cost are lives. The lives of children who loose their Daddies to the corporation, and/or their Mommies to attain the American Dream. The financially challenged, who through haphazard mortgages, are now seeing their homes in foreclosure. Families whose pursuit of stressful jobs that pay big bucks dissolve the family through divorce. The influx of foreign imports that give Americans cheaper goods so that they can have more at the cost of American jobs and foreign lives. The list could go on and on , but you get my drift.
I am not against the market by any means and I am a female when it comes to enjoying an occassional shopping trip, but I do believe that a good thing can become bad, if we are not careful. This is my concern for American values.
While existing to get my needed orange juice and coffee, I noticed a couple that we first met after moving to Indiana. We hadn't seen each other for awhile, as they don't live in the area. My husband had existed before me, but had to leave for class, so I picked up the conversation with them. It was good to see them and catch up on their children. They hadn't known that we'd been in D.C. this past year. So, the chat was a free exchange of information. When I was asked what I did this year, I told them I'd worked on my thesis, but was at a loss to know what direction to take it and wondered what would I do with it anyhow, as I was approaching "old age". They laughed and said something to the effect that they had listened to someone talking about becoming millionaires in their 50's! It really took me aback, as I had not thought of this couple ever as seeking after financial gain (and possibly I'm mis-reading them, but...).
What was it that bothered me so? I think that anytime we seek something that we don't have, as a goal, we must always take guard of our hearts. Our hearts are the seat of our values, and they can easily get skewed in a furious pursuit to "get ahead". Our American culture thrives on a fast paced, highly driven, goal-oriented, money-making mentality. This is what our economy is telling us presently in the pursuit of the material.
What has been the costs? The cost are lives. The lives of children who loose their Daddies to the corporation, and/or their Mommies to attain the American Dream. The financially challenged, who through haphazard mortgages, are now seeing their homes in foreclosure. Families whose pursuit of stressful jobs that pay big bucks dissolve the family through divorce. The influx of foreign imports that give Americans cheaper goods so that they can have more at the cost of American jobs and foreign lives. The list could go on and on , but you get my drift.
I am not against the market by any means and I am a female when it comes to enjoying an occassional shopping trip, but I do believe that a good thing can become bad, if we are not careful. This is my concern for American values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
