Social problems have many different solutions, depending on how one understand and evaluates them. Take for instance homosexuality.
Does one see the homosexual as a human being, first and foremost? Or does one see the value of society's order and structure of primary importance? So, then, it is defined as "sin" or "crime"?
How is homosexuality understood?
As a behavior where the homosexual doesn't deserve equal respect or dignity as to human value?
Why? Because of "sin" or society?
As a abherrant behavior? is this abherrancy something that is something beyond the control of the individual homosexual, like genetic or upbringing?
Or is there a predisposition to this behavior and the individual choice of the homosexual is what makes for morality, as to society's "good"? or is homoseuxality to be the next social change because society's values are really dependent on boundaries around relationships? It is loyalty and stability in relationships that structure and maintain society's order?
The questions about what is "Human Nature" and where the needs of the human and societal needs and values intersect are important and significant to address, if one wants to allow for liberty of conscience and the value of human choice.
Showing posts with label social structures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social structures. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
America Needs Good Leadership on All Levels of Society
American needs good leadership at all levels of society!
Society is built by social structures that define and maintain the stability of a nation.
The first and foremost need at the most basic level of society is the family. The family is the first formative foundation of citizens. And good parenting meets the basic needs of the child on the emotional level. Without such emotional needs being met, all sorts of social ills transpire that damage society's health!
The next need for good leadership is education, where children, and young adults grow into their full potential. The successful student grows to benefit himself by meeting society's needs. Young adults that have found their personal intersts and values that define thier own purposes and what role they will play in society.
Govenmental leadership is another need for society to flourish. Good government does not oppress by overbearing demands, but allows liberty to be of ultimate value. Liberty to define one's life. Liberty to seek after one's values. And Liberty to make a "Life". Good leaders in government do not lord it over others, by seeking their own interest, but seek to serve the interests of the nation and not just those that have elected them into office, but all citizens.
All these social structures are necessary elements to develop the nation's interests, and help to further the nation's health, but without the emotional needs of the child being met, the nation will suffer the ills that America find in its society. Such ills are limiting to the nation's educational institutons and the government's need for good citizens. We must find a way back to value the child and the family. Otherwise, all the "fine educational institutions and government politicies will be for aught, because the nation's children will not be ready to take the helm of leadership for the future.
Society is built by social structures that define and maintain the stability of a nation.
The first and foremost need at the most basic level of society is the family. The family is the first formative foundation of citizens. And good parenting meets the basic needs of the child on the emotional level. Without such emotional needs being met, all sorts of social ills transpire that damage society's health!
The next need for good leadership is education, where children, and young adults grow into their full potential. The successful student grows to benefit himself by meeting society's needs. Young adults that have found their personal intersts and values that define thier own purposes and what role they will play in society.
Govenmental leadership is another need for society to flourish. Good government does not oppress by overbearing demands, but allows liberty to be of ultimate value. Liberty to define one's life. Liberty to seek after one's values. And Liberty to make a "Life". Good leaders in government do not lord it over others, by seeking their own interest, but seek to serve the interests of the nation and not just those that have elected them into office, but all citizens.
All these social structures are necessary elements to develop the nation's interests, and help to further the nation's health, but without the emotional needs of the child being met, the nation will suffer the ills that America find in its society. Such ills are limiting to the nation's educational institutons and the government's need for good citizens. We must find a way back to value the child and the family. Otherwise, all the "fine educational institutions and government politicies will be for aught, because the nation's children will not be ready to take the helm of leadership for the future.
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.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Social Construction and Social Identity
All cultures in the human and animal "kingdoms" seem to intuitively "know" that social structures form their young. These social influencing elements in the human realm are family, friends, and ethnic tribe.
Social construction is the process of internalizing the social norms, and values in a certain culture. These norms, and values help the young to frame their understanding of the world. Identity is not fully formed in such environments, because of the young's dependent stage of development. The young need the environment to further the internalization process.
In free societies, the family is not stingently defined by outside sources, other than the values of those entering into that commitment. But, religious cultures deem it necessary to define such structures in a uniform way.
The dissolution of such stringent structures has led to much debate about whether it has brought value to society in general. Have such "flexible norms" produced young that have no conscience or regard for society as a value? Has it led to the demise of "civil society" because the young tend to act out of their resistance to what they deem to be oppressive? Or has society "grown" in its understanding of the human need for flexible norms?
The young need nurture. This fact is not debated, but there does come a time when the young must outgrow and think for themselves what is important and of value. Does strict upbringing leave room for promoting intellectural growth? Or does it produce guilt, anxiety, and fear whenever such boundaries are ignored, dissolved, or re-defined? Where is the responsibility of the parent, and teacher/professor?
The child must develop beyond helpless dependence, not only in the physical areas of his life, but also his personal areas. This is the formation of forming the child in his own image and not to a source outside of himself. And when the young adult finds that he has formed and thought out his own values, then he will then be able to commit to a social group, not because of "felt need", but because of his own chosen values.
Social construction is the process of internalizing the social norms, and values in a certain culture. These norms, and values help the young to frame their understanding of the world. Identity is not fully formed in such environments, because of the young's dependent stage of development. The young need the environment to further the internalization process.
In free societies, the family is not stingently defined by outside sources, other than the values of those entering into that commitment. But, religious cultures deem it necessary to define such structures in a uniform way.
The dissolution of such stringent structures has led to much debate about whether it has brought value to society in general. Have such "flexible norms" produced young that have no conscience or regard for society as a value? Has it led to the demise of "civil society" because the young tend to act out of their resistance to what they deem to be oppressive? Or has society "grown" in its understanding of the human need for flexible norms?
The young need nurture. This fact is not debated, but there does come a time when the young must outgrow and think for themselves what is important and of value. Does strict upbringing leave room for promoting intellectural growth? Or does it produce guilt, anxiety, and fear whenever such boundaries are ignored, dissolved, or re-defined? Where is the responsibility of the parent, and teacher/professor?
The child must develop beyond helpless dependence, not only in the physical areas of his life, but also his personal areas. This is the formation of forming the child in his own image and not to a source outside of himself. And when the young adult finds that he has formed and thought out his own values, then he will then be able to commit to a social group, not because of "felt need", but because of his own chosen values.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The "Scary Part" of Science
Natural science has been understood to be the "order" that establishes the universe. These "laws" are what physicists call "natural laws" that "rule" over what we know about the world. Today, science asks and is seeking the answer to "an order" that defines the universe. These 'laws" would be 'universal' and would underwrite the "world's structure".
Social scientists are also interested in what maintains the "social order". It has been thought that social structures themselves were what defined social norms and created the environment where humans flourished. These are family therapists, social psychologists, and social structuralists.
But, where the social sciences have defined "order" by the environment, these sciences are now trying to understand and integrate what biological science is finding to be true in the physical aspects of "being human". The brain is thought to carry the signature of the universe within its structure. This intersection of environment and biology has wrought much wrangling in its wake, as religion is being "outsourced" to the physical sciences.
But my concern is; so what if the brain reveals a "universal structure"? Does that necessitate a certain monistic understanding of "life", as far as environment? Are differences to be appreciated and affirmed or controlled and stipulated by "proper form" according to "brain science". This is where the "mind/brain" understanding comes into discussion and what makes for "the human", as far as I can understand. Without diversity of culture and personality, the world will be less colorful and enjoyable to the individual.
The individual will be defined by a "scientific society" that will form the rules that define tightly what is proper order. And this order will be defined by a certain culture, religion, race, and this "form" of thinking is what has led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and such. We must be aware of the social aspects of applications of science, so that science does not do disservice to mankind.
Order is what is created in societies by laws. But, order that is not flexible or accomodating to individuality is tyrannical. This is where science is limited, because "who can know another's mind" except one who has personal exposure and experience with another. Minds are different in this way.
Social scientists are also interested in what maintains the "social order". It has been thought that social structures themselves were what defined social norms and created the environment where humans flourished. These are family therapists, social psychologists, and social structuralists.
But, where the social sciences have defined "order" by the environment, these sciences are now trying to understand and integrate what biological science is finding to be true in the physical aspects of "being human". The brain is thought to carry the signature of the universe within its structure. This intersection of environment and biology has wrought much wrangling in its wake, as religion is being "outsourced" to the physical sciences.
But my concern is; so what if the brain reveals a "universal structure"? Does that necessitate a certain monistic understanding of "life", as far as environment? Are differences to be appreciated and affirmed or controlled and stipulated by "proper form" according to "brain science". This is where the "mind/brain" understanding comes into discussion and what makes for "the human", as far as I can understand. Without diversity of culture and personality, the world will be less colorful and enjoyable to the individual.
The individual will be defined by a "scientific society" that will form the rules that define tightly what is proper order. And this order will be defined by a certain culture, religion, race, and this "form" of thinking is what has led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and such. We must be aware of the social aspects of applications of science, so that science does not do disservice to mankind.
Order is what is created in societies by laws. But, order that is not flexible or accomodating to individuality is tyrannical. This is where science is limited, because "who can know another's mind" except one who has personal exposure and experience with another. Minds are different in this way.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Is a Particular Language Universal?
Structuralists believe that language holds the structures of society together. These believe that the rules of grammer determine the meaning. But, others do not believe this to be so.
In free societies, I know that words can have many meanings, because we allow for vast experiences that "form" or "condition" the meaning of certain words. But, in societies where certain terms are considered "sacred" or significant in some other way, I wonder how diverse the views might be. Wouldn't there be a limitation to meaning of "sacred words"?
This got me thinking about the term, "marriage". "Marriage" is understood in our society as a contract, as it is a legal document that binds the parties together under voluntary consent. But, there might be more meaning given to this word, if one is prone to understand marriage in a sacred context.
Marriage, then becomes a covenant, because God becomes a party to the contract. Religions tend to structure society around these structural units. But, the way they understand them and whether they are voluntary, between equal parties, or whether they are even between two individuals will vary greatly depending on the cultural context and the religion's definitions.
The experience of the individual within different societies will determine whether there will be different understandings of terms in a given language. And religion determines whether this is a possibility.
The question then becomes for me; "Is the individual the primary source of "expression" and giftedness to society. Therefore society is a servant to the individual's needs?" Or, "Is society of primal significance in the conditioning of the individual and determines how the individual will "give back" to society? Therefore, the social structures are most important to protect for the individual's development?" I tend to believe that both are necessary, of course, but when social structures do not serve the individual in their innatedness, then it can lead to all kinds of dysfuntion. But, what is innate? How does the mind process the brain's stimuli?
I think the debate is held on the basis of a "Structuralist" or a "Functionalist" understanding of social structures or/and individuals.
In free societies, I know that words can have many meanings, because we allow for vast experiences that "form" or "condition" the meaning of certain words. But, in societies where certain terms are considered "sacred" or significant in some other way, I wonder how diverse the views might be. Wouldn't there be a limitation to meaning of "sacred words"?
This got me thinking about the term, "marriage". "Marriage" is understood in our society as a contract, as it is a legal document that binds the parties together under voluntary consent. But, there might be more meaning given to this word, if one is prone to understand marriage in a sacred context.
Marriage, then becomes a covenant, because God becomes a party to the contract. Religions tend to structure society around these structural units. But, the way they understand them and whether they are voluntary, between equal parties, or whether they are even between two individuals will vary greatly depending on the cultural context and the religion's definitions.
The experience of the individual within different societies will determine whether there will be different understandings of terms in a given language. And religion determines whether this is a possibility.
The question then becomes for me; "Is the individual the primary source of "expression" and giftedness to society. Therefore society is a servant to the individual's needs?" Or, "Is society of primal significance in the conditioning of the individual and determines how the individual will "give back" to society? Therefore, the social structures are most important to protect for the individual's development?" I tend to believe that both are necessary, of course, but when social structures do not serve the individual in their innatedness, then it can lead to all kinds of dysfuntion. But, what is innate? How does the mind process the brain's stimuli?
I think the debate is held on the basis of a "Structuralist" or a "Functionalist" understanding of social structures or/and individuals.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Naturalism is Just Another Name...
Naturalism is just another name for God. Naturalism claims that there is no 'open universe". Resources, whether they be the natural environmental, or social are in "short supply". So, all people are called to altruistic ends, because we all need to survive.
Crime is viewed as not affirming human need, whether in material resources, or social structures. Crime is really the fault of society, because we don't share and dont' care.
I don't want to sound sarcastic, as I understand that there are many that suffer from the failures of others, but that doesn't mean that the whole of society should suffer the consequences of the "underdog". Under-dogs are prone to stay under-dogs unless they are given proper resources to overcome their deficiencies.
Leaders in the naturalistic scheme of things are those that create society and form the interests of the state. And the state should have all citizens interests in mind when formulating the laws that govern it. Equality under law, must be of primary importance when the governing bodies propose policy for 'public good". Does the policy build on liberty of individuals under the rule of law, or does it circumvent this equality under law, by prescribing how equality is to be served?
So, it is "we the people", not "we, under the rule of government", or "we, the people under God-ordained authority". We are a people that have minds, wills, dreams, hopes, and desires that create our republic. We the people has meaning. And the "common good" or the 'public interest" should not be formulated in naturalism's interests alone. We the people are human beings, that are designed to benefit from a free and open society that has no ulterior agenda other than serving the interests of the people the government serves!
Crime is viewed as not affirming human need, whether in material resources, or social structures. Crime is really the fault of society, because we don't share and dont' care.
I don't want to sound sarcastic, as I understand that there are many that suffer from the failures of others, but that doesn't mean that the whole of society should suffer the consequences of the "underdog". Under-dogs are prone to stay under-dogs unless they are given proper resources to overcome their deficiencies.
Leaders in the naturalistic scheme of things are those that create society and form the interests of the state. And the state should have all citizens interests in mind when formulating the laws that govern it. Equality under law, must be of primary importance when the governing bodies propose policy for 'public good". Does the policy build on liberty of individuals under the rule of law, or does it circumvent this equality under law, by prescribing how equality is to be served?
So, it is "we the people", not "we, under the rule of government", or "we, the people under God-ordained authority". We are a people that have minds, wills, dreams, hopes, and desires that create our republic. We the people has meaning. And the "common good" or the 'public interest" should not be formulated in naturalism's interests alone. We the people are human beings, that are designed to benefit from a free and open society that has no ulterior agenda other than serving the interests of the people the government serves!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
This I Believe....a Personal Confession
I believe that man is made to become independently self sustaining and independent. This is not to say that man lives alone, or doesn't need companionship. Nor does it mean that man cannot learn from another, as we all learn in many ways from others. But, man is made to become a rational being that can ascertain the values that he holds most dear, that decide the course of his life and commitments. There should never be group imposition upon another human life, without full acknowledgment and consent of those so governed.
I believe that many times these commitments might conflict and cause one to choose the greater value.
I believe that self responsible behavior is one of the most important gifts parents can give their children and that authority is respected when they give the respect to individuals under their responsibility. Right attitudes is mandatory in all relationships, whether they are personal and intimate, as in the family, or contractual, as in business dealings.
The church is one of many social structures in society that give men a place to become, but should never be ultimate in their authority, as authority is not the purpose of any government.
Government is to respect the rights of the individual. Government was made for man, not man for the government. Therefore, government must not intrude into private life, not demand public service. Public service is to be given freely by grateful citizens that benefit from the protection their government provides. But, government should always limit itself, just as men must learn to limit themselves.
Marriage is a social contract that should be respected by the parties entering into it. These parties must determine for themselves how they want their contract to work. Society, in return, should expect the parties to respect the contract as a social structuring in securing an environment for society's flourishing.
Social institutions are to provide environments that help further the cause of human flourishing and society's structuring.
I believe no one should impose their view of virtue on another. Virtue cannot be forced, as virtue could be just as much resistance to oppression, as submission to a social structure. Virtue must come from a conviction within, not without.
Morality is determined by one's social group and society at large,. as morality are the rules that define the specified society's values and ultimate concerns.. Morality are the social norms in society, which are legislated in our laws to protect our liberty. Liberty of conscience must be maintained in matters of personal interests, such as religious worship. Otherwise, the society demands what cannot be demanded without coercive government interference into another's life.
I believe that what one chooses to do with one's life is a personal matter and not the matter of the church or society. Society and its social institutions can help further the goals of an individual, but government should never determine another's life choices or values.
I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These will be defined differently by individuals within our free society and that is the greatness of America.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Innatedness or Environmentalism?
Last post I was pondering the question of democracy and justice. It seems to me that there is a "conflict" of views in the issues of social justice and democracy on a more basic level, innatedness and environment.
The conservative, who believes in self responsibility and limited government also believes that man can develop innately because of his God-given nature. While those that believe in social justice also believe that human nature will develop, these also believe that proper environment is also necessary for human nature to develop appropriately.
Is the human gifted above the animal kingdom to develop irrespective of environment? Or is environment mandantory for a proper development?
Is a democratic form of government all that humans needs for proper development, or are social structures such as family, community and Church also necessary? Do individuals develop because they are rational animals, or because they are social animals? Isn't it both?
The individual and society has also bred many debates philosophically. Interesting debates as these are the substance of our public policies.
The conservative, who believes in self responsibility and limited government also believes that man can develop innately because of his God-given nature. While those that believe in social justice also believe that human nature will develop, these also believe that proper environment is also necessary for human nature to develop appropriately.
Is the human gifted above the animal kingdom to develop irrespective of environment? Or is environment mandantory for a proper development?
Is a democratic form of government all that humans needs for proper development, or are social structures such as family, community and Church also necessary? Do individuals develop because they are rational animals, or because they are social animals? Isn't it both?
The individual and society has also bred many debates philosophically. Interesting debates as these are the substance of our public policies.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
"Order" and "Rights" as Justice
Yesterday's blog entry was about the grounding of justice. I believe that "somehow" these two views, 'order" and "rights" are definitive of true justice. Today, I was thinking about justice and how "order and rights" defined "justice" as it involved the growth of our grandson.
My daughter called this afternoon to report on our grandchildren and their day at "pre-school". As she and I were discussing the children, I commented on how I thought that Drayton was acting with more confidence and I had heard him using consonant sounds more often. She had previously expressed concern over his not making consonant sounds And we have all been concerned over his delayed speech and this was one factor in deciding to put them in pre-school.
She disagreed with me and then started to compare him with another child in her husband's family, who is half as old. I cautioned her about making comparisons, as each child has such differences, and that true development or growth should be compared with his own "past".
I, then, started thinking about how this applies to "order" and justice. Order is structure, or universality. Whereas, much has been written on child development, most psychologists would agree that these universals cannot be so strigently understood and applied that there is little room for unique, diverse and individual children. Usually, the pediatrician depends on the parent's assessment of the child's behavior to determine if the child is acting "out of character" to determine if the child is not feeling well.
Justice is defined by law in the West. These are rules that society understands keeps "order". While "order" is society's "right", the individual also has a "right" of difference within that "order", just as Drayton's "growth" should be "gauged", measured, or evaluated within his own "past". So, true justice takes into account a person's context, present understanding, and personal maturity. All of these are considerations in our courts of law.
So, while a good and functioning society should maintain order, which is defined by the "rule of law". There is an allowance also, within good government that allows for "freedom" of individuality, expression, and conviction based upon the individual's growth. Good societies allow for this "wideness" of difference. And the wideness of difference is what human rights is all about, as it concerns the social structures that "order" life.
My daughter called this afternoon to report on our grandchildren and their day at "pre-school". As she and I were discussing the children, I commented on how I thought that Drayton was acting with more confidence and I had heard him using consonant sounds more often. She had previously expressed concern over his not making consonant sounds And we have all been concerned over his delayed speech and this was one factor in deciding to put them in pre-school.
She disagreed with me and then started to compare him with another child in her husband's family, who is half as old. I cautioned her about making comparisons, as each child has such differences, and that true development or growth should be compared with his own "past".
I, then, started thinking about how this applies to "order" and justice. Order is structure, or universality. Whereas, much has been written on child development, most psychologists would agree that these universals cannot be so strigently understood and applied that there is little room for unique, diverse and individual children. Usually, the pediatrician depends on the parent's assessment of the child's behavior to determine if the child is acting "out of character" to determine if the child is not feeling well.
Justice is defined by law in the West. These are rules that society understands keeps "order". While "order" is society's "right", the individual also has a "right" of difference within that "order", just as Drayton's "growth" should be "gauged", measured, or evaluated within his own "past". So, true justice takes into account a person's context, present understanding, and personal maturity. All of these are considerations in our courts of law.
So, while a good and functioning society should maintain order, which is defined by the "rule of law". There is an allowance also, within good government that allows for "freedom" of individuality, expression, and conviction based upon the individual's growth. Good societies allow for this "wideness" of difference. And the wideness of difference is what human rights is all about, as it concerns the social structures that "order" life.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Today's Sermon and the Sociological
Today, I was researching sociological terms such as functionalism, neo-functionalism, conflict theory and intereactionism...Although I am just beginning to skim the surface of this knowledge base, it did bring much to light in my understanding and in my coming to terms with how I want to understand or approach ethics...
This morning my pastor's sermon was on stewardship. Stewardship is more than just tithing and coming to Church on Sundays. He did not formally use, but was using Romans 12:1, presenting one's body as a living sacrifice...stewardship is using one's gifting for "god's service" and seeing all of life as given and gifted by God, who is deemed to be worthy to recieve our offering of "life".
While I do not have anything against his message generally, I have written that stewardship can be an inverted greed, if one approaches one's "needs" and "grabs" what one can get. One wants to "save", so one consumes. Every virtue can become a vice. My pastor did reference boundary maintenance as one aspect of stewardship. This was a good balance of judgment in community.
Sociology is the study of social institutions and how they should work or function. Functionalism sees roles and functions as a necessary ingredient to proper order and maintanence to the structure. Religion is useful to maintain these structures through social sanctions and control. Functionalism deals with the social structure, but dismisses the distinct aspect of the individual.
Conflict theory understands that social structures will have conflict because of different interests of individuals or groups. This is understood to be a necessary part of social change. While functionalism would label individual difference as rebellion, conflict theory and neo-functionalism would affirm the importance of the individual difference.
While conflict theory could be understood within a functionalist frame (at least it seems to me), interactionist theory is more dynamically understood or oriented. This understanding is affirming the individual differences as symbolic interactions, where meaning making is an important communication "tool" in coming to terms with negotiating the different understandings of the parties involved. These understandings are due to a difference in conceptualizations.
My pastor's sermon was understood as the Church's function of bringing meaning out of individual life, through stewardship of that life in reference to God. God is understood as the means to attain one's fulfillment and purpose in life. I think that God is a useful means to maintain social control and organzational structuring for the end goals of those who have undestood their role or function as leaders within the organizational structure of the Church. But, being called to stewardship, does not mean that one uses their gifts within the Church's structure, as this limits seeing all of life and the world as God's domain. Therefore, whatever your hand finds to do, do it with gratitude toward god.
Personally, I am growing weary of the terms and usefulness of god as a means or an end. God has given and has gifted, but this should not be understood as special or directly interventional. No, God works within the natural systems of the world in government (leaderhsip), but that does not mean that the system is free from corruption or evil. We are called, as my pastor said, to work to see the corruption and evil taken out of the system. We are to work against any corrupt or evil systems. This is what goodness is and does.
This morning my pastor's sermon was on stewardship. Stewardship is more than just tithing and coming to Church on Sundays. He did not formally use, but was using Romans 12:1, presenting one's body as a living sacrifice...stewardship is using one's gifting for "god's service" and seeing all of life as given and gifted by God, who is deemed to be worthy to recieve our offering of "life".
While I do not have anything against his message generally, I have written that stewardship can be an inverted greed, if one approaches one's "needs" and "grabs" what one can get. One wants to "save", so one consumes. Every virtue can become a vice. My pastor did reference boundary maintenance as one aspect of stewardship. This was a good balance of judgment in community.
Sociology is the study of social institutions and how they should work or function. Functionalism sees roles and functions as a necessary ingredient to proper order and maintanence to the structure. Religion is useful to maintain these structures through social sanctions and control. Functionalism deals with the social structure, but dismisses the distinct aspect of the individual.
Conflict theory understands that social structures will have conflict because of different interests of individuals or groups. This is understood to be a necessary part of social change. While functionalism would label individual difference as rebellion, conflict theory and neo-functionalism would affirm the importance of the individual difference.
While conflict theory could be understood within a functionalist frame (at least it seems to me), interactionist theory is more dynamically understood or oriented. This understanding is affirming the individual differences as symbolic interactions, where meaning making is an important communication "tool" in coming to terms with negotiating the different understandings of the parties involved. These understandings are due to a difference in conceptualizations.
My pastor's sermon was understood as the Church's function of bringing meaning out of individual life, through stewardship of that life in reference to God. God is understood as the means to attain one's fulfillment and purpose in life. I think that God is a useful means to maintain social control and organzational structuring for the end goals of those who have undestood their role or function as leaders within the organizational structure of the Church. But, being called to stewardship, does not mean that one uses their gifts within the Church's structure, as this limits seeing all of life and the world as God's domain. Therefore, whatever your hand finds to do, do it with gratitude toward god.
Personally, I am growing weary of the terms and usefulness of god as a means or an end. God has given and has gifted, but this should not be understood as special or directly interventional. No, God works within the natural systems of the world in government (leaderhsip), but that does not mean that the system is free from corruption or evil. We are called, as my pastor said, to work to see the corruption and evil taken out of the system. We are to work against any corrupt or evil systems. This is what goodness is and does.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Social Construction, the Human, and Outcomes
Social structures are to benefit man in giving a social context. Social context makes meaning out of life. These contexts all have different authoritorial rules that make the groups distinct from one another.
Sometimes social structures can be limiting to human development. These social contexts hinder human flourishing because of their limited viewpoints, understanding, or "world". A human must leave these contexts, so that growth can occur, but it is done sometimes at great costs emotionally. These contexts are the contexts of family, religion, and culture. While family may not necessarily be a "bad" environment, the young adult cannot grow fully without coming to the full realization of "self" apart from familial identities.
Religion is also a limited view on understanding one's "self", as religion contains the ways of understanding God, which impacts ways of viewing life. Ways of viewing life are contained within cultural systems that understand history in certain ways. So, culture is also limiting to understanding a broader view of the world.
While none of the traditional roles of social construction are necessarily bad, they can hinder the fullness of development, if it confines understanding to them. Free societies allow the young adult the ability to learn and grow beyond the intial ways of life in childhood.
Some Christians would believe that this would be anathema to the "gospel" as the "gospel" is about culture, the "right" culture. Culture being the rules of dress, and specified behavior in speicific situations. There is a narrow understanding of life in its vast diversity, and even then, there is a determination to convert other "worlds" into their limited view.
These Christians understand family in ways that do not allow diverse viewpoints, as the parents are to teach what is "right" and the children do not question, but respond in obedient submission. Children in these environments have difficulty leaving their absolute understandings behind because of their enculturation at an early age.
The Muslim woman who wrote a book on her struggle to come out from under the brain washing of her culture within her family talks about this. Even after being educated at a European university, and having a career in government, she struggles with what was engrained on her memory. Cults of all kinds work this way, as they are mind-control ways of social control. These cults have many ways of shaming and controlling their subjects. These subjects are not allowed freedom of expression because the heirarchal leadership hold the reigns of power concerning "rule-breaking". Humans have a herd mentality, for the most part.
Our country seeks to free countries who have repressive regimes, because individuals within these countries suffer. Suffering is not a virtue in American society. Suffering is considered a hinderance to a free person, because suffering means subversion of independence in self-governance.
Self=governance is only useful when character has been formed where the young person has come to understand that his life is one among many. That his convictions, while valid, are considerate of another's different convictions. Free societies can only survive if citizens understand their duty to the nations' "good". The military trains and teaches these concepts of duty, honor and country. The respect for truth telling is evident in West Point's motto, of non-tolerance to those who lie. The military system of respect for authority is one born out of a realization of our country's values that depend upon it. Freedom is not won without sacrifice.
Evil must be resisted, as evil does not quietly die, is not done away with education, or undermined by diplomacy. Evil is determined to subvert, intentional in its goals, and disregarding and disrespectful of anyone who gets in the way. Evil breeds deception, suffering, and intolerance. Evil must be stopped.
So, while social structures are natural means useful for human flourishing, they may hinder human flourishing due to "outcome based" goals that are deterministic, which hinder individual freedom and choice. Outcomes are the goals that subvert independence, and creativity, because they are specified beforehand. Parents who choose their children's vocations, hindering their child's self-determination, get in the way of the child's development. Evil subverts like that and it must be resisted.
Sometimes social structures can be limiting to human development. These social contexts hinder human flourishing because of their limited viewpoints, understanding, or "world". A human must leave these contexts, so that growth can occur, but it is done sometimes at great costs emotionally. These contexts are the contexts of family, religion, and culture. While family may not necessarily be a "bad" environment, the young adult cannot grow fully without coming to the full realization of "self" apart from familial identities.
Religion is also a limited view on understanding one's "self", as religion contains the ways of understanding God, which impacts ways of viewing life. Ways of viewing life are contained within cultural systems that understand history in certain ways. So, culture is also limiting to understanding a broader view of the world.
While none of the traditional roles of social construction are necessarily bad, they can hinder the fullness of development, if it confines understanding to them. Free societies allow the young adult the ability to learn and grow beyond the intial ways of life in childhood.
Some Christians would believe that this would be anathema to the "gospel" as the "gospel" is about culture, the "right" culture. Culture being the rules of dress, and specified behavior in speicific situations. There is a narrow understanding of life in its vast diversity, and even then, there is a determination to convert other "worlds" into their limited view.
These Christians understand family in ways that do not allow diverse viewpoints, as the parents are to teach what is "right" and the children do not question, but respond in obedient submission. Children in these environments have difficulty leaving their absolute understandings behind because of their enculturation at an early age.
The Muslim woman who wrote a book on her struggle to come out from under the brain washing of her culture within her family talks about this. Even after being educated at a European university, and having a career in government, she struggles with what was engrained on her memory. Cults of all kinds work this way, as they are mind-control ways of social control. These cults have many ways of shaming and controlling their subjects. These subjects are not allowed freedom of expression because the heirarchal leadership hold the reigns of power concerning "rule-breaking". Humans have a herd mentality, for the most part.
Our country seeks to free countries who have repressive regimes, because individuals within these countries suffer. Suffering is not a virtue in American society. Suffering is considered a hinderance to a free person, because suffering means subversion of independence in self-governance.
Self=governance is only useful when character has been formed where the young person has come to understand that his life is one among many. That his convictions, while valid, are considerate of another's different convictions. Free societies can only survive if citizens understand their duty to the nations' "good". The military trains and teaches these concepts of duty, honor and country. The respect for truth telling is evident in West Point's motto, of non-tolerance to those who lie. The military system of respect for authority is one born out of a realization of our country's values that depend upon it. Freedom is not won without sacrifice.
Evil must be resisted, as evil does not quietly die, is not done away with education, or undermined by diplomacy. Evil is determined to subvert, intentional in its goals, and disregarding and disrespectful of anyone who gets in the way. Evil breeds deception, suffering, and intolerance. Evil must be stopped.
So, while social structures are natural means useful for human flourishing, they may hinder human flourishing due to "outcome based" goals that are deterministic, which hinder individual freedom and choice. Outcomes are the goals that subvert independence, and creativity, because they are specified beforehand. Parents who choose their children's vocations, hindering their child's self-determination, get in the way of the child's development. Evil subverts like that and it must be resisted.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Social Structures, and Physical Persons
Some believe that the body is the only aspect of being a human. While I would never negate the body and it's resulting chemical make-up as influencing a human, social structures also influence the human being.
The social structures which impact the human most is the family, community and society. These are necessary graces that are to grace our lives. But, sometimes these very structures are unhealthy environments for human flourishing.
While I do not believe that there is one way to parent, as parenting is not a science of a universal child (although child psychology is important), parenting is as much about artistic "seeing and hearing" the other, when it comes to the individual needs. No organizational structuring can epitomize the individual child and her or his need.
One thing that has come to preimenance in my thinking is, that individuality cannot be measured in a test tube, but in the family room. Anthropologists and psychologists know that the individual cannot be reduced to the physical realm without doing disservice to understanding the whole person.
A person who is reduced to a label, or prejuidicial agenda, cannot be seen,or known, much less loved. Love is not blind, but sees clearly the faults and chooses to look beyond the fault to the potential, the value, and the heart of another. I find this is what love and loving is about, helping another, not condemning another. Love is not about conformity, but finding uniqueness and valuing that uniquness.
Any ideology reduces the person to conformity, and deforms the person in the process. Therefore, I believe that a person, himself is made in the image of God, not just the organizational structure, or social structure, whether Church or family. True whole mental, spiritual and physical health only comes by being flexible enough to really hear and see the need of the individual. This is what good counselling, a good physician or a good mentor does. S/he does not seek to implement a program on another, but seeks to hold the hand. I find so many times institutionalized religion, cultural standards, or cherished traditions, inhibit the other individual from becoming, and being in the world as he is. Acceptance is of primary importance, as condemnation, standardization only brings confinement, and stress that inhibits full flourishing and functioning...and the Authentic Self cannot become in that kind of environment.
The social structures which impact the human most is the family, community and society. These are necessary graces that are to grace our lives. But, sometimes these very structures are unhealthy environments for human flourishing.
While I do not believe that there is one way to parent, as parenting is not a science of a universal child (although child psychology is important), parenting is as much about artistic "seeing and hearing" the other, when it comes to the individual needs. No organizational structuring can epitomize the individual child and her or his need.
One thing that has come to preimenance in my thinking is, that individuality cannot be measured in a test tube, but in the family room. Anthropologists and psychologists know that the individual cannot be reduced to the physical realm without doing disservice to understanding the whole person.
A person who is reduced to a label, or prejuidicial agenda, cannot be seen,or known, much less loved. Love is not blind, but sees clearly the faults and chooses to look beyond the fault to the potential, the value, and the heart of another. I find this is what love and loving is about, helping another, not condemning another. Love is not about conformity, but finding uniqueness and valuing that uniquness.
Any ideology reduces the person to conformity, and deforms the person in the process. Therefore, I believe that a person, himself is made in the image of God, not just the organizational structure, or social structure, whether Church or family. True whole mental, spiritual and physical health only comes by being flexible enough to really hear and see the need of the individual. This is what good counselling, a good physician or a good mentor does. S/he does not seek to implement a program on another, but seeks to hold the hand. I find so many times institutionalized religion, cultural standards, or cherished traditions, inhibit the other individual from becoming, and being in the world as he is. Acceptance is of primary importance, as condemnation, standardization only brings confinement, and stress that inhibits full flourishing and functioning...and the Authentic Self cannot become in that kind of environment.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Without Faith....
Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Many evangelicals believe that faith becomes possible through the revelation of Scripture alone. But, what about other literary works? Are they significant and can they impart "revelation that is just as important? Fundamentalists would not believe so. I disagree.
Without faith....what does this mean? Everyone has faith, it is just by what authority one has faith in....
Evanglicals have faith in Scripture first and foremost, but can also place their faith in Tradition of the Church.
What about reason? Is reason a proper place for authority to reside? I think so, for otherwise, evangelicals should just turn off their brain and listen to whoever happens to cross their path and "obey", especially, if they speak for God. Otherwise, they cannot become who God intends for them to be.
There is a certain strain of training Youth that I attended a long while back that promoted this type of thinking, as leadership was "God's protection" for you. Leaders were infallible. And therein lies the danger. Leaders are humans, as are written texts of tradition, and tradition itself. Without assessing these authorities, one does not become discerning. Nor does creativivity flourish. Any thinking outside the box is athenema to conventionality, which is tradition's forte'.
While leaders are human, they are necessary in developing others, seeking vision, implementing policy, and setting goals. Authority is not the problem, but absolutism is. I think that authority should be developed, of course, as children have not had their reason expanded beyond the literalization of myth. But, authority given to children who literalize myth is a dangerous cauldrum.
Religion can limit reason's expansive capacity to explore, engage and create. The universe is too expansive and too interesting to limit oneself to a simple view of faith.
The Church has often, if not always opposed reformation, whether religious, political, or cultural. And those that tried to reform the traditionalists were hanged, burned, or be-headed, in the name of God and for the sake of protecting God's interest and His Kingdom...
I would much rather live by "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin"....
Without faith....what does this mean? Everyone has faith, it is just by what authority one has faith in....
Evanglicals have faith in Scripture first and foremost, but can also place their faith in Tradition of the Church.
What about reason? Is reason a proper place for authority to reside? I think so, for otherwise, evangelicals should just turn off their brain and listen to whoever happens to cross their path and "obey", especially, if they speak for God. Otherwise, they cannot become who God intends for them to be.
There is a certain strain of training Youth that I attended a long while back that promoted this type of thinking, as leadership was "God's protection" for you. Leaders were infallible. And therein lies the danger. Leaders are humans, as are written texts of tradition, and tradition itself. Without assessing these authorities, one does not become discerning. Nor does creativivity flourish. Any thinking outside the box is athenema to conventionality, which is tradition's forte'.
While leaders are human, they are necessary in developing others, seeking vision, implementing policy, and setting goals. Authority is not the problem, but absolutism is. I think that authority should be developed, of course, as children have not had their reason expanded beyond the literalization of myth. But, authority given to children who literalize myth is a dangerous cauldrum.
Religion can limit reason's expansive capacity to explore, engage and create. The universe is too expansive and too interesting to limit oneself to a simple view of faith.
The Church has often, if not always opposed reformation, whether religious, political, or cultural. And those that tried to reform the traditionalists were hanged, burned, or be-headed, in the name of God and for the sake of protecting God's interest and His Kingdom...
I would much rather live by "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin"....
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Faith, Life, and Leadership
Yesterday, I wrote about faith and how people come to faith differently. In that blog entry, I said that people understand their faith differently, therefore, it is hard to distinguish what faith means to someone.
In another entry, a couple of days ago, I stated that the purpose of the Jews was to represent God to others. God's representatives are human beings that are not defined by ethnicity, cultural identifiers, or other outward forms, but a heart that represents character.
Character is not defined by any "commitment" of life, such as religious conviction, cultural identification, job commitment, or any other outward performance of "duty", but an attitude of heart and focus of life.
Christians have debated how one understood faith and works, but it doesn't matter what one does, or what one believes, but an attitude and motivation of life and heart. Leaders make plans for their ideas to be implemented, but that does not necessarily mean that another is obligated to perform the task, unless leaders have respected those who are to work under them. This is what character is about, social contract. And America's government allows the freedom of opportunity for social contract, as our country's laws have defined this as justice.
A social contract maintains equalitbility, and negotiation. In Jewish/Christian terms it is the covenant. But, how is the covenant to be understood? Some have argued that men have no choice, they must obey, or they believe that one will obey, as election has chosen. This is a deterministic view, while other Christians believe that men are called and can choose one way or another. Some in scientific/philosophical circles, argue that one is determined by social construction. This way of thinking is nothing other than belief in determinism through social structures.
I don't believe that men are determined by social structures ( unless leadership had so limited another), although social structures will impact one's life. Determination would limit the individual's developmental potentialities in opportunities, education, counselling, mentoring, etc. The academy's disciplines are the arena of development of potential. The religious realm is limited in scope, but can be the focus of what one does, but such is the case with any job. there is no separation between the sacred and the secular, in fact, there is no distinction between the two, as the world works on pragmatic goals of leadership.
It behooves all of us to take care what kind of leaders one follows.
In another entry, a couple of days ago, I stated that the purpose of the Jews was to represent God to others. God's representatives are human beings that are not defined by ethnicity, cultural identifiers, or other outward forms, but a heart that represents character.
Character is not defined by any "commitment" of life, such as religious conviction, cultural identification, job commitment, or any other outward performance of "duty", but an attitude of heart and focus of life.
Christians have debated how one understood faith and works, but it doesn't matter what one does, or what one believes, but an attitude and motivation of life and heart. Leaders make plans for their ideas to be implemented, but that does not necessarily mean that another is obligated to perform the task, unless leaders have respected those who are to work under them. This is what character is about, social contract. And America's government allows the freedom of opportunity for social contract, as our country's laws have defined this as justice.
A social contract maintains equalitbility, and negotiation. In Jewish/Christian terms it is the covenant. But, how is the covenant to be understood? Some have argued that men have no choice, they must obey, or they believe that one will obey, as election has chosen. This is a deterministic view, while other Christians believe that men are called and can choose one way or another. Some in scientific/philosophical circles, argue that one is determined by social construction. This way of thinking is nothing other than belief in determinism through social structures.
I don't believe that men are determined by social structures ( unless leadership had so limited another), although social structures will impact one's life. Determination would limit the individual's developmental potentialities in opportunities, education, counselling, mentoring, etc. The academy's disciplines are the arena of development of potential. The religious realm is limited in scope, but can be the focus of what one does, but such is the case with any job. there is no separation between the sacred and the secular, in fact, there is no distinction between the two, as the world works on pragmatic goals of leadership.
It behooves all of us to take care what kind of leaders one follows.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Scripture, Social Structures, and Relationships
I am a little frustrated over many who try to "puff up" the need to believe the Scriptures. I recognize that Protestants are "grounded" (at least intially) on the Scriptures, but I don't believe that Scripture is the only means of faith.
Before the canon was the Church, and before the Church was the Jewish faith, which was also divided along many lines. Faith doesn't need support. Faith is oriented around what one values. And faith and one's values underscore what one chooses to do. Are evangelicals afraid that if they do not fight to uphold the text that people are forever doomed? Is it the only basis for establishing moral values that motivates them? It would be an interesting study.
The real world is not really guided by the supernatural, but people. I think we should focus more on the real world than the spiritual, as the spiritual is so often the psychological need in man. The social structures that define civilized society are meant to meet these needs, which is more and more doubtful in the West. While the civilized are more structured and the order is more conducive for individual flourishing, all societies have relationships, just a difference of form. And relationships are what social structures are to be about in the first place.
So, why the Scriptures to uphold faith?
Before the canon was the Church, and before the Church was the Jewish faith, which was also divided along many lines. Faith doesn't need support. Faith is oriented around what one values. And faith and one's values underscore what one chooses to do. Are evangelicals afraid that if they do not fight to uphold the text that people are forever doomed? Is it the only basis for establishing moral values that motivates them? It would be an interesting study.
The real world is not really guided by the supernatural, but people. I think we should focus more on the real world than the spiritual, as the spiritual is so often the psychological need in man. The social structures that define civilized society are meant to meet these needs, which is more and more doubtful in the West. While the civilized are more structured and the order is more conducive for individual flourishing, all societies have relationships, just a difference of form. And relationships are what social structures are to be about in the first place.
So, why the Scriptures to uphold faith?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Evolutionary Faith, Personhood, and Traditional Understanding, an Oxymoron?
Christian faith has changed depending on science's understanding of the physical world. Today's challenge is in understanding what defines the human person and faith.
Child psychologist, and human developmental theories all hold that the person is developed within the confines of the social structures of family, church, and society. These identification factors have been understood for years, but have recently been underlined by research in neuroscience. What happens to us in our childhood becomes imprinted on our brains, so understanding faith becomes about how a child is raised in a tradition. Tradition's conditioning helps to develop the child's social conscience, self-concept and self awareness.
But, is tradition, in a religious sense, necessary to develop the person into a respectable, self-regulating, self-motivated and self-directed individual? No, for reason is a part of the individual, irregardless of tradition. In fact, tradition may inhibit the full development of the individual, depending on the tradition's teachings and understanding of faith.
A mature faith and personhood believes and trusts that the convictions, understandings, and commitments of the individual in the present is not about "being right with God", but about being true to oneself, in one's understanding, convictions and commitments. It is resting in who God made you to be and extending yourself in areas that are values that affirm those understandings and commitments.
Social structures and tradition can inhibit or benefit the person in development and do not have to determine the person's mature commitments, identifications, values, or understandings.
Child psychologist, and human developmental theories all hold that the person is developed within the confines of the social structures of family, church, and society. These identification factors have been understood for years, but have recently been underlined by research in neuroscience. What happens to us in our childhood becomes imprinted on our brains, so understanding faith becomes about how a child is raised in a tradition. Tradition's conditioning helps to develop the child's social conscience, self-concept and self awareness.
But, is tradition, in a religious sense, necessary to develop the person into a respectable, self-regulating, self-motivated and self-directed individual? No, for reason is a part of the individual, irregardless of tradition. In fact, tradition may inhibit the full development of the individual, depending on the tradition's teachings and understanding of faith.
A mature faith and personhood believes and trusts that the convictions, understandings, and commitments of the individual in the present is not about "being right with God", but about being true to oneself, in one's understanding, convictions and commitments. It is resting in who God made you to be and extending yourself in areas that are values that affirm those understandings and commitments.
Social structures and tradition can inhibit or benefit the person in development and do not have to determine the person's mature commitments, identifications, values, or understandings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
