Today, I went to a friend's house to care for a child. We had agreed that I would come to her house around 3pm. Before the time arrived, my son and his finace' came over to visit. As I had not seen them in awhile, I was busy engaging in all of the plans for their upcoming wedding, when I realized that it was a little past 3. I called my friend to explain what had happened and that the time had slipped up on me. I asked if it would be okay to come around 4, which she agreed to.
As I was driving to her house, I was thinking about keeping promises, being dependable, and other such things that make for trust, which drew my mind to character.
I mulled over what constitutes good character and whether or not I had met the "standard" by calling my friend and explaining myself and basically asking for "grace".
I was giving her grace by going to relieve her in the first place. But, that still did not negate my responsibility, as I had an agreement, not in writing, but in verbal form. Because we are friends, I knew she would understand and it would not impune my character. Extraneous circumstances and specific characteristics of people and situations always are elements that can make a simple verbal agreement, complicated. If one is looking for a certain response that is the measure of character, then it is not based on relationship, but on "standards" of expectation, which may or may not say anything about character. My friend fortunately did not think any less of me for calling and explaining, nor for asking for grace, as it concerned her need.
I find that this is what good relationships are about, while formal contracts are based not on personal relationship, but on legal terms to protect interests of the parties involved. The law is the law. The law breaks down the relationship to duty, responsibility, obligation, and such kind, while relationships are bound by strings of commitment out of love, desire, choice, and respect. The law demands, while the relationship does not.
Then, I started thinking about how these two ways of responding are different types of human response in the world. The law defines and protects boundaries, which protects the value and interest of the other party, while relationship cares about the person, as an individual. The law is a way to engage another, as a human, deserving of equal respect, as the person in the contractual relationship, while relationship is a way to engage another on a personal level.
The law defines where individual's or separate parties are divided and then seeks to rectify the differences. This is how divorce cases work. It cannot make the other person stay in the relationship. It is only when both parties agree that the contract can be made negotiating the interests of both parties. This is a legal relationship, which binds the parties together, but does not make the parties committed to each other in any way, other than obligation, or duty. This is not love, but it is respect from afar.
In moral development responding out of fear is the lowest level of moral development. It would have been absurd for me to abruptly leave my son and his fiance' because I feared what my friend might think or do. I would not have been in proper relationship to her, nor would it say much about the trust and respect she had earned in our relationship, either.
Fear means that trust is broken, and one who responds out of fear of punishment in spite of a lack of trust is acting inapropriately, as relationship is first and foremost about trust and character. Trust is about experience with a person, in knowing their dependable reactions, and responses to situations. It is knowing the character of another and knowing that the character can be trusted and will at least act in an ethical way.
Whenever there is a change in the actions or attitudes of another, then there is pause for trust. Questions concerning the other's change need evaluation. This is only common sense. A lack of trust is the only human and healthy thing to do. Otherwise, there will be abuse to oneself, and an enabling of another. Love would consider why, not just that, another has changed and seek to understand. The law would not care.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Education of Heads and Hearts
Education is about inquiry and openness. But, education is limited when heads or hearts are closed. How do heads or hearts become closed?
Heads are closed when academic knowledge disconnects head from heart, while hearts are closed when heads are not engaged! Both aspects of "man" should be affirmed, otherwise, there will be a paternalistic attitude toward another.
Paternalistic attitudes toward others are heads that believe others have no heads, and hearts that believe that others have no hearts. This attitude is dangerous and damaging when power is engaged with these "certain views". Justice is distorted with attitudes like this.
What happens in education when these absolute heads and hearts combine to "teach" others, while not open to learning themselves? It reminds me of Paul's rebuke to the Jews in Romans. "Do you seek to teach and not teach yourselves?"...we all are blinded by our own sense of superiority. This is what prejuidice is about and it limits educational endeavors, because of closed minds and hearts. Hearts and heads who are hardened by their sense of certainty!
Heads are closed when academic knowledge disconnects head from heart, while hearts are closed when heads are not engaged! Both aspects of "man" should be affirmed, otherwise, there will be a paternalistic attitude toward another.
Paternalistic attitudes toward others are heads that believe others have no heads, and hearts that believe that others have no hearts. This attitude is dangerous and damaging when power is engaged with these "certain views". Justice is distorted with attitudes like this.
What happens in education when these absolute heads and hearts combine to "teach" others, while not open to learning themselves? It reminds me of Paul's rebuke to the Jews in Romans. "Do you seek to teach and not teach yourselves?"...we all are blinded by our own sense of superiority. This is what prejuidice is about and it limits educational endeavors, because of closed minds and hearts. Hearts and heads who are hardened by their sense of certainty!
Two Sides to the "Golden Rule"
All religious traditions have ethical concerns and many hold to a view of what the Christian understands to be the "Golden Rule". But, how one understands the "Golden Rule" is as various as the people who acknowledge it.
People hold to different values, depending on their cultural contexts and the values that are most important. In cultures where there is no freedom, whether in communist or traditionlist, the cultural climate is determined by government officials, or sacred texts. These culture's do not have "free reign" to understand the "Golden Rule" because what is done is "duty bound" to tradition or governmental authority.
In the West, we hold to individual's freedoms, where the individual can choose his "way of life" depending on the values that are most important. The "Golden Rule" could be a value of two individuals, but look different in how that is applied in one's life. This is because in politically free societies, the individual can choose how to prioritize their values. If a Republican believes in the free market, then he would affirm that value to another and argue for its "value" in regards to others; while a Democrat would argue for the "greater good", more a sense of social responsibility. While one values, individuality, choice in economic decisions, the other values a collective conscience, in regards to those same choices. Which view is more representative of the "Golden Rule"? Freedom or Responsibility? We are free to choose and that is what is great about our nation and culture. The important thing is "are we doing what we would want to be done to us"?
People hold to different values, depending on their cultural contexts and the values that are most important. In cultures where there is no freedom, whether in communist or traditionlist, the cultural climate is determined by government officials, or sacred texts. These culture's do not have "free reign" to understand the "Golden Rule" because what is done is "duty bound" to tradition or governmental authority.
In the West, we hold to individual's freedoms, where the individual can choose his "way of life" depending on the values that are most important. The "Golden Rule" could be a value of two individuals, but look different in how that is applied in one's life. This is because in politically free societies, the individual can choose how to prioritize their values. If a Republican believes in the free market, then he would affirm that value to another and argue for its "value" in regards to others; while a Democrat would argue for the "greater good", more a sense of social responsibility. While one values, individuality, choice in economic decisions, the other values a collective conscience, in regards to those same choices. Which view is more representative of the "Golden Rule"? Freedom or Responsibility? We are free to choose and that is what is great about our nation and culture. The important thing is "are we doing what we would want to be done to us"?
A Woman's Cause and Seeking Justice
I just heard about a woman who sought to bring lawsuit against a large corporation's attempt to destroy her neighborhood. She sought the counsel of the Institute for Justice.
The Institute for Justice seeks to protect individual rights where it concerns 'big business' interests. It is a libertarian organization.
I find that this woman's case was a case to be won, otherwise, big corporations have free reign to do as they please, leaving the individual at the mercy of their whims. This happened during the preparation for the Olympic Games in China, where many were put out of their homes because the government wanted to use their land to promote the game's image.
I respect the vision and cause of the Institute of Justice, as without the individual's representations, we are doomed to be pawns of larger interests that prey upon our rights as human beings. America holds up the indiviudual's right to liberty, because without liberty, we are slaves and we did away with slavery long ago!
The Institute for Justice seeks to protect individual rights where it concerns 'big business' interests. It is a libertarian organization.
I find that this woman's case was a case to be won, otherwise, big corporations have free reign to do as they please, leaving the individual at the mercy of their whims. This happened during the preparation for the Olympic Games in China, where many were put out of their homes because the government wanted to use their land to promote the game's image.
I respect the vision and cause of the Institute of Justice, as without the individual's representations, we are doomed to be pawns of larger interests that prey upon our rights as human beings. America holds up the indiviudual's right to liberty, because without liberty, we are slaves and we did away with slavery long ago!
Monday, February 2, 2009
Common Concerns for Societial Good
I just heard a discussion about the octupulets that were just recently born. Questions arise as to the ethical basis of the woman's decision to get pregnant and whether this was appropriate, and on what basis does one make the argument pro or con. As I was listening, it occurred to me that there is a similarity to the excess in Wall Street, and the disregard of limitation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This woman is educated, but does not behave as if she is, because her desire for children disregards all rationale. She has no husband, and her only support is her mother. The family is also in bankruptcy. These children will need health care, and possibly special education. We, the taxpayer will pay. While it is legal to pursue pregnancy, even in vitro fertilization, is it the best for all concerned? These are questions that some would resolve by highlighting the "right to life". There are larger issues to be considered.
Larger issues are alos the case concerning the excess desire at Wall Street to get the most out of another's investment, without much risk in the process. Similarly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the guise of "helping", gave to those who should not have been approved their loans, because everyone deserves their fair shake at owning their own home.This is the free market and equal opportunity to the extreme of societal interests.
Each example highlights a problem with our country's values; desire with disregard for anyone else, greed, as to another's posessions, and a mentality of entitlement. No wonder our country is on the verge of collapse. Americans have had these values driving their interests and lives for many years, now; desire, greed and entitlement. We are a people, that do not respect other's their right to life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness!
This woman is educated, but does not behave as if she is, because her desire for children disregards all rationale. She has no husband, and her only support is her mother. The family is also in bankruptcy. These children will need health care, and possibly special education. We, the taxpayer will pay. While it is legal to pursue pregnancy, even in vitro fertilization, is it the best for all concerned? These are questions that some would resolve by highlighting the "right to life". There are larger issues to be considered.
Larger issues are alos the case concerning the excess desire at Wall Street to get the most out of another's investment, without much risk in the process. Similarly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the guise of "helping", gave to those who should not have been approved their loans, because everyone deserves their fair shake at owning their own home.This is the free market and equal opportunity to the extreme of societal interests.
Each example highlights a problem with our country's values; desire with disregard for anyone else, greed, as to another's posessions, and a mentality of entitlement. No wonder our country is on the verge of collapse. Americans have had these values driving their interests and lives for many years, now; desire, greed and entitlement. We are a people, that do not respect other's their right to life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness!
The Problem of Exclusivist Claims
In all of my reading and sifting, struggling and I'm sure not understanding all of the complexities as it regards the tradition of Christian faith. One thing is for sure, there is no consensus, in regards to the text's understanding whether its hisoricity, it's meaning, and how the Church came to be.
I find that the dialogue is interesting, because it doesn't make absolute claims, but listens and stretches to understand.
I find, on the other hand, those who want to assert certainty in their exclusivist positions, are doing so for other reasons than "truth". There may be personal identity issues, or personal agendas, perhaps, even a "protection of the faith "once delivered to the saints". This stance saddens me, as it leaves large gaps in bridging an understanding among religious traditions, that would lend itself to human compassion, instead of dogmatic assertions and concrete opinions that harden one's attitude and approach to those who disagree.
I just heard today that the public schools were doing education in diverse religious traditions, helping students to understand another's traditon. I think this is a good exercise for minds to be expanded and hearts enlarged.
The Christian Church has much to loose, however, in opening up the discussion to others that differ in views. Although I do believe that culture is influenced by tradition, it isn't always in a positive way. Absolute claims are those that breed radicalism and an irrationality that leads to emotional reactions, instead of a steady and rational dialogue. We need more of the later in our world today, not the former.
I am hoping that those who are apologists will at least concede that their claims also "bridge a gap" of understanding within history. Whether one believes Scripture is historical or not, still need to admit that history is not a science of certain claims of exclusive interpretive texts.
I find that the dialogue is interesting, because it doesn't make absolute claims, but listens and stretches to understand.
I find, on the other hand, those who want to assert certainty in their exclusivist positions, are doing so for other reasons than "truth". There may be personal identity issues, or personal agendas, perhaps, even a "protection of the faith "once delivered to the saints". This stance saddens me, as it leaves large gaps in bridging an understanding among religious traditions, that would lend itself to human compassion, instead of dogmatic assertions and concrete opinions that harden one's attitude and approach to those who disagree.
I just heard today that the public schools were doing education in diverse religious traditions, helping students to understand another's traditon. I think this is a good exercise for minds to be expanded and hearts enlarged.
The Christian Church has much to loose, however, in opening up the discussion to others that differ in views. Although I do believe that culture is influenced by tradition, it isn't always in a positive way. Absolute claims are those that breed radicalism and an irrationality that leads to emotional reactions, instead of a steady and rational dialogue. We need more of the later in our world today, not the former.
I am hoping that those who are apologists will at least concede that their claims also "bridge a gap" of understanding within history. Whether one believes Scripture is historical or not, still need to admit that history is not a science of certain claims of exclusive interpretive texts.
Faith in Text, Tradition, or Life?
Dysfunctional systems are rampant within the Old Testament Scripture. Names such as Esau and Jacob, Saul, David and Jonathan, and Samson and Delilah all conjure up images that send messages about "meaning".
While most Christians understand these stories as Christian emphasis of historical revealation of God, aren't these stories also a challenge to our "modern sensiblities"?
When Jacob stole Esau's birth-right, the Christian believes this to sanction Jacob's desire to attain the "blessing of God" at "all costs", even lying to his father, with the help of his mother? Or Saul sacrificing was "out of order", which meant that he lost the Kingdom. Saul's jealousy over David, as God's choice highlights what extent jealousy will go. While some of these truths are human truths for today, some of the "spiritualized meanings" condone spiriutalized rationale for doing things that would be against modern understandings of 'justice". Most of us in the modern world would not condone this behavior. We understand such terms as fairness, which would not affirm the O.T.'s value of "attaining God's favor" through lying or pursuing God's favor through a "priesthood"'s sacrifice. Our understanding is based on the development of our laws, which protect us from lying, stealing and subterfuge.
Just recently my grandfather met with my cousin, who is the executor of his estate. In going over all of his assests, my cousin insisted that my grandfather write up the specifics to his will. This protects his interests from others doing what Jacob did, as it is not a matter of attaining God's favor, so much as doing what is just. Justice is defined by our understanding by our laws, which is equality under law. It has nothing to do with "God's favor".
Last night, a lady shared her experience with a local business that did business according to local custom. She and husband were buying a house and put up ernest money. When a three week period went by without any response from the other party, she and her husband went to investigate, only to find out that the couple had changed their minds. To this day, the lady and her husband have not gotten their ernest money back. Local custom trumped the law. Of course, I am sure that if they had pursued the case, there would have been some recourse, but would they have higher legal fees than the ernest money they paid, in the first place?
Traditions hold sway over people's minds when it comes to undestandings of justice, fairness, right and wrong. While tradition maintains a culture's values, tradition can also be misinformed and short-sighted as to a broader context and world. Tradition works at a lower level of moral development than our Constitution or legal system.
"Biblical Christians" don't even recognize that their understanding is disconnected from the real world in this sense. They are committed to the "ideals" of a Christian reality, without understanding that these realities are traditions. And even those who base their faith understandings on the text are also ill-informed to the limitations of their view because of their particular bias. This is blindness and ignorance.
I think that reason is a gift within that must be used to inform our consciences and convictions. Tradition inhibits the full use of our reason because of fear that we might displease God, because the text or the people of God are the arbitrators of truth. Believers , in this sense, are not free, but in bondage to fear. Faith is not to bring bondage and fear, but trust in life itself. Grace is the gift to be and choose in this life without fear and torment.
While most Christians understand these stories as Christian emphasis of historical revealation of God, aren't these stories also a challenge to our "modern sensiblities"?
When Jacob stole Esau's birth-right, the Christian believes this to sanction Jacob's desire to attain the "blessing of God" at "all costs", even lying to his father, with the help of his mother? Or Saul sacrificing was "out of order", which meant that he lost the Kingdom. Saul's jealousy over David, as God's choice highlights what extent jealousy will go. While some of these truths are human truths for today, some of the "spiritualized meanings" condone spiriutalized rationale for doing things that would be against modern understandings of 'justice". Most of us in the modern world would not condone this behavior. We understand such terms as fairness, which would not affirm the O.T.'s value of "attaining God's favor" through lying or pursuing God's favor through a "priesthood"'s sacrifice. Our understanding is based on the development of our laws, which protect us from lying, stealing and subterfuge.
Just recently my grandfather met with my cousin, who is the executor of his estate. In going over all of his assests, my cousin insisted that my grandfather write up the specifics to his will. This protects his interests from others doing what Jacob did, as it is not a matter of attaining God's favor, so much as doing what is just. Justice is defined by our understanding by our laws, which is equality under law. It has nothing to do with "God's favor".
Last night, a lady shared her experience with a local business that did business according to local custom. She and husband were buying a house and put up ernest money. When a three week period went by without any response from the other party, she and her husband went to investigate, only to find out that the couple had changed their minds. To this day, the lady and her husband have not gotten their ernest money back. Local custom trumped the law. Of course, I am sure that if they had pursued the case, there would have been some recourse, but would they have higher legal fees than the ernest money they paid, in the first place?
Traditions hold sway over people's minds when it comes to undestandings of justice, fairness, right and wrong. While tradition maintains a culture's values, tradition can also be misinformed and short-sighted as to a broader context and world. Tradition works at a lower level of moral development than our Constitution or legal system.
"Biblical Christians" don't even recognize that their understanding is disconnected from the real world in this sense. They are committed to the "ideals" of a Christian reality, without understanding that these realities are traditions. And even those who base their faith understandings on the text are also ill-informed to the limitations of their view because of their particular bias. This is blindness and ignorance.
I think that reason is a gift within that must be used to inform our consciences and convictions. Tradition inhibits the full use of our reason because of fear that we might displease God, because the text or the people of God are the arbitrators of truth. Believers , in this sense, are not free, but in bondage to fear. Faith is not to bring bondage and fear, but trust in life itself. Grace is the gift to be and choose in this life without fear and torment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
