Brother Mark left this comment on the Axe Murderer post:
"Anyway, while I'm on the subject, (of margins not decapitations) am interested to know what y'all think of this, especially Chelle, Deidra and the other big Jesus fans out there..
Face to Faith
All and any comments much appreciated!"
I'm curious to know your thoughts too, only I want to make it clear that the invitation is extended to all of you, whether you're a Jesus fan or not.
Let's do this salon style (more of an idea sharing and less of a debate) to keep communitas in this space.
(I left my response under Mark's original comment)
23 comments:
Hey girl, I went ahead and responded on my blog so as to not hog up tons of space in your comments section.
ps- I like how your blog is looking, and the picture above your profile. It's beautiful!
hi chelle
hopefully we will continue the conversation at yours..
anyone else want to join in?
and yes, g, agree with chelle: like the new look
happy Sunday all
mark
To me this stems from the basic human desire to divide the world into US and THEM. We are drawn to people we identify with. We trust people we can identify with. The problem is why can’t we identify with everyone? The fact that we are all Homo Sapiens means we have quite a bit in common. Maybe it’s just too common. If we meet someone at the laundry and we both like sports, we can talk about sports, or if we both like music, we can talk about music, but the fact that we both breathe oxygen is a bit weak as a conversation starter.
When the article talks of liberal and conservative I think they mean in a theological sense not a political one. So conservative means simply that they want to conserve Christianity (Give me that old time religion) and liberal means innovative, seeking change (Everyday with Jesus is sweeter than the day before). The Church tends to be wary of or antagonistic to Liberal Evangelicals because they perceive an LE to be one of THEM in US clothing. The Church establishment makes assumptions about many different beliefs on the basis of your presence in their building. But LE’s don’t fit into those assumed categories, so the conservative core is threatened by them. LE’s should feel lucky; today they are marginalized, but hardly ever burned.
Christians want to live by Christ’s example, (that’s the point, isn’t it?) but what does that mean? It’s easy to say, “Turn the other cheek,” and, “If someone wants your shirt give him your coat as well,” but how would that work in the real world? If you give to anyone who asks, word gets around and more come asking. Soon you are left with no coat. Do you freeze? Do you go begging for a coat? Ironic if you get yours back. It’s a hard life to chose, but it’s what JC said so we have to, right. Like he said, “He who is not with me is against me.” (Matthew 12:30) But he also said, “For whoever is not against us is for us,” so maybe there is some room for interpretation.
Liberal Evangelicals are the folks who realize that no two people have the same definition of Christ-like. Of course they will be mistrusted and marginalized by the more dogmatic Church constituency. I will say that it is much easier for me to feel God’s presence in a church tinged with the scent of the unwashed masses, a church that celebrates an addict that’s stayed clean one more day even if it’s only his 4th. Personally I have to try not to marginalize the marginalizers, the turn-or-burn Bible thumpers, the perfectly dressed yuppies at McChurch. I have to remind myself that they are just fumbling through this life just like me. And just like me they are trying to worship God to the extent that they understand Her.
i totally would have seen you the other night at gilligan's, except my request for the night off must have gotten lost or something and i ended up working. oh wellsies.
Hi
Regarding Us and Them, (no time to respond properly now but, yes, I am in agreement, He's a She (!) but also, for those that are interested) here's an excellent article written, in the immediate aftermath of 911 by Umberto Eco, on exactly that subject and the need for intercultural understanding, everywhere:
The Roots of Conflict
Mark
Furthermore, I think we complicate something that is really quite easy. Number one, love God with all your heart, soul and mind. Number two, love others as yourself. And there you have it, what we are to do broken down into two little tasks, and no, I don't know why I began with "furthermore."
p.s. I'm reading an excellent fiction book called 'The God of Small Things' by Arundhati Roy. Written in absolutely GORGEOUS poetic prose it details the cultural disintegration of India at the hands of western progress and political upheaval, as seen through the eyes of a bewildered (which happens to be the word of the day)and very human family.
Will probably post more on this later..
If I could marry a comparison (similes and/or metaphors - I don't hate!)it would be one of Arundhati Roy's.
Okay. Glad you like Eco. I kept article from a cutting way back in 2001 (it's already yellowing) but was overjoyed to find that it is archived, all fresh and ready to eat, on line.
With all this in mind, myself and a colleague are in the process of setting up an e-list to discuss and develop this very point..
Would be really useful to have your comments on the draft, how it reads etc, whether it makes sense, if you have a spare moment:
"In times of religious war, active support for the secular model of
governance and cultural pluralism becomes especially important. In creative tension with this, there's also a need for progressive religious and non-religious values (in their political sense) to be commonly understood, and where
appropriate acted upon.
This forum aims to develop a common, political position, regardless of religious or other persuasion. By nurturing diversity and unity of purpose through constructive dialogue, (between both religious and non-religious people) it is a place for important ideas to be communicated, without prejudice, between cultures.
At heart it's an attempt to answer two fundamental questions:
(1) what are the key political challenges of our time; and
(2) what is an appropriate, collective response ?
Grounds for discussion might include climate change, poverty trade injustice, immigration and the asylum/refugee crisis, economic
imperialism and the ongoing threat of war in Iran and the wider Middle
East, plus our overall position on the war on terror.
But also, we are looking for fresh vision about the future of western
civilisation, with particular reference to the question of religion vs science, the capitalist state, consumerism, community
cohesion/renaissance, and the vexed question of the ongoing erosion of
civil liberties in the west on grounds of 'national security'
Or, more succintly, as Mohandas Gandhi once once quipped, about
western civilisation:
'I think it would be a good idea!'
All comments very welcome indeed!
Ginger wait. Don’t leave me for a metaphor. I can be better. I can be good as gold, right as rain. Wait those are similes. Shit, I’m doomed.
First of all, I very much like “The Roots of Conflict” article that Mark linked. It defines the “us v. them” idea in a much more insightful (more eloquent and historical) context than my “teams” theory ever will (though I am better at extended metaphors, and soap box tangents as you’ll see in the following):
I want to say (again) that I think it is human nature to join a side because we have this ailing need to feel secure and wanted, for which a church is a rational and soul edifying remedy. Being on a team means that you pretty much have to at least appear to support whatever “good ole cause” is at the forefront, whether you’re talking about doctrine or politic which can’t be separated. Plus, it is easier to have someone you trust tell you, “this is what you believe and think, and this is the rationale that makes the most sense,” especially in times of “great bewilderment,” especially since human nature also tends to be pretty lazy.
If you happen to have the time to evaluate and consider (which most people don’t because they have other, more immediate “forefront” worries), then you might realize that a yellow card (if you disagree with part of the doctrine), a substitution (for example adding a fresh dose of Buddhism to the field of tired believers), or an entire team change (colors and all) may be necessary for the betterment of the whole. But then again, an entire game of running is exhausting and sometimes it feels better (and is easier) to simply warm the pew.
At the end of “The Roots of Conflict” article, the author addresses the west’s impoverished but blindly progressive spirituality mixing with the mystics’ foundational truths and the bewilderment that comes from the aftermath (what we’ve created and destroyed and the justification of these) among clashing cultures. He says, “But perhaps it is only a sign that, at times of great bewilderment (such as the present), no one knows quite where they stand any more,” and then, “But it is at times of bewilderment that the weapon of analysis and criticism comes into its own, to be applied to our own superstitions and those of others.”
I’m not sure if I agree with that (which means I should probably stop typing, and holy hell, why am I disagreeing with Umberto Eco?!!) because I think times of bewilderment are when people cling to their teams the most, which unfortunately tends to block out most analysis or criticism. “Please just keep us safe (and winning),” seems to be the fist clenched prayer during times like these.
I want there to be hope and understanding. I want there to be self-criticism and cultural analysis, the zooming out of the cultural lenses so to speak, within and among differing cultures so as to promote more understanding and less division. I do take comfort in those who are participating in this effort. But how do we get all of the players on all of the teams to do the same?
M - love the idea about the e-list and would happily be a participating member. The idea is very salonista, which helps me to be more brave about contributing. (After all I go all queasy at the very idea of spotlighted debate and confronation.)
Plus maybe this would be a form of "intellectual masterbation" (as you once called it) that wouldn't leave its participants all cross-eyed and/or spent, but gratified for longer than a moment.
The proposal reads well, though I might define better the phrases "secular model of
governance" and "cultural pluralism" so that those of us who are new to this type of discussion feel less intimidated by the diction.
But then again, for my job, I am careful to spell out all directions in excrutiatingly plain detail so that there are no misunderstandings/excuses for why the assignment was left unfinished or unattempted.. Perhaps that's overkill here.
Hi Ginger
Thanks for this. The point about diction is well made, not overkill. And the concern about intellectual masterbation,too.
Hopefully the latter danger will be avoided as the forum will be, initially at least, aimed at activists ~ the point is to try and promote some kind of agreed, collective activity (via iniital thought)
But the former: just to be clear ~ the emphasis on secularity is because the essential thrust of the Islamist attack on modernity is its desire for Islamic, rather than religion-free, states. Cultural plurality (for all the faults of capitalist democracy) being the happy, healthy consequence of the latter, autocracy and religious totalitarianism the result of the other.
Does that help? Should I make that clearer, in less wordy fashion, in the invitation?
Xx
Quick rider: the idea of a truly "Islamic" State ("Islam" as in "the peace that comes with surrender to God's will," as in everyone at peace and doing God's work) is not necessarily an unappealing one. It's just that what the Islamist homicidal suicidal types want is a theocratic state/caliphate/world of theocratic states made in their in secure, thick-headed male image (ie misogynistic, homophobic, anti-jewish, patriarchal etc etc)
So, we have to be very clear about what the desire for secular governance is about.
While the real, people's religion (the Spirit of Christ, or Allah, whatever you want to call it) must organically bubble up from the people - in other words, democracy is the way to get it, it can never be imposed top-down.
That's why I love Jesus' emphasis on 'render unto Caesar' which leaves the whole debate tantalisingly open, as it should be (until Caesar's world is rent asunder, transcended and transformed by God's work - in whatever form that might come to be..)
Readers can touch upon an interesting piece on what form that will eventually take in the history of an early, glorious attempt at just that, in revolutionary England 1640-1680s by going here to read about early Quakerism and the Winstanleys's ever-inspirational Diggers movement!
But also, Rich: about the simile competition. Really Ginger's going down a blind alley with this one - I mean, marrying a comparison, whatever next. I should leave it with the wisdom of our ancestors to settle it (like most things) ~ apparently it was a popular folk saying in medieval Europe: "comparisons are odious"
Very Zen!
But Mark, the scandal of marrying a comparison would be marvelously delicious!
What? Is that Oscar Wilde knocking on my brain?
I LOVE HIM, too, as odious as it may seem. (am now having an unusually sensual day-dreaming moment that involves the brilliantly gay Mr. Wilde, the thoughtfully perfected comparisons of Ms. Roy, and our very own aesthetically beautiful Mr. Depp who is wearing (as he tends to these days) a fantastic pirate costume!)
Give me a moment or two..or ten..
OK - back to business
You said (Mark), "the forum will be, initially at least, aimed at activists ~ the point is to try and promote some kind of agreed, collective activity (via initial thought).
Hmmm.
Maybe then, this isn't my cup of tea,(?)as the word "activist" has taken on such a specific connotation these days.
I can't tell if you are politely (in a very English manner) telling me that it is ONLY for people who consider themselves activists, who will be planning specific (peaceful, of course) London type actions.
OR
if this a forum for all who are interested in cultural/international understanding that may lead one day to an action that stems from the ideas presented in the forum?
Are you only focusing on the Islamic part, and if so, is that because it is the most urgently in need of an action toward secular governance?
AND
Yes, the invite is too intellectually wordy.
Be direct and to the point so that I (I = me and others in my boat) know what exactly I'm signing up to do (or not do).
All we need to know is the who, what, where, when, and (briefly) why - which is hard for you because you are so passionate about "the cause" and have so much to teach.
But then, that's why we love you.
And now it's back to the glorious comparisons for me.
Oh, and another question: Do you consider democracy (in it's truest form, not in the currently practiced one) "religion-free"?
This isn't my brand of anthropology, but I've sat through enough classes on cultural critique to know what the party lines would be. If you want sources, I'll be happy to share exact names. These aren't my original ideas, just the product of long lectures on the topic.
The defining aspect of western culture during and after globalization is the new ways people find to group up. Borders, religion, nationalities, and geography aren't the convenient descriptors they once were. If Toyota has more plants in the US than GM, who is would be the patriotic purchase anyway? If I have more friends online than in my neighborhood, where do I _live_? The old way of saying who we are by approximate relationships to things or entities doesn't exist anymore.
This gave rise to the "New Social Movements" beginning in the late 70s where people united themselves around their desire to help achieve the utopian ideals previous generations considered but didn't reach. Think of how the 50s utopia was very technologically based, will achieve wealth and easy living through machines and chemicals. The New Social movements would work toward achieving a halt to nuclear proliferation or global population control or saving the environment, but not because a machine or miracle pill will do it for anyone, but because the group will do it themselves. As a group. The goal was noble for sure, but history will remember the desire to be in a group more than the goal. For most of the movements the noble goals became accepted in mainstream society, which eliminated their good as definers for small group identity. Think of the commune that subsisted off the land, and was suddenly surrounded by people who wanted to garden to subsist to some extent off the land, too. Or of protesting Vietnam every day after the whole country started wanting the troops home, too. What's the point, right? Either it worked and you changed the world and don't have a job, or it didn't work because those others don't actually get it like you do. As this continued to happen, westerners in all these groups became obsessed with authenticity as the descriptor. In globalization, the hunt for and need for authenticity is our defining desire of the hour. It's how we draw the line around us and them. It's a constant one-upmanship that eventually turns into a treadmill of comparisons and new acquisitions or beliefs that are even more authentic than the last one. It includes consumerism: the authentic tech geek rushes to acquire the iPhone, not in 6/29 like those other loser inauthentic geeks, but in a secret 6/28 way. In religion, it includes people who see the _real_ theology while everyone else is missing the point. If you're worshiping in small groups or out in the real world rather than in a 4-walled church, you have noble intentions, but to some degree you're just as motivated by seeking authenticity as your neighbor who bought a new boat to be the authentic watercraft sportsman.
The thing is: humans need to group up. It helps our brains produce the hormones and chemicals that keep us happy so there's nothing wrong with all this. Considering the alternative ways humans could group, like hate groups or violent militias, consumerism, technology, and religion make for very nice ways to define oneself. Knowing you are part of a trend makes it feel less authentic and might ruin the experience for you a bit, but isn't it better to be aware of oneself?
First off, Mark, I love your e-listing idea, especially your two fundamental questions. In your editing process, highlight those, as when I read your draft I found those most clear as to your intentions. Those two questions are very intriguing and could start great discussion. It is, as Ginger said, very much like our salon. In fact, we may have to suggest those questions for next time...
Secondly, I liked the Eco article, though I think I'll have to reread it a couple times. I agree with Ginger's question regarding the last sentence. I think that Eco is right, but really only for contemplatives/intellectuals/those who chose to not keep their heads down and go with the norm. Most people when they are bewildered do look for the safe place, not the place where there are more questions. But we have to believe in the trickle-down effect of those who do think beyond their own safetly and comfort, those who wonder why, those who dare to learn about the "enemy" until that label no longer fits. I guess my point is that there is a reason that oppressive regimes burn books. The ideas of the fringe, of the philosophers, are dangerous because they can create change. It just takes time, probably more time than we get on earth. Bummer.
And as for the "faith" part of the discussion... I have to go read my Bible before I talk with any of you smart people! To quote Sean Penn from the incredible "Dead Man Walking," "I ain't gonna get in no Bible quoting contest with no nun." Sometimes I love that I was not raised in a church, and sometimes it makes me feel very uneducated. But I'm learning from y'all, so thanks for that. :)
Christine - consider yourself blessed to not have been raised in a church. Some churches, unfortunately, do a poor job at sharing Christ and an even poorer job at loving people. Just a thought....
Thanks, Michelle. By the way, I liked your discussion (on your blog's thread) of how you use your life to serve your faith. Ginger often mentions Voltaire's idea, from 'Candide', of 'tending our garden.' I like this idea of working where we are and taking care of those in front of us. Because, really, if everyone capable of doing that did so, it would improve everyone's quality of life. Then if, for example in a prosperous country like ours, people had the luxury of worrying less about their immediate needs, we would get more people taking care of those beyond our sight. Then that love and care flows downstream and gathers into a rushing river with the power to change the world for the better.
I wish I had more time to consider these last comments, thanks Christine, Annie, Ginger, Chelle, Rich, Eco and all.
Back again soon, over and out for now though
:-(
Mark
Hey, you guys are amazing! I appreciate you all!!
Christine - I love it that you said,
"But we have to believe in the trickle-down effect of those who do think beyond their own safety and comfort, those who wonder why, those who dare to learn about the "enemy" until that label no longer fits."
And you said it so well, little miss writer!
Taking care of those around us (our communities or neighbors) is a practice that promotes humility, gratitude, and servitude, and could potentially be the common denominator among all of us. Plus if done well, it's a KO to the three "great evils": poverty, boredom, and vice. This trickle down should be the catalyst to healthy society - productivity, understanding, love, and peace.
Wait. Isn't this part of Jesus' "love your neighbor" commandment? (He, like Voltaire, was fond of gardens!)
I think this is (at least similar to) Mark's Green Pea idea of creating independent communities so as to change the face of democracy.
Here's the catch: People would have actually have to work at it, without prejudice - racial, socio-economic, religious, gender, sexual. And, as I’ve said, we do like our teams.
And this is where I think Annie makes an excellent point when she says,
"The goal was noble for sure, but history will remember the desire to be in a group more than the goal. For most of the movements the noble goals became accepted in mainstream society, which eliminated their good as definers for small group identity."
AND I also think she is right to think globally here because all community lines ARE blurry these days (this blog would be a prime example of why), and I can't think of a good reason for why we would ever change that, not to mention how. There is, after all, good that comes from these technologically/globally blurred community lines: education, experience (though virtual) and understanding/tolerance to name a few.
So does that bring me full circle?
Where am I?
Dude! I think I'm channeling Faulkner today, so I better go before I ramble myself off of a cliff. I guess I should get drunk first and then lick the dusty, Southern earth, rambling on incoherently with a pen up my ass and punctuation somewhere else. Then I could truly be Faulkner and would definitely put myself out of my own misery (and yours).
Sorry Dr.’s Boy and Girl!
Post a Comment