To build on the last post- what is the nature and essence of marriage? It's a big question, and I'm not promising a complete answer in this little blog post, but I do have some ideas based on the ” universal/unique” qualifiers from the previous post.
First, to define nature- in this context, I'm not defining it as anything that comes naturally, anything that happens organically, intuitively, or with ease, or as a common characteristic. I'm using it synonymously with ”essence”- the defining characteristic of something, unique/universal predispositions- that sort of thing. Also by way of definition- I realize that marriage has not always been a single, uniform institution. When I reference marriage here, I am speaking of what would fall into legal/socially acceptable practice in America in the present day.
A brief re-cap- my perception of nature/essence is that, for an attribute to be a defining characteristic of an entity, that attribute must be both unique to that entity and universal in all like entities.
For example- a furry mane is part of the essence and nature of adult male lions, because a mane is both unique to adult male lions and universal among all adult male lions. In the same way, abstract thought is part of the essence of humanity, as it is unique, so far as I know, to our species, and is universal among healthy, mature humans.
So- what things fall into to the "nature/essence of marriage" category?
1. Sex
I'd give this one a no, because sex is neither unique to marriage nor is it universal or requisite for marriage. Sex is a usual, common characteristic, but it does not meet my standards for essence. One could make the argument that sex would be a part of any healthy marriage of normal, healthy people, but even then, since sex is by no means limited to marriage, it fails the test.
2. Procreation/Co-parenting
No. Procreation, too, fails on both counts- it is not unique to marriage nor is it universal in all marriages.
3. Romantic Love
While it should be a characteristic of marriage, and I would hope would be universal within healthy marriages, it is not unique to marriage. It, too, fails.
4. Mutual Commitment based on an Ideal of Affection
While personal commitment can exist outside of marriage, long term legally and socially ratified commitment is both universal to marriages and unique to marriage. So, I would say that long term legal and social commitment is part of the essence of marriage.
5. Legal benefits/Tax status/next of kin rights/etc
Unique/universal? Yes. No other relationship or institution offers the same legal benefits in this country as does marriage.
6. Religious/Social benefits
Many religions offer benefits/considerations to married couples that they do not offer to the unmarried. Those benefits are universal to all married couples (such as allowing more public affection, endorsing sex and cohabitation, etc) and are uniquely offered to married couples. Here, again, I'd say yes, depending on the religious tradition. (Some treat married and unmarried people alike, but I think that that is not the norm) Likewise with various social groups.
7. Financial benefits (excluding taxes, which fall into number 5)
This would be a no, because cohabitation offers all of the same benefits as does marriage, outside of tax/legal benefits, for a reduction of expenses and the convenience of shared finances. (Unmarried people can share a home, bank accounts, etc)
8. Support of an equal partner/Independence mingled with deep community
While this should certainly be a part of any marriage, it is not unique to marriage
9. Friendship/Companionship
Universal, yes, unique, no.
10. Limited in number- only two people
Universal, yes, unique, no.
So..... it seems, outside of matrimony based on biblical dictates, that the defining characteristics of marriage are legal, socially recognized commitment, presumably springing from affection for the other party, various legal benefits, and various social/religious benefits. Additional characteristics which should be part of marriage but are not central to its definition include sex, financial benefits, friendship/companionship, romantic love, and the option of procreation/co-parenting. Thus, in our society, marriage is a legal, social, and if applicable religious contract/commitment, based on assumed romantic affection between two parties. This is what sets marriage apart from cohabitation or platonic friendship, and this is what we should focus on when we talk about what is or is not ok in the context of legalizing same-sex marriage, for example. With the definition above, gender and sexual orientation does not even play a role, outside of the religious aspect of the contract.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Book review: Dance of the Dissident Daughter
This book was recommended to me by a friend recently, and while I don't relate to/agree with everything in it, I think it's worth reading.
The author, Sue Monk Kidd, is a one-time christian inspirational writer-turned-novelist, and is also the author of The Secret Life of Bees.
The general subject of the book is the importance of the Sacred Feminine in the spiritual and physical lives of women and those who love them, and it is the story of the author's journey from a more traditional, patriarchy-based understanding of God and spirituality to an understanding that includes both Sacred Masculine and Sacred Feminine, among other things. One of the aspects of her journey to which I cannot really relate is her leaving of the church entirely, not just certain churches or denominations, and her elevation of her own experience past the the point I'd peg as healthy. Unlike Ms. Kidd, I believe that a woman can find a balanced understanding of a genderless God within the Christian Church, and that she can find the closest possible relationship with God through a focus on the gospel and the teachings of Christ and with a community of christians to support her.
First, the writing- the book is divided into four sections- Awakening, Initiation, Grounding, and Empowerment. The chronology jumps around- the story is told in many smaller stories, and there is no organizational structure such as thesis points, a chronological timeline, or really any division between the stories, except for her own four general categories. The story is a progression, but not a strictly linear one. For this reason the style doesn't appeal to me and made the book difficult to finish; that's more a statement of preference than an evaluative judgement. If you like to segue between stories more than you like following a concept down a linear progression, Ms. Kid's style will probably appeal to you.
Ms. Kidd writes that her process of "awakening to her feminine self" began with a vivid dream, in which she gave birth to a daughter who was also herself. She says "For years I had written down my dreams, believing, as I still do, that one of the purest sources of knowledge about our lives comes from the symbols and images deep within." This reverence for individual truth and personal feeling is a recurring theme throughout the book. While I think that being knowledgeable and aware of oneself and in tune with feelings and reactions is important, I tend to elevate Truth that exists outside of myself as a litmus test by which to evaluate and quantify personal feelings, so this is not a theme I particularly relate to. I do think that it could be an important point for a person who is not self-aware, or is accustomed to being dismissed, ignored, or minimized; we should not dismiss or ignore, except perhaps temporarily so that we deal with them on our terms, our feelings and reactions. What a person believes about themselves has an enormous impact on themselves and the people around them, and self-knowledge is always healthy and necessary; I do think that this can be taken too far when people blindly accept their feelings as true, as the opposite extreme to repression and self-depreciation.
Ms. Kidd speaks of a gradual awakening to things she had seen all her life but never noticed, and a gradual process of a distinctly feminine self-actualization. This brings me to my main issue with her perspective- she is far, far more of a gender essentialist than I am, and some of her statements seem oddly reminiscent of gender-based statements I have seen in fundamentalist literature from the opposite perspective. Part of her perspective I find beautiful and true- namely, the ideas that a woman experiences spirituality in a deeper way and/or accepts her life as female with more passion and contentment when all holiness and deity is not exclusively male, and that women need strength and autonomy. I don't make the same correlations between women's biological ability to nurture life and a unique feminine propensity for relational nurturing as does Ms. Kidd. But more on that later.
Ms Kidd, who loves the christian monastic and contemplative sides, describes the pivotal experiences she had in monastic retreats, experiences which propelled her into an understanding of God as both Father and Mother, and she describes the dissonance between her growing need to identify with the feminine aspect of God and her attendance at a traditional Southern Baptist church. She remembers the messages both she and her own daughter received as children, messages of male headship and a limitation of certain levels of spiritual service to males. These experiences, along with any harassment and dismissal she experienced, she labels part of something called the Feminine Wound. Ms. Kidd writes that for the first part of her life, she had been asleep as a woman, and unaware of the injustices which she experienced as a female. She had been operating, unbeknownst to herself, in a paradigm which placed a man at the center of woman's existence, and put any personal goals, desires, or development secondary to the wishes and needs of the man. As her awakening progressed, she found herself realizing and recognizing unhealthy patterns and inequalities in her most basic relationships. I relate to this part of her experience- being naturally aggressive and independent, I assume that I have succeeded in overcoming stereotypes and co-dependencies, only to find another root of harmful philosophy that I never knew was a part of me.
Ms. Kidd describes something which she feels every woman should embrace- a uniquely feminine soul; a sense of the relational and interconnected, and the guiding force and power of women. Here I disagree with her, as I don't think souls are gendered, nor do I believe that every woman has a deep internal connection to a relational, earthy, nurturing, inner self. She goes on to say that women have been underrepresented in the historical naming and quantifying of spiritual truth- this I can believe, at least in the official sense. The basic orthodoxy we hold dear was, largely, codified by men, and I can certainly admit the plausibility of her assertion that this fact is responsible for the demise of the sacred feminine within Christianity. I agree with Ms. Kidd on the importance of the sacred feminine to women, in the sense that if God is both feminine and masculine, the idea of both genders as equally divine image bearers becomes more difficult to undermine.
Ms. Kidd describes our culture, even our faith culture, as anesthetizing the feminine spirit, and she quotes Clarissa Pinkola Estes, a quote which I loved:
When a woman is exhorted to be compliant, cooperative, and quiet, to not make upset or go against the old guard, she is pressed into living a most unnatural life- a life that is self-blinding.....without innovation. The world-wide issue for women is that under such conditions they are not only silenced, they are put to sleep. Their concerns, their viewpoints, their own truths are vaporized.
I'd like to think that in the years since Ms. Kidd was young, some of the ways in which she describes females being silenced, minimized, or objectified are no longer as prevalent, but I do think that such things still exist, whether in tempered form, in pockets of religious fundamentalism, or in other places around the world. The condition of women in other places ranges from equality or very near, in some western countries, to the most terrible slavery and oppression in places like the Middle East, parts of Asia, and parts of Africa. I wish I could say that my country was free from the oppressing and silencing of women, but there are echos of it here to varying degrees, more in certain sub-cultures than in others. Whenever I hear people blame a rape victim, or act as if a woman matters nothing if she is not beautiful, or deny higher education to a daughter because of her gender, or exclude women from equal participation in worship, I cringe, thinking of all the steps, all too few, between such polite oppression and the more serious forms of oppression in other parts of the world.
Ms. Kidd describes the course of her life prior to her feminine awakening as filled with attempts to fit external ideals of Christian Womanhood which she had internalized from church and society. She lists several archetypes which describe the good daughter of patriarchy she used to be- the Gracious Lady, that archetype of southern charm, sophistication, and reserve, the Favored Daughter, with all her compliance and man- pleasing and perfectionism, the Secondary Partner, with all her self-effacing and self-sacrificing, and the Silent Woman, with her repression and anger and desperation to be heard. I relate to this as well, knowing the pressure to conform to an ideal of feminine reality and the frustration of being deemed unfeminine because I cannot.
Throughout the book, Ms. Kidd describes various experiences in which she found the Sacred Feminine- dancing with her friends on the beach, experiences in nature, and study of and visiting sacred places of the Sacred Feminine. Many of her examples of the sacred feminine in early religions were new to me, and this aspect of the book was a catalyst for much enjoyable further study. She relates some of her experiences as a metaphor to the story of Ariadne, and the back-and-forth between this story and her own was interesting.
Ms. Kidd does not denigrate men, but respects and loves her husband, which I appreciate. All too often, I see the stereotype of the independent "feminist" woman inextricably linked in people's minds with a "bad wife", or a distant, disrespectful, or inattentive woman. Not so- I was never a better wife than I am now, in all my feminist glory. :) It's funny how a push for honesty, equality, and mutual love and respect actually doesn't ruin a relationship.....
Throughout this book, Ms. Kidd references many religions having to do with the Sacred Feminine, and seems to appreciate that aspect of their spirituality. In my own belief, while the only complete Truth is found in Christ, other religions can certainly have good mixed in with the not-so-good, and can be a source of revelation, as can many non-religious things. Ms. Kidd mentions the sacred feminine symbology of the serpent several times, which I find interesting considering its biblical symbology... which in turn simply reminds us of the fluid nature and limited empiricism of symbology. :) When drawing from many eras and cultures, it is wholly possible that multiple symbologies for the same object or idea can arise, and vice versa. It is also possible that multiple symbologies per the same object may exist within the Bible, and that other, later philosophies which were antithetical to feminine wisdom and equality may have tainted our perception of some of those passages.
I like Ms. Kidd's focus, too, on moving past anger and channeling emotion and energy into action. This is a concept which we'd all do well to imitate. She also acknowledges the importance of allowing for diversity and solidarity between women, and realizes that we are not all the same person with a different shell. All in all, I enjoyed the book and found value in it, though I do not agree with everything within it and though I relate more to the general concepts than to Ms. Kidd's specific experience.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Good Post on Rational Belief
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/06/believing-for-no-reason/
"Christians need to go against the grain and explore fully all of the reasons for beliefs – our own and those of others, the good reasons and the bad reasons (and the important differences between the two). To float with the postmodern current and make “belief” an intransitive verb – something without an object – is a mistake. Reason is a basic kind of revealed knowledge, maybe the most basic of all. No beliefs can be sensible or of any value without it. John Wesley said that it is “a fundamental principle … that to renounce reason is to renounce religion,” and asserted further that “all irrational religion is false religion.”...........
.........Belief is not just a posture or disposition. Despite the popular media usage of the word, “faith” is not just a generic description (e.g., “I’m a person of faith,” which is just a colloquial way of saying, “I’m religious in some way.”). The noun “faith” and the verb “believe” are the same word in the language of the New Testament, and it is a word with a connotation we’ve lost in our common usage today. The public, and especially that part that claims to be Christian, has to wise up to the political emasculation of language (as well as of thought itself). “Believe” is primarily a transitive verb. Without an object, what meaning does the word really convey? Belief has content. Faith does not hang in the open air, but is directed toward and rests upon something or someone. It is the same with the word “trust.” In fact faith is a kind of trust.
"Christians need to go against the grain and explore fully all of the reasons for beliefs – our own and those of others, the good reasons and the bad reasons (and the important differences between the two). To float with the postmodern current and make “belief” an intransitive verb – something without an object – is a mistake. Reason is a basic kind of revealed knowledge, maybe the most basic of all. No beliefs can be sensible or of any value without it. John Wesley said that it is “a fundamental principle … that to renounce reason is to renounce religion,” and asserted further that “all irrational religion is false religion.”...........
.........Belief is not just a posture or disposition. Despite the popular media usage of the word, “faith” is not just a generic description (e.g., “I’m a person of faith,” which is just a colloquial way of saying, “I’m religious in some way.”). The noun “faith” and the verb “believe” are the same word in the language of the New Testament, and it is a word with a connotation we’ve lost in our common usage today. The public, and especially that part that claims to be Christian, has to wise up to the political emasculation of language (as well as of thought itself). “Believe” is primarily a transitive verb. Without an object, what meaning does the word really convey? Belief has content. Faith does not hang in the open air, but is directed toward and rests upon something or someone. It is the same with the word “trust.” In fact faith is a kind of trust.
So whatever you believe, you should consider the reason(s) for it. There are only a few exceptions, in the rare category of those most basic beliefs (i.e., basic axioms or principles that can’t be derived from any previous ones but must be presupposed at the outset). Any and every other belief you hold, about anything whatsoever, if it is to be taken seriously, if it is to be of any value or worth anyone’s consideration, it must have in its favor more than your emotions, personal history or external circumstantial factors. It must have reasons."
Good stuff...... I don't agree with every stance of this blog, (Reclaiming the Mind; they are hard-core complementarians, for one thing) but some of their stuff I really enjoy.
Good stuff...... I don't agree with every stance of this blog, (Reclaiming the Mind; they are hard-core complementarians, for one thing) but some of their stuff I really enjoy.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Giving Corporations Too Much Credit
Husband and I were watching a youtube video the other day which was critiquing various advertising/commercials as being sexist or racist, and our thought was- "wait. Yes, that ad was sexist/racist/classless. But- why do ads like that work?" I think ads like that work because they are a reflection of a society that still has sexism, racism, classless, demeaning crudities, etc embedded very deeply. I truly think that corporations' advertising strategies have one goal, and one only- money. They want to sell something. Yes, they can be very unscrupulous and irresponsible in the way they go about selling, and it would benefit society if they tried to counteract social ills instead of reflecting them. However, ad campaigns are reflective of what successfully sells a product, and what appeals to certain demographics within society, so I see one really sure way to combat them- change society. That, and boycott the campaigns, companies, and/or products being marketed inappropriately. We as consumers are not helpless pawns in some corporate game; they do what they do because they believe we want it/it appeals to us. If we can demonstrate that that is not the case, we can effectively eliminate objectionable advertising, whether it's sexist girls' lego ads, beer commercials that objectify and stereotype, or ads that set up straw men to denigrate races, religions, socioeconomic classes, or geographical regions. We should be critically analyzing and both our own actions and prejudices, and those in the media we expose ourselves to.
When it come to children and advertising, it is very important that we as parents realize that we, not the corporations that shower our children with a barrage of media, are the most important element in shaping their worldviews. My children don't really watch tv, so we haven't had to deal with this much yet, but when they do watch we watch with them, discussing what we see and what assumptions and representations are being made in the media in question. It's also important to realize how much our choices in the toys we purchase for our children affect the toys that will be produced and marketed to them. If parents did not purchase or steer their children toward toys, movies, etc that represented inappropriate assumptions about gender or race, for example, I sincerely doubt whether those products would last long. Yes, I find many commercials very offensive. But rather than censor the messages advertisers are allowed to send, I'd rather advise society to 1. Critically evaluate the media to which we are exposed, 2. Critically evaluate our worldview, assumptions, and how our consumer choices reflect those things, and 3. Limit our children's and our own interactions with the constant barrage of advertising most Americans deal with. I think this is one instance in which "ignore them and they'll go away" is actually appropriate- I think that's exactly the way to deal with annoying, sexist or racist advertising.
When it come to children and advertising, it is very important that we as parents realize that we, not the corporations that shower our children with a barrage of media, are the most important element in shaping their worldviews. My children don't really watch tv, so we haven't had to deal with this much yet, but when they do watch we watch with them, discussing what we see and what assumptions and representations are being made in the media in question. It's also important to realize how much our choices in the toys we purchase for our children affect the toys that will be produced and marketed to them. If parents did not purchase or steer their children toward toys, movies, etc that represented inappropriate assumptions about gender or race, for example, I sincerely doubt whether those products would last long. Yes, I find many commercials very offensive. But rather than censor the messages advertisers are allowed to send, I'd rather advise society to 1. Critically evaluate the media to which we are exposed, 2. Critically evaluate our worldview, assumptions, and how our consumer choices reflect those things, and 3. Limit our children's and our own interactions with the constant barrage of advertising most Americans deal with. I think this is one instance in which "ignore them and they'll go away" is actually appropriate- I think that's exactly the way to deal with annoying, sexist or racist advertising.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Chivalry and Honor Codes
I grew up reading stories of brave, martial men and steadfast women. I was fascinated with Ivanhoe and G.A.Henty, with stories of knights and honor and the best and bravest of men. My parents tried to teach my brothers to be men of honor, and I try to instill a sense of honor in my children. However- not all chivalry is equal, and not all stereotypical expressions of the honorable man or woman are compatible with the realities of our culture and the dictates of scripture as I read it. (And for the record, I am well aware that the version of "chivalry" that is taught in the whitewashed and idealized books we read as children was not generally an accurate depiction of the societies represented by the stories. "Courtly love?" "Knightly chivalry" a la the Eroll Flynn Robin Hood? Yes..... I'm not sure that ever existed outside Hollywood. But that's another story for another time.) There is much good in having a code of honor, and in maintaining personal standards and convictions and taking responsibility for our actions. There is also danger in blindly accepting a code of honor from generations or cultures past, with all its accompanying ideological assumptions, without some careful scrutiny.
What is a code of honor? As I understand it, it is a set of ideals and philosophies, and the rules and assumptions one chooses to live by. By implication, transgression of one's honor code will result in some form of consequence, be it a personal feeling of shame or failure or some sort of social stigma or in some cases even legal/criminal consequences. Honor codes, real or fictitious, vary immensely with location, time and culture- from the honor codes of fictional pirates or cowboys to the honor codes of historic American pioneers to the honor code of a traditional muslim family in Saudi Arabia. One dictionary defines "Honor Code" as " A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms" According to Wiki, "An honor code or honor system is a set of rules or ethical principles governing a community based on ideals that define what constitutes honorable behavior within that community. The use of an honor code depends on the notion that people (at least within the community) can be trusted to act honorably. Those who are in violation of the honor code can be subject to various sanctions, including expulsion from the institution." There is a code of honorable behavior here in America as well, though it is not legally enforced or universally adhered to by any means; it is what was taught to my spouse, my siblings, my self, and many of our young friends as children to help us understand how to be a person of reliable, excellent character.
The first thing that comes to mind when I think about a code of honor in a positive (and very general) sense is a passion for truth and justice, even at the expense of personal comfort or inclination. This is one I'll keep, and teach to my children; it is completely and repeatedly compatible with the teachings of Scripture. That, and it builds an unselfish and responsible character and its widespread existence would lead to a free and safe society. When I think about honor, I also think of the "golden rule"- treating others as we would like to be treated, regardless of their status or ours, and considering the effects of an action, not only on ourselves, but also on others, before we undertake it. The "honor code" I'll teach my children, in a nutshell, is justice, mercy, kindness, unselfishness, a love for truth and goodness, and both a sense of our personal responsibility for our actions and the effects of our actions on others and our responsibility to consider those effects. Too often, in our American society, children are raised with an inflated idea of their own importance and a feeling that they are entitled to various things. My goal, with my own children, is to fight the sense of entitlement and imbue them in its place with a careful consideration for others and a passion for justice and truth.
More specifically, we were taught that honorable men and women would not break a verbal contract, would not lie, and/or would be committed to being truthful and keeping agreements even at personal cost. This is a very positive thing, in my estimation- imagine how pleasant society would be if you could depend on people's truthfulness and reliability in general.... this idea of truthfulness/clarity/reliability, too, is a part of the teachings of scripture, the following of which is synonymous with my Christian faith.
Other specifics I think of when I think of honorable behavior include things like deferring to/assisting those weaker than yourself, E.G. holding a door for an elderly person, (some would say for women) a person with a heavy load, or giving your seat to a such a person in a crowded place, etc. Honesty in romantic relationships is another example- for instance, an honorable person will not lead a suitor on, implying more investment or feeling than is accurate for the sake of any personal benefits they might gain, and an honorable person will be decisive about whether they do or do not want a relationship, and will be willing to define both their feelings to the degree that they can and to share their goals and intentions for the relationship in an honest and forthright way.
Now, the negative- because the teachings on honor and chivalry I've heard generally originated in a culture and generation in which gender equality was not a widely accepted concept and gender roles were more rigid and static, some of the "honorable behavior" code promotes inaccurate and harmful assumptions and behavior. For example, take some of the rules on men relating to women in public: not sitting when there are women standing, holding the door for women, men paying for their female companions, etc. These rules assume that men are stronger, and women weaker, and thus men deferring to women in these conventions is conflated with the idea of the strong protecting the weak. The ideal of the strong protecting the weak is very, very good, but in our society it does not make sense to apply it strictly along gender lines. Any person should be willing to hold the door, give up their seat, or physically assist a person who is weaker than they or who is dealing with heavy loads, cumbersome strollers, or vivacious young children. Sometimes, this ethic will lead to men holding doors for women; sometimes it will not. When I am out with my elderly grandfather, I hold the door for him. When my husband is carrying our youngest, who at 11 months is, together with his carseat, quite heavy, I hold the door for him. (my husband, at 6'8", is far stronger than I am in my 5'2", un-athletic self; in this case it makes perfect sense for him to do the heavy lifting. Thanks, babe! :) )When I see a man pushing a stroller or carrying bags, I hold the door for him. To be clear, I don't mind guys holding doors or giving their seats for me; no, not at all. I do think, however, that while those actions are nice and well-intentioned we should make every effort to separate a convention that a person may enjoy retaining from the flawed ideological assumption that may have originated it.
When it comes to the man paying for the lady, I think it is logical to assume that this came from a time when women were far less likely to have self-supporting careers, or even to be employed and earning wages, than their male counterparts, and so males were naturally left with a degree of fiscal responsibility that is thankfully unnecessary today.
Which brings me to my next point- male responsibility. One of the most negative aspects of the code of honorable male behavior I've observed in my culture is the idea that the husband/father bears ultimate responsibility, not only for children he may father, but for his wife/girlfriend as well. For example, the unequal alimony laws in some states still reflect this idea, as well as the assumption that the male will be more able to fiscally provide for the support of a family. (I'm not denigrating fatherhood or a male's reproductive or familial responsibility here- I'm simply saying that a man/husband/father does not have more responsibility than a woman/wife/mother. They are equally responsible.) This inflated idea of responsibility can be an unnecessary weight when a man's wife or adult children are not being great people and he must deal with feeling responsible, even though he cannot, and as per their adulthood should not, change them or manage their behavior. It can lead to a man, who is married to a woman who is mired in learned helplessness, feeling responsible for her welfare to a degree that he should not and putting up with more in his marriage than he should because he fears that to stand up to abusive, manipulative, etc behavior is somehow failing in a sacred manly duty. By holding males to a different standard, this hurts men and women both- men, because it binds them to situations to which they should not be bound, and women, because their voices are not valued to the same degree because of their reduced perceived responsibility. For example- if a man marries an adult woman with little to no education or job skills, and finds that he has also married a poor mother and a manipulative, emotionally abusive wife, he may hesitate to take steps to protect himself or his children because he feels responsible for his wife and her future welfare, even though she is a mentally capable adult. Then, too, a man may feel pressure to control his wife since he considers himself responsible for her; this can lead to very, very unhealthy relational power dynamics. Additionally, if a woman is raised to believe that she has/needs a man to be responsible for her, she may well not be as motivated to acquire the education or job skills that make such responsibility fiscally unnecessary, or she may remain in an almost childlike state, incapable of independence, lacking the mental independence and informed mind that make dependence on the responsibility of males unnecessary or even untenable.
Personal responsibility is a great thing, and teaching our kids to take responsibility for themselves, their choices, and their children is critical. But that responsibility should not be gender based, and when we decide to take responsibility for someone else, whether it's because they are mentally incapable, or our beloved parents or grandparents who can no longer be independent, or adorable little humans that we made, that responsibility should be thoughtful, intentional, and- again- not gender based. While many people fail to take enough responsibility for themselves, some people tend to feel responsible for others when they shouldn't, especially males, older siblings, and people with "care taking" personalities, from my observation. (older sibs and caretakers generally for very different reasons.)
Basically, I think that some of the ideas of honorable behavior, particularly for males, would be great if they were not based on gender and were regulated with common sense. The concept of honor, responsibility, altruism, etc is great, but it should be gender neutral. Every time.
What is a code of honor? As I understand it, it is a set of ideals and philosophies, and the rules and assumptions one chooses to live by. By implication, transgression of one's honor code will result in some form of consequence, be it a personal feeling of shame or failure or some sort of social stigma or in some cases even legal/criminal consequences. Honor codes, real or fictitious, vary immensely with location, time and culture- from the honor codes of fictional pirates or cowboys to the honor codes of historic American pioneers to the honor code of a traditional muslim family in Saudi Arabia. One dictionary defines "Honor Code" as " A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms" According to Wiki, "An honor code or honor system is a set of rules or ethical principles governing a community based on ideals that define what constitutes honorable behavior within that community. The use of an honor code depends on the notion that people (at least within the community) can be trusted to act honorably. Those who are in violation of the honor code can be subject to various sanctions, including expulsion from the institution." There is a code of honorable behavior here in America as well, though it is not legally enforced or universally adhered to by any means; it is what was taught to my spouse, my siblings, my self, and many of our young friends as children to help us understand how to be a person of reliable, excellent character.
The first thing that comes to mind when I think about a code of honor in a positive (and very general) sense is a passion for truth and justice, even at the expense of personal comfort or inclination. This is one I'll keep, and teach to my children; it is completely and repeatedly compatible with the teachings of Scripture. That, and it builds an unselfish and responsible character and its widespread existence would lead to a free and safe society. When I think about honor, I also think of the "golden rule"- treating others as we would like to be treated, regardless of their status or ours, and considering the effects of an action, not only on ourselves, but also on others, before we undertake it. The "honor code" I'll teach my children, in a nutshell, is justice, mercy, kindness, unselfishness, a love for truth and goodness, and both a sense of our personal responsibility for our actions and the effects of our actions on others and our responsibility to consider those effects. Too often, in our American society, children are raised with an inflated idea of their own importance and a feeling that they are entitled to various things. My goal, with my own children, is to fight the sense of entitlement and imbue them in its place with a careful consideration for others and a passion for justice and truth.
More specifically, we were taught that honorable men and women would not break a verbal contract, would not lie, and/or would be committed to being truthful and keeping agreements even at personal cost. This is a very positive thing, in my estimation- imagine how pleasant society would be if you could depend on people's truthfulness and reliability in general.... this idea of truthfulness/clarity/reliability, too, is a part of the teachings of scripture, the following of which is synonymous with my Christian faith.
Other specifics I think of when I think of honorable behavior include things like deferring to/assisting those weaker than yourself, E.G. holding a door for an elderly person, (some would say for women) a person with a heavy load, or giving your seat to a such a person in a crowded place, etc. Honesty in romantic relationships is another example- for instance, an honorable person will not lead a suitor on, implying more investment or feeling than is accurate for the sake of any personal benefits they might gain, and an honorable person will be decisive about whether they do or do not want a relationship, and will be willing to define both their feelings to the degree that they can and to share their goals and intentions for the relationship in an honest and forthright way.
Now, the negative- because the teachings on honor and chivalry I've heard generally originated in a culture and generation in which gender equality was not a widely accepted concept and gender roles were more rigid and static, some of the "honorable behavior" code promotes inaccurate and harmful assumptions and behavior. For example, take some of the rules on men relating to women in public: not sitting when there are women standing, holding the door for women, men paying for their female companions, etc. These rules assume that men are stronger, and women weaker, and thus men deferring to women in these conventions is conflated with the idea of the strong protecting the weak. The ideal of the strong protecting the weak is very, very good, but in our society it does not make sense to apply it strictly along gender lines. Any person should be willing to hold the door, give up their seat, or physically assist a person who is weaker than they or who is dealing with heavy loads, cumbersome strollers, or vivacious young children. Sometimes, this ethic will lead to men holding doors for women; sometimes it will not. When I am out with my elderly grandfather, I hold the door for him. When my husband is carrying our youngest, who at 11 months is, together with his carseat, quite heavy, I hold the door for him. (my husband, at 6'8", is far stronger than I am in my 5'2", un-athletic self; in this case it makes perfect sense for him to do the heavy lifting. Thanks, babe! :) )When I see a man pushing a stroller or carrying bags, I hold the door for him. To be clear, I don't mind guys holding doors or giving their seats for me; no, not at all. I do think, however, that while those actions are nice and well-intentioned we should make every effort to separate a convention that a person may enjoy retaining from the flawed ideological assumption that may have originated it.
When it comes to the man paying for the lady, I think it is logical to assume that this came from a time when women were far less likely to have self-supporting careers, or even to be employed and earning wages, than their male counterparts, and so males were naturally left with a degree of fiscal responsibility that is thankfully unnecessary today.
Which brings me to my next point- male responsibility. One of the most negative aspects of the code of honorable male behavior I've observed in my culture is the idea that the husband/father bears ultimate responsibility, not only for children he may father, but for his wife/girlfriend as well. For example, the unequal alimony laws in some states still reflect this idea, as well as the assumption that the male will be more able to fiscally provide for the support of a family. (I'm not denigrating fatherhood or a male's reproductive or familial responsibility here- I'm simply saying that a man/husband/father does not have more responsibility than a woman/wife/mother. They are equally responsible.) This inflated idea of responsibility can be an unnecessary weight when a man's wife or adult children are not being great people and he must deal with feeling responsible, even though he cannot, and as per their adulthood should not, change them or manage their behavior. It can lead to a man, who is married to a woman who is mired in learned helplessness, feeling responsible for her welfare to a degree that he should not and putting up with more in his marriage than he should because he fears that to stand up to abusive, manipulative, etc behavior is somehow failing in a sacred manly duty. By holding males to a different standard, this hurts men and women both- men, because it binds them to situations to which they should not be bound, and women, because their voices are not valued to the same degree because of their reduced perceived responsibility. For example- if a man marries an adult woman with little to no education or job skills, and finds that he has also married a poor mother and a manipulative, emotionally abusive wife, he may hesitate to take steps to protect himself or his children because he feels responsible for his wife and her future welfare, even though she is a mentally capable adult. Then, too, a man may feel pressure to control his wife since he considers himself responsible for her; this can lead to very, very unhealthy relational power dynamics. Additionally, if a woman is raised to believe that she has/needs a man to be responsible for her, she may well not be as motivated to acquire the education or job skills that make such responsibility fiscally unnecessary, or she may remain in an almost childlike state, incapable of independence, lacking the mental independence and informed mind that make dependence on the responsibility of males unnecessary or even untenable.
Personal responsibility is a great thing, and teaching our kids to take responsibility for themselves, their choices, and their children is critical. But that responsibility should not be gender based, and when we decide to take responsibility for someone else, whether it's because they are mentally incapable, or our beloved parents or grandparents who can no longer be independent, or adorable little humans that we made, that responsibility should be thoughtful, intentional, and- again- not gender based. While many people fail to take enough responsibility for themselves, some people tend to feel responsible for others when they shouldn't, especially males, older siblings, and people with "care taking" personalities, from my observation. (older sibs and caretakers generally for very different reasons.)
Basically, I think that some of the ideas of honorable behavior, particularly for males, would be great if they were not based on gender and were regulated with common sense. The concept of honor, responsibility, altruism, etc is great, but it should be gender neutral. Every time.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Google Search Terms
Apparently the top google search keywords this week which led people here were "ecclesiocracy concepts" and "piano jokes." I laughed. I do sometimes wonder if I should be trying to fit the musical/technical and theological/philosophical/political sides of me into the one blog, but they're both such a huge part of me that I think I'd lose something if I ditched one.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 5: Religion in Politics and Legislating Morality
There are three preliminary conclusions which influence everything else I believe on this subject, (the role of religious law and belief in civil government) and without agreement on which I couldn't really debate it. They are:
1. Involuntary acts mean nothing in terms of morality.
While actions may be good for us and good for society and generally a good idea, no action pleases God unless it is done with the right motive and is voluntary. If you treat people kindly because someone's going to hurt you if you don't, it's still treating people kindly, which is an inherently positive thing, but it is very different than treating people kindly because you love God and you view that as part of your faith in action. In both cases you have done something good, but doing it because you choose to is different from doing it because you're forced to. God wants love and unbounded choice to do good, not just lip service and exterior forms of godliness.
2. We cannot, and we should not, try to coerce conversion or religious belief.
To do so would be morally wrong. We are to witness with service, example, and sharing/teaching, but we are not to bully or shame. Ever.
3. It is not the government's job to legislate morality or to shepherd the faith of its people
.
It is the government's job to protect the freedoms and general of its people, to enforce the rule of law, and to facilitate infrastructure in as local as way as is feasible.
That said, I absolutely think Christians have a responsibility to be involved in our government at all levels, in the arts, and/or in whatever ways we have been gifted and enabled to charge our world for the better. Part of our mandate as Christians is to release the captives, comfort the mourning, and bring justice to the oppressed. We can do this through politics, and as it is my belief that a free society is most conducive to this, working for a just and free community can be a big part of fulfilling that mandate. We may also have opportunities to share our faith with those who ask and who we would not have met otherwise, and to witness by our example of service to our communities. Working in politics to make our home free, prosperous, and friendly to the free exercise of our religion is a great and noble work. However, this does not mean that our laws should conform to any specific set of religious dictums. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are many problems inherent in an ecclesiocracy/theocracy, such as lack of agreement within faiths, a substitution of rule books for divine relationship, etc. As a Christian, I believe I have a responsibility to foster a political environment that is friendly to my faith and does not prohibit it, but also does not mandate it or interfere with it unless it harms others or endangers their basic freedoms. I view separation of the state from any one church as an inherently good thing. Of course, the state will be influenced by the faiths and churches of the people who comprise it; after all, what is government but the people to we elect to do the jobs we cannot or do not wish to do? But- to call ourselves a "Christian Nation" can be a bit problematic. What does that mean, exactly? With which flavor of Christianity would we be identifying? Southern Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Mennonite? If by Christian Nation we mean a place where Christians and other can freely practice their religions with a few caveats, or a place where the basic values taught by Christ in the beatitudes are a fundamental part of the legal foundation, then I think we can proudly own the term. But if that means that being an American is synonymous with being a member of the Christian faith then I think I'd rather call it (and I can't at this time, not completely) a nation of Religious Freedom, and a nation whose people take responsibility for it.
All that said- what should be our foundation for law? Our constitution is based on a value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality. I cannot think of a better starting point. Those things are also part of the Christian faith, but are not necessarily unique to it; many atheists would hold them as a positive foundation for a legal system as well. To hold up such a standard does not interfere with religious freedom, as our constitution is not part of any religion. It contains theistic statements, but I think it is generally understood that theism is not required for citizenship or to uphold the values set out in our founding documents. There are some things required of certain religions which violate our basic legal framework, and that is where religious freedom should end- take honor killings, forced marriages, or state punishment of consensual adult sexual behaviors such as adultery, premarital sex, or homosexuality, for example. We could always privilege the Christian faith, but that would be almost impossible due to the diversity within it. I firmly believe that the basic values of our constitution are thus a better framework for our government, and will more likely create a state of religious freedom, than any strictly religious law (Levitical, or Sharia, et c) or religiously mandated form of government.
The fact that our faith requires a position or behavior from us is not sufficient to legislate it for those who do not share that faith. Most of the dictates of the Christian faith are within the "value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality" category, and thus are law not because they are in the bible, but because they reflect our basic legal ideas. Everything from insurance fraud to murder to the abortion debate can be traced back to those basic things. There are, of course, some things that many Christians believe to be morally wrong that do not fall within the confines of proper governmental jurisdiction. Adultery and Homosexuality come to mind- we do not throw people in jail for either one, nor should we. The state is not our parent, and we are not its child; consensual behavior between adults does not negatively affect the general population in a way that merits government interference, and all moral and religious implications are the purview of the parties involved, their church, and their God. There may be consequences- in the name of justice, a spouse may seek a divorce when adultery comes to light, and because marriage involves a contract which in such a case was broken, the offended party may be entitled to a distribution of assets that reflects this. This is very different from jailing the offending parties for their moral sin, however.
There is no reason for the state to discriminate based upon a religious rule that is not necessary under the ideals of the constitution. For example- many Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Still, the state recognizes heterosexual spouses and parents regardless of qualification, and does not (and should not) require that homosexual couples should have to prove their fitness to acquire children any more than should heterosexual couples.
(Also, as a matter of consistency- it makes no sense, biblically, to limit homosexual marriage any more than we limit adulterous marriage. Let's be consistent- if LGBT folk can't really be married, then neither can people in polyamorous relationships or people who cheat on each other. Not the government's business, you say? Mmmm..... exactly.)
If we wish to make a law prohibiting marriage between gay couples, it is then inconsistent to use religious or biblical grounds to do so. If we desire such a law, we should first determine whether same sex marriage violates the principles of liberty, respect for life, justice, and equality. If same sex marriage is not counterintuitive to those things, then we ought to ask whether or not it does quantifiable harm to people outside the relationship and infringes on the rights of others. If it does not, then, irrespective and regardless of its morality, I question the legal justification for such a law.
Because involuntary morality does not count towards true holiness, we are doing our society and the people in it no favors when we legislate religious observance. Making laws which render our home freer and safer is wonderful, but legislating religious morality or observance of biblical law which falls outside of our constitutional purview simply puts our people in a place of observing law from fear of punishment, rather than because they are attempting to love God more fully. (I am in no way saying that I believe Christians are bound by the Levitical law, by the way. I'm just using it here as an example of an extra-constitutional morality code that we could, but should not, adopt.) I can see no end to such a course but useless bondage.
Some may argue that allowing same sex marriage necessitates a fundamental redefinition of marriage. To that, I'd say- 1, that depends upon your definition of marriage, and 2, the definition of marriage is not specified and hallowed in our constitution as are other issues. Marriage, while it has historically been heterosexual, has not historically been a Christ-honoring, mutual, monogamous relationship, even within the church. There are exceptions, of course, but unless we're going back to the garden of Eden before misogyny reared its ugly head, then we're dealing with a mixed bag that includes a healthy dose of polygamy and a heaping cup of gender inequality. I really see no problem with clarifying its legal definition to include committed monogamous relationships between any two humans.
Then, of course, there is the issue of civil vs. religious marriage- I would support a state-recognized civil union between any two people, and the idea of leaving the religious end of marriage the purview of individuals and churches. That's a rabbit trail for another time, though.
1. Involuntary acts mean nothing in terms of morality.
While actions may be good for us and good for society and generally a good idea, no action pleases God unless it is done with the right motive and is voluntary. If you treat people kindly because someone's going to hurt you if you don't, it's still treating people kindly, which is an inherently positive thing, but it is very different than treating people kindly because you love God and you view that as part of your faith in action. In both cases you have done something good, but doing it because you choose to is different from doing it because you're forced to. God wants love and unbounded choice to do good, not just lip service and exterior forms of godliness.
2. We cannot, and we should not, try to coerce conversion or religious belief.
To do so would be morally wrong. We are to witness with service, example, and sharing/teaching, but we are not to bully or shame. Ever.
3. It is not the government's job to legislate morality or to shepherd the faith of its people
.
It is the government's job to protect the freedoms and general of its people, to enforce the rule of law, and to facilitate infrastructure in as local as way as is feasible.
That said, I absolutely think Christians have a responsibility to be involved in our government at all levels, in the arts, and/or in whatever ways we have been gifted and enabled to charge our world for the better. Part of our mandate as Christians is to release the captives, comfort the mourning, and bring justice to the oppressed. We can do this through politics, and as it is my belief that a free society is most conducive to this, working for a just and free community can be a big part of fulfilling that mandate. We may also have opportunities to share our faith with those who ask and who we would not have met otherwise, and to witness by our example of service to our communities. Working in politics to make our home free, prosperous, and friendly to the free exercise of our religion is a great and noble work. However, this does not mean that our laws should conform to any specific set of religious dictums. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are many problems inherent in an ecclesiocracy/theocracy, such as lack of agreement within faiths, a substitution of rule books for divine relationship, etc. As a Christian, I believe I have a responsibility to foster a political environment that is friendly to my faith and does not prohibit it, but also does not mandate it or interfere with it unless it harms others or endangers their basic freedoms. I view separation of the state from any one church as an inherently good thing. Of course, the state will be influenced by the faiths and churches of the people who comprise it; after all, what is government but the people to we elect to do the jobs we cannot or do not wish to do? But- to call ourselves a "Christian Nation" can be a bit problematic. What does that mean, exactly? With which flavor of Christianity would we be identifying? Southern Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Mennonite? If by Christian Nation we mean a place where Christians and other can freely practice their religions with a few caveats, or a place where the basic values taught by Christ in the beatitudes are a fundamental part of the legal foundation, then I think we can proudly own the term. But if that means that being an American is synonymous with being a member of the Christian faith then I think I'd rather call it (and I can't at this time, not completely) a nation of Religious Freedom, and a nation whose people take responsibility for it.
All that said- what should be our foundation for law? Our constitution is based on a value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality. I cannot think of a better starting point. Those things are also part of the Christian faith, but are not necessarily unique to it; many atheists would hold them as a positive foundation for a legal system as well. To hold up such a standard does not interfere with religious freedom, as our constitution is not part of any religion. It contains theistic statements, but I think it is generally understood that theism is not required for citizenship or to uphold the values set out in our founding documents. There are some things required of certain religions which violate our basic legal framework, and that is where religious freedom should end- take honor killings, forced marriages, or state punishment of consensual adult sexual behaviors such as adultery, premarital sex, or homosexuality, for example. We could always privilege the Christian faith, but that would be almost impossible due to the diversity within it. I firmly believe that the basic values of our constitution are thus a better framework for our government, and will more likely create a state of religious freedom, than any strictly religious law (Levitical, or Sharia, et c) or religiously mandated form of government.
The fact that our faith requires a position or behavior from us is not sufficient to legislate it for those who do not share that faith. Most of the dictates of the Christian faith are within the "value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality" category, and thus are law not because they are in the bible, but because they reflect our basic legal ideas. Everything from insurance fraud to murder to the abortion debate can be traced back to those basic things. There are, of course, some things that many Christians believe to be morally wrong that do not fall within the confines of proper governmental jurisdiction. Adultery and Homosexuality come to mind- we do not throw people in jail for either one, nor should we. The state is not our parent, and we are not its child; consensual behavior between adults does not negatively affect the general population in a way that merits government interference, and all moral and religious implications are the purview of the parties involved, their church, and their God. There may be consequences- in the name of justice, a spouse may seek a divorce when adultery comes to light, and because marriage involves a contract which in such a case was broken, the offended party may be entitled to a distribution of assets that reflects this. This is very different from jailing the offending parties for their moral sin, however.
There is no reason for the state to discriminate based upon a religious rule that is not necessary under the ideals of the constitution. For example- many Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Still, the state recognizes heterosexual spouses and parents regardless of qualification, and does not (and should not) require that homosexual couples should have to prove their fitness to acquire children any more than should heterosexual couples.
(Also, as a matter of consistency- it makes no sense, biblically, to limit homosexual marriage any more than we limit adulterous marriage. Let's be consistent- if LGBT folk can't really be married, then neither can people in polyamorous relationships or people who cheat on each other. Not the government's business, you say? Mmmm..... exactly.)
If we wish to make a law prohibiting marriage between gay couples, it is then inconsistent to use religious or biblical grounds to do so. If we desire such a law, we should first determine whether same sex marriage violates the principles of liberty, respect for life, justice, and equality. If same sex marriage is not counterintuitive to those things, then we ought to ask whether or not it does quantifiable harm to people outside the relationship and infringes on the rights of others. If it does not, then, irrespective and regardless of its morality, I question the legal justification for such a law.
Because involuntary morality does not count towards true holiness, we are doing our society and the people in it no favors when we legislate religious observance. Making laws which render our home freer and safer is wonderful, but legislating religious morality or observance of biblical law which falls outside of our constitutional purview simply puts our people in a place of observing law from fear of punishment, rather than because they are attempting to love God more fully. (I am in no way saying that I believe Christians are bound by the Levitical law, by the way. I'm just using it here as an example of an extra-constitutional morality code that we could, but should not, adopt.) I can see no end to such a course but useless bondage.
Some may argue that allowing same sex marriage necessitates a fundamental redefinition of marriage. To that, I'd say- 1, that depends upon your definition of marriage, and 2, the definition of marriage is not specified and hallowed in our constitution as are other issues. Marriage, while it has historically been heterosexual, has not historically been a Christ-honoring, mutual, monogamous relationship, even within the church. There are exceptions, of course, but unless we're going back to the garden of Eden before misogyny reared its ugly head, then we're dealing with a mixed bag that includes a healthy dose of polygamy and a heaping cup of gender inequality. I really see no problem with clarifying its legal definition to include committed monogamous relationships between any two humans.
Then, of course, there is the issue of civil vs. religious marriage- I would support a state-recognized civil union between any two people, and the idea of leaving the religious end of marriage the purview of individuals and churches. That's a rabbit trail for another time, though.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Theocracy/Ecclesiocracy
I've heard some people say, people dear to my heart and who I respect to a degree that makes me sad to hear them say it, that what we need in the US is a good old-fashioned Theocracy. I've seen this idea run the gamut from those who want to implement the Judaic law found in the Torah to those who want American law to reflect "conservative, traditional biblical family values." To the first I'll not even give the credence of a rebuttal; the very idea that implementing a law, designed for an ancient nomadic people, to which we are not morally bound as Christians, and which Christ himself declared moot is beyond ridiculous. I'd like to address, instead, the more mainstream and slightly-less-offensive idea that American law should reflect and legislate those"conservative, traditional biblical family values."
First of all- who, exactly, gets to define what those values are? Not even conservative evangelical Christians have a uniform moral ethic, a uniform theology, or even a uniform or consistent biblical hermeneutic. If any one facet of Christianity were to make the rules, other, equally "conservative" facets would be bound to a framework with which they would not agree. Take, for example, the abortion issue: I personally know conservative, evangelical Christians who believe that no abortion is ever right, not even to save the mother when the alternative is the death of both mother and child. (I find this position personally abhorrent and dehumanizing, by the way) Others are passionately in favor of allowing for it only to save a mother's life from being sacrificed unnecessarily; still others think that in the case of rape or incest a woman should have the right to abort. In a theocracy, the "right" view is generally inseparable from the "legal" view, and once a "right" position is codified by those in power, the dissenters are expected to acquiesce. Thus, one of the problems with theocracy from the beginning would be its limiting of religious freedom, even among the "conservative, traditional American Christian" subset.
Secondly- what is the benefit to legislating extra-biblical morality? Make no mistake; the "conservative traditional values" mores often encompass far more than is required of New Testament believers. Some examples include rigid gender roles, male leadership, "purity" that goes beyond abstaining from sex with those to whom you're not married into the realms of "emotional purity" and that ilk, arbitrary standards of appropriateness in language, demonizing divorce, maintaining a "Sunday" list of do's and don'ts in an attempt to return to a concept of sabath keeping, and many more. From from being beneficial, I seem to recall Jesus having some rather harsh things to say to those Jews who imposed restrictions on others far in excess of that which the Torah mandated. What if you're gay? Divorced? What if you're a woman with leadership, apologetic, or pastoral skills? In this sort of society, if you don't meet the traditional nuclear familial ideal and fit well into your gender role you are on the fringes at best.
Most troubling, though, is the fundamentally flawed theology/philosophy which allows for Theocracy/Ecclesiocracy as a valid and morally superior option. In more libertarian forms of government, the focus is on either protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens and by default punishing those who harm their neighbors, protecting the good of the society at large, etc. In an Ecclesiocracy or Theocracy, however, church law and civil law are inextricably linked and religious prohibitions are made law whether or not they make sense in the secular world, are generally beneficial, or meet the same standards of good and harm that laws in a non-religious, libertarian legal framework would need to meet. Proponents of a theocracy generally believe that there is good to be attained by legislating religious morality beyond the protection of basic freedoms and those who cannot protect themselves. In other words, this view hinges on religious observance, which is executed because the law says it must be so, being of personal and social benefit. This view I disagree with wholeheartedly. Social benefit comes from laws which protect the innocent, basic rights, etc to be sure; I see no social benefit to be derived from dictating observances that do not harm others but rather encroach on my personal and religious freedom. Here's the worst part- this view implies that doing right things, or following right laws, makes you right with God. That is false. All the right things, done because the law says we have to, mean nothing to Jesus. Depending upon the item in question, doing it may make us a "better person", and may make our society more pleasant; but I am convinced that obeying God means nothing if it is not voluntary. We are commanded to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. We are never told to look to the government to tell us what that means.
Also, I think that the very protection of innocence and freedom is better served by a more unbiased, libertarian form of government than by a theocratic one, because it operates with less prejudice and far more objectively. Another flaw in theocratic government is that, if religious leaders are also civil leaders, then to question civil leaders is to question religious leaders and sometimes questioning religious leaders is equated with questioning God. Absolute power corrupts, and any leader who is above questioning and accountability can be tempted to abuse their power.
Really, any system that conflates questioning civil things with questioning Christianity and God's will is a very dangerous thing.
First of all- who, exactly, gets to define what those values are? Not even conservative evangelical Christians have a uniform moral ethic, a uniform theology, or even a uniform or consistent biblical hermeneutic. If any one facet of Christianity were to make the rules, other, equally "conservative" facets would be bound to a framework with which they would not agree. Take, for example, the abortion issue: I personally know conservative, evangelical Christians who believe that no abortion is ever right, not even to save the mother when the alternative is the death of both mother and child. (I find this position personally abhorrent and dehumanizing, by the way) Others are passionately in favor of allowing for it only to save a mother's life from being sacrificed unnecessarily; still others think that in the case of rape or incest a woman should have the right to abort. In a theocracy, the "right" view is generally inseparable from the "legal" view, and once a "right" position is codified by those in power, the dissenters are expected to acquiesce. Thus, one of the problems with theocracy from the beginning would be its limiting of religious freedom, even among the "conservative, traditional American Christian" subset.
Secondly- what is the benefit to legislating extra-biblical morality? Make no mistake; the "conservative traditional values" mores often encompass far more than is required of New Testament believers. Some examples include rigid gender roles, male leadership, "purity" that goes beyond abstaining from sex with those to whom you're not married into the realms of "emotional purity" and that ilk, arbitrary standards of appropriateness in language, demonizing divorce, maintaining a "Sunday" list of do's and don'ts in an attempt to return to a concept of sabath keeping, and many more. From from being beneficial, I seem to recall Jesus having some rather harsh things to say to those Jews who imposed restrictions on others far in excess of that which the Torah mandated. What if you're gay? Divorced? What if you're a woman with leadership, apologetic, or pastoral skills? In this sort of society, if you don't meet the traditional nuclear familial ideal and fit well into your gender role you are on the fringes at best.
Most troubling, though, is the fundamentally flawed theology/philosophy which allows for Theocracy/Ecclesiocracy as a valid and morally superior option. In more libertarian forms of government, the focus is on either protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens and by default punishing those who harm their neighbors, protecting the good of the society at large, etc. In an Ecclesiocracy or Theocracy, however, church law and civil law are inextricably linked and religious prohibitions are made law whether or not they make sense in the secular world, are generally beneficial, or meet the same standards of good and harm that laws in a non-religious, libertarian legal framework would need to meet. Proponents of a theocracy generally believe that there is good to be attained by legislating religious morality beyond the protection of basic freedoms and those who cannot protect themselves. In other words, this view hinges on religious observance, which is executed because the law says it must be so, being of personal and social benefit. This view I disagree with wholeheartedly. Social benefit comes from laws which protect the innocent, basic rights, etc to be sure; I see no social benefit to be derived from dictating observances that do not harm others but rather encroach on my personal and religious freedom. Here's the worst part- this view implies that doing right things, or following right laws, makes you right with God. That is false. All the right things, done because the law says we have to, mean nothing to Jesus. Depending upon the item in question, doing it may make us a "better person", and may make our society more pleasant; but I am convinced that obeying God means nothing if it is not voluntary. We are commanded to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. We are never told to look to the government to tell us what that means.
Also, I think that the very protection of innocence and freedom is better served by a more unbiased, libertarian form of government than by a theocratic one, because it operates with less prejudice and far more objectively. Another flaw in theocratic government is that, if religious leaders are also civil leaders, then to question civil leaders is to question religious leaders and sometimes questioning religious leaders is equated with questioning God. Absolute power corrupts, and any leader who is above questioning and accountability can be tempted to abuse their power.
Really, any system that conflates questioning civil things with questioning Christianity and God's will is a very dangerous thing.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
The Bible and the Mind
and history to help us interpret the bible?
For me, the yes is resounding and self-evident. The most obvious point, of course, is that it would be impossible not to. We use our minds every time we read the bible, listen to a sermon, or have a conversation. Without out the use of our intellect we would have no basis to process or interpret anything we hear. When I hear people say "we can't know that with our natural mind" I sometimes hear it as "don't question, test, or try to figure that out." I don't think that response is ever recommended in history, scripture, or by any truly great thinkers of whom I am aware.
What possible benefits could be served by turning off our probing, questioning, skeptical, imperfect minds?
Is God the author of all Truth? I believe God is. Does that fundamental, cosmic, universal capital-T-Truth ever contradict truth in science, math, etc? Assuming the mathematical/scientific truth in question is true, and not human error (as in a flat earth, the four humours, et c) I believe the answer to be no. If we believe that the truer something is, the closer to God's perspective it is, then searching for truth and Truth is a very, very good thing to do. If we really believe that God is all-powerful, and behind every real truth, why would we hesitate to question, learn, and test? Is a fear of questions an indication of great faith, or little, fragile faith? Sometimes, to be sure, our human minds misinterpret, our technology fails, and we end up with misconceptions of epic proportions. But continuing to learn and grow in knowledge and wisdom of all sorts will mitigate such failures far faster than shutting down growth because we fear to fail again. We are created in the image of God. This includes our mind. While we are flawed because of sin, we still reflect Divine glory and creativity. Our logic and reason, though they may be flawed at times, are still a reflection of God's design. Logical equations that we observe to be true are not in conflict with God's design- quite the reverse!
Look at history- how have the great advances in human learning and achievement, both sacred and secular, come about? Did Newton experiment and quantify basic physics from scriptural revelation? No, though to the degree that his observations and conclusions were correct they never contradicted scripture. Not to say that spiritual revelation was never involved (Luther, anyone?) but it certainly wasn't limited to that.
The Bible was written to show us the heart of God and lead us to Christ and to holiness, love, justice, mercy, and humility. The Bible wasn't written as a science, math, or history textbook. This does not mean that the Bible has errors in those areas, but that it is not the conclusive, exhaustive repository of all knowledge. Does it contain everything necessary for salvation and holiness? Yes. Does it contain everything humanity needs to continue to develop and thrive? No. Even for the holiness, justice, et c the Bible very often offers general principles instead of specifics. Specifics change with time, location and culture; general principles like "love your neighbor" and "act justly" do not.
Sometimes, human thought and wisdom is misguided and erroneous. In that case, it is antithetical to truth or Truth. Many times, though, human thought is separated from God's wisdom not as an antithetical, opposite altogether-different concept, but by degrees. Humans know that gravity exists, though we cannot explain it fully. God knows the ends and outs of it as a potter knows his vases. Does this mean that human wisdom in this area is wrong? So far as we know, no. It is incomplete. There is a difference. When human wisdom is wrong, and thus antithetical to God's truth, the truth will out. The more we learn, and the clearer our "glass, darkly" becomes, the more we change our conclusions to fit with our increasing data and understanding, the less antithetical to Divine wisdom our wisdom becomes. When our wisdom is true as far as it goes, but incomplete (arguably, there will always be areas of incompleteness until Christ comes and we know all) the solution is the same- we learn, we experiment, we probe, we test. In so doing, we grow by degrees ever closer to truth and Truth.
Sometimes we see, hear, and experience things that we do not understand. There are still so many mysteries to ourselves, our world, and our God that we have yet to uncover. This is where Faith comes in- Faith, the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Sometimes we do not have evidence or conclusive-enough data for an idea or decision. So, we believe what we decide to believe, what the Holy Spirit whispers in our hearts, or what is most congruent with other, better substantiated beliefs. However- is it wrong to continue to study and learn, through natural means, things that we have long taken on faith? Of course not. Seeing the natural realities behind what we hold in faith can only make it stronger. And, if our discoveries contradict that faith, to reexamine is not to hold in contempt. Again- if we really believe that God is the author of Truth, then we must believe that the closer to truth we are, the closer to the heart of God we are. Being willing to change, adapt, and let discovered truth overrule tradition is not evil, and it is not weak.
On Bible interpretation, specifically- which is better: to hold tradition with prejudice above all, or to examine with every light we have the truth of the matter? I'd say the latter, most definitely. While I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, I do not believe that any one translation or interpretation is. With no evidence to the contrary, I do not malign the giving of prejudice to precedent. However, we would be foolish to spurn anything that aids us in discovering the original message and Word contained in the Bible.
Imagine being handed a letter. The letter was not written for you specifically, but the bearer tells you that there is great love, great truth, and great knowledge contained in the letter. How would you read it? Suppose the writer admonished some person in the letter to do something. Would you automatically assume that that admonition meant that you should do that, without any inquiry or context? I would hope not. You would try to find out who wrote the letter, to whom it was written, and what their situations were. The same phrase can be written by two different people in different contexts, and, while equally true, mean very different things.
Is it disrespectful to the Bible to study its context, history, and authors? Certainly not. In fact, I think that to neglect anything but a cursory reading of the plain text can miss out on much truth, and can in some cases distort it. If the Bible is to be our rule of faith and practice, and I believe it is, then it deserves every effort at truthful interpretation and discovery we can give it.
To attempt to use the mind without the spirit, or the spirit without the mind, robs us of truth and knowledge. The two should be inseparable. I'm reminded of Paul, speaking of prayer and praying in tongues- 1Co 14:13-17 For this reason, let the man who has the power of using tongues make request that he may, at the same time, be able to give the sense. For if I make use of tongues in my prayers, my spirit makes the prayer, but not my mind. What then? let my prayer be from the spirit, and equally from the mind; let my song be from the spirit, and equally from mind. For if you give a blessing with the spirit, how will the man who has no knowledge say, So be it, after your prayer, seeing that he has not taken in what you are saying? For your giving of the blessing is certainly well done, but of no profit to the man without knowledge.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Skepticism
Skepticism is not evil. Questioning is not unhealthy.
Qualifying is good, and clarifying is helpful.
It annoys me when I see Christians, specifically, who are afraid or unwilling or too brainwashed into submission to "authority" to question, test, and vet what their leaders say, do, and write. If the Apostle Paul himself appeared in our church, would we question whether what he said was true and vet it thoroughly through reason and the scriptures? If not, we would be unworthy of the accolades he gave the Bereans- Paul preached to them, and they went home and vetted what he said.
Acts 17:10-11 says: Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Far from being censured for this, they are recorded in scripture as being "fair minded", (that's the KJV talking) or noble. They were commended because they listened readily to the teaching, and then compared it to their scriptures to vet it for accuracy. Questioning, probing, and testing are healthy, right, and compatible with both faith and trust. (If you're skeptical of that last statement- bravo! Question away, look it up, and push back in the comment section at your leisure.)
Nowhere in scripture are we told to follow any one preacher, doctrine, or idea blindly. Truth should only be strengthened by questioning and criticism. If an idea or position doesn't hold up to questions we would be wise to view it with suspicion. If we truly believe that God is the author of ultimate Truth, the closer we are to truth the closer we are to Truth. A healthy skepticism seeks truth, knowledge, and values these things more than comfort or conformity. I think it actually demonstrates a lack of faith when we view our beliefs as too weak to hold up to questioning, doubts, or skepticism.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Adult Daughters and Authority, Part 1
"Daughters should be under their fathers' authority until marriage." "Daughters should realize that their father has insights into potential suitors that they do not have, and they should therefore avoid any romantic relationships that do not have their fathers' blessing. " I've heard these, and variations of these, for as long as I can remember. I have many friends and relatives that believe them still, and I consider the ideas of absolute parental authority and parental authority in romantic relationships in particular to be some of the most insidious lies I have encountered. I see no support for them in scripture, and no way to support them logically or morally.
What exactly am I talking about? First, the concept of parental authority. Proponents of the above ideas believe that even legal adults are accountable to their parents for their actions until married, (though some limit this to daughters only) that God "speaks through authorities", which includes parents, and that "authority" works like an umbrella- stay under your "authorities" and God blesses you; stray from their counsel and you will "not have God's best." "Authorities" in this context can mean boss, pastor, etc, but most often means parents, as their "authority" is considered to take precedence over the others.
So- logically and biblically, does this view of authority hold water? One could certainly say that there is precedent for parents controlling adult children or selecting mates for them, but there is equal precedent for polygamy and slavery, so I don't think that precedent alone proves the heart of God for His people. =) Children are treated as property of their parents in the Levitical law, but again I'm assuming that does not mean that we should live that way; else it would be a sin to be intimate with your wife on her period or to eat pork. From where I'm coming from, there is a big difference between descriptive biblical precedent here, meaning x happened a certain way in the bible, and prescriptive biblical precedent, meaning x is commanded to all believers for all time. For example- the great commission ("Go ye unto all the world and preach the gospel, making disciples etc.") is prescriptive. Tithing exactly as Abraham did would be a good example of descriptive being taken as a prescriptive. I'm not saying that descriptive examples should never be followed- just that the fact that it happened a certain way in scripture does not mean that that is God's intent for us; this is true particularly when we are dealing with what people did apart from divine commands, I think. The exception would be the life of Jesus- though He was human while He was here, He was not a fallible human, at least to those of us who believe in His divinity. His example is safe to follow- we are, after all, basing our entire faith on being His followers.
But back to authority- what does the bible prescriptively say about children's responsibility to their parents? Eph. 6:1 says "Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right." It is important to note that "Children - τέκνα tekna This word usually signifies those who are young; but it is used here, evidently, to denote those who were under the care and government of their parents, or those who were not of age." (Barnes) This is referring to literal children, not adult offspring who are able to be independent. The next verse says we are to honor our parents, (age limit not specified here) which here means to revere and value them. However, there is a huge difference between honor and obey! You can honor a person while disobeying them, and you can obey a person without honoring them. Col. 3:20 says basically the same thing- children, obey your parents. I do think it interesting that these commands are never to fathers alone, but equally to both parents. So- are children required to obey parents, as long as parents do not ask them to sin? (the "in the Lord" bit) Yes. Are adults? NO. I can find no prescription for it. Supporting your parents when they are old? Yes. Obeying them? No.
I personally believe that Jesus did not sin. Yet, when he was 12 and a man in his culture, he left his parents' caravan to spend time in the temple. Was this independence wrong? I think not. Also consider- where in scripture does God speak through parents? When the angel came to Mary, did the angel first go to her parents? Did she or Joseph ever consult their parents' advice about what to do with her pregnancy? If they did, it isn't mentioned. When God spoke to Samuel did he speak through an "authority"? Now- of course parents do have a degree of responsibility for their children. But that responsibility is to train them and teach them so that when they are old, they will not forsake their training, from which I infer that doing as you've been taught as an adult is a choice, not something within legitimate parental control.
Logically, how much sense does it make for a parent to exercise control over adult children in this culture? Who must live with the decisions made and their consequences, the adult child or their parent? Which would make the adult child more capable, responsible, and productive? A freedom to make their own choices, hear God for themselves, and live with their mistakes, or the bondage of having to live with career, education, marriage, etc. choices that were not their own and the ability to shove off the (very important, if they are ever to hear God for themselves and be able to function without a parent at their side) difficult decisions on an "authority"?
Closely related to this subject, though too long to fully address in this post, :) is the idea that adult Christians need this hierarchal relational structure, like the submission of adult children to parents or adult wives to their husbands. Contrast this with what Jesus taught about oneness in Christ and our spiritual equality before God. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say that we need a mediator between ourselves and Himself, or that we need someone to interpret His voice for us. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Jesus lists Himself as the only mediator between God and Man. According to my reading of scripture and my experience as a follower of Christ, anyone who tries to control another fully-functioning adult and interpret God's will for them is in effect putting themselves in the place of God, which is entirely too close to idolatry for comfort.
What exactly am I talking about? First, the concept of parental authority. Proponents of the above ideas believe that even legal adults are accountable to their parents for their actions until married, (though some limit this to daughters only) that God "speaks through authorities", which includes parents, and that "authority" works like an umbrella- stay under your "authorities" and God blesses you; stray from their counsel and you will "not have God's best." "Authorities" in this context can mean boss, pastor, etc, but most often means parents, as their "authority" is considered to take precedence over the others.
So- logically and biblically, does this view of authority hold water? One could certainly say that there is precedent for parents controlling adult children or selecting mates for them, but there is equal precedent for polygamy and slavery, so I don't think that precedent alone proves the heart of God for His people. =) Children are treated as property of their parents in the Levitical law, but again I'm assuming that does not mean that we should live that way; else it would be a sin to be intimate with your wife on her period or to eat pork. From where I'm coming from, there is a big difference between descriptive biblical precedent here, meaning x happened a certain way in the bible, and prescriptive biblical precedent, meaning x is commanded to all believers for all time. For example- the great commission ("Go ye unto all the world and preach the gospel, making disciples etc.") is prescriptive. Tithing exactly as Abraham did would be a good example of descriptive being taken as a prescriptive. I'm not saying that descriptive examples should never be followed- just that the fact that it happened a certain way in scripture does not mean that that is God's intent for us; this is true particularly when we are dealing with what people did apart from divine commands, I think. The exception would be the life of Jesus- though He was human while He was here, He was not a fallible human, at least to those of us who believe in His divinity. His example is safe to follow- we are, after all, basing our entire faith on being His followers.
But back to authority- what does the bible prescriptively say about children's responsibility to their parents? Eph. 6:1 says "Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right." It is important to note that "Children - τέκνα tekna This word usually signifies those who are young; but it is used here, evidently, to denote those who were under the care and government of their parents, or those who were not of age." (Barnes) This is referring to literal children, not adult offspring who are able to be independent. The next verse says we are to honor our parents, (age limit not specified here) which here means to revere and value them. However, there is a huge difference between honor and obey! You can honor a person while disobeying them, and you can obey a person without honoring them. Col. 3:20 says basically the same thing- children, obey your parents. I do think it interesting that these commands are never to fathers alone, but equally to both parents. So- are children required to obey parents, as long as parents do not ask them to sin? (the "in the Lord" bit) Yes. Are adults? NO. I can find no prescription for it. Supporting your parents when they are old? Yes. Obeying them? No.
I personally believe that Jesus did not sin. Yet, when he was 12 and a man in his culture, he left his parents' caravan to spend time in the temple. Was this independence wrong? I think not. Also consider- where in scripture does God speak through parents? When the angel came to Mary, did the angel first go to her parents? Did she or Joseph ever consult their parents' advice about what to do with her pregnancy? If they did, it isn't mentioned. When God spoke to Samuel did he speak through an "authority"? Now- of course parents do have a degree of responsibility for their children. But that responsibility is to train them and teach them so that when they are old, they will not forsake their training, from which I infer that doing as you've been taught as an adult is a choice, not something within legitimate parental control.
Logically, how much sense does it make for a parent to exercise control over adult children in this culture? Who must live with the decisions made and their consequences, the adult child or their parent? Which would make the adult child more capable, responsible, and productive? A freedom to make their own choices, hear God for themselves, and live with their mistakes, or the bondage of having to live with career, education, marriage, etc. choices that were not their own and the ability to shove off the (very important, if they are ever to hear God for themselves and be able to function without a parent at their side) difficult decisions on an "authority"?
Closely related to this subject, though too long to fully address in this post, :) is the idea that adult Christians need this hierarchal relational structure, like the submission of adult children to parents or adult wives to their husbands. Contrast this with what Jesus taught about oneness in Christ and our spiritual equality before God. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say that we need a mediator between ourselves and Himself, or that we need someone to interpret His voice for us. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Jesus lists Himself as the only mediator between God and Man. According to my reading of scripture and my experience as a follower of Christ, anyone who tries to control another fully-functioning adult and interpret God's will for them is in effect putting themselves in the place of God, which is entirely too close to idolatry for comfort.
Friday, January 11, 2013
A Quote!
From "The God Who Is There", by F Schaeffer, a bit that I particularly like...
"In our modern forms of specialized education there is a tendency to lose the whole in the parts, and in this sense we can say that our generation produces few truly educated men. True education means to think by association across the various disciplines, and not just being highly qualified in one field, as a technician might be. I suppose no discipline has tended to think more in fragmented fashion than the orthodox or evangelical theology of today......The orthodox christian has paid a very heavy price, both in the defense and communication of the gospel, for his failure to think and act as an educated man..." Of course, I'd apply that to men and women alike....=)
"In our modern forms of specialized education there is a tendency to lose the whole in the parts, and in this sense we can say that our generation produces few truly educated men. True education means to think by association across the various disciplines, and not just being highly qualified in one field, as a technician might be. I suppose no discipline has tended to think more in fragmented fashion than the orthodox or evangelical theology of today......The orthodox christian has paid a very heavy price, both in the defense and communication of the gospel, for his failure to think and act as an educated man..." Of course, I'd apply that to men and women alike....=)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)