In my previous post, I spoke briefly about the thread of culture that runs through the tapestry of America. This thread was summarized by democratic and capitalistic values that create a rabid individualism. I want to address that there may be a response to this from the Church which is the Body of Christ.
Generally speaking, regardless of what cultures we are talking about, when they are found in America and the clashes are happening on this land, the basic presuppositions that they need to have is that basic democratic, capitalistic, individualism. Therefore, the clashes are really not clashes at all but a different way of articulating the same thing. Its six to one, half a dozen to another.
What I am saying is that the Church actually has the resources and story to overcome and become a real alternative to the democratic, capitalistic, individualism of America. Now, in my experience of overhearing conversations about such, there seems to be this lack of imagination among the participants of the conversation, namely the parties that may like being a democratic, capitalistic, individual. It seems that there are only two other options to being a democratic, capitalistic, individual; a socialist or a communist.
I am not saying that the Church needs to become either of these options and in fact, saying that these are the only two other options to a democratic, capitalistic, individualistic lifestyle exemplifies a lack of imagination. A lack of imagination that hinders people from seeing the Church as it really is, a political enterprise unto itself. I suppose the American Republicanism ideal has some of the blame for this, for the effects of this cause has blinded us. We no longer see the Church but as an aggregate of like-minded individuals, whereas the Bible story tells us something completely different. The Church is the Body of Christ (found in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12) where we come together as a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, (the Church, not America for America did not exist during New Testament times) a people belonging to God. (1 Peter 2.9)
This means that we can come together and be a people together, a people that does not need to have "rights" to get along. For rights act as a trump in order to protect individuals who no longer can trust one another, in order to live in some sort of proximity of each other (this can be seen with the stories I have read about children divorcing from their parents through a system of rights). Likewise, being the Church gives us the resources that no longer have to force us to chase after the profits and gains of money. Money is still needed for life but it no longer needs to be my money and your money and his money but our money. It is not that we pool ALL of our money together but that we see our money as one avenue for the service of God. This does not mean some of our money but All of it. That means we give to the poor, and we give to those in the Body that need it. Likewise we can have other means for support and security, like depending upon the Body for support of the family and children (widows and orphans: James 1.27) as opposed to life insurances.
Yet, this can only begin to take shape when we gather not as democratic, capitalistic, individuals but as members of the Body of Christ and members of each other, carrying each others burdens (galations 6). Only then will we realize and remember our polity as the Church.
It will be only then that we will begin to find real communion in the midst of freedom.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism has been recently brought back to my attention. This, I think, is an interesting topic for discussion and it has shown itself in all places that I have studied. Now I do not really know what is meant by “multiculturalism” but I do know that when I was up in northern Minnesota by the reservations, there were cultural clashes going on. I have moved into western Chicagoland and there are cultural clashes going on. Even the move from a smaller, more rural northern Minnesota to the ‘burbs in Illinois became a culture shock for myself. I understand that even some have called America a melting pot of culture and people, there are way more cultures within America than I thought.
Yet there is room to consider if there is something (like a thread in a tapestry) that runs through the minds of the people that live in this land between the oceans. Because in the midst of all the multi-cultures, I believe that there are some commonalities found here. In other words, it is not a chaotic smorgasbord. I think that these threads are:
· Democratic values
· Capitalistic values
o Both lead to individualism
Let me expound a little on what I mean by these.
Democratic values are valuing such things as “equal rights” or even the terms of “rights”; “fairness”; or “equality” is democratic values. This essentially leads to an essential view of humanity as individuals because to live in a democracy, you have to be an individual. This is seen in the tangible ways such as voting which is “one voice equals one vote.” A person does not vote because of tradition, family, or arbitrary laws but based on what they value (which seems to usually fall in line with the democratic or republican party which seems to be dictated by issues of money). Equal rights are not based upon tradition, creeds, townships or customs but upon individuals. Essentially it becomes my “rights” vs. your “rights” and the law is to arbitrate between the two parties so they do not kill each other, while still having to choose between the two who is in the right and who will be in the wrong. Equality and fairness are not based upon the differences between peoples or sexes but are based upon an assumed sameness between people; this sameness being that we are all essentially individuals.
Capitalistic values are concerned with the acquisition and accumulation of personal wealth. It becomes about saving and spending, investing in retirement and in insurances, it is about becoming individually rich. It is the economic value that can create a situation where the poorest neighborhoods become islands surrounded by the richest neighborhoods and people generally will not see the problems with this. It creates a life where people can live in apartments and not know the neighbors. It creates an understanding that the poor are really getting rich off of begging or are at best just lazy or have not learned the lessons they should learn from choosing to be poor in the first place.
Hence, people are taught to essentially see themselves as individuals. Rousseau said it best in his work Social Contract that man was born free but is everywhere in bondage. This is telling us that to become free again we have to release ourselves from the bondages that surround us, which means also from each other.
Where I want to go from here is to see if there is a alternative to this.
Yet there is room to consider if there is something (like a thread in a tapestry) that runs through the minds of the people that live in this land between the oceans. Because in the midst of all the multi-cultures, I believe that there are some commonalities found here. In other words, it is not a chaotic smorgasbord. I think that these threads are:
· Democratic values
· Capitalistic values
o Both lead to individualism
Let me expound a little on what I mean by these.
Democratic values are valuing such things as “equal rights” or even the terms of “rights”; “fairness”; or “equality” is democratic values. This essentially leads to an essential view of humanity as individuals because to live in a democracy, you have to be an individual. This is seen in the tangible ways such as voting which is “one voice equals one vote.” A person does not vote because of tradition, family, or arbitrary laws but based on what they value (which seems to usually fall in line with the democratic or republican party which seems to be dictated by issues of money). Equal rights are not based upon tradition, creeds, townships or customs but upon individuals. Essentially it becomes my “rights” vs. your “rights” and the law is to arbitrate between the two parties so they do not kill each other, while still having to choose between the two who is in the right and who will be in the wrong. Equality and fairness are not based upon the differences between peoples or sexes but are based upon an assumed sameness between people; this sameness being that we are all essentially individuals.
Capitalistic values are concerned with the acquisition and accumulation of personal wealth. It becomes about saving and spending, investing in retirement and in insurances, it is about becoming individually rich. It is the economic value that can create a situation where the poorest neighborhoods become islands surrounded by the richest neighborhoods and people generally will not see the problems with this. It creates a life where people can live in apartments and not know the neighbors. It creates an understanding that the poor are really getting rich off of begging or are at best just lazy or have not learned the lessons they should learn from choosing to be poor in the first place.
Hence, people are taught to essentially see themselves as individuals. Rousseau said it best in his work Social Contract that man was born free but is everywhere in bondage. This is telling us that to become free again we have to release ourselves from the bondages that surround us, which means also from each other.
Where I want to go from here is to see if there is a alternative to this.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
A new year
Well, it is official, now I have neglected the post. It has been over two months since a post. I have been busy puttin in work as they used to say. School is on hold right now for the season and I have been puttin in quality time with the family. I am trying to get refreshed for the new quarter.
The meditation for this post: Renewing our relations with the Lord of all lords, the Christ.
This year is a year to step it up especially with us in the US. It sounds funny to say step it up concerning a relationship, but it is true. This is the year where we need to take the things that we say seriously when we talk about our relations with Christ. In my church (a methodist church) we just went through a covenant renewal ceremony, where we declared that the liturgy we were doing was a serious matter and to be taken with that seriousness. It was most appropriate.
Accordingly, when we say things like King of kings and Lord of lords, what does that mean or what are we really trying to say? Are we trying to use different words to say that He is lord of our souls? Or do we really take that socio-political language seriously? What does it mean? And why is the secular object that is used to compare what the church does a "business model?" Do businesses have kings? Do they produce a "body" in the way that John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and the Apostle Paul use the word? I no longer understand how it happens that the biblical narrative says so much about taking care of the poor and the widow and the fatherless and so much about justice and righteous-ness that it gets relagated into the internal private realm. The relationship with Christ is not private. The biblical narrative does not call us out to be essentially individuals but to commune with each other. It calls us out from ourselves and makes us servants which is not a private thing. Everybody should know who the servant is when one walks into the room, everyone should know who takes the orders. Servants are not hidden people for the most part but the ones waiting for the next order. That is who we should be.
Our relations need to become most real. Our allegience to Christ should really out do all others. If he is the King of all kings then our relationship with that King should be like we are in a relationship with the most powerful person the cosmos has ever seen! The relationship should not be treated like God is my little genie or my little soda machine dispenser where I put in my 50 cents (a prayer) and the product (answer to the prayer) comes out, but that we really become servants wholly to God. Live or die, all for Christ.
The meditation for this post: Renewing our relations with the Lord of all lords, the Christ.
This year is a year to step it up especially with us in the US. It sounds funny to say step it up concerning a relationship, but it is true. This is the year where we need to take the things that we say seriously when we talk about our relations with Christ. In my church (a methodist church) we just went through a covenant renewal ceremony, where we declared that the liturgy we were doing was a serious matter and to be taken with that seriousness. It was most appropriate.
Accordingly, when we say things like King of kings and Lord of lords, what does that mean or what are we really trying to say? Are we trying to use different words to say that He is lord of our souls? Or do we really take that socio-political language seriously? What does it mean? And why is the secular object that is used to compare what the church does a "business model?" Do businesses have kings? Do they produce a "body" in the way that John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and the Apostle Paul use the word? I no longer understand how it happens that the biblical narrative says so much about taking care of the poor and the widow and the fatherless and so much about justice and righteous-ness that it gets relagated into the internal private realm. The relationship with Christ is not private. The biblical narrative does not call us out to be essentially individuals but to commune with each other. It calls us out from ourselves and makes us servants which is not a private thing. Everybody should know who the servant is when one walks into the room, everyone should know who takes the orders. Servants are not hidden people for the most part but the ones waiting for the next order. That is who we should be.
Our relations need to become most real. Our allegience to Christ should really out do all others. If he is the King of all kings then our relationship with that King should be like we are in a relationship with the most powerful person the cosmos has ever seen! The relationship should not be treated like God is my little genie or my little soda machine dispenser where I put in my 50 cents (a prayer) and the product (answer to the prayer) comes out, but that we really become servants wholly to God. Live or die, all for Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)