I'm back on this again. It's a hard topic for me, and one that I keep running into. Mainly because our modern American popular "Christianity" is so much about what God can do for us. The Bible is clear that Christianity is not about fixing all your problems. Most people acknowledge this. But then they make half-baked statements in the middle of sermons like, "How do you know God's voice from a deception? Well, first of all, God will never tell you to do something that harms your health." This is absolutely false! Was Jesus deceived when God led him to the cross? That certainly harmed his health! What about all the martyrs? Was Paul totally deceived because he kept saying things that got him beaten or imprisoned? Come on!
Now, I understand how easy it is to mis-speak in the midst of a speech. And I am confident that if confronted in a calmer setting this same person would not at all really mean what he said, but the fact remains that he did say it publicly, and that is the burden of any public teacher. People heard what was said and will take it at face value whether he meant it that way or not...a falsehood by accident is still a lie. Ironic that it came in a sermon about deceptions!
But more difficult for me than this is how people treat the topic of God's role in suffering. I'm not going into the tired old 'how could a good God..." argument, you can read the thousands of books on that as well as I can. What bothers me more is this. Many people argue that a good God couldn't make people suffer, but He could allow it for a greater purpose. I totally agree with this. It is consistent with the Bible and historic teaching. But some go further and say that an all-knowing God allowing people to suffer means He must have purposed the suffering in some way...and that isn't good, therefore He couldn't even allow it. This creates an impasse, since suffering does exist. Is He just impotent in this way? That doesn't work! So, many modern people explain it by saying that God doesn't purpose the suffering but is big enough in His omniscience to use the sufferings of our fallen world for His purposes. He won't violate our will even enough to stop the suffering.
But is that love? What parent wouldn't violate their child's will to seize their hand going for the hot stove? And if He is big enough in His omniscience to work good from the bad that He has no part in, isn't He big enough to find a way to get around the undeserved suffering without violating our free will? See this just doesn't work in my mind. I would say the people who espouse this are just wrong, if it weren't coming from some very respected sources. I trust these people's judgement far too much to dismiss it. I may very well be missing something.
So, what options might exist? There's the medeival view of a God that has some sort of backward sense of good and finds mortal pain to be pleasure...but this seems to me more fetish or perhaps misinterpretation of words that took on a very jargoned meaning for those groups. (Just like the Romans thought that Christians were orgiasts from the outside observations of their behaviors and from overhearing how they talked to each other.)
But what about the view that God is a parent? This is common in the Bible. Any parent knows that disciplining a child means inflicting some form of suffering. A good parent knows how to do it in a correcting and nurturing way, but it involves scolding, punishing, restricting...depriving of free will. No good parent would even think they could raise a child without proper application of these tools, even if the child feels bad...suffers...temporarily by it. We know it will work good in the end and they will be better off when they come to see it. Does this not much better fit the problem of suffering than all the mental gymnastics it takes to make it work otherwise? In this view, we simply need to acknowledge our own limited perspective (orthodox) and view ourselves as children (biblical) and God as the loving parent (natural). This seems to resolve the whole issue. If we suffer, God isn't limiting Himself out of His love for our free will ("go ahead honey, grab the stove if you must, I'll be able to nurse your wounds after so good will come of it, even if you don't see that I love you now."...how sick!) Rather, He is using the same tools He has modeled for us in our natural lives to train us and work His purposes. Therefore the suffering isn't really bad...but a sign of higher love.
This all breaks down again when we talk about heinous evils that some people suffer. It would be far too severe to say that rape or child abuse are training up by a parental God. So, I'm back where I started. And when logic goes in a circle, it is prudent to simply say, "I don't know." This is beyond me. I can't explain it. But I know from experience, from philosophical proof, and from authority that God is good, must be good. I also know that bad things happen, even to good people. I can only trust that my Daddy is not going to hurt me or those I love one ounce more than is absolutely necessary to work His purposes, which are always good.
There are some things that words cannot embody. Where they fail, sometimes we must look to other means of communication. When I plead this before God asking for clarity, I find only the most loving embrace. And in that, I know there is no malice. In that, I find myself letting go of my will to self and knowing my existence is beyond any mortal suffering.
God, make your presence known to all who are suffering tonight.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Time
What is time? We can tell it passes, but can we really define it? Is it always the same, or does it change?
Physicists say that time is not always the same. It shifts with gravity and speed. I don't understand all that really. It's been proven they say...I guess as much as something like that can be proven. Of course those kinds of proofs aren't like proving that there is an oak tree behind the building. I guess it's something like a philosophical or mathematical proof. It is all an abstraction.
So what is time really? I guess it has to do with movement, becasue that is the only way we track it, by counting things that move in a cyclical pattern: the sun, clock gears, atoms. In our experience of time, we can all certainly think of instances where it seemed to go faster or slower. Of course, empirically, we say that is just our perception, because the cycles we count by continue to pass without alteration even when our perception of it changes. But that is just the thing. Our perception is really all we have to go by. Even counting the cycles is mediated to us through our perception. So, if I can only notice this thing called time through my perception, maybe we can rightly say that it does speed up or slow down based on our perception of it!
What about the cycles we are counting then? Well, if those cycles are bound in time, then perhaps they speed up and slow down as our perception does such that the gears actually take less time to rotate when we perceive time to go by quicker. This is confusing, so I'll try to clarify...if our universe is bound in this passage of something called time, then everything in it is bound in time. It takes time to cross from one place to another. It takes time to type one letter after the other as I write this. I can't get out of it. Even the clock and the atoms we coutn by are bound in time. So if it changed durations, we could never perceive it in the world bound in time, since it would all speed up or slow down at the same time. We'd have to be outside time to tell.
But humans are half spiritual, and spirits are not bound by time. So perhaps when we disengage from such focus on the things around us, like when bored, or sleeping, or engaged in a consuming activity, time is actually changing speed and the way we perceive it is because our spirits, which are outside time, recognized it.
St Augustine examined time as well. He lived before there were clocks, so his world was not so strictly bound to the seconds and minutes of the cycles of gears and atoms, but more like cycles of days and years. Still it was an interesting topic for him. What is time? He says that if we break it down to the smallest moment of our perception we can realize that it has no substance...like a mathematical point is the present that the future (our expectations) squeeze into and the past (our memories) squeezes out of. The present is an infinitesimally small point through which expectation become memory. So, there is really no present. I see a moment coming and as soon as I try to apprehend it, it has become a memory. So the present really doesn't exist at all! But then, the future doesn't exist either. It hasn't come to be yet. And the past doesn't exist either because it's already gone. So all of existence is really a series of infinitesimally small, massless presents, smaller than a moment. How fragile our life is! Remember this isn't my logic, it's St Augustine's!
This line of reasoning seems to color so many things. I think of the Matrix, and time travel, and so many other ideas all rolling through my presents at the speed of time...whatever that is!
Physicists say that time is not always the same. It shifts with gravity and speed. I don't understand all that really. It's been proven they say...I guess as much as something like that can be proven. Of course those kinds of proofs aren't like proving that there is an oak tree behind the building. I guess it's something like a philosophical or mathematical proof. It is all an abstraction.
So what is time really? I guess it has to do with movement, becasue that is the only way we track it, by counting things that move in a cyclical pattern: the sun, clock gears, atoms. In our experience of time, we can all certainly think of instances where it seemed to go faster or slower. Of course, empirically, we say that is just our perception, because the cycles we count by continue to pass without alteration even when our perception of it changes. But that is just the thing. Our perception is really all we have to go by. Even counting the cycles is mediated to us through our perception. So, if I can only notice this thing called time through my perception, maybe we can rightly say that it does speed up or slow down based on our perception of it!
What about the cycles we are counting then? Well, if those cycles are bound in time, then perhaps they speed up and slow down as our perception does such that the gears actually take less time to rotate when we perceive time to go by quicker. This is confusing, so I'll try to clarify...if our universe is bound in this passage of something called time, then everything in it is bound in time. It takes time to cross from one place to another. It takes time to type one letter after the other as I write this. I can't get out of it. Even the clock and the atoms we coutn by are bound in time. So if it changed durations, we could never perceive it in the world bound in time, since it would all speed up or slow down at the same time. We'd have to be outside time to tell.
But humans are half spiritual, and spirits are not bound by time. So perhaps when we disengage from such focus on the things around us, like when bored, or sleeping, or engaged in a consuming activity, time is actually changing speed and the way we perceive it is because our spirits, which are outside time, recognized it.
St Augustine examined time as well. He lived before there were clocks, so his world was not so strictly bound to the seconds and minutes of the cycles of gears and atoms, but more like cycles of days and years. Still it was an interesting topic for him. What is time? He says that if we break it down to the smallest moment of our perception we can realize that it has no substance...like a mathematical point is the present that the future (our expectations) squeeze into and the past (our memories) squeezes out of. The present is an infinitesimally small point through which expectation become memory. So, there is really no present. I see a moment coming and as soon as I try to apprehend it, it has become a memory. So the present really doesn't exist at all! But then, the future doesn't exist either. It hasn't come to be yet. And the past doesn't exist either because it's already gone. So all of existence is really a series of infinitesimally small, massless presents, smaller than a moment. How fragile our life is! Remember this isn't my logic, it's St Augustine's!
This line of reasoning seems to color so many things. I think of the Matrix, and time travel, and so many other ideas all rolling through my presents at the speed of time...whatever that is!
Monday, August 24, 2009
Culture
One of the most influential events in my life was awakening to cultural programming. I mean being able to recognize first that many beliefs were dictated by culture and secondly recognizing some of those cultural dictations in myself.
It's only natural that the worldview we are steeped in would be the lens through which we view the world, but what is not good is that this fact is often invisible to us. And if the fact itself is invisible to us, then all the subsequent conclusions that are based on it appear to originate from something far more substantial than culture.
If you disagree that this occurs, it is likely because you yourself are still blinded by your own culture. Again, not that this is anything particularly heinous or abnormal...in fact, it is perfectly normal...but it is still flawed.
If culture were absolute, then it would not be flawed. But there are lots of cultures and it is possible to change cultures. It is even possible to be a part of more than one culture at a time. So if there are numerous cultures and they don't agree on all points, then some of them must be wrong. By definition, truth can not be pluralistic. It may appear that way if it is broad enough, but a true thing cannot contradict itself. Therefore if any two cultures are ever in opposition, at least one of them is wrong. (The interesting thing is that, while they can't both be right, they can both be wrong, but that is neither here nor there.) Of course we aren't talking about religions here, only cultures. Many cultures don't claim to be better than any other, just different. So, let's look at it from a moral perspective.
I am no universalist, as I have explained, so there is such a thing as ultimate truth. If you want to argue that, feel free to comment to that effect and I'll take it up in another post. So if a religion claims that all ways will reach the same path, it is by definition wrong because if something is true, it can't contradict itself. (Again, I'm not saying there can't be apparent contradictions.) Since religions are inherently claims to truth, if any two religions fundamentally disagree, at least one must be wrong because, again, there can't be two opposing truths. But cultures don't necessarily claim to be the only way nor do they logically need to be. It is perfectly logical that there may be more than one way to cook an egg, to make a breakfast, to build a house, to celebrate a special occasion, to dress, to organize economies, etc. These don't necessarily violate any universal morals or truths. Therefore, to think that one's culture is the only way is to believe something that is untrue. Therefore that cultural blindness is a flaw.
I'll go a step further. Even to think that one's culture is better than others is flawed. Sure there may be aspects of various cultures that are more efficient, or more suited to our personal tastes, or what have you. We may evaluate them as being, "better" than another. But we must understand that there is no universal standard to compare by. For example, to me, cold cereal and milk for breakfast is far better than miso soup and salad. I like these foods, but to me, the flavor and texture of the cereal and the coolness of the milk are far preferred to the savoriness of the soup and salad in the morning. But to my Japanese friends, they can't possibly agree. Then I know Americans who prefer the Japanese breakfast, and vice versa. The point is that with no universal standard outside of ourselves by which to judge, we can't truly say that one is better than the other. That preference may appear to be universal if all those present are operating in the same culture. This is the essence of cultural blindness. The bigger and more widespread the culture, the greater the effect of the blindness. Obviously breakfast is a silly example, but many wars have been fought and much devestation has been wrought over differences that are really nothing more than cultural preferences.
So what can be done about it? Well the classic answer even from ancient times is to travel. Travel takes us into other cultures and forces us to experience them. Even a Disney vacation is better than nothing, but it would be better to travel in such a way that we really get to engage the culture. With enough travel, even the most ignorant and culturally blinded person will eventually come around to the realization that there are more ways to do things and that most of them are perfectly ok. But it is also possible to learn this from study, and from friendships. The common factor here is exposure.
You'd think that in as mutlicultural a place as America, we'd be as exposed as we could get right? So we Americans must have a pretty good handle on the world, right? Oh think again. Remember that cultural programming is largely invisible to those within it. This means that what we perceive as our own culture is only part of our culture. It has to be viewed from outside to get the whole picture. And once you view it from the outside, you can see that there is a far more well-defined American culture than most Americans think. People from other cultures can spot it and even Americans who have lived outside of it, can pick it out instantly.
When I lived in Japan, I could tell most Americans from any other nationality at a glance. Especially if they were tourists, since the tourists hadn't even begun to absorb the other culture yet. I'm not making a value judgement on American culture. As I said, there is good and bad in every culture. I'm simply saying it is better to see it for what it is than to be blinded and ignorant of it.
It's only natural that the worldview we are steeped in would be the lens through which we view the world, but what is not good is that this fact is often invisible to us. And if the fact itself is invisible to us, then all the subsequent conclusions that are based on it appear to originate from something far more substantial than culture.
If you disagree that this occurs, it is likely because you yourself are still blinded by your own culture. Again, not that this is anything particularly heinous or abnormal...in fact, it is perfectly normal...but it is still flawed.
If culture were absolute, then it would not be flawed. But there are lots of cultures and it is possible to change cultures. It is even possible to be a part of more than one culture at a time. So if there are numerous cultures and they don't agree on all points, then some of them must be wrong. By definition, truth can not be pluralistic. It may appear that way if it is broad enough, but a true thing cannot contradict itself. Therefore if any two cultures are ever in opposition, at least one of them is wrong. (The interesting thing is that, while they can't both be right, they can both be wrong, but that is neither here nor there.) Of course we aren't talking about religions here, only cultures. Many cultures don't claim to be better than any other, just different. So, let's look at it from a moral perspective.
I am no universalist, as I have explained, so there is such a thing as ultimate truth. If you want to argue that, feel free to comment to that effect and I'll take it up in another post. So if a religion claims that all ways will reach the same path, it is by definition wrong because if something is true, it can't contradict itself. (Again, I'm not saying there can't be apparent contradictions.) Since religions are inherently claims to truth, if any two religions fundamentally disagree, at least one must be wrong because, again, there can't be two opposing truths. But cultures don't necessarily claim to be the only way nor do they logically need to be. It is perfectly logical that there may be more than one way to cook an egg, to make a breakfast, to build a house, to celebrate a special occasion, to dress, to organize economies, etc. These don't necessarily violate any universal morals or truths. Therefore, to think that one's culture is the only way is to believe something that is untrue. Therefore that cultural blindness is a flaw.
I'll go a step further. Even to think that one's culture is better than others is flawed. Sure there may be aspects of various cultures that are more efficient, or more suited to our personal tastes, or what have you. We may evaluate them as being, "better" than another. But we must understand that there is no universal standard to compare by. For example, to me, cold cereal and milk for breakfast is far better than miso soup and salad. I like these foods, but to me, the flavor and texture of the cereal and the coolness of the milk are far preferred to the savoriness of the soup and salad in the morning. But to my Japanese friends, they can't possibly agree. Then I know Americans who prefer the Japanese breakfast, and vice versa. The point is that with no universal standard outside of ourselves by which to judge, we can't truly say that one is better than the other. That preference may appear to be universal if all those present are operating in the same culture. This is the essence of cultural blindness. The bigger and more widespread the culture, the greater the effect of the blindness. Obviously breakfast is a silly example, but many wars have been fought and much devestation has been wrought over differences that are really nothing more than cultural preferences.
So what can be done about it? Well the classic answer even from ancient times is to travel. Travel takes us into other cultures and forces us to experience them. Even a Disney vacation is better than nothing, but it would be better to travel in such a way that we really get to engage the culture. With enough travel, even the most ignorant and culturally blinded person will eventually come around to the realization that there are more ways to do things and that most of them are perfectly ok. But it is also possible to learn this from study, and from friendships. The common factor here is exposure.
You'd think that in as mutlicultural a place as America, we'd be as exposed as we could get right? So we Americans must have a pretty good handle on the world, right? Oh think again. Remember that cultural programming is largely invisible to those within it. This means that what we perceive as our own culture is only part of our culture. It has to be viewed from outside to get the whole picture. And once you view it from the outside, you can see that there is a far more well-defined American culture than most Americans think. People from other cultures can spot it and even Americans who have lived outside of it, can pick it out instantly.
When I lived in Japan, I could tell most Americans from any other nationality at a glance. Especially if they were tourists, since the tourists hadn't even begun to absorb the other culture yet. I'm not making a value judgement on American culture. As I said, there is good and bad in every culture. I'm simply saying it is better to see it for what it is than to be blinded and ignorant of it.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
DIY
I've referenced this in other posts. It means Do It Yourself. Lots of people enjoy DIY, but for others it is a lifestyle. One of the tennants of punk ideology (yes there is such a thing) is DIY.
It suits me well. I prefer to do things myself. I get to learn new skills, see what I'm capable of, and make it just the way I like. I also become more and more self-sufficient with each new attempt. Though I know I'll never be fully self-sufficient. No one can be. It's more of a process of bettering myself. Lifelong learning, you might say.
Another important part of DIY is maker's knowledge. I know just how thick my walls are, and what's behind them. I understand how the floor is assembled. How the water moves into my house and out, and I understand exactly where and how much a seam needs to be wider or tighter to fit my body comfortably in a shirt or pants. Heck, I can even make shoes and books! I'm not bragging, only explaining how doing things myself helps me understand the intricacies, or simplicities of things. Some things are far harder to complete. Others far simpler. This is handy knowledge too. Just imagine.
But perhaps the best thing about DIY is the accomplishment. Something tangible has been done by my own hands. It is an expression of myself. Each is a unique piece of craftsmanship. From the t-shirts that say exactly what I want them to, instead of having to mold myself to the quips and images in the store, to the table that is precisely the right shape, size, color, and style instead of having to pay exorbitant amounts for something that won't really be what I was looking for.
In our mass-produced culture, we lose touch with reality as things just appear for us. If we need it, we go to the store...it is at best only a vague mental note that the stuff was designed and made by someone...even if it was reproduced 10 trillion times. Even in this culture, we can reclaim what it means to be a craftsman. To make something from our hearts with our hands is a great joy. And if those things are practical and useful, how much more joy is there in that!
It suits me well. I prefer to do things myself. I get to learn new skills, see what I'm capable of, and make it just the way I like. I also become more and more self-sufficient with each new attempt. Though I know I'll never be fully self-sufficient. No one can be. It's more of a process of bettering myself. Lifelong learning, you might say.
Another important part of DIY is maker's knowledge. I know just how thick my walls are, and what's behind them. I understand how the floor is assembled. How the water moves into my house and out, and I understand exactly where and how much a seam needs to be wider or tighter to fit my body comfortably in a shirt or pants. Heck, I can even make shoes and books! I'm not bragging, only explaining how doing things myself helps me understand the intricacies, or simplicities of things. Some things are far harder to complete. Others far simpler. This is handy knowledge too. Just imagine.
But perhaps the best thing about DIY is the accomplishment. Something tangible has been done by my own hands. It is an expression of myself. Each is a unique piece of craftsmanship. From the t-shirts that say exactly what I want them to, instead of having to mold myself to the quips and images in the store, to the table that is precisely the right shape, size, color, and style instead of having to pay exorbitant amounts for something that won't really be what I was looking for.
In our mass-produced culture, we lose touch with reality as things just appear for us. If we need it, we go to the store...it is at best only a vague mental note that the stuff was designed and made by someone...even if it was reproduced 10 trillion times. Even in this culture, we can reclaim what it means to be a craftsman. To make something from our hearts with our hands is a great joy. And if those things are practical and useful, how much more joy is there in that!
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Authority and Submission
Wow, this could be a big topic. But I'll try to keep to the point. I have a huge problem with authority. I much more naturally go for the DIY. The thing is, I'm not afraid to do the work myself so that I don't have to rely on the authority alone. Call it a Berean thing. I'm just not going to take your word for it.
But there are some things we can't work out on our own. Some things we just can't know...at least not now, given the knowledge and experience we have at the moment. And there are some things that we have to take on authority. The key to authority though, is trust. That's why I have a problem with human authority. People are fallible. Sometimes we are forced to accept human authority, and I can do this. I don't like beating my head against the wall.
But then there's God's authority and that is a whole different animal. Today, I heard someone talking on the radio about this very thing. In this case there is no fallibility. His authority is not conferred, and therefore can't be questioned. It is what it is. A good deal of being a Christian is coming to understand just how true this is. As the teacher was saying on the radio, how many of us only want to recognize the nice Jesus. Few of us ever want to think about the Lord of lords Jesus. The Captain of the Host. The Master of the elements. The one before whom even rebellious demons bow and obey. Even if we acknowledge this God, we don't often think of what that means for us. This same fierce magnanimous absolute Ruler is our very Ruler. Our Master. This is what being a Christian means. We have enlisted. Accepted that role. Taken our place under His authority. Submitted. So when He tells us to go, we should go. When He tells us to wait, we should wait. And when He tells us to trust, or change, or endure so we should. Regardless of feeling, regardless of ability. When that very same power and authority that spun the universe into motion and knows the path of every quark and particle, the one that routs armies and defeats death, turns His eye on us, how much more should we comply like plastic putty to His will! Especially when that same mouth that erupts flaming power and thunder bends low to kiss us gently and those blazing hands stroke our head lovingly.
In the love and devotion that we feel for our Lover let us never forget that this same is Brighter than any star, hotter than any flame, sharper than any sword, fiercer than any warrior, and is capable of obliterating us as if we never were with the merest inkling. Thank God, His love is as deep as His power is absolute. Fear it, embrace it, tremble in it, and submit to it. In this undoing of the self before such devastating power we are remade in the form that He wishes us to take. Abandon to it and find all that was missing! When He commands my soul, even I can't stand in my way.
But there are some things we can't work out on our own. Some things we just can't know...at least not now, given the knowledge and experience we have at the moment. And there are some things that we have to take on authority. The key to authority though, is trust. That's why I have a problem with human authority. People are fallible. Sometimes we are forced to accept human authority, and I can do this. I don't like beating my head against the wall.
But then there's God's authority and that is a whole different animal. Today, I heard someone talking on the radio about this very thing. In this case there is no fallibility. His authority is not conferred, and therefore can't be questioned. It is what it is. A good deal of being a Christian is coming to understand just how true this is. As the teacher was saying on the radio, how many of us only want to recognize the nice Jesus. Few of us ever want to think about the Lord of lords Jesus. The Captain of the Host. The Master of the elements. The one before whom even rebellious demons bow and obey. Even if we acknowledge this God, we don't often think of what that means for us. This same fierce magnanimous absolute Ruler is our very Ruler. Our Master. This is what being a Christian means. We have enlisted. Accepted that role. Taken our place under His authority. Submitted. So when He tells us to go, we should go. When He tells us to wait, we should wait. And when He tells us to trust, or change, or endure so we should. Regardless of feeling, regardless of ability. When that very same power and authority that spun the universe into motion and knows the path of every quark and particle, the one that routs armies and defeats death, turns His eye on us, how much more should we comply like plastic putty to His will! Especially when that same mouth that erupts flaming power and thunder bends low to kiss us gently and those blazing hands stroke our head lovingly.
In the love and devotion that we feel for our Lover let us never forget that this same is Brighter than any star, hotter than any flame, sharper than any sword, fiercer than any warrior, and is capable of obliterating us as if we never were with the merest inkling. Thank God, His love is as deep as His power is absolute. Fear it, embrace it, tremble in it, and submit to it. In this undoing of the self before such devastating power we are remade in the form that He wishes us to take. Abandon to it and find all that was missing! When He commands my soul, even I can't stand in my way.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Materialism
This has many meanings. In the philosophical sense it means the system of thought that says there is nothing but the material world. Even thoughts and emotions are nothing more than chemical interactions in response to environmental stimuli or survival mechanisms. There are many flaws in this system, but I don't want to go over them here. C.S. Lewis does a great job of discussing materialism in this sense, since it was popular in his day.
Most people think of materialism in the economic sense. It involves placing a value on material objects and is closely related to consumerism. This is the type of materialsim I am thinking about.
We live in a material-rich age. Things are the order of the day. We mass-produce, we consume. It drives our way of life. In fact, it started as an idea to relieve suffering. Through most of human history, people made necessary and long-lasting items. Because production was difficult, only the very rich could afford luxuries of possessions so you wanted items to last a lifetime. But in the Industrial Revolution machines and processes were making production more efficient. There was no longer a need for so many workers to produce things. The unhappy result was that people couldn't make a living. Whole trades disappeared and people talked of the surplus population. Then the Reformers like Charles Dickens came along and decried this view of humans as a commodity. Decision makers realized that it was better to employ these people rather than let them freeload on charity. They could be put to work making things in factories, but people would only buy so many things. So to increase demand they started advertising. Even this could only go so far, so they changed styles and the rotating fashions were begun. You couldn't possibly wear last year's items this year! Even that wasn't enough, so they consciously started making items break easier. Planned obsolescence. This worked very well. People enjoyed new propsperity from the market economy. That meant they could buy more and live more like the rich. Mass-production made it easy to give people things that only the rich could afford previously. The latest step in this scheme is the continual service contract. Not only do people create products and then create the demand for them, but they make them so they don't work unless you pay monthly. Electricity, TV, cell phones, satelite radio, etc. This way you can never finish paying for it, so you have to keep working to support the economy that makes the things that you didn't need until they sold it to you. The system is growth based and finite.
But apart from the economic aspects, materialism has an effect on the soul. All the great sages teach that we should live at peace, taking what we need and giving to those who don't have enough. A focus on possessions begins to weigh on us. It places cares on us that we were not meant to carry. The possessions own us as we spend more and more time taking care of things. The old backpacking maxim applies well: the more you carry, the more you have to carry! In hiking, this means that more weight slows you down, so you have to take more for the journey. The same is true in life when we are bogged down in possessions. The pursuit of possessions is also harmful. We fritter ourselves away chasing whims and wants simply to have. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with things in themselves. They are intrinsically devoid of moral quality. It is their use and attachment that make them good or bad.
So the question is, how do we tell when materialism has gone too far? Like many things, this is something that each person must answer. Our stations in life are a factor. Obviously, I can't live like a Hindu farmer here in America. The cost of living is just plain too high. And a construction worker has less demands for things such as clothes than a public figure, for whom image is a part of the job. So, I take Richard Foster's advice and leave this to the individual to determine. But I think there are certain principles that Christians should use in making the decision.
First, do we need it? What is it's use and lifespan? Are there unrealized costs such as long term contracts, or maintenance issues that make the true cost higher? Does it benefit us in some real way, be that physical, social, or spiritual? And lastly, does owning it harm anyone else?
This last one, I think, bears more consideration. Here in America I see good charitable people who unknowingly or through self-deception, harm others with their lifestyle. Most of the times, it is becasue the effects of our choices are so distant that we don't see them. when we overconsume public resources simply becasue we can afford them, we unknowingly take them from those who can least afford them by using them up ourselves, or by driving the prices out of reach. Take water for instance. We all share the same pool, quite literally. It is finite and renewed only by the grace of God to send the rain. When we fritter away hundreds of dollars per month to use potable water on luxuries like unnaturally lush grass we not only use up what others may need for cooking and sanitation, but also drive up the cost as public utilities are forced to raise rates to cover new and more expensive sources of water. To the gainfully employed, this may seem like buying a fancier cut of meat becasue they have been blessed with the means to do so, but would any of us knowingly shove a seven year old away from the water fountain on a hot day? When that child's parents are making the choice between water bill or grocery bill, that is exactly what we're doing.
I once felt guilty for being able to afford better than this. I wanted to live a vow of poverty to ensure that I suffered rather than others. But now, I realize that it truly is a blessing to afford some comfort. I don't have to be so ascetic. However, if the prepaid cell phone meets my needs and frees up money so I can buy a child from slavery through Samaritan's Purse, or even buy someone lunch at work, then I will make that choice, by God. In this light, to buy the iphone is at best vanity and at worst leaving the 'least of these' cold and hungry.
Most people think of materialism in the economic sense. It involves placing a value on material objects and is closely related to consumerism. This is the type of materialsim I am thinking about.
We live in a material-rich age. Things are the order of the day. We mass-produce, we consume. It drives our way of life. In fact, it started as an idea to relieve suffering. Through most of human history, people made necessary and long-lasting items. Because production was difficult, only the very rich could afford luxuries of possessions so you wanted items to last a lifetime. But in the Industrial Revolution machines and processes were making production more efficient. There was no longer a need for so many workers to produce things. The unhappy result was that people couldn't make a living. Whole trades disappeared and people talked of the surplus population. Then the Reformers like Charles Dickens came along and decried this view of humans as a commodity. Decision makers realized that it was better to employ these people rather than let them freeload on charity. They could be put to work making things in factories, but people would only buy so many things. So to increase demand they started advertising. Even this could only go so far, so they changed styles and the rotating fashions were begun. You couldn't possibly wear last year's items this year! Even that wasn't enough, so they consciously started making items break easier. Planned obsolescence. This worked very well. People enjoyed new propsperity from the market economy. That meant they could buy more and live more like the rich. Mass-production made it easy to give people things that only the rich could afford previously. The latest step in this scheme is the continual service contract. Not only do people create products and then create the demand for them, but they make them so they don't work unless you pay monthly. Electricity, TV, cell phones, satelite radio, etc. This way you can never finish paying for it, so you have to keep working to support the economy that makes the things that you didn't need until they sold it to you. The system is growth based and finite.
But apart from the economic aspects, materialism has an effect on the soul. All the great sages teach that we should live at peace, taking what we need and giving to those who don't have enough. A focus on possessions begins to weigh on us. It places cares on us that we were not meant to carry. The possessions own us as we spend more and more time taking care of things. The old backpacking maxim applies well: the more you carry, the more you have to carry! In hiking, this means that more weight slows you down, so you have to take more for the journey. The same is true in life when we are bogged down in possessions. The pursuit of possessions is also harmful. We fritter ourselves away chasing whims and wants simply to have. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with things in themselves. They are intrinsically devoid of moral quality. It is their use and attachment that make them good or bad.
So the question is, how do we tell when materialism has gone too far? Like many things, this is something that each person must answer. Our stations in life are a factor. Obviously, I can't live like a Hindu farmer here in America. The cost of living is just plain too high. And a construction worker has less demands for things such as clothes than a public figure, for whom image is a part of the job. So, I take Richard Foster's advice and leave this to the individual to determine. But I think there are certain principles that Christians should use in making the decision.
First, do we need it? What is it's use and lifespan? Are there unrealized costs such as long term contracts, or maintenance issues that make the true cost higher? Does it benefit us in some real way, be that physical, social, or spiritual? And lastly, does owning it harm anyone else?
This last one, I think, bears more consideration. Here in America I see good charitable people who unknowingly or through self-deception, harm others with their lifestyle. Most of the times, it is becasue the effects of our choices are so distant that we don't see them. when we overconsume public resources simply becasue we can afford them, we unknowingly take them from those who can least afford them by using them up ourselves, or by driving the prices out of reach. Take water for instance. We all share the same pool, quite literally. It is finite and renewed only by the grace of God to send the rain. When we fritter away hundreds of dollars per month to use potable water on luxuries like unnaturally lush grass we not only use up what others may need for cooking and sanitation, but also drive up the cost as public utilities are forced to raise rates to cover new and more expensive sources of water. To the gainfully employed, this may seem like buying a fancier cut of meat becasue they have been blessed with the means to do so, but would any of us knowingly shove a seven year old away from the water fountain on a hot day? When that child's parents are making the choice between water bill or grocery bill, that is exactly what we're doing.
I once felt guilty for being able to afford better than this. I wanted to live a vow of poverty to ensure that I suffered rather than others. But now, I realize that it truly is a blessing to afford some comfort. I don't have to be so ascetic. However, if the prepaid cell phone meets my needs and frees up money so I can buy a child from slavery through Samaritan's Purse, or even buy someone lunch at work, then I will make that choice, by God. In this light, to buy the iphone is at best vanity and at worst leaving the 'least of these' cold and hungry.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Warts and All
The phrase, "Warts and all" originated with some European noble that decided his portrait should not be 'touched up' but should show him as he really was. I guess it was common then, as now, to doctor pictures so that the subject looks his best.
The phrase has come to mean any portrayal of a person, image, word, or other, in which the subject's true form is revealed. Though we admire this on the surface in our culture, I have found that the practice is quite different.
One of my mentors always made a point of keeping himself off of the pedestal, so to speak. He occupied a position in which it was easy to end up exalted by others. To combat it, he had a policy of being very open about himself publically. I adopted the same policy since it is a very good way to eliminate pride, avoid deception (intentional or perceived), and can help others grow from my experience.
So, when the time is right...no one likes a bleeding heart...I am not shy about telling my truest evaluation of myself and my experiences. The strange thing is that as soon as I do it, people start acting all reassuring as if they need to bolster my floundering self esteem. Some even go so far as to flat deny that I am telling the truth.
There is nothing at all wrong with my self-esteem. In fact, I examine myself far more than anyone should. I know my abilities and my limitations. I know my successes and failures. And I am prone to pride, believe me, not the other way around! But I also have a keen critical eye on myself and try very hard to see the plank therein.
Why is it that people have so much trouble accepting this kind of thing? Of course it isn't everyone. Some do just fine with it. But most seem to feel a need to correct me about myself. They would prefer the touched up version. Not out and out white-washing, but a little brushing up is fine. Is it because they are afraid of having to face the truth of themselves? Afterall, if I am honest about my shortcomings, they may feel the need to be.
Again, I'm not talking about lack of tact or TMI kinds of things. We all have things that we don't and shouldn't reveal too openly. But if someone chooses to honestly, appropriately, and accurately divulge the less savory parts of their person along with the good, the very least we could do is take them at their word! Denying what they tell us or hushing over it as if it needs to be padded back under cover does nothing to help the person speaking. If we think they are missing something in their self-evaluation, better to think through what they are getting at and gently guide their thinking into better paths, or say nothing at all. To poopoo or pity may squelch the simmerings of self-discovery in them or hinder others who might be on the brink of opening up themselves.
The phrase has come to mean any portrayal of a person, image, word, or other, in which the subject's true form is revealed. Though we admire this on the surface in our culture, I have found that the practice is quite different.
One of my mentors always made a point of keeping himself off of the pedestal, so to speak. He occupied a position in which it was easy to end up exalted by others. To combat it, he had a policy of being very open about himself publically. I adopted the same policy since it is a very good way to eliminate pride, avoid deception (intentional or perceived), and can help others grow from my experience.
So, when the time is right...no one likes a bleeding heart...I am not shy about telling my truest evaluation of myself and my experiences. The strange thing is that as soon as I do it, people start acting all reassuring as if they need to bolster my floundering self esteem. Some even go so far as to flat deny that I am telling the truth.
There is nothing at all wrong with my self-esteem. In fact, I examine myself far more than anyone should. I know my abilities and my limitations. I know my successes and failures. And I am prone to pride, believe me, not the other way around! But I also have a keen critical eye on myself and try very hard to see the plank therein.
Why is it that people have so much trouble accepting this kind of thing? Of course it isn't everyone. Some do just fine with it. But most seem to feel a need to correct me about myself. They would prefer the touched up version. Not out and out white-washing, but a little brushing up is fine. Is it because they are afraid of having to face the truth of themselves? Afterall, if I am honest about my shortcomings, they may feel the need to be.
Again, I'm not talking about lack of tact or TMI kinds of things. We all have things that we don't and shouldn't reveal too openly. But if someone chooses to honestly, appropriately, and accurately divulge the less savory parts of their person along with the good, the very least we could do is take them at their word! Denying what they tell us or hushing over it as if it needs to be padded back under cover does nothing to help the person speaking. If we think they are missing something in their self-evaluation, better to think through what they are getting at and gently guide their thinking into better paths, or say nothing at all. To poopoo or pity may squelch the simmerings of self-discovery in them or hinder others who might be on the brink of opening up themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
