It’s been alleged that for the last fifty years or more there’s been a concerted effort among left-leaning academics to re-write the history books and teach our children a much more politically liberal version of our nations history. This is referred to pejoratively as “revisionist history”.
In the past several years there’s been a backlash of sorts by those known unaffectionately as right-wing Christians. These people want a much more conservative (in general) and Christian based (in particular) version of history taught in school. These people are also called revisionists, and also in a negative way.
Those who are more liberal tend to bemoan the perceived encroachment of religion into what they think should be government affairs (schools), while the more conservative make the argument that the faith of the founders is both important and more accurately represented by their version of history. All the while they’re both flinging the poison dart of “revisionist” at each other.
So who’s right? Who’s telling the truth and who’s revising history? And is revising history wrong?
To answer the last question first, I believe that revising history books, in the simplest sense of the term, is necessary. As newfound documents come to light, and new facts displace previously accepted traditions, truth demands a revision. So I have a problem labeling the revising of history wrong - as long as it’s done honestly.
What’s wrong is agendized history - history being taught in a way that specifically forwards a given agenda - and I’m not sure either side has a lock on that.
Of course we all think our agenda is valid because we all see things through the filter of our own world view, and it’s sometimes quite difficult to see things in a truly objective manner - especially if they challenge our chosen agenda/world view.
So it’s not so much the facts that determine who’s telling the truth, because, to a degree, they’re all telling the truth - just not the whole truth. At this point we need to decide whether truth is universal or subjective. I suggest it’s both.
Truth, in its purest form, is absolute and universal. However, our understanding of it is not. Only God can see absolute truth in its entirety. We mortals can only see a small part of it and, in our ignorance, decide that truth is subjective. Therefore, for those who refuse to acknowledge God, the idea that truth is subjective becomes the truth.
It’s the old problem of three blind mice trying to describe an elephant. There’s far more information than any one person can process; we see a small fraction of it and base our opinions on how those facts fit in with our world view.
Probably the best current case in point is the “he said, she said” going on between David Barton and Chris Rodda. I preface what follows by saying, no matter how diligently I strive to be objective, I, too, am not immune to my world view affecting my perception of the truth.
I’ve listened to both parties and this is what I come away with: Barton, for the most part, is saying that America is a Christian nation whose founding fathers were mostly Christian, and that the academics have falsely been teaching otherwise. He does not malign Chris Rodda (which Rodda, herself, acknowledges), but stays focused on the broad strokes of presenting the facts as he sees them (of course getting specific as needed).
Conversely, Chris Rodda seems to have made it her mission to attack Christians, with a particular disdain for David Barton, stating, of course, that he’s attempting to re-write history.
When Barton refutes an anti-religious statement or claim, he usually says something like, “That’s simply not true”, and proceeds to make his case. “Not true” could be a lie or a mistake.
Anyone who disagrees with Rodda is summarily labeled a liar. No benefit of the doubt that they might be mistaken. Just a liar. In fact, she has a web site called liarsforjesus.com, which can only be meant in a purposely offensive way.
Yes, Barton does have a book out about the lies told about Thomas Jefferson, but these charges are aimed at the education system, in general. Rodda attacks Barton as a liar personally.
Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m absolutely not saying that she’s stupid - she’s obviously intelligent and well read. I’m saying, in my opinion, she has no class. She’s also an elitist, academic snob, implying that anyone without specific credentials can not be taken seriously as an historian.
In one of her videos, Rodda claims that Barton lied about more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence having been ministers. I won’t get too deeply into this specific argument because, frankly, I’m of the opinion that they both took liberties. Rodda misrepresented what Barton actually said (she lied), and for his part, Barton worded it in a way reminiscent of, “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
However, using that as a starting place, Rodda makes the claim in that video that the word “seminary” simply meant school, and that our modern association of that word with religion allows Barton to trick his listeners into thinking the men studied religion when they didn’t.
We’re talking about specific semantics here, and I’m sure, based on that, she could argue against me. But it’s not possible to believably imply that they did not study religion (which is what any reasonable person would infer from what she says).
The learning institutions in question were ALL religiously affiliated at that time. Rather than making the glib analogy of a student of computer science at a Christian college being called a minister, maybe Rodda should instead understand that, regardless of course of study, at such a school EVERYTHING would be taught, comprehended, acknowledged, and believed through the filter of the Christian world view!
It’s quite likely that the average student at one of the colonial colleges would understand religion much better in his mind, and believe much stronger in his heart than an average student today.
So, were the 29 signers of the Declaration in question ministers? No. But then, Barton never said they were. Using her own standard, Chris Rodda is a liar. Were they “trained for the ministry”? I don’t know. It depends on what your definition of “is” is. Did they attend a religious seminary? Absolutely!
Anyone who’s intellectually honest knows, and the University of Pennsylvania publicly acknowledges: “The four colleges then in existence in the English colonies - Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton - were all schools for educating the clergy, rather than preparing their students for lives of business and public service.”
Some would counter that they only studied religion because the only providers of education at that time were religious institutions - they then went on to non-religious careers. That’s partly right. Many went on to secular careers, which is not the same as non-religious. The distinction lies in the fact that the career may have been secular, but again, their religious beliefs were inseparable from who they were. They did not compartmentalize their beliefs separately like we do today.
Also, that counter proves another point of mine, if you’ll forgive the brief digression. School is not meant to be a government affair. The only reason schools came into existence here was because religious entities created them - and the only reason they’re public (influenced by government) is because when they were created, the government served the religiously-led community. (That’s an over-simplification, but essentially correct). I would argue that education is the sole responsibility of churches, not government. The state should stay out of it completely.
Getting back to school/seminary question: because of a similar argument revolving specifically around Thomas Jefferson, I looked up the royal charter which started William and Mary - the college he attended. It says, in part:
“...to the end that the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated amongst the Western Indians, to the glory of Almighty God; to make, found and establish a certain place of universal study, or perpetual college of Divinity, Philosophy, Languages, and other good Arts and Sciences.”
The phrase “seminary of ministers of the gospel” seems pretty clear to me.
Rodda recognizes that William and Mary was religious “when he went there”, but claims he “unreligiousized” and “secularized” it after, when he was governor. Perhaps. Let’s investigate.
Secularists, like Rodda, like to paint a picture of Jefferson as being antagonistic toward religion. To help their case, they usually use the fact that he “secularized” W&M; that he started the University of Virginia as a specifically secular school; and that he wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom to create and maintain a separation of church and state.
Well, W&M was made a university in 1779 and discontinued the grammar and Divinity schools. That’s true. I wonder if we might use a little perspective of the times here, though.
1779 was right in the middle of the Revolution. We were in the process of throwing off the shackles of a repressive king. No small part of that was state religion. William and Mary, in particular, was Anglican - the state religion of the enemy. This may be conjecture, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest that this may have played into secularizing that school.
In addition to disassociating with the Anglican hierarchy, Jefferson (and others) felt, rightly, that any state sponsored religion would be dangerous. So it naturally follows that a new college (or university) would necessarily be secular. It wasn’t that he was irreligious, it was that he knew firsthand what was wrong with state sponsored religion.
Regarding the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, the second sentence begins: “Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;...” (hardly the words of a secularist). It then goes on to proclaim why religion should not be FORCED upon people.
But it also says, “...all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same SHALL IN NO WISE DIMINISH, ENLARGE OR AFFECT THEIR CIVIL CAPACITIES.” (emphasis mine)
It goes on to recognize that because future Assemblies will have “powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”
So, where are we? Pretty much back at the beginning. The WHOLE truth has yet to be understood, much less put forward, by anybody. Partly because we can’t comprehend it in its pure state, and partly because our personal world view disallows it.
Anyone on either side of any historical issue can easily pick and choose documents, or excerpts of documents, to prove whichever side he wants to prove. So it’s unlikely that these battles will ever be settled - we all are more in love with our agenda than we are with the truth.
I close with Proverbs 18:17 -- “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
From Puritanism To Secularism
[Note: This was originally going to be just an observation about my Puritan ancestors and free will, but quickly segued into an essay on the First Amendment.]
I’ve been researching my family history and have been quite interested in learning about their cultural mores and the manner in which their faith was manifested in everyday life.
I’m thinking specifically about the Puritan view of the citizens’ obligations to the church. A Puritan’s behavior was, to some degree, prescribed by the church. I’ve been going back and forth with how I feel about that.
On one hand, I sometimes think that was a great system. When we look at today’s culture and how corrupt and selfish and evil it is, and compare it to then, when people did what was right or were punished, it just seems that they had a better system.
On the other hand, it seems to fly directly in the face of God’s obvious desire for us to have and use free will. When one begins to learn about Him, it becomes very obvious very quickly that His system is one where we all have free will. He wants us to come to him and to do what’s right on our own accord.
So, in an ironic way (and this is speculation on my part), in wanting to please God, the Puritans’ society of enforced righteousness (for lack of a better way to word it) actually may have displeased Him.
Before we start going off on how great it is to have a separation of church and state, though, we need to put into perspective how this came into being, and how it subsequently evolved, because there is much misinformation on this subject.
In a way, it was, in fact, the Puritans who had the first version of separation of church and state, but it was completely different than anything we would recognize today. It would be more accurate to describe it as a separation of church and civil authorities - hopefully the distinction will become clear shortly.
Remember, they left a system where the monarch was the head of the church (as it still is to this day in England) and ruled, ostensibly, by divine right.
So, basically, the civil authority was also the church authority, and in that order. Well, the monarch changed several times over a relatively short period resulting in varying degrees of secular and pious sensibilities - not to mention church doctrine.
To the Puritan mind this was completely backward - especially if the king or queen ruled by divine right! The monarch serves God and the priority should be as spiritual leader first, which would result in being the civil or governmental leader.
When they came to the new world, that’s how they set up their system. The citizens had to meet certain religious expectations and obligations, and the pastors were more or less the leaders of the community. The only authority the civil leaders had was that which was purely civil in nature. They were not to step on the toes of the church. (Although the church would use the civil government to punish religious infractions - yet more evidence of who was truly in charge.)
Another difference from the Church of England was that there was no “national” church. It was the local church that had authority - and responsibility - over its own congregation. Of course, most, if not all, of the churches were on the same page, as we would say today, but one could not stop going to one church in favor of another, for example, without going through a formal process.
Having protested the legalism of the Catholic Church, and having separated from the monarch-ruled Church of England, these Protestant Separatists* nevertheless became quite legalistic in their own right, and more or less ruled the state - but it really was quite different in the details from what they’d left behind. That said, they were a far cry from allowing the reign of free will that God arguably intended.
This talk of free will, or the lack of it, gets pretty complex, though, because they insisted that church members be saved Christians and not just go though the motions of going to church because it was mandated, as was the case in England. The people were, however, fairly homogenous in their belief and way of thinking - they were there, in the new world, together, for a reason, after all. So there was a mixture of free will and legalism that most of us today would probably not understand.
The next step in the evolution of the separation of church and state was initiated by Roger Williams in direct response to the situation described above. Williams was critical of the Puritans’ “structure” much like Luther was with the Catholic one.
Roger Williams established the first Baptist church in America, in what became Providence, RI.
Today, because fundamentalist Baptists are often at the forefront of the battle (on the side of allowing prayer in school and other public/government places), many people think they are against a separation of church and state. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Baptists are staunch advocates of it - it’s just that they understand and agree with the original meaning of it (a la Roger Williams), and not what it has been perverted into.
There were a number of differences that Williams had with the Puritan-run Bay Colony, but two that are specific to this issue were: being punished by civil authorities for purely religious transgressions, and the requirement of being spiritually saved in order to have the right to vote.
Williams felt that one man has no way of ascertaining the salvation of another, so the requirement was ridiculous. Being granted or denied the right to vote therefore became arbitrary, and that wasn’t right.
Providence thus became a haven of religious tolerance - perhaps like the world had never seen.
It must be remembered that this was 140 years before the colonies would form into a new nation, so this religious freedom was well established by the time the framing of the new government was to begin.
It was with all this in mind that our founding fathers found it wise (indeed, necessary) to include in the Bill of Rights the First Amendment, specifically prohibiting the establishment of a state religion.
They wanted to be sure that no religion would become the officially sanctioned religion of the government - like was the case in most of Europe - thereby preventing the freedom of worship to others.
It was absolutely not to prohibit the exercise of religion in the public square. Quite the contrary: it was to guarantee that all had the freedom to worship according to their own convictions without fear.
Sadly, the most frequent (erroneous) interpretation of the First Amendment has accomplished precisely what it sought to protect us from.
One definition of religion is: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. That accurately describes the Secular Humanism under which our government operates.
So, in changing the meaning of the First Amendment from the clear idea of protecting religious freedom by not establishing a state religion to the false idea of completely divorcing faith from public life, the courts have, in effect, used the First Amendment to establish in the land Secular Humanism as the state mandated religion!
*Not all Puritans were technically Separatists, but that’s a fairly involved explanation. I was exercising a bit of license with that line.
I’ve been researching my family history and have been quite interested in learning about their cultural mores and the manner in which their faith was manifested in everyday life.
I’m thinking specifically about the Puritan view of the citizens’ obligations to the church. A Puritan’s behavior was, to some degree, prescribed by the church. I’ve been going back and forth with how I feel about that.
On one hand, I sometimes think that was a great system. When we look at today’s culture and how corrupt and selfish and evil it is, and compare it to then, when people did what was right or were punished, it just seems that they had a better system.
On the other hand, it seems to fly directly in the face of God’s obvious desire for us to have and use free will. When one begins to learn about Him, it becomes very obvious very quickly that His system is one where we all have free will. He wants us to come to him and to do what’s right on our own accord.
So, in an ironic way (and this is speculation on my part), in wanting to please God, the Puritans’ society of enforced righteousness (for lack of a better way to word it) actually may have displeased Him.
Before we start going off on how great it is to have a separation of church and state, though, we need to put into perspective how this came into being, and how it subsequently evolved, because there is much misinformation on this subject.
In a way, it was, in fact, the Puritans who had the first version of separation of church and state, but it was completely different than anything we would recognize today. It would be more accurate to describe it as a separation of church and civil authorities - hopefully the distinction will become clear shortly.
Remember, they left a system where the monarch was the head of the church (as it still is to this day in England) and ruled, ostensibly, by divine right.
So, basically, the civil authority was also the church authority, and in that order. Well, the monarch changed several times over a relatively short period resulting in varying degrees of secular and pious sensibilities - not to mention church doctrine.
To the Puritan mind this was completely backward - especially if the king or queen ruled by divine right! The monarch serves God and the priority should be as spiritual leader first, which would result in being the civil or governmental leader.
When they came to the new world, that’s how they set up their system. The citizens had to meet certain religious expectations and obligations, and the pastors were more or less the leaders of the community. The only authority the civil leaders had was that which was purely civil in nature. They were not to step on the toes of the church. (Although the church would use the civil government to punish religious infractions - yet more evidence of who was truly in charge.)
Another difference from the Church of England was that there was no “national” church. It was the local church that had authority - and responsibility - over its own congregation. Of course, most, if not all, of the churches were on the same page, as we would say today, but one could not stop going to one church in favor of another, for example, without going through a formal process.
Having protested the legalism of the Catholic Church, and having separated from the monarch-ruled Church of England, these Protestant Separatists* nevertheless became quite legalistic in their own right, and more or less ruled the state - but it really was quite different in the details from what they’d left behind. That said, they were a far cry from allowing the reign of free will that God arguably intended.
This talk of free will, or the lack of it, gets pretty complex, though, because they insisted that church members be saved Christians and not just go though the motions of going to church because it was mandated, as was the case in England. The people were, however, fairly homogenous in their belief and way of thinking - they were there, in the new world, together, for a reason, after all. So there was a mixture of free will and legalism that most of us today would probably not understand.
The next step in the evolution of the separation of church and state was initiated by Roger Williams in direct response to the situation described above. Williams was critical of the Puritans’ “structure” much like Luther was with the Catholic one.
Roger Williams established the first Baptist church in America, in what became Providence, RI.
Today, because fundamentalist Baptists are often at the forefront of the battle (on the side of allowing prayer in school and other public/government places), many people think they are against a separation of church and state. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Baptists are staunch advocates of it - it’s just that they understand and agree with the original meaning of it (a la Roger Williams), and not what it has been perverted into.
There were a number of differences that Williams had with the Puritan-run Bay Colony, but two that are specific to this issue were: being punished by civil authorities for purely religious transgressions, and the requirement of being spiritually saved in order to have the right to vote.
Williams felt that one man has no way of ascertaining the salvation of another, so the requirement was ridiculous. Being granted or denied the right to vote therefore became arbitrary, and that wasn’t right.
Providence thus became a haven of religious tolerance - perhaps like the world had never seen.
It must be remembered that this was 140 years before the colonies would form into a new nation, so this religious freedom was well established by the time the framing of the new government was to begin.
It was with all this in mind that our founding fathers found it wise (indeed, necessary) to include in the Bill of Rights the First Amendment, specifically prohibiting the establishment of a state religion.
They wanted to be sure that no religion would become the officially sanctioned religion of the government - like was the case in most of Europe - thereby preventing the freedom of worship to others.
It was absolutely not to prohibit the exercise of religion in the public square. Quite the contrary: it was to guarantee that all had the freedom to worship according to their own convictions without fear.
Sadly, the most frequent (erroneous) interpretation of the First Amendment has accomplished precisely what it sought to protect us from.
One definition of religion is: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. That accurately describes the Secular Humanism under which our government operates.
So, in changing the meaning of the First Amendment from the clear idea of protecting religious freedom by not establishing a state religion to the false idea of completely divorcing faith from public life, the courts have, in effect, used the First Amendment to establish in the land Secular Humanism as the state mandated religion!
*Not all Puritans were technically Separatists, but that’s a fairly involved explanation. I was exercising a bit of license with that line.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
The Rest of the Story
Many of us fondly remember Paul Harvey. He would take a story that was familiar to all and fill in the background that was unknown by most. He called it “The Rest of the Story”.
I’ve been reading history, as I frequently do, and I came across something that was reminiscent of Mr. Harvey. I could almost hear him in my head.
In December of 1773, a group of men who called themselves Patriots disguised themselves as American Indians and dumped three cargoes of tea into Boston Harbor. We’ve all heard that story a hundred times, and we all know the reason they did that was to protest an unfair tax on tea (taxation without representation), right?
Well, that’s true, but it’s only part of the story. It turns out - and this is from a British source (the great Prime Minister, Winston Churchill) - the more important reason this was done was because, in addition to a hated tax, the tea in question had been shipped from the far east (the East India Company) directly to the American colonies without paying the import duties. This, of course, bypassed the middleman merchants who HAD paid the requisite duties and undercut their prices, as the company was selling the tea through its own agents in America.
This, in essence, created an instant monopoly for the East India Company.
But even that is not the whole story. The reason the company was allowed to do this was because it was nearly bankrupt and the government was forced to come to its rescue. In an 18th century version of a government bailout for a company that was “too big to fail”, Parliament passed an Act authorizing the company to do this and thereby sidestep bankruptcy.
So, the government bailing out a company to save it from bankruptcy is not new. But when it happened back then, it started a revolution against the government, created a new nation, and changed the course of history forever.
And that’s ... the rest of the story.
Good day! (with respectful apologies to Mr. Paul Harvey)
I’ve been reading history, as I frequently do, and I came across something that was reminiscent of Mr. Harvey. I could almost hear him in my head.
In December of 1773, a group of men who called themselves Patriots disguised themselves as American Indians and dumped three cargoes of tea into Boston Harbor. We’ve all heard that story a hundred times, and we all know the reason they did that was to protest an unfair tax on tea (taxation without representation), right?
Well, that’s true, but it’s only part of the story. It turns out - and this is from a British source (the great Prime Minister, Winston Churchill) - the more important reason this was done was because, in addition to a hated tax, the tea in question had been shipped from the far east (the East India Company) directly to the American colonies without paying the import duties. This, of course, bypassed the middleman merchants who HAD paid the requisite duties and undercut their prices, as the company was selling the tea through its own agents in America.
This, in essence, created an instant monopoly for the East India Company.
But even that is not the whole story. The reason the company was allowed to do this was because it was nearly bankrupt and the government was forced to come to its rescue. In an 18th century version of a government bailout for a company that was “too big to fail”, Parliament passed an Act authorizing the company to do this and thereby sidestep bankruptcy.
So, the government bailing out a company to save it from bankruptcy is not new. But when it happened back then, it started a revolution against the government, created a new nation, and changed the course of history forever.
And that’s ... the rest of the story.
Good day! (with respectful apologies to Mr. Paul Harvey)
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Sacrifice
Is there any objective merit to sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice? Does God smile on us when we give of ourselves at a cost to ourselves?
I’ve always thought that giving - whether money, or time, or whatever - was always more meaningful when there was real sacrifice involved. If you are well-to-do and you give a lot of money to a charity, that’s a good thing. You are helping people with your resources. But did you really feel any sacrifice?
I, in no way, mean to diminish the generosity of wealthy people. I think it’s wonderful. I just think that if it really costs you something to make the gift, perhaps it carries more meaning. But I’m actually going to get even more specific.
Most people are familiar with the idea of sacrifice of one thing for the attainment of something else. Musicians sacrifice time with their friends to become excellent at their music. Businessmen sometimes, unfortunately, sacrifice time with their families to build a financially successful business. Some people sacrifice financial prosperity for the betterment (relationally, etc.) of their families. These are, to varying degrees, noble. But is there any nobility in sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice?
In the Christian life, we often hear about sacrificial giving - it’s usually being contrasted with, and distinguished from tithing - so, I’m familiar with the concept from that perspective, but . . . well, here; let me tell you how I came to this question. Hopefully that will make clear what I’m asking.
My son is reading “In His Steps”, by Charles M. Sheldon. In the book, one of the characters, in a genuine attempt to know, and do, the will of Christ, makes the statement, “I want to do something that will cost me something in the way of sacrifice.”
THAT’S what I’m talking about. She’s trying to please God and she assumes (rightly? That’s the question.) that the very nature of sacrifice is pleasing to Him. She’s not talking about sacrificing one thing for another. She’s really not even talking about sacrificing of herself because there’s a real NEED for what she’d be giving. (There IS an undercurrent of using one’s gifts in service, but that, I believe, is a secondary concern in the statement being made.)
Read again what she said. She wants to sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. So, my question is, is that kind of sacrifice pleasing to God?
I’ve always thought that giving - whether money, or time, or whatever - was always more meaningful when there was real sacrifice involved. If you are well-to-do and you give a lot of money to a charity, that’s a good thing. You are helping people with your resources. But did you really feel any sacrifice?
I, in no way, mean to diminish the generosity of wealthy people. I think it’s wonderful. I just think that if it really costs you something to make the gift, perhaps it carries more meaning. But I’m actually going to get even more specific.
Most people are familiar with the idea of sacrifice of one thing for the attainment of something else. Musicians sacrifice time with their friends to become excellent at their music. Businessmen sometimes, unfortunately, sacrifice time with their families to build a financially successful business. Some people sacrifice financial prosperity for the betterment (relationally, etc.) of their families. These are, to varying degrees, noble. But is there any nobility in sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice?
In the Christian life, we often hear about sacrificial giving - it’s usually being contrasted with, and distinguished from tithing - so, I’m familiar with the concept from that perspective, but . . . well, here; let me tell you how I came to this question. Hopefully that will make clear what I’m asking.
My son is reading “In His Steps”, by Charles M. Sheldon. In the book, one of the characters, in a genuine attempt to know, and do, the will of Christ, makes the statement, “I want to do something that will cost me something in the way of sacrifice.”
THAT’S what I’m talking about. She’s trying to please God and she assumes (rightly? That’s the question.) that the very nature of sacrifice is pleasing to Him. She’s not talking about sacrificing one thing for another. She’s really not even talking about sacrificing of herself because there’s a real NEED for what she’d be giving. (There IS an undercurrent of using one’s gifts in service, but that, I believe, is a secondary concern in the statement being made.)
Read again what she said. She wants to sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. So, my question is, is that kind of sacrifice pleasing to God?
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Pathetically Apathetic
I considered several different titles for this post before I settled on “Pathetically Apathetic”.
My original (and still favorite) was “Passionately Apathetic”. I like the oxymoron-ism of it. But one of my recent posts had “Passionate” in the title, and I didn’t want to appear to be stuck in a groove.
Then I thought of “Militantly Apathetic”, but, really, I’m not “militantly” anything. I am, however, apathetic.
There were a few more that I entertained before succumbing to the ironic play on the root word “pathos”.
Now, to the point. What was I going to write about? Oh well, it probably doesn’t matter, anyway.
Oh yeah, I remember now...
What is it, you may ask, about which I’m apathetic?
Well, I’m not “generally” apathetic - at least not usually. Sure, there are times when I really don’t care about much of anything. I think we all have those dark moods occasionally. But most of the time, I have an appropriate level of sympathy or empathy, as the case may be.
No. For me, it’s mainly politics about which I’m usually utterly apathetic. I say usually because that’s the emotional state I strive toward, as regards politics, because, that failing, I sink directly into antipathy. (Hey, I like this “pathos” concept.)
To be perfectly honest, antipathy is my natural emotional state with politics. Stated simply, I hate politics! So, in order to stay even-keeled, and not come across as a belligerently blathering idiot, I strive for apathy.
That’s what makes the whole thing pathetic.
My original (and still favorite) was “Passionately Apathetic”. I like the oxymoron-ism of it. But one of my recent posts had “Passionate” in the title, and I didn’t want to appear to be stuck in a groove.
Then I thought of “Militantly Apathetic”, but, really, I’m not “militantly” anything. I am, however, apathetic.
There were a few more that I entertained before succumbing to the ironic play on the root word “pathos”.
Now, to the point. What was I going to write about? Oh well, it probably doesn’t matter, anyway.
Oh yeah, I remember now...
What is it, you may ask, about which I’m apathetic?
Well, I’m not “generally” apathetic - at least not usually. Sure, there are times when I really don’t care about much of anything. I think we all have those dark moods occasionally. But most of the time, I have an appropriate level of sympathy or empathy, as the case may be.
No. For me, it’s mainly politics about which I’m usually utterly apathetic. I say usually because that’s the emotional state I strive toward, as regards politics, because, that failing, I sink directly into antipathy. (Hey, I like this “pathos” concept.)
To be perfectly honest, antipathy is my natural emotional state with politics. Stated simply, I hate politics! So, in order to stay even-keeled, and not come across as a belligerently blathering idiot, I strive for apathy.
That’s what makes the whole thing pathetic.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Social Groupings: Tribe/Team or Clan/Family
The other day I was driving and saw a car covered (I would say littered) with bumper stickers promoting sports teams. There were probably 3 or 4 dedicated to the Red Sox, and just as many for the Patriots. This made me think that I really don’t understand the manic fanaticism that some put into their beloved sports. Do you know the derivation of the word “fan”? It comes from fanatic! I’m not kidding.
As a child, I played on baseball teams, and I enjoyed it. But I was never passionate about it. It’s the same with watching sports on TV - sure, I’ll watch it if there’s nothing else on, or if I’m with people who want to watch it - but, ultimately, it’s a game. I really don’t get much out of it.
On the other hand, I really enjoy watching individual sports, like swimming, diving, gymnastics, skating, etc. Yes, I take some ribbing that I’m a guy and I like skating better than football. Despite any insults to the contrary, it has nothing to do with a lack of masculinity, and everything to do with a respect for individualism and individual achievement. (I also enjoy boxing and watching martial arts matches)
So, I find it unfathomable how someone can expend so much energy on whether a team wins or loses. Speaking for myself, I really couldn’t care less. Like I said, it’s just a game.
And yet, people DO get all wrapped up in it. It finally occurred to me that there’s something about it that, for whatever reason, these people identify very strongly with. It’s the ever-popular us-versus-them mentality. When I think about it, it’s so simple that I can’t believe I never got it before. But, even knowing it, cerebrally, I STILL don’t get it! What’s the attraction? In my opinion, it is precisely this mentality that has caused ALL the problems in our world.
Us-versus-them. It’s kind of the definition of what it means to be tribal. One tribe want to grow and expand, but that necessitates the putting down of another tribe. And what is a tribe, anyway? It’s nothing but an artificially extended family. (Racism is, at its core, tribalism at its worst.) But then tribes grow into nations - and still that desire to grow at the expense of other nations is there.
It goes deeper than just sports, though. Sports is just the most obvious manifestation of the phenomenon. When I looked around more, I found bumper stickers for political parties, for religious points of view, for colleges, for fraternal organizations, etc. For some reason, a lot of people have an over-riding need to be identified with a particular group.
I’m a Christian, and I want to be identified as such, but only in the broadest possible sense. You will probably never see an ichthus fish on my car. You will probably never see a bumper sticker on the issue of abortion. Even though I generally vote for one party, you will probably never see a political sticker on my car (Actually, I had one ONCE, but I won’t again). Why? Because once people see anything that identifies you as being in any kind of group, you have effectively destroyed any chance of open communication.
Once someone sees the fish, for example, they ASSUME they know where you stand on every issue. If they see a political identifier, they ASSUME they know where you stand on every issue. Et cetera. So, the only communication that can ensue is either preaching to the choir, because they (presumably) agree with you on everything, or, in the event that your audience holds a contrary view, you instantly have a mountain of assumptions (some of which might be wrong) to overcome and their minds have already been closed to anything you have to say. Being identified with a group, any group, has an instantly polarizing effect on others.
On the other hand, I would say that I am very clannish. The funny thing is, I used to equate clans and tribes, but they actually are quite different. For one thing, a tribe usually has a leader or a small group of leaders. For another thing, a tribe may consist of several families, or perhaps even villages. Conversely, a clan is TRULY a family - yes, an extended family (cousins, etc.), but a naturally extended family, not an imposed one.
I have a deep love of my family. Not just my immediate family, but also the past generations of my family. In a sense, I am the family record keeper. I have all the information of my family tree going back to 1620, when we first came here from England. There is, in the record, circumstantial evidence that goes back to 1066. Unfortunately, this is unproven and, being this far removed, both in time and geographically, it will be quite a challenge getting confirmation that better equipped people than I have been unable to get. Be that as it may, I have a strong desire to learn as much about my family as I’m able to learn.
I understand there’s a danger, from a Christian perspective, with being too overly concerned with genealogy, but I love history, and what better than one’s own personal family’s history? I honestly believe that it’s impossible to divorce ourselves from the past, and we attempt to do so at our potential peril. It is the past that has created the present. To deny the past, or to have no knowledge of it, is to have no understanding of the present. Who I am, and what I am, is in large part due to what my ancestors did and who they were. I know some will disagree, and that’s okay, but it’s what I believe.
So, I don’t understand the tribal mentality, but I do understand the clan mentality. The main difference, to my mind, is that the tribe want to grow even to the detriment of other tribes, while the clan/family want to grow, but only in the natural order. As we have children, we grow, but we don’t go out to conquer in order to grow. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Clans generally just want to be left to their own. That’s how I feel - leave me and my family alone to flourish as we see fit, and we’ll extend the same courtesy to you and your family.
As a child, I played on baseball teams, and I enjoyed it. But I was never passionate about it. It’s the same with watching sports on TV - sure, I’ll watch it if there’s nothing else on, or if I’m with people who want to watch it - but, ultimately, it’s a game. I really don’t get much out of it.
On the other hand, I really enjoy watching individual sports, like swimming, diving, gymnastics, skating, etc. Yes, I take some ribbing that I’m a guy and I like skating better than football. Despite any insults to the contrary, it has nothing to do with a lack of masculinity, and everything to do with a respect for individualism and individual achievement. (I also enjoy boxing and watching martial arts matches)
So, I find it unfathomable how someone can expend so much energy on whether a team wins or loses. Speaking for myself, I really couldn’t care less. Like I said, it’s just a game.
And yet, people DO get all wrapped up in it. It finally occurred to me that there’s something about it that, for whatever reason, these people identify very strongly with. It’s the ever-popular us-versus-them mentality. When I think about it, it’s so simple that I can’t believe I never got it before. But, even knowing it, cerebrally, I STILL don’t get it! What’s the attraction? In my opinion, it is precisely this mentality that has caused ALL the problems in our world.
Us-versus-them. It’s kind of the definition of what it means to be tribal. One tribe want to grow and expand, but that necessitates the putting down of another tribe. And what is a tribe, anyway? It’s nothing but an artificially extended family. (Racism is, at its core, tribalism at its worst.) But then tribes grow into nations - and still that desire to grow at the expense of other nations is there.
It goes deeper than just sports, though. Sports is just the most obvious manifestation of the phenomenon. When I looked around more, I found bumper stickers for political parties, for religious points of view, for colleges, for fraternal organizations, etc. For some reason, a lot of people have an over-riding need to be identified with a particular group.
I’m a Christian, and I want to be identified as such, but only in the broadest possible sense. You will probably never see an ichthus fish on my car. You will probably never see a bumper sticker on the issue of abortion. Even though I generally vote for one party, you will probably never see a political sticker on my car (Actually, I had one ONCE, but I won’t again). Why? Because once people see anything that identifies you as being in any kind of group, you have effectively destroyed any chance of open communication.
Once someone sees the fish, for example, they ASSUME they know where you stand on every issue. If they see a political identifier, they ASSUME they know where you stand on every issue. Et cetera. So, the only communication that can ensue is either preaching to the choir, because they (presumably) agree with you on everything, or, in the event that your audience holds a contrary view, you instantly have a mountain of assumptions (some of which might be wrong) to overcome and their minds have already been closed to anything you have to say. Being identified with a group, any group, has an instantly polarizing effect on others.
On the other hand, I would say that I am very clannish. The funny thing is, I used to equate clans and tribes, but they actually are quite different. For one thing, a tribe usually has a leader or a small group of leaders. For another thing, a tribe may consist of several families, or perhaps even villages. Conversely, a clan is TRULY a family - yes, an extended family (cousins, etc.), but a naturally extended family, not an imposed one.
I have a deep love of my family. Not just my immediate family, but also the past generations of my family. In a sense, I am the family record keeper. I have all the information of my family tree going back to 1620, when we first came here from England. There is, in the record, circumstantial evidence that goes back to 1066. Unfortunately, this is unproven and, being this far removed, both in time and geographically, it will be quite a challenge getting confirmation that better equipped people than I have been unable to get. Be that as it may, I have a strong desire to learn as much about my family as I’m able to learn.
I understand there’s a danger, from a Christian perspective, with being too overly concerned with genealogy, but I love history, and what better than one’s own personal family’s history? I honestly believe that it’s impossible to divorce ourselves from the past, and we attempt to do so at our potential peril. It is the past that has created the present. To deny the past, or to have no knowledge of it, is to have no understanding of the present. Who I am, and what I am, is in large part due to what my ancestors did and who they were. I know some will disagree, and that’s okay, but it’s what I believe.
So, I don’t understand the tribal mentality, but I do understand the clan mentality. The main difference, to my mind, is that the tribe want to grow even to the detriment of other tribes, while the clan/family want to grow, but only in the natural order. As we have children, we grow, but we don’t go out to conquer in order to grow. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Clans generally just want to be left to their own. That’s how I feel - leave me and my family alone to flourish as we see fit, and we’ll extend the same courtesy to you and your family.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
(Appropriately) Passionate Motivation
I’m involved in a business that I intend to transition into, gradually getting out of my current occupation. So far, I haven’t done very much to propel myself toward what I say I want and, being a reflective person, I examine myself fairly constantly to try and figure out why that is.
I suppose any time one endeavors to make a significant and substantive change in ones life, one needs to overcome the inertia imposed by the comfort of complacency. Be that as it may, I find it troubling how long I’ve remained effectively motionless.
It could be caused by one or more of any number of things. Faith in the business I’m transitioning into, for example. I’m certain this isn’t the main problem. There is one particular aspect of the business that has me curious about it’s effectiveness in the current economy, and the direction I fear it’s going, but it’s not a serious concern that would prevent me from moving forward.
It could be fear preventing me from moving forward. I don’t deny periods of fear - mostly due to the unknown, of course - but I really don’t think that’s had a paralyzing effect. It’s reared it’s ugly head from time to time, but I can get past fear. I’m not afraid of fear.
Laziness is another suspect in this mystery. I absolutely have times when I’m lazy. More times than I wish to admit. But laziness just means you don’t feel like doing something, and, for whatever reason, you allow your feelings to dictate your actions. It’s simply a matter of discipline. Just steel your resolve and the laziness goes away. that’s not what I’m experiencing.
The next two possibilities are somewhat related, but also somewhat distinct. Motivation and passion. My motivation is the thing I’ve mentally attacked the most in this search. But motivation has two components. We all think of the internal component - do we feel motivated, and thus, act on that? But there’s a definite external aspect to motivation. There are external reasons that should “motivate” us to action. Just because we don’t move, doesn’t mean the external motivation is not there. We only act when we’ve internalized the external!
Viewed in that light, I have plenty of motivation. There’s a lot about my life (and that of my family) that I would love to improve.
That leaves passion. I’ve often commented about myself that I have myriad interests, but no passions. I’ve said that there’s really nothing that I feel passionately that I must do. I’m actually not sure that’s true, the more I think about it.
I feel passionately that I need to help people, in general, and families, in particular - and this business I mentioned does just that.
I feel passionately that I’m supposed to learn what it is that God wants from my life, and then to do it - and that may also be this business.
I feel passionately that I’m supposed to provide for my own family - again, this business has the potential of meeting that goal, as well.
I feel passionately that I need to be involved in my son’s life as much as possible. This business, done correctly, could free up much time to that end.
So, what’s the problem? Why am I standing still despite having both motivation and passion?
As an exercise, I was given the task of creating a “Dream Board” or “Dream Book” - basically a collage of things that are important to me for both a direction in life, and what I’d like to attain in life. If wealth were to be my lot, what would I want to do with it?
Some people are very motivated by money, and in my opinion, this exercise is largely based on that reality. If you know what you want, materially, out of life, the idea is that having a reminder ever-present to which you can refer, will keep your efforts on track and help you attain your goals.
Well, this project was quite difficult for me. Firstly, because, as I said earlier, I have very diverse interests, which results in “wanting” much. I began by gathering images of most of my interests, and proceeded by carving away the more trivial items to get to a core group of things that I’d really like to have or achieve.
Another reason this was difficult for me is because my nature is truly a dichotomy - and it always has been. It’s always been very difficult for me to reconcile my disparate desires, and this was certainly no exception.
What I mean by that is that I absolutely have material desires, but I also have a very strong desire to discover and obey God’s plan for me. I don’t necessarily think that the two are at odds with each other. I think God wants us to prosper. When we prosper, we are better positioned to give back and help those that need help. I have no problem with Christians being wealthy. I don’t even have a particular problem with wealthy people living like they’re wealthy. There’s a certain propriety to that. But I don’t know if that’s meant to be the destiny God has in mind for me.
If I were wealthy, there are a lot of charities and causes that I can readily think of that I would contribute to and advance the causes of. I would do what I thought God wanted me to do with the resources He gives to me to manage. I would also enjoy the wealth and have no problem doing so.
The problem I have is with the wanting first and attaining second. I have a problem putting material things on my wish list. I just feel that it promotes getting to your goal for the wrong reason. I know others don’t have an issue with this, and that’s fine, but I do, and I’m finding it difficult to get past.
How I’ve proceeded thus far is that I’ve created my “Dream Book” beginning with how I will improve myself and my family relations, then how I would help others. The end of the book is where I’ve put my material desires. At least, in this way, I can mentally say, “And if I ever get rich, this is what I would buy for myself, after these other areas are addressed”. But I still struggle with it.
I suppose any time one endeavors to make a significant and substantive change in ones life, one needs to overcome the inertia imposed by the comfort of complacency. Be that as it may, I find it troubling how long I’ve remained effectively motionless.
It could be caused by one or more of any number of things. Faith in the business I’m transitioning into, for example. I’m certain this isn’t the main problem. There is one particular aspect of the business that has me curious about it’s effectiveness in the current economy, and the direction I fear it’s going, but it’s not a serious concern that would prevent me from moving forward.
It could be fear preventing me from moving forward. I don’t deny periods of fear - mostly due to the unknown, of course - but I really don’t think that’s had a paralyzing effect. It’s reared it’s ugly head from time to time, but I can get past fear. I’m not afraid of fear.
Laziness is another suspect in this mystery. I absolutely have times when I’m lazy. More times than I wish to admit. But laziness just means you don’t feel like doing something, and, for whatever reason, you allow your feelings to dictate your actions. It’s simply a matter of discipline. Just steel your resolve and the laziness goes away. that’s not what I’m experiencing.
The next two possibilities are somewhat related, but also somewhat distinct. Motivation and passion. My motivation is the thing I’ve mentally attacked the most in this search. But motivation has two components. We all think of the internal component - do we feel motivated, and thus, act on that? But there’s a definite external aspect to motivation. There are external reasons that should “motivate” us to action. Just because we don’t move, doesn’t mean the external motivation is not there. We only act when we’ve internalized the external!
Viewed in that light, I have plenty of motivation. There’s a lot about my life (and that of my family) that I would love to improve.
That leaves passion. I’ve often commented about myself that I have myriad interests, but no passions. I’ve said that there’s really nothing that I feel passionately that I must do. I’m actually not sure that’s true, the more I think about it.
I feel passionately that I need to help people, in general, and families, in particular - and this business I mentioned does just that.
I feel passionately that I’m supposed to learn what it is that God wants from my life, and then to do it - and that may also be this business.
I feel passionately that I’m supposed to provide for my own family - again, this business has the potential of meeting that goal, as well.
I feel passionately that I need to be involved in my son’s life as much as possible. This business, done correctly, could free up much time to that end.
So, what’s the problem? Why am I standing still despite having both motivation and passion?
As an exercise, I was given the task of creating a “Dream Board” or “Dream Book” - basically a collage of things that are important to me for both a direction in life, and what I’d like to attain in life. If wealth were to be my lot, what would I want to do with it?
Some people are very motivated by money, and in my opinion, this exercise is largely based on that reality. If you know what you want, materially, out of life, the idea is that having a reminder ever-present to which you can refer, will keep your efforts on track and help you attain your goals.
Well, this project was quite difficult for me. Firstly, because, as I said earlier, I have very diverse interests, which results in “wanting” much. I began by gathering images of most of my interests, and proceeded by carving away the more trivial items to get to a core group of things that I’d really like to have or achieve.
Another reason this was difficult for me is because my nature is truly a dichotomy - and it always has been. It’s always been very difficult for me to reconcile my disparate desires, and this was certainly no exception.
What I mean by that is that I absolutely have material desires, but I also have a very strong desire to discover and obey God’s plan for me. I don’t necessarily think that the two are at odds with each other. I think God wants us to prosper. When we prosper, we are better positioned to give back and help those that need help. I have no problem with Christians being wealthy. I don’t even have a particular problem with wealthy people living like they’re wealthy. There’s a certain propriety to that. But I don’t know if that’s meant to be the destiny God has in mind for me.
If I were wealthy, there are a lot of charities and causes that I can readily think of that I would contribute to and advance the causes of. I would do what I thought God wanted me to do with the resources He gives to me to manage. I would also enjoy the wealth and have no problem doing so.
The problem I have is with the wanting first and attaining second. I have a problem putting material things on my wish list. I just feel that it promotes getting to your goal for the wrong reason. I know others don’t have an issue with this, and that’s fine, but I do, and I’m finding it difficult to get past.
How I’ve proceeded thus far is that I’ve created my “Dream Book” beginning with how I will improve myself and my family relations, then how I would help others. The end of the book is where I’ve put my material desires. At least, in this way, I can mentally say, “And if I ever get rich, this is what I would buy for myself, after these other areas are addressed”. But I still struggle with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)