Simpatico

February 09, 2006

Simpatico Has Left The Building

For all of you who read this blog (I am going to guess this is going to effect maybe 6 people), Simpatico is moving.

My new home is: http://leaksinthename.blogspot.com/

All the old posts are there and some new ones will be coming soon.

The reasons for the move are numerous and it has nothing to do with Terrablogs/St. Louis blogs at all as they have been wonderful.

So, if you are interested in still reading this blog. . .follow the link!

| By Leaksinthename | 05:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 27, 2006

Why Palestinians Understand American Democracy Better than Christians Do

From the NYtimes.com editorial of Jan. 27, 2006 : http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/opinion/27fri1.html?hp

In the Mideast, a Giant Step Back

“It would be nice to believe that Hamas, now that it is assuming the reins of power and the burden of actually having to govern, will renounce its call for the destruction of a sovereign state, disarm its private army, get into the business of making life better for Palestinians and try to negotiate the creation of a real Palestinian state.”

Also from the NYtimes.com article by Steve R. Weisman of the same day’s publication:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27diplo.html

Bush Defends His Goal of Spreading Democracy to the Mideast

“The sweeping victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections threw President Bush and his aides on the defensive on Thursday, complicating the administration's policy of trying to promote democracy as an antidote to the spread of terrorism.”

"Given the weakness of Palestinian society, people should not have been surprised that this was the outcome," Mr. Gvosdev added.
“Other critics, too, including some Arab leaders, say that the United States failed to do its part to shore up Mr. Abbas by wringing more concessions from Israel and doing more to revitalize the economy in the West Bank and Gaza.

What Palestinians know and what the West fails to realize (as the quotes from NYtimes.com indicates, particularly the one about getting a real state) is that democracy is not free from being a tradition that espouses particular values and a particular worldview. Or to put it philosophically, Western liberal democracy (don’t read liberal to mean democrats or libertarians, but rather liberal in the sense of a free government which would include France, the UK, America, etc) is a metanarrative unto itself. That is, democracy as it is manifested in the West is part of the Enlightenment’s metanarrative of a society that finds its underpinnings apart from the particular person of Jesus Christ (cf. Kant, Locke, Hume, Smith, etc.) and defines its ethics in terms of what it considers to be objective and universal to all humans.

Of course, some will say Christianity played a major role in the formation of American politics (among others) and they would be right. However, Christianity (particularly Protestant Christianity) assumed that its ethics were embodied in the new secular government (let alone that Jesus’ ethics via “natural law” or “orders of creation” were somehow obvious to everyone in a Cartesian sense) and decided to cede the role of the Church over to the state. The state gladly took the mantle and dismissed the Church forthright. Thus, for example, we praise God for the first amendment that gives us the freedom to talk about Jesus in whichever way we wish, so long as we don’t act on it in public forum. While much more could be said about this, it belies my point:

Palestinians, the Middle-East, and Muslim countries in general do not accept the West’s metanarrative of democracy and they certainly reject the notion that the American vision is a good one, let alone that it is universal and objective. To accept America’s vision of democracy for groups in the Middle-East is actually heresy. Why? Because democracy in itself is a metanarrative that functions as a religion. To put it even more bluntly, democracy is a religion and it will not confuse itself with Christianity (or any other religion), even if Christians think otherwise. In fact, from the perspective of democracy, it is good if Christians can’t tell the difference because it means democracy does not have to defend itself to the Church, let alone that the Church can be happy in outsourcing its role to federal, state, and local agencies.

It would be nice if Christians took the philosophical cues of the Palestinians and recognized the essence of democracy for what it is: a religion. And that this religion is not the one of Jesus Christ, Allah, Buddha, Marx or anyone else. Democracy is a religion unto itself. If Palestinians are unwilling to blur their god with democracy why are Christians in America?

Further, why is our government so slow to pick up on this? I mean honestly, there is no real reason for the Bush administration to be upset about Hamas winning an election if a democratic election where the people elect their own people to government was the point (which I do not believe it was). Particularly when the conservative party won (of course, conservative in Palestinian terms).

In other words, simply electing officials is not the issue; we want the American religion of democracy to be accepted in Palestine, Iraq, and elsewhere. And like Christian missionaries have discovered in many countries, in many ages, sometimes the people you are trying to reach with your religion simply will not accept it. Or if they do accept it, they are not going to accept it on your terms.

Welcome, to the destruction of the Enlightenment project, Mr. Bush. It happened a while ago.

I realize I am most likely going to be misunderstood and considered a liberal in the pejorative sense. For those of you who made it this far here's my synopsis: I am advocating a critical reading of democracy that calls Christians and the Church (as if we can or should distinguish the two) to reconsider Jesus as Lord and to center their worship and social ethic on him, not secular government. This can only be considered "crazy" or "revolutional" or whatever other term you can find, if we assume that the government and the Church are the same thing.

| By Leaksinthename | 12:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 10, 2006

Why I don't believe in theories

From dictionary.com:

the·o·ry A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Stanley Hauerwas once said, "all arguments are ad hominem arguments." That is, all arguments are essentially personal statements and when we argue against a position we are actually attacking another person personally, though we tend to think we are simply being objective and only attacking the person's argument. This is flawed.

All knowledge, as Michael Polanyi once stated it, is personal knowledge. There is no such thing as an disengaged, unbiased opinion or point of view. Everyone argues from a biased and unobjective (I don't mean subjective here or relativism for that matter) position, that is predicated on numerous factors. This is why I don't believe theories as they are typically understood exist.

Now the definition above for what a theory is, is a fine definition if you include this phrase after the term natural phenomena: "from a particular perspective, grammar, or construction of reality."

What does that mean?

For example, what science routinely fails to admit (perhaps it should be said, cannot admit or else it undermines its view of itself) is that science in itself is a particular way of viewing the world. The scientific view is no more objective than say a Buddhist's, a Marxist's, an Impressionist, or Judge Alito and the Judicial committee that is questioning him. By objective, I mean universal for all disciplines, cultures, etc. It's ideas are not clear and distinct ideas that function universally to explain anything outside of its own agendas, i.e. to explain natural processes (and even then the criteria it has set for itself is biased).

It is objective however, (as opposed to subjective) in the sense that it accords to the standards or grammar it lays forth and operates with (i.e. a closed universe, empirical data, etc.). But again, this does not mean that its grammar and standards are operative universally. Science cannot say anything about God for example according to its own criteria. In fact, God is irrelevant to the grammar known as science.

What I am after of course is the idolatry (at least one of the idols) of modernism: that all truth is detachable from a particular and historical setting (thus Lessing and his ugly ditch). This is simply not true.

All truth is historically rooted and is particular. This is unavoidable. It does not take away from the ontological categories of truth (i.e. something is really true or universally true), only the epistemological (not everyone will be able to get it or perceive it because it does come from a particular and historical setting and not everyone possess the grammar to perceive it).

What does this mean for the Christian, particularly in light of Jesus being a historical figure who was particular to a context (culture, language, time-period etc.)?

Ontology: Jesus is Lord. This is true for the entire universe. Jesus is God revealed in the particular man Jesus. Jesus as a historical figure is normative for all humanity.

Epistemology: Not everyone is going to be able to get this and we should not be surprised when people reject him. In fact, we should expect many if not most to reject him because they either refuse or cannot work within his grammar.

This last statement is only troubling to those who wish to see truth as something detachable from a historical and particular reality. Of course, for Christians who are troubled by this and want a more Cartesian Jesus (Jesus as a truth claim that is clear and distinct and detached from his historical and particular setting) are faced with the choice between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Gnostics.

So, why do I not believe in theories?

If a theory is something that can be detached from a particular point of view or a historical setting, it is not actually a theory: it is simply nothing. But if by theory you mean a particular set of rules or grammar by which a community operates and perceives and constructs reality, then I am all for it. But by that definition, a theory is no longer a theory as it is commonly understood, it is a faith.

| By Leaksinthename | 11:12 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

December 30, 2005

Confusion and Introspect

From Wednesday's repeat of Lost:

John Locke: "What are the odds, I mean really, what are the odds of finding this?"

Mr. Eko: "Don't confuse coincidence with fate."

For those of you unfamiliar with the show, John Locke sees fate everywhere. Everything has a meaning and there is a reason for everything that has happened to everyone on the show (though he doesn't offer any concrete proof). Mr. Eko calls into question John Locke's entire way of viewing the history of the show.

That being said, it is Mr. Eko's line that has me thinking about people and being introspective. In particular, it has me thinking about my (and other's) willingness to confuse (or perhaps blend) one thing for another. I think we should wrestle with the confusion, but of course, that is the very thing most of us do not want to do. Borrowing from Mr. Eko. . .

For Christians:

"Don't confuse your own personal desires for God's will."

For Patriotic Americans:

"Don't confuse sycophancy with patriotism."

For Me:

"Don't confuse cynicism with thinking you are helping people by questioning the status quo."

| By Leaksinthename | 12:54 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

December 21, 2005

Why I think the "Holiday Tree" is a good thing

I recently have received emails of outrage from numerous Christians I know exclaiming the evils of the ACLU and its insistence on removing the specific name of "Christmas" from public institutions, i.e. schools, the White House, etc. Along with these complaints about the removal of "Christmas" have been the complaints that certain stores such as Target do not allow Salvation Army kettles in front of their stores.

Should I be outraged? No.

No, I think this is good. No, actually I think this is a great thing for Christians.

Folks, the ACLU understands this country better than Christians do. This country is not a Christian country, it is a post-Christian country. It is pluralistic and no longer can be defined by Protestants, but is defined by numerous religions and numerous points of view and ways of life that are antithetical to Christianity.

Most Christians are tangibly feeling what they conceive of as their power base slipping away, i.e. the State no longer sponsors Christianity. Is this a bad thing?

Again, no, I think this is a great thing.

I think for Christ to be put back into Christmas, the Church needs the ACLU to push the ACLU's agenda. The Church needs to recognize that for Christmas to be a celebration of Christ then there needs to be a large contingent of people who do not recognize Christ as Lord, who do not want him anywhere near their celebrations, and don't want to subject their children to it either. Otherwise, Christ must become watered down. He must become a nice Italian man with a well-kept beard who happens to prefer wearing baby-blue robes. For Christ to be recognized across the board as the reason for the season, then he cannot stand for anything outside of being an advocate for peace and brotherly love like any other Nobel peace prize winner.

In this scheme, Christ is no different than any other cultural thing. He becomes tame, domesticated, quaint, and frankly, not special.

For Christ to be put back into Christmas, the Church needs to reclaim Christ for its own instead of appealing to the government or to the broader culture to simply accept him as the "reason for the season."

I question if this is not exactly what Christians want from Christ; if they would simply be content for Christ to be part of their culture, like the fourth of July or Mom's apple pie.

For Christians to really insert Christ back into Christmas, Christ must become odd, strange, and practically foreign if not threatening. I am beginning to wonder if the ACLU doesn't understand Jesus better than Christians do: they see him as a threat instead of as a "precious moment."

| By Leaksinthename | 01:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

December 17, 2005

A Question of Methodology

Matthew 16:15-16 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Christians tend to assume that what is most important is only somewhat related to Matthew 16:15-16. In fact, we tend to be consumed by the wrong questions altogether. Here is a list of questions (this is not intended to be an exhaustive list) that Christians tend to think are the most important questions, when in fact in many ways these questions can be quite irrelevant.

What is your view of women in the church?
What is your view of the scriptures?
What is your view on free will or predestination?
What is your view on the sacraments?
What is your view of the teaching authority of the Church, i.e the Magisterium and the Pope?
What is your view on guitars and power point in worship?
Do you think all people go to heaven?
How can a loving God send people to hell, let alone let evil to occur?
What is your view on speaking in tongues or healings or anything pentecostal?
What is your view of social ethics?

These are important questions. In fact, these can be very important questions, but they are not the questions with which we should begin our conversations. In fact, if we begin with these questions we cannot be certain if we are even speaking about the same thing.

The most important question is the same question Jesus posed to Peter: Who do you say Jesus is?

The way one answers this question determines just about everything else.

Of course, the second most important question is related to the first: what do you mean by that?

How one decides to pursue theology, social ethics, science, the arts, daily living, in short everything, rides on how a person answers these questions: who is Jesus and what do you mean by that? To begin with other questions is to deal with other religions.

Of course, the question does not simply entail an intellectual answer. For Jesus, the answer to his question entails nothing short of taking up our cross and following him. That is, the answer to the question is answered by our mouths and by our feet.

Let us not fool ourselves into thinking we are answering life's questions well, or dealing with the important questions of Christianity when our methodology fails to deal with the two most important questions ever posed to humanity:

Who do you say Jesus is?

What do you mean by that?

| By Leaksinthename | 11:40 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)