 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Can't we all just [not] get along?I promised in an earlier post to offer criticism of the liberal agenda in addition to my comments on the conservative position. It seems that if fundamentalism errs on the side of particularity (i.e. the dogmatic insistence that their, and only their, understanding of Truth is valid), then liberalism errs on the side of universality (i.e. all religions are basically the same and all differences are but mere reflections of the same image). Both perspectives, in my opinion, are significantly flawed. I've been wrestling with a provocative writer as of late, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. As an orthodox Rabbi he offers an interesting perspective, that may serve as a critique of liberal universalism. He writes,"Often when religious leaders meet and talk, the emphasis is on similarities and commonalities, as if the differences between faiths were superficial and trivial. That is not, however, what comes to the fore at times of conflict. It is then that what seem to an outsider to be minor variations take on immense significance, dividing neighborhoods and turning erstwhile friends into enemies. Freud called this 'the narcissism of small differences'. There is nothing so slight that it cannot, under pressure, be turned into a marker of identity and thus of mutual estrangement. We need, in other words, not only a theology of commonality - of the universals of mankind - but also a theology of difference: why no civilization has the right to impose itself on others by force: why God asks us to repsect the freedom and dignity of those not like us" (21). I have had the distinct privilege of meeting weekly with a conservative friend to discuss many of the issues I have broached in this blog. Through those conversations, I see Sacks' suggestion above as being acutely poignant. Those "small differences" that liberals wish to gloss over in the name of openness or tolerance only embitters the conservative side to the point of fundamentalism. Perhaps in our globalized society, we can get away from the agonistic modus operandi, in which the strongest wins the conflict, and honor/glory lies in fighting in a 'just cause', that has characterized so much of the liberal-conservative debate (read: debacle). The liberal side has offered a proposed way out: universalism. The paradox of this manner of dialogue is that the supposed antithesis to particularism - universalism - can also be deeply threatening and fails to justly account for the human Sitze im Leben. For years America has operated under the myth that we were a 'melting pot'--a place where all of the differences instrinsic to our myriad cultural/racial/religious/ethnic backgrounds were slowly being amalgamated. This metaphor has been replace by the 'mixed salad' conceptualization, whereby Americans are conceived as living together in the same place and yet retaining all of their particularities, despite their proximity to others. This seems to be an error in the opposite direction. I suggest that we are like a red sock that has been inadvertently thrown into a load of whites in the washing machine. Each article of clothing maintains its identity (s/m/l/xl; t-shirt/ underwear/sock/blouse), and yet we are all forever pink due to our interconnectivity. In such a world, the veracity of Sacks' argument becomes palpable: "That is why nothing less than a paradigm shift may be needed to prevent a global age from becoming the scene of intermittent but destructive wars.... I believe that each of us within our own traditions, religious or secular, must learn to listen and be prepared to be surprised by others. We must make ourselves open to their stories, which may profoundly conflict with ours. We must even, at times, be ready to hear of their pain, humiliation and resentment and discover that their image of us is anything but our image of ourselves. We must learn the art of conversation, from which truth emerges not, as in Socratic dialogues, by the refutation of falsehood but from the quite different process of letting our world be enlarged by the presence of others who think, act, and interpret reality in ways radically different from our own. We must attend to the particular, not just the universal.... There are many cultures, civilizations and faiths but God has given us only one world in which to live together - and it is getting smaller all the time" (23). Peace! posted by Jake at 1/12/2005 11:18:00 AM  
5 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts The Myth of a 'Pure Gospel' ------------ Worship at the Well ------------ Campolo on Emergent ------------ The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 2) ------------ Deconstructing Delta ------------ Should pastors set the tone for Emergent? ------------ I have a vision ------------ Is Emergent emerging for ministers or parishoners? ------------ You are Wrong Mister President! ------------ Jake's Top Film Recommendations ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
Having attempted to bring together ministers of different denominations and different races for a racial unity service in the Gardner-Webb area, I have found bringing liberal and fundamentalist persons together is harder than bringing races or denominations together. Why is this? Liberal and fundamentalist both claim to worship the same God. They both read the same Bible. They both claimed to be touched by the same Jesus. The cause of this liberal-fundamentalist division is also the seeds for division in the local church.
I believe the "I" in these persons has not been placed below God. In a theological conversation between two persons, two concepts of God are present but only one real God. Persons find conflict when the God "I" worship is the God "I" know and understand not the God of mystery and unfathomable glory. When the “I” bases its feelings of self-worth and self-fulfillment upon its rightness and not the acceptance and love of God and his rightness, conflict has planted its seed. If our worth is not coming from God, we will have petty arguments as Jake described.
Liberals, fundamentalists, or any other theologian who suggests he or she understands God has left the realm of humility. Humility says, "I don't know nor will I understand, but I will seek because what I seek is valuable above my understanding." Through this process of seeking, humility grows closer to God than understanding ever could. As a theologian (or a poor excuse for one), I struggle with this because all of me wants to understand. I want to understand God. But I find I want to understand because I want control. If I understand God, I might then could manipulate and control God, but that will never happen.
Thoughts of a southern gentleman,
Bill and Walt, thanks for the insightful comments. You both seem to have a healthy grasp on the epistomological dilema that we call "humanity". Peace.
This isn't a comment about Jonathan Sacks, but rather this paragraph from Walter:
"Liberals, fundamentalists, or any other theologian who suggests he or she understands God has left the realm of humility. Humility says, 'I don't know nor will I understand, but I will seek because what I seek is valuable above my understanding.' Through this process of seeking, humility grows closer to God than understanding ever could. As a theologian (or a poor excuse for one), I struggle with this because all of me wants to understand. I want to understand God. But I find I want to understand because I want control. If I understand God, I might then could manipulate and control God, but that will never happen."
At the risk of being accused of disregarding Walter's previous paragraph about God, humility and the "I", I'd like to say that I find this perplexing. We DO NOT, CANNOT understand God? Then what are we doing here?
I would posit the following passages for consideration:
from Luke 1:
"... since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theopilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
from I John 1:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched -- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us."
from I Peter 1:
"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things."
Scripture itself claims to give us certainty, claims that we have understanding even angels lack. Humility is a virtue, but it seems an exaggeration to claim we understand NOTHING of God.
I like the approach in Romans 12: "Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment ..." I would suggest that it's within the realm of sober judgment to claim that we understand God to a degree.
Forester, I appreciate your comment and apologize for the ambiguity of my statement. My intention was not to suggest that we can know nothing of God. Even in this dialogue we have posited one statement about God. God exists. My attempt was to speak against a pride that says I understand completely God.
This morning I used a toothbrush. I understand completely how to use a toothbrush. I can manipulate said toothbrush to my purposes which is brushing my teeth. I cannot understand completely God.
The key term is completely. He has revealed himself to us so we understand (gain knowledge about) God. God has an element of mystery that we will never completely understand (gain full and complete knowledge about).
There are questions such as: Where did God come from? Does man have free will or are our acts predetermined? These questions remain shrouded in mystery. Neither the Bible nor Christian history has given a definitive answer to questions like these. We could debate and gain understanding (incremental knowledge) but we will not understand (full and complete knowledge).
Thanks
Thanks for clarifying, Walter. I've never come across someone who claimed to have full and complete knowledge of God, but I surely agree that it's impossible. I'd wager that it won't even be possible for us in heaven, finite beings that we are ...