I started to write something about the fears underlying our current political climate, but realized I have to step back and offer some thoughts from my own personal background.
These, for better or worse, were formed during my younger days...where I spent a rather large amount of time attending Catholic schools. It's not meant to challenge anyone else's current beliefs so much as identify concepts I grew up with.
The word 'catholic' means universal. I always thought there was something important about that, not in terms of the power the early Catholic church held, so much as that it's meant to say this is a religion that is for everybody. Universally. It in inclusive, inviting, all-embracing, of general interest, with liberal and wide sympathies.
They always talked about how Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors (i.e. the worst of the worst in his time. Tax collectors probably being similar to a loan shark of today.) He invited all to come to his table
Inclusiveness, to me, seems to come from God. Exclusiveness is a sign of man's ego. That is, 'exclusive' appeals are the ones that make you feel singled out and special. Ads 'only for those with a discerning eye'. Flattery. Scientology. Secret societies. These are all things that appeal to us because they make us feel special. Select. Elite. Unique. Apart from (and better than) the average imperfect person.
Inclusiveness says all are welcome at our table. The homeless, the poor, the crippled and blind. After all, whatever you do to the least of us you are doing to Jesus.
Universal. Welcoming to everyone. There's something about that which seems to call us to be better people. Our better selves. And it's a bit of a mystery how we all have an intrinsic worth, intrinsic potential, no matter how rich or poor we are.
It's a calling to create a society where everyone can live to their full potential. Which is a bit of a mystery, and goes against what we see in everyday society. How can that bum sleeping on a bench be as worthy as that CEO with six houses and twenty cars? How can we all be special, in a way that doesn't make it irrelevant to the point that nobody is special? It's kind of a mystery, in the first sense of the word.
Still, this is a mystery that was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, that "self-evident" truth that all men are created equal. Even CEOs and homeless people.
What's so sad and strange and twisted about human nature is that we can take a concept like that, and still turn it into an exclusive way of life. "Our" people are deserving of mercy and compassion, but those others must be stricken off the face of the earth. Like the Pharisees called out in Matthew 23 (different translations here and here), we find a way to show off our faith, try to look beautiful on the outside while inside we neglect things like justice, mercy and faithfulness. (This is part of why I find the so-called 'christian' conservatives who back Trump a rather poor example of the faith. He is not exactly a paragon of justice, mercy and faithfulness. Those who support him seem more concerned with publicly showing off their faith and condemning/judging anyone they consider sinners than with truly living a Christian life.)
What's even more interesting is the psychological impact of inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness. In Matthew 19:8 Jesus said "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."
I found this concept of hardened hearts rather fascinating, partly because if ground has hardened, hitting them with something generally just compacts it even further together. In the same way, verbally telling people "you are wrong", "you should X" or "you should Y" is more likely to just harden people even more. They'll be even more determined to cling to their view, if only to prove you wrong.
Inclusiveness, however, softens the ground. It means people don't feel they have to cling to an particular idea or way of being in order to resist that outside pressure...which in turn can make it easier to really evaluate what's best for yourself. (Yes, some people can do this even with outside pressure...but most people tend to react to a perceived attack by getting more defensive and holding on even harder to whatever they're being attacked on.)
That's part of why the Christian organizations that stop being preachy/judgemental and really engage with people's lives seem to have far more of an impact than passing legislation condemning a particular act.
In some ways, this desire to pass laws enforcing religious values seems more like a value-signaling method to publicly announce how 'christian' you are (like the Pharisees above) rather than a sincere effort to engage with people and their lives...and in the process, it just hardens hearts and makes it even less likely anyone will hear that little inner voice that you could say is God speaking to you. Or your higher self. Whichever concept is most convenient.
In many ways, I want to see who people choose to be when they are truly free to. When they don't feel outside pressures trying to make them be this or that. When they've had the chance to make mistakes, and screw up, (like the Prodigal Son) and explore this or that.
I suspect that, when unpressured, most people will be driven by that inner voice to be something better. Sure, sometimes we'll be like little kids who eat too much candy. Our stomachs may hurt, and we may regret it later.
Lesson learned.
What seems to drive this desire to force people to be religious is fear. Fear that, if we didn't, they would never realize something was undesirable on their own. To use the candy analogy above, it's fear that the kid will decide to eat candy for the rest of their life.
Except I kind of suspect God rigs the game in His favor. That is, if left alone the kid eating candy will probably begin to feel it unsatisfying. (FYI: This analogy is not meant to actually apply to dietary habits!) And eventually the kid will get sick of candy and start searching for something else, until eventually the kid discovers the satisfaction of eating an apple. Or somesuch.
Whereas if you come in saying "you can't have all that candy!!! Stop eating candy! Here, eat this apple, you'll like it better!") the kid will probably resent being told what to do, decide s/he hates apples, and secretly - or not-so-secretly - keep choosing candy instead. It's not even about the candy, so much as it is about rebelling against your attempt to tell them what to eat. You might even be right, but they'll stubbornly refuse to admit it.
In many ways, I think these attempts to force religion on people are actually a sign that you lack faith. You lack faith that people will realize God's will on their own, and think they will only do what He wants (or what you believe He wants) if you force them to eat apples.
These, for better or worse, were formed during my younger days...where I spent a rather large amount of time attending Catholic schools. It's not meant to challenge anyone else's current beliefs so much as identify concepts I grew up with.
The word 'catholic' means universal. I always thought there was something important about that, not in terms of the power the early Catholic church held, so much as that it's meant to say this is a religion that is for everybody. Universally. It in inclusive, inviting, all-embracing, of general interest, with liberal and wide sympathies.
They always talked about how Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors (i.e. the worst of the worst in his time. Tax collectors probably being similar to a loan shark of today.) He invited all to come to his table
Inclusiveness, to me, seems to come from God. Exclusiveness is a sign of man's ego. That is, 'exclusive' appeals are the ones that make you feel singled out and special. Ads 'only for those with a discerning eye'. Flattery. Scientology. Secret societies. These are all things that appeal to us because they make us feel special. Select. Elite. Unique. Apart from (and better than) the average imperfect person.
Inclusiveness says all are welcome at our table. The homeless, the poor, the crippled and blind. After all, whatever you do to the least of us you are doing to Jesus.
Universal. Welcoming to everyone. There's something about that which seems to call us to be better people. Our better selves. And it's a bit of a mystery how we all have an intrinsic worth, intrinsic potential, no matter how rich or poor we are.
It's a calling to create a society where everyone can live to their full potential. Which is a bit of a mystery, and goes against what we see in everyday society. How can that bum sleeping on a bench be as worthy as that CEO with six houses and twenty cars? How can we all be special, in a way that doesn't make it irrelevant to the point that nobody is special? It's kind of a mystery, in the first sense of the word.
Still, this is a mystery that was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, that "self-evident" truth that all men are created equal. Even CEOs and homeless people.
What's so sad and strange and twisted about human nature is that we can take a concept like that, and still turn it into an exclusive way of life. "Our" people are deserving of mercy and compassion, but those others must be stricken off the face of the earth. Like the Pharisees called out in Matthew 23 (different translations here and here), we find a way to show off our faith, try to look beautiful on the outside while inside we neglect things like justice, mercy and faithfulness. (This is part of why I find the so-called 'christian' conservatives who back Trump a rather poor example of the faith. He is not exactly a paragon of justice, mercy and faithfulness. Those who support him seem more concerned with publicly showing off their faith and condemning/judging anyone they consider sinners than with truly living a Christian life.)
What's even more interesting is the psychological impact of inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness. In Matthew 19:8 Jesus said "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."
I found this concept of hardened hearts rather fascinating, partly because if ground has hardened, hitting them with something generally just compacts it even further together. In the same way, verbally telling people "you are wrong", "you should X" or "you should Y" is more likely to just harden people even more. They'll be even more determined to cling to their view, if only to prove you wrong.
Inclusiveness, however, softens the ground. It means people don't feel they have to cling to an particular idea or way of being in order to resist that outside pressure...which in turn can make it easier to really evaluate what's best for yourself. (Yes, some people can do this even with outside pressure...but most people tend to react to a perceived attack by getting more defensive and holding on even harder to whatever they're being attacked on.)
That's part of why the Christian organizations that stop being preachy/judgemental and really engage with people's lives seem to have far more of an impact than passing legislation condemning a particular act.
In some ways, this desire to pass laws enforcing religious values seems more like a value-signaling method to publicly announce how 'christian' you are (like the Pharisees above) rather than a sincere effort to engage with people and their lives...and in the process, it just hardens hearts and makes it even less likely anyone will hear that little inner voice that you could say is God speaking to you. Or your higher self. Whichever concept is most convenient.
In many ways, I want to see who people choose to be when they are truly free to. When they don't feel outside pressures trying to make them be this or that. When they've had the chance to make mistakes, and screw up, (like the Prodigal Son) and explore this or that.
I suspect that, when unpressured, most people will be driven by that inner voice to be something better. Sure, sometimes we'll be like little kids who eat too much candy. Our stomachs may hurt, and we may regret it later.
Lesson learned.
What seems to drive this desire to force people to be religious is fear. Fear that, if we didn't, they would never realize something was undesirable on their own. To use the candy analogy above, it's fear that the kid will decide to eat candy for the rest of their life.
Except I kind of suspect God rigs the game in His favor. That is, if left alone the kid eating candy will probably begin to feel it unsatisfying. (FYI: This analogy is not meant to actually apply to dietary habits!) And eventually the kid will get sick of candy and start searching for something else, until eventually the kid discovers the satisfaction of eating an apple. Or somesuch.
Whereas if you come in saying "you can't have all that candy!!! Stop eating candy! Here, eat this apple, you'll like it better!") the kid will probably resent being told what to do, decide s/he hates apples, and secretly - or not-so-secretly - keep choosing candy instead. It's not even about the candy, so much as it is about rebelling against your attempt to tell them what to eat. You might even be right, but they'll stubbornly refuse to admit it.
In many ways, I think these attempts to force religion on people are actually a sign that you lack faith. You lack faith that people will realize God's will on their own, and think they will only do what He wants (or what you believe He wants) if you force them to eat apples.
No comments:
Post a Comment