I had a really cool idea for blogging on things I have come to learn since graduating from seminary....and then Arizona had to go and get all sorts of crazy on me.
<sigh>
Maybe next week.....
Okay, so, Arizona. Where do I even start?
For those of you who have no idea what the heck I'm speaking of, the US state of Arizona passed a law this previous week allowing businesses to deny service due to "religious ideology." This was, largely, in response to the recent widening of GLBT marriage rights through the judicial system. Because clearly this -not the plight of Syrian refugees, aid to Africa, human trafficking, access to education, nor anything else- is the most important thing facing faith and society today. <sigh>
Obviously, I'm a bit dumbfounded by this law. For starters, who defines religious ideology and/or religious conviction? If I'm a devout Aryan, does this mean that I can now deny service to Jews? What about Jewish fundamentalists, can they now deny service to Arabs? (And vice-versa.) And -here's the kicker- how is this any different from the Jim Crow laws of the early-mid 20th century? This has got to be one of THE most short-sighted laws to come down the pipe in recent memory. Oy!
Don't get me wrong, I understand that GLBT issues are very sensitive to a number of people on both sides of the proverbial aisle. Honestly, it's that way in my own family; we have some very different and differing perspectives upon the topic, depending upon who you're speaking with. And honestly, that's okay. Maybe it's not right, but it's okay.
It's okay to have differing ideas on topics. It's okay to be passionate about those beliefs. I would even say that, to an extent, it's okay to surround yourself with folks that have similar beliefs to your own. (Though, getting outside the box now and then certainly can't hurt, non?) What's not okay, however, is to employ politics to validate your passionately held religious ideologies and vice versa.
This is something which has, believe it or not, been a lynch-pin of Protestant theology since its inception. Even in more theocratic locales, such as Reformation Geneva, there was, in essence a difference between the rule of state and the rule of church. (Though, admittedly, the two did overlap in areas.) Perhaps the most convincing argument for the separation of church and state came from none other than Martin Luther. Luther's essay on "Temporal Authority" was resolute that there were two different realms within this world: moral authority and temporal authority. The former was the realm of the church, the latter was the realm of the state. The two could -and should- work together closely to ensure a well-regulate and just society, but they should not intrude upon one another. (Government was, to Luther, given and provided by God. However, this was the day of autocratic princes and kings. We might question whether Herr Luther would see things as such today!)
Why not?
Well, honestly, the construction of the state, to Luther, didn't lend itself to the work of morality and the same for the church. The church, by its very constitution, was not built to handle matters of the state. This is, I fear, something which we have forgotten over time.
Good government cannot, ever, be an exercise in a particular type of faith for the very reason that there will always be those outside of a given faith within that governmental realm. Faith can never be an exercise of government as it will then cease to be a belief in the unseen and unknown and become a reliance upon that which is tangible and now.
In sum: if your government needs faith to support it, it's bad. If your faith needs government to support it, it's also bad.
So, instead of passing asinine laws, what might we do which would be productive for the situation?
Again, I understand that GLBT issues are sensitive, particularly to people of differing ideas of faith. Keeping with Martin Luther, perhaps, it's time for a new round of dialogues and discussions both inside and outside the realm of faith? One of the things which infinitely helped the reformation was its commitment to dialogue both outwith and inside of itself. The Diet of Worms, The Marburg Colloquy, The Synod of Dordt and others -even when they did not come to conclusion or came to conclusions which were debatable- were incredibly helpful in elucidating and conceiving beliefs in the new world of Protestantism.
Maybe we, today, are in a world which is too big to hold over-arching conferences such as these, but maybe, just maybe, we can still commit to talking, explaining, listening, and hearing?
I cannot help but feel that, should we do such things, we will no longer have to resort to any short-sighted and knee-jerk dependence upon government to support matters of faith.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Friday, February 7, 2014
(Not so) Creative differences.....
So, apparently, something monumental happened this last week in the worlds of science and Christianity.
No, nobody cured cancer. No, nobody ended world hunger. Nobody ended human trafficking nor did they find the cure to the common cold. Instead there was a large and well publicised debate between the schools of creationism and evolution. Because, clearly, this is a very pressing issue within the world. <sigh>
I think you can probably pick up my attitude towards all this via that opening paragraph. This was, in my opinion, a waste of time for a topic which very well might be, in totality, beyond any scope of human comprehension. None the less, it happened, and there's been quite a bit of discussion come up afterwards.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, let me try to explain. On the one side, there was Ken Ham, founder of the "Answer in Genesis" movement. As a creationist, Ham and others advocate for a very young earth. (Aprox. 6000 years old) This earth is the one which is spelled out, literally, within the Biblical book of Genesis. As such, Ham, very much, dismisses evolution as a system of biology.
On the other side, was Bill Nye, a popular television presenter over science. Nye was representing the view that science, as a system, has proven, to a reasonable degree that earth is millennia old and that life has been an evolutionary concept gaining and changing over time.
The debate was billed as the "Great Creation Debate." That descriptor, IMHO, couldn't be farther from the truth. There was nothing great about this debate.
To start with, neither of the presenters is an expert in their field. Yes, they know a lot, but both only have bachelors degrees. Don't get me wrong, a bachelor's degree can provide a really good foundation for a lot of things, but it doesn't make one an expert by any means. (Esp. when we're talking about things on an infinite spectrum.) Mind you, again, you can learn a lot of facts as an undergraduate, but you don't necessarily learn the tools to question, probe, or engage those facts of theorems. (That's what graduate and postgraduate work are meant to do.) So, thus, at it's base, this debate was really a situation where, in affect, it was simply two parrots chattering back and forth.
In fact, I think that's pretty much summed up in one of the quotes for the night. When asked what would change their minds given their respective views, Ham responded "nothing." Nye, responded "evidence."
And therein lies the problem. Both of these gents, well meaning though they might be, are incapable of actually engaging with the other. Ham, wants nothing to do with anything which might challenge his concepts of faith and actuality. Nye, wants nothing to do with anything which can not be explained via theorem and systems. The problem is that neither the world of faith nor the world of science are ever so cut and dry.
I'm not a scientist, I'll admit that upfront. However, I know quite a few scientists and I know that there are a slew of things in the world of the scientist which are inexplicable and require examination, comparison, and sometimes even a good dose of faith. Being a theologian, however, Ham's arguments are another story entirely. To be honest, it's one of those moments of "Oh lord, where do I start?" So, so, so many theological problems to cover...but I'll try to hit a few big ones here.
Foremost, you can't pick and choose which scientific theorems you like and which you don't. I sometimes half expect Mr. Ham to come out and say that he rejects the theory of gravity because that would mean that God wasn't holding us to the earth. What's the difference between that and evolution? Also, there seems to be a grande discontinuity in engaging and benefiting from some parts of science (medicine, technology, etc) and rejecting others. (Evolutionary theory.)
Second, arguing creationism, or Mr. Ham's style of creationism, is really a gross misuse of Hebrew literature. You think Genesis is literal? Okay, I can live with that. But how do you get around the rest of the book? I mean, okay, you can have a literal creation story, but so much of the rest of the book is a, as they say, "hot mess." (i.e.: It's been said to the point of triteness, but it's still a valid point: if Genesis is literal, then God seems to have been okay with populating the earth through incest. And no, you can't throw out the line of "Well, that was a different time, God's not cool with that now..." Nu-uh, doesn't work like that. You can't proclaim a God who's "immortal, invisible, God only wise..." and then say "But that God changed plans." Doesn't work like that. Biiiig problem here.) The thing, which Mr. Ham seems to forget, is that the Hebrews -much like other ancient societies- were oral traditions first and written ones only much later. That means that the representations of Genesis old though they might be -and we do have some VERY old scripts- are themselves only second generation sources. They were handed down by oral tradition over time and space. Certainly, I can't be the only one who likes to mess with "oral tradition" when I tell my own stories, now can I? (Not that I've ever told any whoppers at my local pub or anything.....ever.......at least this week...)
Finally, there's a glaring problem with your concept of God in Mr. Ham's world: You've figured out and defined how God must and did work. You, as the finite, have figured out that which is infinite. You have, in effect, set down parameters and boundaries for who God must be and how God must be. Call me crazy, but -esp. if we're taking Genesis literally- that sounds like a sure-fire way to get a lightning bolt on your arse in a hurry. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't work like that. Infinite defines finite and not the other way around. To paraphrase Augustine, "We see God as though looking through a dirty lens." That doesn't mean we can't have knowledge of God, just that we don't see the whole picture clearly and we must be cognisant of that. We must be continually searching, seeking, listening, and learning from God as to who God is and who we are in light of that.
To wrap it all up, I'm not saying either side is right. Really, I don't know. I'm getting older, but I'm not old enough to have been there in the beginning of all things. So honestly, heck if I know how we got here. To me, it's really not so important in comparison to some of the other things I mentioned earlier. All I know is this: for me, personally, my concept of God is big enough that I have no problem with a God who instituted and worked through evolution. I also trust and believe in science enough to think that it very well might be one of those guiding voices which is leading us to better consider who we are in light of that which is infinite.
But then again, the more I learn, the less I seem to know, so who's to say?
No, nobody cured cancer. No, nobody ended world hunger. Nobody ended human trafficking nor did they find the cure to the common cold. Instead there was a large and well publicised debate between the schools of creationism and evolution. Because, clearly, this is a very pressing issue within the world. <sigh>
I think you can probably pick up my attitude towards all this via that opening paragraph. This was, in my opinion, a waste of time for a topic which very well might be, in totality, beyond any scope of human comprehension. None the less, it happened, and there's been quite a bit of discussion come up afterwards.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, let me try to explain. On the one side, there was Ken Ham, founder of the "Answer in Genesis" movement. As a creationist, Ham and others advocate for a very young earth. (Aprox. 6000 years old) This earth is the one which is spelled out, literally, within the Biblical book of Genesis. As such, Ham, very much, dismisses evolution as a system of biology.
On the other side, was Bill Nye, a popular television presenter over science. Nye was representing the view that science, as a system, has proven, to a reasonable degree that earth is millennia old and that life has been an evolutionary concept gaining and changing over time.
The debate was billed as the "Great Creation Debate." That descriptor, IMHO, couldn't be farther from the truth. There was nothing great about this debate.
To start with, neither of the presenters is an expert in their field. Yes, they know a lot, but both only have bachelors degrees. Don't get me wrong, a bachelor's degree can provide a really good foundation for a lot of things, but it doesn't make one an expert by any means. (Esp. when we're talking about things on an infinite spectrum.) Mind you, again, you can learn a lot of facts as an undergraduate, but you don't necessarily learn the tools to question, probe, or engage those facts of theorems. (That's what graduate and postgraduate work are meant to do.) So, thus, at it's base, this debate was really a situation where, in affect, it was simply two parrots chattering back and forth.
In fact, I think that's pretty much summed up in one of the quotes for the night. When asked what would change their minds given their respective views, Ham responded "nothing." Nye, responded "evidence."
And therein lies the problem. Both of these gents, well meaning though they might be, are incapable of actually engaging with the other. Ham, wants nothing to do with anything which might challenge his concepts of faith and actuality. Nye, wants nothing to do with anything which can not be explained via theorem and systems. The problem is that neither the world of faith nor the world of science are ever so cut and dry.
I'm not a scientist, I'll admit that upfront. However, I know quite a few scientists and I know that there are a slew of things in the world of the scientist which are inexplicable and require examination, comparison, and sometimes even a good dose of faith. Being a theologian, however, Ham's arguments are another story entirely. To be honest, it's one of those moments of "Oh lord, where do I start?" So, so, so many theological problems to cover...but I'll try to hit a few big ones here.
Foremost, you can't pick and choose which scientific theorems you like and which you don't. I sometimes half expect Mr. Ham to come out and say that he rejects the theory of gravity because that would mean that God wasn't holding us to the earth. What's the difference between that and evolution? Also, there seems to be a grande discontinuity in engaging and benefiting from some parts of science (medicine, technology, etc) and rejecting others. (Evolutionary theory.)
Second, arguing creationism, or Mr. Ham's style of creationism, is really a gross misuse of Hebrew literature. You think Genesis is literal? Okay, I can live with that. But how do you get around the rest of the book? I mean, okay, you can have a literal creation story, but so much of the rest of the book is a, as they say, "hot mess." (i.e.: It's been said to the point of triteness, but it's still a valid point: if Genesis is literal, then God seems to have been okay with populating the earth through incest. And no, you can't throw out the line of "Well, that was a different time, God's not cool with that now..." Nu-uh, doesn't work like that. You can't proclaim a God who's "immortal, invisible, God only wise..." and then say "But that God changed plans." Doesn't work like that. Biiiig problem here.) The thing, which Mr. Ham seems to forget, is that the Hebrews -much like other ancient societies- were oral traditions first and written ones only much later. That means that the representations of Genesis old though they might be -and we do have some VERY old scripts- are themselves only second generation sources. They were handed down by oral tradition over time and space. Certainly, I can't be the only one who likes to mess with "oral tradition" when I tell my own stories, now can I? (Not that I've ever told any whoppers at my local pub or anything.....ever.......at least this week...)
Finally, there's a glaring problem with your concept of God in Mr. Ham's world: You've figured out and defined how God must and did work. You, as the finite, have figured out that which is infinite. You have, in effect, set down parameters and boundaries for who God must be and how God must be. Call me crazy, but -esp. if we're taking Genesis literally- that sounds like a sure-fire way to get a lightning bolt on your arse in a hurry. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't work like that. Infinite defines finite and not the other way around. To paraphrase Augustine, "We see God as though looking through a dirty lens." That doesn't mean we can't have knowledge of God, just that we don't see the whole picture clearly and we must be cognisant of that. We must be continually searching, seeking, listening, and learning from God as to who God is and who we are in light of that.
To wrap it all up, I'm not saying either side is right. Really, I don't know. I'm getting older, but I'm not old enough to have been there in the beginning of all things. So honestly, heck if I know how we got here. To me, it's really not so important in comparison to some of the other things I mentioned earlier. All I know is this: for me, personally, my concept of God is big enough that I have no problem with a God who instituted and worked through evolution. I also trust and believe in science enough to think that it very well might be one of those guiding voices which is leading us to better consider who we are in light of that which is infinite.
But then again, the more I learn, the less I seem to know, so who's to say?
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Can I have a Coke with My Haggis?
I missed the Super Bowl this year. Over here in the UK, the game doesn't come on until 23:30. The stress of trying to finish out my doctoral dissertation has played havoc with my sleep-schedule as of late. Thus, there was pretty much no way I was making it past 8pm on Sunday. Apparently, I didn't miss much of a game. Though, I've heard the halftime show was something to enjoy! (?)
I also seem to have missed this wee Coke advertisement which has set the inter-webs on fire.
If you haven't seen it, look here: http://youtu.be/A8iM73E6JP8
There's a lot that has been said and could still be said about the uproar over the commercial. I'm going to skip talking about the commercial itself and try to focus more broadly here. The problem that some folk have with this commercial is not about language, it's about difference. And really, we shouldn't judge them too harshly. We ALL have a big problem with difference.
No matter who you are, no matter where you are, no matter how little or how great your education, there will inevitably be some type of difference which confronts you -at some point- and which makes you uncomfortable to some level and degree.
Sometimes it's language.
Sometimes it's colour.
Sometimes it's sexuality.
Sometimes it's culture.
The list is really rather infinite.
Again, it's something I think we all experience. Whether or not we give public voice to our feelings is another thing entirely, but we all can be a bit uncomfortable with differences.
But why?
We, as a species, are really a very sensitive and unsure people. Oh sure, we're taught to develop a tough skin and to "roll with the punches," but, deep down, we're all really a jumbled mess of questions, fears, desires, and doubts to some degree or another. Often we work very hard to masque what we consider to be our flaws, to paper-over our insecurities. We create a small web where we have decided what is normative and what is right and we find ourselves at peace in that.
Then difference comes along, rears its head, and starts to shatter our carefully crafted web of safety. We're left with questions about ourselves, others, life, and our place in this world. These questions are rarely ones which are fun nor easy to answer and so we can find ourselves very put off by differences. We try to paint that which is different as that which is problematic. Remove the difference and you remove the problem. Unfortunately, history seems to show that's rarely been the case. Usually, the problem or that which is creating the unpleasant feelings is not in that which is different, but, again, in we ourselves.
I think, perhaps, you can see where I'm going with this. I won't tell you that you shouldn't be uncomfortable, at least to some degree, with the differences which confront you in this life. But I will tell you that, perhaps the question in your mind should be "Why do they make me feel uncomfortable, what does that say about me?" instead of "Why can't they just be like me?" Mind you, I'm well aware that accepting differences isn't an overnight process. Often, it involves a somewhat long and prickly journey, but one which can teach us very much about ourselves and our world.
Personally, I never understood what it was to be a minority or an immigrant until I moved to another country. Mind you, I'm an American living in the United Kingdom, so my experience pales in comparison to many others. Still, moving to Aberdeen was a huge eye-opener about difference. For the first few weeks or so I was here, I would literally have to stop and ask folks to repeat what they just said. There were times where I would be on a bus or in a pub and think to myself "I don't understand a damned word any of these people just said?!?!?!" The UK is a melting-pot of nationalities from all over Europe and the wider world, it's nothing to hear a half dozen languages while on the bus. (Which can be very unsettling to someone from mid-west America where Spanglish is about as multi-lingual as we get.) Not to mention the fact that I had no clue as to how anything really worked -what do you mean I need an NHS number?!- and no clue how to navigate the systems which make life function. (Trying to get a bank account and/or a cell phone was a couple of week's worth of amazing frustration!)
I'm not going to lie, I got very frustrated with all these differences. I like to think of myself as a pretty tolerant person and I was very much at points where I was tempted to say "bugger this." (To quote the locals!) Thankfully, that didn't happen. I learned a lot about myself, via differences, in my first year at Aberdeen. The things I learned are things which, I think, made me quite a better person. At the very least, they made me a more self-aware and self-understanding person.
Before I get too preachy on this, let me sum it up: it's okay to be uncomfortable with differences. Let's all agree to be honest about that and not judge others too harshly for things we all experience. At the same time, perhaps we can remember that encountering differences is not bad, in fact, if we let it, difference is almost like a gateway to a better self-understanding.
Think of it like haggis. Wonderful, delicious, and often misunderstood haggis. Haggis is one of those things which you hear about and go "Uh...eww....no, just no...." especially if you're an American. But when you stop to think about all the other crazy things we eat -hotdogs, sausages, etc- haggis isn't that crazy. In fact, if you like those other things, I almost guarantee you'll find that 6 million Scots can't be wrong! You might also realise a few things about exceptionalism -at least culinary-wise- and privileging your preferences above others....but hey, more importantly, you'll get some haggis. Which is always worthwhile.
I also seem to have missed this wee Coke advertisement which has set the inter-webs on fire.
If you haven't seen it, look here: http://youtu.be/A8iM73E6JP8
There's a lot that has been said and could still be said about the uproar over the commercial. I'm going to skip talking about the commercial itself and try to focus more broadly here. The problem that some folk have with this commercial is not about language, it's about difference. And really, we shouldn't judge them too harshly. We ALL have a big problem with difference.
No matter who you are, no matter where you are, no matter how little or how great your education, there will inevitably be some type of difference which confronts you -at some point- and which makes you uncomfortable to some level and degree.
Sometimes it's language.
Sometimes it's colour.
Sometimes it's sexuality.
Sometimes it's culture.
The list is really rather infinite.
Again, it's something I think we all experience. Whether or not we give public voice to our feelings is another thing entirely, but we all can be a bit uncomfortable with differences.
But why?
We, as a species, are really a very sensitive and unsure people. Oh sure, we're taught to develop a tough skin and to "roll with the punches," but, deep down, we're all really a jumbled mess of questions, fears, desires, and doubts to some degree or another. Often we work very hard to masque what we consider to be our flaws, to paper-over our insecurities. We create a small web where we have decided what is normative and what is right and we find ourselves at peace in that.
Then difference comes along, rears its head, and starts to shatter our carefully crafted web of safety. We're left with questions about ourselves, others, life, and our place in this world. These questions are rarely ones which are fun nor easy to answer and so we can find ourselves very put off by differences. We try to paint that which is different as that which is problematic. Remove the difference and you remove the problem. Unfortunately, history seems to show that's rarely been the case. Usually, the problem or that which is creating the unpleasant feelings is not in that which is different, but, again, in we ourselves.
I think, perhaps, you can see where I'm going with this. I won't tell you that you shouldn't be uncomfortable, at least to some degree, with the differences which confront you in this life. But I will tell you that, perhaps the question in your mind should be "Why do they make me feel uncomfortable, what does that say about me?" instead of "Why can't they just be like me?" Mind you, I'm well aware that accepting differences isn't an overnight process. Often, it involves a somewhat long and prickly journey, but one which can teach us very much about ourselves and our world.
Personally, I never understood what it was to be a minority or an immigrant until I moved to another country. Mind you, I'm an American living in the United Kingdom, so my experience pales in comparison to many others. Still, moving to Aberdeen was a huge eye-opener about difference. For the first few weeks or so I was here, I would literally have to stop and ask folks to repeat what they just said. There were times where I would be on a bus or in a pub and think to myself "I don't understand a damned word any of these people just said?!?!?!" The UK is a melting-pot of nationalities from all over Europe and the wider world, it's nothing to hear a half dozen languages while on the bus. (Which can be very unsettling to someone from mid-west America where Spanglish is about as multi-lingual as we get.) Not to mention the fact that I had no clue as to how anything really worked -what do you mean I need an NHS number?!- and no clue how to navigate the systems which make life function. (Trying to get a bank account and/or a cell phone was a couple of week's worth of amazing frustration!)
I'm not going to lie, I got very frustrated with all these differences. I like to think of myself as a pretty tolerant person and I was very much at points where I was tempted to say "bugger this." (To quote the locals!) Thankfully, that didn't happen. I learned a lot about myself, via differences, in my first year at Aberdeen. The things I learned are things which, I think, made me quite a better person. At the very least, they made me a more self-aware and self-understanding person.
Before I get too preachy on this, let me sum it up: it's okay to be uncomfortable with differences. Let's all agree to be honest about that and not judge others too harshly for things we all experience. At the same time, perhaps we can remember that encountering differences is not bad, in fact, if we let it, difference is almost like a gateway to a better self-understanding.
Think of it like haggis. Wonderful, delicious, and often misunderstood haggis. Haggis is one of those things which you hear about and go "Uh...eww....no, just no...." especially if you're an American. But when you stop to think about all the other crazy things we eat -hotdogs, sausages, etc- haggis isn't that crazy. In fact, if you like those other things, I almost guarantee you'll find that 6 million Scots can't be wrong! You might also realise a few things about exceptionalism -at least culinary-wise- and privileging your preferences above others....but hey, more importantly, you'll get some haggis. Which is always worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)