TALKING ABOUT CONSCIENCE

Interesting series on the question of conscience at the blog "Life With a German Shepherd"


http://www.frdenis.blogspot.com/2012/02/talking-about-conscience-i.html

CONSCIENCE IS THE BODY OF IMAGINATION

All action is embodied. Even an imagined act requires some bodily function. One remembers what is actually done, and what one considers doing. Such memory is the content of one’s conscience – it is for this that one is responsible.

One’s whole experience of the world is expressed in one’s imagination – intellect, memory and creative will. One imagines bodily – one’s imagination contains all one has experienced in life, all one knows. Given that the world includes other than oneself, one can neither know nor even imagine all that is now, or has been, or will be beyond now.

Conscience considers all one consciously imagines (sub-consciousness is a matter for question). Imagination is the nexus between the real and the ideal. The content of imagination is the ideal against which one measures the real; one imagines some ideal world. The real is that which is true apart from how one imagines the world to be, one’s ideal world.

There is, however, much that is true but which remains unknown – much that is beyond knowing. The question whether there is the perfect Ideal haunts human imagination. Is Truth the perfect Ideal toward which one’s imagination strives to know? Perhaps. In any case, one must imagine what is True in order to know the Truth.

As one's imagination is grounded in reality, one’s own ideal is more possibly real. The mature human being is able to distinguish the real from one’s own ideal. The faithful imagination hopes any act one chooses to really do is congruent with that perfect Ideal – such congruency is love.

The act reveals the faithfulness of one’s imagination. All action is subject to judgment – good being that which is to be done (ought to be done). Thus the prayer of repentance: “Forgive us for what we have done and left undone.”

OTHER à creation

à LIFE (birth ^{embodied sensual function}) àSELF à experience ^{embodied sensual function} à imagination à belief ^idea / idea ^belief à CONSCIENCE à

consideration ^perspective à expression ^{BODY: sensual function}

à communication ^symbolic à }RELATIONSHIP{ß OTHER

Good. Good? Good!

What is good? This question opens my discussion of Christian Ethics each semester with students who are required to take the course. How that question is answered shall be the on-going subject of this post (which I shall revise and edit throughout the course of the semester).

Where is the promised parousia?

Scoffers in their scoffing have come in these last days

- worldly people,

driven by deep distorted desire, divisive, devoid of the Spirit.

Jesus said

“You are not permitted to know the times or periods

that the Father has set by his own authority.

But you will receive power

when the Holy Spirit has come upon you,

and you will be my witnesses ...

to the farthest parts of the earth.”

After this,
he was lifted up while they were watching,
and a cloud hid him from their sight.
They were still staring into the sky while he was going,
when suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them
and said,

"Men of Galilee,

why do you stand here looking up into the sky?

This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven

will come back …"

The Greatest Commandment

Consider the question: what is the greatest commandment. What do you think yourself concerning this question? Does your answer have some other reference other than your own thoughts? What is your primary reference for thinking about this question? If Scripture, why? Where does Scripture support what you think about the greatest commandment?

The following is somewhat representative of what a number of students answered in class: Love God above all else and love others as yourself. How is this statement like or unlike what you think? Consider something I said in class the other day - it is good to be able to turn one's face towards God. Following from this will be the ability to face others as well (see the story in Genesis recounting the renaming of Jacob after he struggled with God prior to his reconciliation with his brother Esau).

One perceives oneself properly by giving priority first to God, then others:

GOD<--(SELF)-->OTHERS

Read Mark 12:28-34.

One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, "Which is the first of all the commandments?"

Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

The scribe said to him, "Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, 'He is One and there is no other than he.' And 'to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself' is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Why do you believe what you believe? To what cultural community does your conception of life conform? Might there be some need for transformation so that such conception can be renewed so to give priority to what God considers to be good? Read Romans 12 (consider this chapter within the context of the whole book, especially verses 16-21 of chapter 1, verses 13-25 of chapter 7, verses 24-28 of chapter 8, and verses 8-10 of chapter 13).

RANT: Using the f-word ...

It disgusts me how quite a number of you (you know who you are) use the f-word so much. Doing so is mindless a best, perversely obscene at worst. It does not matter that what you write may be a snippet of some stupid pop song lyric - need you spell it out? Can any of you explain this to me?

• • ME:
    Please don't go researching what someone else may have written on this subject - I can do that myself, thank you. Why do you do it? I dare say that most of you have no clue - you just do it, much like the way you blunder through life in other ways. For those of you who take delight in using such language, for shock effect perhaps, why does it matter to you? What are you accomplishing?
  • FRIEND A:
    ‎"Fig" is my f-word. "Fish" works too, but when I hear "shut the front door" as an exclamation, I get figgin' angry.
    
  • I said "fig" a lot this morning, too. I rescheduled the Fun(d)raiser, by the way. Sunday, Jan 30. Too many folks driving, rather be safe than sorry.
  • FRIEND B:
    Overuse of any rhetorical device, not just profanity, is indefensible, and profanity is a particularly strong spice, easy to overuse. When onstage performing purely for adults, I sex up my jokes quite a bit. Even then, I pretend someone couldn't get a babysitter and there are two pre-teen girls in the front row. The resulting innuendo plays stronger than profanity. So I avoid profanity completely when on stage.
    
    That being said, sometimes it IS called for, and one must say "f[edit]".
  • When performing magic as a Christmas elf, I say "Awww frostbite!"
  • FRIEND C:
    It shows a lack of tact and poor communication skills on the part of the individual. It's a cheap way to vent, IMHO
  • FRIEND D:
    

    Shock does seem to be one part of it, and perhaps another part is a demonstration to the other party that I refuse to be constrained by the thoughtless rules of society---that I recognize and will fully exercise the` freedoms of my society, and that I'm not likely to allow someone else's sense of propriety dictate my behavior. In fact, giving others so much power because we fear their judgement is to my mind one of the greatest problems facing our society today. So I don't really plan to give up use of the word anytime soon, but I do tend to be rather judicious in its use.
    
    Help me understand something, by the way: why is the word 'f[edit]' obscene and not to be allowed on television but the word 'kill' is AOK?
  • FRIEND B:
    ‎@FRIEND D: That bothers me too. To put a finer point on it, why is "f[edit]" obscene but "rape" is just swell? One describes an act that can be jolly good mutual fun, the other is an act of pure evil.
    
  • FRIEND E:
    

    It demonstrates a perversity of mind which is at once misogynous, rebellious and crass lewdness; the Bible, Old and New Testament, describes and condemns this sort of habitual speech; the consequence is not only the coursening of our society but the demeaning of young men and women, and their nascent idea of sex and marriage; such speech becomes habitual with the speaker self-righteously offending critics by defending, and rationalizing, their ugly habit as they often find even sharper ways to deliberately offend others as if it were their duty to do so. I would warn any women in the vicinity that such pornographic speech should be a red flag concerning the character, and probable lecherous imagination and even intentions, of the one caught in this sad habit. At the very least it is discourteous and impolite, and offensive as I am certain this statement will be to those who read it. Good news: Jesus can clean up our speech as well as our imaginations and life through a renewing of the mind and heart by the Spirit of Christ Jesus Who, as the Bridegroom, will someday return for His Bride and the consummation of His Kingdom.
  • ME:
    

    Thanks for the comments. Some of my own thoughts in response:
    - "Fear" can have the meaning of respect - one constrains how one speaks in respect for others. The presence of another defines the ethical boundaries one sets for oneself.
    
    - Performance presents a whole host of issues that are worthy of further discussion. How and how much does one consider one's audience as an "other" to be respected as would be expected in human relationship?
    
    - The words "rape" and "kill" are not used in the same way as the f-word. That argument does not address my question. As I understand it, "evil" describes a basic breach of relationship between persons - an act is evil when it cannot be ordered to the good of the other person. Using a word is an act of communication; what is being communicated and why?
    
    - Why is it that the term "adult" so often describes what is actually immature? For example, an "adult" bookstore caters to those who lack the maturity to be sexually responsible [sexual responsibility meaning developing a mature relationship properly so that the persons therein may freely participate in "an act that can be jolly good mutual fun"]. I understand how an adult audience is expected to be mature enough to choose how to respond to information presented to them and mature enough as well to resist becoming malformed by that information. My concern is that too many people are NOT resisting such malformation more and more, becoming conformed to what is other than good.
    
    - I am aware of my own cultural bias [see my brother's comments above] in how I respond to the f-word. Given my desire to remain friends with those from diverse cultures, I am willing to risk being exposed to what other friends of mine may not be willing to tolerate. However, toleration has its limits and this discussion is intended to explore those limits. In writing that "It disgusts me how quite a number of you (you know who you are) use the f-word so much" I suppose I mean that I find it intolerable.

TO INTERVENE OR IGNORE: RESPONDING TO APPARENTLY IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS

The following "conversation" happened on-line over a few days following a walk in a National Park with a friend:

ME:

Per our discussion in the park regarding responsible intervention - I am still pondering what you had to say, wondering whether it is ever right to ignore apparently irresponsible behavior. Acting to intervene is always risky, depending on one's relationship to the other. It often is a question of power and authority, is it not? Is one ever wise enough to determine how responsible another one might be?

March 23

• • MY FRIEND:
    What's apparently irresponsible behavior? Every action is risky. It tramples on human dignity to take responsibility for their actions, unless they have given you that authority. By entering the park we gave the guards that authority. Were I a guard, I would prefer to warn instead of command and help people learn their limits rather than dictate limits.
    
    I think there's more dignity for us in that.

    March 24
  • ME:
    

    How would "warning" be preferable to "commanding," especially if one is in a position of command? Helping people learn their limits is laudable, but is it possible without some determinative dication that is decisive in defining limitation? How can one be helpful if one's decisions are merely ideally-based opinons unrelated to real limits? The law of gravity is not subject to opinion; one falling from some height may get hurt.
    
    Help is related to humility. One humbles oneself in order to accept help. On the other hand, pride goeth before a fall.

    March 24
    
  • ME:
    

    Pun intended.

    March 24
    
  • MY FRIEND:
    

    Right. So I would accept the help after I broke my arm from the fall. The limit is defined by my mental and physical ability, which he does not know.
    
    He should have told me to put my shoes on too. I might have hurt my feet.

    March
  • ME:
    

    I suppose it really is a matter of trusting those in positions of authority. Judgment is the duty of one trusted with authority. You seem to have found the judgment of this Park "person of authority" to be faulty in that he failed to judge us responsible enough to continue our apparently irresponsible behavior without some authoritative intervention. One wonders why he made that judgment, but more the wonder is why we should be so quick to second guess his authoritative judgement?
    
    Might the fault be more in our arrogant conceit than his authoritative command? Believe me, Lord knows I am no mild-mannered milquetoast always ready to be subject to those in authority - but meekness can be a virtue when one's heart is truly humble. To be able to submit to authority is something to which Christians are all called. To everything there is a season - a time to submit, a time to resist subjection.
    

    March 24
  • ME:
    

    I suppose it is just frustrating to consider oneself fully responsible, then have to confront someone else who seems to not share that same consideration. My father taught me the following statement that may be relevant to this discussion: "Evil is the tertium quid of two autonomous minds." What good can come of a conflict of wills? How is compromise with integrity possible?

    March 24
  • MY FRIEND:
    

    Is meekness submitting to authority?

    March 24
  • ME:
    

    Meekness is being wise is one's action, considering well one's strength and weakness. The one who is strong must take care in how to exercise one's strength; the one who is weak must take care in exerting oneself. For example, just because one can act with great strength, does not mean one must - I have a loud voice, but I can control my volume so that I do not speak too loud (anyone who knows me is aware of how I continue to struggle with this - getting older doesn't mean I've matured as much as I've aged!). The more mature one becomes, the more one can control one's capabilities, constraining one's actions in accordance to one's conscience. Meekness is a sign of maturity.
    
    Our model for meekness, of course, is Christ Jesus himself. "He could have called ten thousand angels, but He died alone to set us free." Constrained by His great love for us, God in Christ considered death by crucifixion over conquest by human might. Philippians 2:8 tells us: "Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
    
    Imitating His example, we die to self so that we may love the other. Meekness helps us be wise in how we might heed the Word in Romans 13:1-5, which tells us:
    "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
    
    "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
    
    "Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake."
    
    The chapter ends with these words:
    "Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts."
    
    Following the flesh is folly for we, created in the image of God and re-created according to the character of Christ, are more than flesh. By grace we can overcome the furor of the flesh to act responsibly toward others who provoke us, especially those in authority. That is what it means to be meek.

    March 25
  • ME:
    

    Pray for me that I may learn meekness myself.

    March 25

Tolerance rather than hypocrisy

Any public performance taking place in a pluralistic milieu presents one with the challenge of coping with differences of opinion concerning what is to be affirmed or opposed. Intolerance cannot stand opposition; the consequence is inevitably social conflict, that is, unwholesome relationship. Tolerance acknowledges opposition without causing social conflict, giving one the opportunity to remain in wholesome relationship with another who may not affirm that which one affirms oneself.

“If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.” This scriptural injunction (Romans 12:18, New American Bible) emphasizes how one, professing to be Christian, is to live with others. One continually considers how one is to be with another now. Such consideration demands that one decide whether or not one will remain with another or not; love answers, “yes, I will remain with you in peace.” Toleration is a loving way for one to remain with another when the other holds to different affirmations and oppositions. Others are to be “… accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives … .” This particular excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which happens to be taken from section 2358 giving the Roman Catholic teaching on the nature of homosexuality) may be considered an apt definition of tolerance that any Christian is called to follow.

Such relationship has risks involved, as any relationship will; one may influence the other over time so that one’s affirmations or oppositions are less firm than at first. This riskiness then requires that one remain in careful communication with the other so that both can come to a fuller understanding of what is being affirmed or opposed. In my own experience presently in the theatre community, I have had ample opportunity to practice tolerance in that I find myself at odds with dear friends whose lifestyle choices do not square with my Christian conscience; by being open in communication with them, I believe I have proven myself tolerant without being a hypocrite. I understand tolerance to be the ethical alternative to hypocrisy. To publicly affirm some virtue and oppose some vice without privately practicing that virtue or abstaining from that vice is hypocrisy.

The way of love (the way taught in Christian Ethics) involves toleration in that love hopes for what can be better in a relationship and works to bring what is better to pass. Intolerance terminates wholesome relationship, presuming that one’s own judgment is final, pronouncing a verdict one has no authority to make. Toleration opens the opportunity for something better to come to pass. One’s faith defines what one believes, one’s hope looks forward to that belief becoming reality, and one’s love enables one to tolerate life in the meantime.

Reflecting on "Borges and I"

In a brief piece entitled "Borges and I," the writer points out how the other self turns one's own preferences "into the attributes of an actor." What is it, however, that one prefers?

The problem is not the acting but the objective of one's action - we are called to become "imitators of God." Without God's grace to breathe life into what we do, our imitative action is an empty performance, essentially absent rather than present. To say "I am" is presumptuous. There is only One who can truly utter those words. Rather we are called in Scripture to imitate the Pauline self-identification by saying, "By the grace of God I am what I am."

Truth may be the key. Perhaps when what one writes is true, than that which has been written may have been inspired by the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from God. All truth being God's truth, even the atheistic writer whose words are true may be breathing the Word of God, albeit unwittingly.

Fiction need not be falsehood. One’s story of seeing a sparrow may still carry truth in its telling even if one is pretending to have seen the sparrow. The pretense is problematic if one’s intention is to lie rather than to tell the truth. Consider the difference between acting in theatre and hypocrisy in personal presentation. Is one concealing rather than revealing what is true? This is what matters.

In the case of "Borges and I," the writer is careful to remain mindful of the difference between his person and his persona, the "me" of one's self and the "not-me" of the mask his words may have made from this same self. The confusion comes when one is confronted with the "not-not-me" created over time when the multitude of words remaining in one's memory begin to define one's personal image of oneself. This is where intimate relationship with others becomes very significant; those who know one best are most beneficial for revealing who one really is apart from who one may present oneself to be.

Truth identifies itself. One either recognizes truth or not. Truth may be concealed and then must be revealed in order to be known.

The elemental property of truth is coincidental with the ultimate authority of the Creator Himself. All truth is derived from what is ultimately and absolutely true. (The same can be said for all that is good, all that is beautiful, etc.) I do not mean some Platonic Ideal though it may seem like it. Right relationship with God really matters in making one's ideal correspond with what is real. Yet even when one may not be in right relationship, one may still, by the grace of God, express what is true.

The problem comes when one and others do not recognize why it is true. The consequence that may very well follow from this misrecognition will be something less than true. Thus is it possible that the quality of what one creates is commensurate with one's perception.

I believe truth is that which does the defining. What is the purpose of definition except to truly describe something so that it may be known? If a definition fails to describe something well, there is something false about the definition. Perhaps this has something to do with recognition – a definition makes most sense to us when we recognize it as describing something we have perceived/conceived ourselves. This object upon which I sit is a chair, a chair being an object designed/used for sitting.

Consider one's own face – each of us carry some idea of what we look like as an individual. Seeing oneself in a mirror presents one with as exactly true an image as one can have; representing that image becomes more and more problematic depending on the medium of representation, whether posed photograph, candid snapshot, painted portrait, quick sketch, or cartoonish caricature. One may more or less recognize the representation of oneself as being true. Others may agree or disagree with our assessment of the representation depending on how well they know us – again we see the significance of relationship in regard to truth.

Perhaps I am too taken with the idea of mimesis. Our call to become imitators of God is to be understood in the light of our being created in the image of God. This ultimate truth about ourselves defines who we are and who we must strive to present ourselves as being.

Disguise often depends on socially recognized conventions – even if one is unconventional. Social convention is often why someone may be presented as someone else; to discover the truth about such an imposter can be quite difficult (consider the movie CATCH ME IF YOU CAN). In this way it is interesting to re-read the essay writers complaint, "... my life is a flight and I lose everything, and everything belongs to oblivion, or to him."

THE DRAMA OF DOING WHAT CAN BE DONE ... HOPING IT OUGHT TO BE DONE

I do what I can, hoping it is what ought to be done – therein lies the drama. This is what I posted as my FACEBOOK status on May 15, 2010. It sparked a number of comments from others.

I said in reply to a friend who asked about “the comedy” that the comedy can be seen in the folly of my ridiculous acts of self-righteousness. He responded, “hey – me too!”

A student then posted the following: “Who decides what ought to be done?” I found this to be an interesting question. My reply: If something OUGHT to be done, is such ought-ness defined prior to the deed or at the moment of the deed?

Priority implies order - toward what end is the deed to be done ordered? Christian moral philosophy contends that all moral action must be ordered to God. So one who would do what ought to be done will have decided to act in accordance with God's will. However, given one is a free moral agent, the one who decides what ought to be done is the one who wisely does the rightly-ordered deed or unwisely does otherwise. The actual deed will then be judged accordingly.

One's conscience comes into play as one considers what is just about to be done, what one is now doing, and what one has done already. Ideally, conscientious consideration will be critically consistent with the ultimate judgment to come to pass on the Last Day after all is said and done.

My son, Vincent, wrote, “I agree with you metaphysically, but my poor human brain doesn't think like that on a daily basis. ‘Ought’ is really more mundane. It seems that it's based on relationships. If we're honest with ourselves, we can see what the best thing to do is. And we know that if it isn't, then there is grace and we are ready to talk it out. Our conscience is wiser than we give it credit. Also, I find that it's important to be ready to admit that we, too immature, might not be able to decide and seek help in decisions. I mean, I only feel at peace when I feel my decisions are centered on Christ."

My immediate reply: “Exactly, Cenzo.” I think he have expressed it very well.
What we ought to do is indeed based on relationship.

The basic relationship to being human is, of course, one's relationship to God. Basic as well, however, is one's relationship to others; as I have often said before, there is always way to have a right relationship with anyone. What ought to be done depends on what is right for one's relationship with another.

Our conscience is wiser when well-formed. Relationships with others form who we become. One's conscience strives to conform one's actions to one's being. As one relates rightly with others, one will discover one's conscience is more consistently wise. Making wise decisions makes one more mature, more able to do what one ought to be done.

The student wrote that he agreed “nearly completely.” He wondered, however, whether we can “interpret His will without bias?” Going on, the student asked, “How can we know what He wills as the flawed beings that we are?” Then a qualified question, “can we assume to know the will of God?” The qualification, “barring divine intervention,” provoked this response from the first friend who responded to my original post, “Good thing barring divine intervention is unnecessary.” He continued, “You can't barr it or except it. Having a fallen human nature, knowledge of the will of God comes only through divine revelation – often through the mechanism of his Word and always through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.”

I answered that we can, by means of each one's conscience, always know our own will. Will we or will we not want to follow God's will? Being willing to do God's will puts us in the right mind to know God's will. We then trust God to help us discover what His will might be for us who are so willing. (Scripture speaks of this in a variety of ways - cf. John 3:21; 7:17; 8:43; also Daniel 12:10; Psalm 25:9; Hosea 14:9.)

One way to discern God's will is to seek the wise counsel of others. This helps counter whatever bias one may have in the effort to interpret what is right. God's grace keeps us alive despite the deadly folly towards which we are prone – that is sufficient intervention, don't you think? Expecting divine intervention to be the means of prevention is irresponsible. Flawed as we may be, we are still responsible for each thing we freely choose to do.

The student clarified his question by writing, “how can we do God’s will in the times when there is no obvious intervention?” Then he went on to write, “Seeking wise consul and being true to oneself, while also being true to the scripture ... this is the best route through which we flawed beings can attempt to do His will?”

To which I stated that God's will be done. That is a given without exception.

We have the opportunity to participate in doing God's will. That is grace. Without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, our participation is impossible. Sin sets the bar before us, blinding us from seeing the way we ought to go; the crucial part Christ plays is essential to breaking through that sinful barrier so that we can play with Him before the throne of God. This is what the Word of God reveals and what we need to know so that we can live.

RIGHTS OF RELATIONSHIP

To speak of rights is to bring into consideration relationship. Being human is to be in relationship with another. The responsibilities of relationship define the rights each person in that relationship can expect to have. Such expectation becomes the basis for demands one makes on the other in a particular relationship. Right relationship considers rights and responsibilites adhering to living in the same world with another living person. All power must be directed at promoting life lived well. The less well another is able to live, the more those more able to live must consider how well they are able to respond. The healthier a society, the more able all can share in acting responsibly toward those less able to live well.

Coming to a common understanding of marriage and the family must be a priority for anyone hoping to comprehend human rights. Human rights are much less abused in a society which does not fail to foster healthy marriages and families. Families function best in such a healthy society. Humans living together as a family have more intimate expectations of one another than will be found in other relationships found in human society; healthy families bond through how well these expectations are communicated and met. Marriage is central to human family - healthy society will have the best environment possible for any marriage to flourish.

Ethics is the way one lives with others. Christian Ethics is the way one lives beyond one's own ablity in living with others. The demands of Christian Ethics require one to be more responsible in relating rightly with others; one may even forego one's own rightful expectations in order to live well with others. Such self-sacrifice imitates the sacrifical life of Jesus Christ, who gave Himself up for the life of others. The Christian hope is that a life lived sacrifically for the sake of Christ will bring satisfaction beyond what can be expected from a more self-indulgent life that is much less considerate of others. The expectation of Christian ethics is that this way of life leads beyond death to eternal joy in the presence of God, in whom all humankind has been created.

A PERSONAL PAUSE FOR PONDERING

Here he sits --

hat in hand,

heart on sleeve,

foot in mouth,

-- and hopes for grace ...

STANDING NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER YET REMAINING APART

A friend wrote that he was re-organizing his library and put Where We Stand, an Assemblies of God's textbook on doctrine, next to Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He figured I would enjoy the humor in that shelving juxtaposition.

I responded:
Nice juxtaposition! I am mostly familiar with Freire through my study of August Boal (THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED) - Paulo Freire was a major influence on Boal’s teachings.

It is interesting to note that the A/G and Freire worked with very similar populations of people. The main difference was the perception of oppression. The A/G insisted and insists still that the major source of oppression was/is neither political nor educational but spiritual. I happen to agree and thus continue to prefer the A/G over other more politically-oriented institutions.

Why I like Boal's THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED is the practical approach to working with oppressed populations. I can apply my theological theory of theatre using his program of workshops and interactive performance. It is challenging not because of Marxist theory behind Boal's theatre but the "Marxists" who put Boal's program into practice - in working with these practitioners I have to call on God's grace to help me not be the one who brings too much friction into our working relationship. I have come to appreciate what they can teach me and hope that they have learned something reflecting God's grace from me.

My friend commented:
While I agree with elements of Freire's "praxis," I don't necessarily agree with his world-view. I found his concept of teacher as facilitator and fellow student quite profound. The symbiotic relationship of student and teacher as co-learner and co-educator is, in my opinion, a better philosophy of education than the teacher as expert.

I responded:
I, too, find the cooperative nature of teaching and learning to be profound. Willi Marxen, commenting on Philippians 3:17 [in which is found Paul's Greek coinage summimetai from which I coined symmimesis to describe my theology of theatre],considers mimetes as "one who shapes further" and reasons the "only people who have been shaped themselves and pass on their received shape through their own acts of shaping are mimetai." This idea is behind my concept of symmimesis, performance in the company of one another whereby one's performance shapes the persona of the other while becoming shaped personally by the other's performance, the whole peformance being done before an audience of One who shapes all things according to His own will.

Perhaps this is the difference between a mimete and a hypocrite. Both Greek words could refer to an actor but the latter word came to be associated with deception, action which concealed rather than revealed character. Might one's willingness to be shaped by another matter in how one acts in the presence of another? The less I am willing to be open to you knowing/forming/reforming who I am, the more I will tend towards hypocrisy. Teachers unwilling to learn from students or stubborn in refusing to step aside while another teaches may well be the worse for it.

A post that looks at "e-books" and real books ... e-vil vs. good?

I am one who likes the looks of books,
is amused by amazing music,
and finds fellowship

with friends and family

refreshing!

How can anyone who does love books
consider the faddish phenomenom of

"e-books"

a good thing?

Let's resist the lure of "convenience"

and "portability" and "capacity"

with which we are being tempted

to go and buy into

this bibliotechnical masquerade.

I know my quest is quixotic (even my own brother has succumbed to e-vil e-books), but I am ever hopeful that the practice of buying real books at real bookstores will not become extinguished by the convenience of buying "books" bit by bit so that some screen becomes one's illusory "library."
As a public service, I offer the following link:
MOBYLIVES » Do ereaders harm your eyes?
mhpbooks.com

Consider this as well:
Devices like the iPad and the Kindle are a wholly new kind of thing—they function like bookshelves that reject all books except those the manufacturer has blessed. Publishers today worry that retailers like Wal-Mart might control too much of their business—and rightly so. But imagine how much more precarious things would be if Wal-Mart sold bookcases that were programmed to do what the iPad and Kindle do—refuse to hold books bought in other stores, and by canceling Wal-Mart's account, your publishing house would lose access to any customer who didn't have the desire to throw out their Wal-Mart bookcases or Wal-Mart–approved books, or room to add another brand of bookcase. http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/456751-Can_You_Survive_a_Benevolent_Dictatorship_.php

A friend responded by writing:
"Totally agree. I hate reading books on screens, not only can I feel my eyes slowly falling to pieces, but I love the feel of having a book in my hands... cracking the spine for the first time or the smell of a well-loved favorite... all necessary parts of the book-reading experience in my opinion."

I found interesting the phrase "book-reading experience." Also interesting to consider -- what is necessary to be part of "the book-reading experience"?

Anyone who has visited anywhere I have ever lived knows how books figure prominently in my life; the house where my family now lives is certainly no exception (as my witty wife -- long-suffering as she has been for 25 years putting up with my book habit -- likes to quip, "We need no insulation in our walls - the bookcases lining every wall in the house have enough books to do the job just as well!"). I cannot imagine some "e-book" kindling in my heart the joy real books bring to me. My experience of books goes beyond reading, so my response to the cybernetic simplification of "the book-reading experience" comprehends much more than merely "reading" the written word. I understand how some are thrilled by economic convenience, but is there not more to life than that?

INSPIRATION & THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

Visit this web-site, then post your response here. I challenge you, however, to be charitable in what you write.

McNaughton Fine Art

www.mcnaughtonart.com

I found this painting through a web-site that ridiculed it. The ridicule troubled me but so did the work of the artist - by work I mean both the visual and written aspects. I am not ashamed to be fervently in favor of the idea of America articulated so well in our Constitution.

I do wonder, however, if this piece of work crosses the line between idea and idolatry. The idea of America must not be what one worships.

RESPONSE FROM A FRIEND:

I don't see it as idolatry...I did question his remark that the constitution was inspired of God...but I think it is rather a matter of semantics. The whole painting is symbolic and I think it gives a pretty good picture of where we've been and where we could be going. At least it gives food for thought! Thanks for posting, Craig.

Craig Tavani wrote:

I have wondered myself whether or not "the constitution was inspired of God." This brings into question what "inspiration" means.

I believe right relationship is the means by which God's breath is fully present - one on one, we each are responsible for inspiring the other, like a perfectly functioning lung system. Our first act as a human being, once we are born, is to breathe. Why should the new birth be any different? Breathing is what those born again are called to do - new life, new breath (once choked by sin, now free from death). Breathe in, breathe out - me, you. If our relationship is not right, we slowly suffocate one another.

The letter is dead, the Spirit is life. What is written in the Constitution codifies the freedom that ought to be the atmosphere in which we live and move and have our being. The Constitution does not grant us freedom; freedom is a gracious gift of God to all humanity - this is what is declared in the charter that initiated what became the United States of America. The Constitution must be understood in that context.

Misunderstanding this will choke us to death.

"US" & "THEM"

The "us" and "them" mentality troubles me.

We have got to come to grips with

the relational implications of being "in the world, but not of it."

To be friends with sinners yet not sin was exemplified in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. What it means to be a friend is as significant to faithful doctrine as anything else in theology; we are foolish to think we understand the word "fellowship" if we fail to comprehend "friendship."

I wonder if the "holiness" movement suffered from this sociological flaw, being so intent on teaching separation from sin that it sowed seeds detrimental to healthy society. The proper pursuit of holiness challenges us to consider personal relationship with God AND others - we are to love the One God in Heaven AND the many others God has created to be in the world with us.

One result is that we, who may participate in some faulty concept of holiness, group ourselves together apart from "worldly" society, then are faced with the human task of ordering the society of our separated group. We may speak about the Spirit moving us to order ourselves to God, but the politics involved in our particular polity sure seem similar to how politics play out in the world. I am sickened by this apparently inevitable process that has played itself out throughout Church history.

Will we never learn? I do not want to play by the rules of this world, but we must figure out a better way to participate in the political ordering of our society. It is not "us" versus "them" but all of us before God who loved the world in coming among us to live, die, and be resurrected to new life so that we can be with Him to live without death determining our destiny.

My brother quipped:
"How far did Jesus chase that rich young man?"

My reply:
Cute, Nick. However, consider how Jesus behaved while the young man was with Him.

Why must every human encounter be viewed from the perspective of what happens after people leave? Should we not rather study what is going on while people are together? Society is not made up of a group of strangers because any number of persons stop being strangers once they encounter one another. This encounter then begins the relationship of which society is the consequence.

We fail to keep a coherent society because we operate from a position of estranged enmity rather than friendly fellowship. This is not good.

POLITICAL POTSHOTS

A friend’s recent post on FACEBOOK caught my attention, (as such postings usually do). I followed the link (http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/rush-limbaugh-questions-glenn-becks-objective-in-keynote-speech/) and discovered the following posted under comments to the article and post it here because the writer articulates better than I can a frustration I have with the Democratic Party (I am uncomfortable with using the word "hatred" on such a public forum, but I must admit that I have spoken like this in private, so I leave it unedited - please forgive me any offence):

Azarkhan says: February 23, 2010 at 10:51 am

For those on the left who “can’t figure out the point” Rush and Mark Levine are making, let me explain it to you.

Like me, they have a deep and abiding hatred of the Democratic Party and its sympathizers. Over the years we have seen the Democratic Party lie, cheat, deceive, and exhibit outright contempt for the law, all the while exhibiting a sanctimonius, “holier then thou” attitude. In their arrogance, the Democrats refuse to even entertain the notion that perhaps, just perhaps, some of their prescriptions for America may be wrong.

The words of a professor who witnessed the 1968 student takeover at Columbia University are equally valid today:

“Again and again one is struck by the posture of complete self-righteousness and of unyielding moral absolutism in the attitudes and actions of the radical leaders. “I am totally right and completely moral, and you-if you disagree with me-are absolutely wrong and wicked….You have no rights that I must respect, and you must agree to accept everything I demand….” ”

These same radicals later disrupted the Democratic convention in Chicago and finally, in 1972, with the McGovern candidacy, took over the Democratic Party. Although they have grown older, their juvenile insistence on moral absolutism has never left them. This secular fanaticism is displayed by the radical Democrats in the House and Senate and their allies in various media outlets, ranging from the New York Times to the Daily Kos.

This is why many conservatives do not agree with Glenn Beck’s attack on Republicans. While the Republicans may indeed be corrupt, they are not a threat to the Constitution or our individual freedoms.

On the other hand, the Democrats are “true believers” who will stop at nothing in their drive to impose their values on American society. For the Democrats, the Constitution is a hindrance, a mere scrap of paper to be ignored whenever circumstances dictate. And the only individual freedoms they recognize is their “freedom” to do whatever is necessary, legal of illegal, moral of immoral, to impose their will on the majority.

My friend, in reply, wrote:

“… it truly amazes me, how similar both sides rant at each other. Liberals "fee" that Conservatives are the ones who try to ram their moral, "holier than thou" beliefs on the rest of us. I find the comment almost satirical, though I realize it was meant to be serious.

I seldom meet a Liberal or Progressive who is sure of anything, that is the problem, there is no "one" way, opinion or any kind of "group think", unlike the litmus test being touted by Conservatives.

It is the Democrats who insist on preserving our personal liberties and rights. Republicans preserve the liberty and rights of those they agree with or want to change.

To clarify, I was not confused by what Limbaugh was saying, but HOW he said, the sentence lacked substance, was confusing and seeemed to use circular syntax.

To feel "hatred" for a political party seems to me a very sad thing. I may disagree with conservative politics, and I certainly dislike bush, cheney and the rest, and feel they were disrespectful of the American people and our Constitution, but I blame each of them for their personal actions not the "party".

There is no room for conversation across a chasm, and beck, limbaugh, rove and the rest have no interest in building a bridge, it is their way, or no way. That is why they spend all their time spreading falsehoods and attempting to discredit the logical and diplomatic efforts of our President.

President Obama is the repudiation of 8 years of conservative politics. The economic collapse is the culmination of "small government, less taxes". I hope that enough Liberals will stop sipping their chardonny and remember that and get out and vote. Unfortunately, history tells us that the mid-term election after a Presidential election almost always goes to the opposition.

Here is my reply:

You and I seem to agree on the common goal of "preserving our personal liberties and rights." We, without doubt, disagree on which political party is more insistent on doing so. Hypocrites and fools populate all parties, so all can be targets of satiric critique.

Personally, I would rather our discussion be more focused on coming to a better understanding of what is implied in "preserving our personal liberties and rights." Sniping at political opponents muddies the waters. Caring conversation calls for clarity rather than discombobulative wisecracks and ad hominem attacks.

My point in posting the previous comment regarding my frustration with the Democratic Party was to give some historical perspective to my contemporary views. You continually complain about the last 8 years prior to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. My complaint comprehends a time beyond that back to the 60's when I first became involved in the political process with my parents in Richard Nixon's first presidential campaign (it is interesting to note that the catch-phrase at the time to describe "us" was "the Silent Majority"). I went through a hyper-conservative phrase in the '80s while serving as an Army officer under President Reagan while he led the world against the evil of communism and shook up the political establishment with his popular conservatism; at the time I was an avid suscriber to the National Review and even had very close connections to those in the Christian Reconstructionist movement whose Dominion theology dominated much Evangelical political thought.

What happened, however, was that, while stationed in Germany, I became very close friends with non-Americans whose philosophy and politics differed greatly from my own. These intimate friendships eventually reformed how I thought and how I communicated my thinking in conversation. My reformation continued as I worked in the Episcopal Church while a seminarian at a Pentecostal institution - the wide variety of my relationships required much further reformation of thought and character in me.

I can go on, but let me just say that I like to think I am still undergoing reformation. I am very hopeful that my desire for right relationship disciplines my drive for righteous society. Athough sometimes my sympathy for certain political viewpoints may seem repulsive to you, please realize that I DO NOT allow politics to be the grid according to which I live and move and have my being. I hope I am always ready to reform myself according to what is right rather than remain rooted in some wrong-minded reputation of my own making.