The Sickness

So,  my wife and I have a home in the middle of downtown Detroit. It’s kind of funny. Detroit has a pretty serious stigma.  Some of what gets said is earned and some isn’t.  I mean, you don’t get to be the murder capital of the U.S. AGAIN without some serious effort.  On the other hand, the city is doing some amazing things to move into the 21st century.  If you haven’t been downtown lately you should definitely check it out.  The new Riverfront is beautiful.  The real estate development is highly encouraging.  The cross cultural participation is great to see.  And, above all, as long as you stay where things are happening, it is really quite safe (contrary to urban legend, the weak are NOT killed and eaten in Detroit anymore!).

The bad news is that there is one ever-present pall that shrouds the city and its suburbs.  It is the specter of racism.  The tension is sometimes quite palpable when you move throughout various regions of the Metro area.  Segregation is a way of life.  No single group retains the guilt. It is seriously spread around.  One of the saddest commentaries on the mental oblivion that saturates the Church is its participation in this corrupt culture.  Christians throw around the racially charged barbs and perpetuate the separation as much or more than everyone else.  The churches themselves rarely have multi-ethnic congregations.  The notion of social outreach is impeded because of cross cultural fear.  Grudges that were formed decades ago are protected and nursed like some kind of bequeathal for future generations.  And nobody seems to notice.  Nobody seems to care.  Except Jesus.

What do we mean when we speak of this thing called the “gospel”?  It’s kind of sickeningly amusing that we are so quick to argue over the meaning of the word “justification” (the NPP) while entirely ignoring the heart of the matter.   “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” These are the words of Galatians 3:28.  I submit that they are not hard to understand.  I fail to see ambiguity or cultural relativism. Am I missing something? 

The problem is pretty apparent.  It is the reason that the gospel is necessary to begin with.  There is a sickness.  We, like the people depicted in “I am Legend”, are infected with a fast acting virus.  It’s called sin.  It ravages our minds.  It causes us to look to ourselves before looking to the needs of others.  It convinces us that we can stand alone in the world… our own saviors, our own providers.  Above all, it amplifies our fears.  It traps us in despair and self-loathing.  At the same time, it cannot be blamed for our transgressions; our stupidity.  We bear our own responsibility.  We actually CHOOSE to wallow in it like pigs in slop.  We roll around, luxuriating in its stink. When we smell like a trash heap, we CHOOSE to parade around in puffed up arrogance. All the while, our grasp upon reality slips.  Our vision gets darker and darker.  We descend into blindness.  We are all of us guilty.   Nobody has immunity… there is no Robert Neville, no colony of survivors. African, Native American, Caucasian, Asian; welcome to our common lot. Welcome to humanity.

Enter the cure.  Enter the light in the darkness. When you take the leap of faith it’s like a miracle surgery that restores your completely devastated sight.  The bandages come off and YOU CAN SEE!!!  At least that’s the rumor. That’s what the ad’s say. Sadly, real life doesn’t look anything like the commercials. “I’m not a Christian, but I play one on TV”. The surgery is over. The bandages are off. But like scared little kids we squeeze our eyes shut ever tighter. Why don’t we take refuge from our fears?  Why don’t we realize that Christ’s mission wasn’t to give us Heaven or eternal life?  Those things happen, surely.  But they are byproducts.  We have a calling.  We are supposed to live out the Kingdom here, now.   How is it possible that we miss the fact that the gospel transcends culture? How do we ignore the explosive truth that Christ’s redemption literally destroys the walls that divide us?  How can we desire a segmented half-life instead of the feast of joy that comes with true cross cultural community?  Above all, why do we still reek of the trash heap?  

I am including myself in these indictments.  I am a disgusting hypocrite.  But, I want out.  I want to actually live this thing we call salvation.  Racism is a clear rallying point.  There are myriad like issues within the church.  We need to take real, decisive steps.  We need to live in the cleansing waterfall that is Christ’s righteousness.  The stink and filth and perversion must give way to purity.  This isn’t a call to legalism. It’s a call to reconciliation.  Remember this… we are one people under sin.  We can be one people under righteousness, so help us God. All we have to do is open our eyes… 

On Being Human

It was around nine months ago. I sat on the balcony of a penthouse in Mazatlán, Mexico overlooking the glory of the Pacific ocean. The warm night breeze caressed everyone who had the good sense to be outside. It was picture perfect. The situation was only improved by the conversation that I was having with my good friend, Rob Boden. Our dialog ranged all over the spectrum of ideas. One theme kept recurring… the distinction between our understanding/quantifying of the physical universe and our experience while we unwittingly (or otherwise…) interact with the metaphysical universe. So, this post is a hat tip to that idyllic scenario. Not to mention that our post on world view keeps massaging the same idea.

Let me begin by trying to define the terms. When I use the word “physical”, I mean the realm of our existence that pertains to our five senses. It may be quantified and analyzed. The scientific method can be used to research it. Some argue that it is comprised of objective laws, though this is debatable. En la otra mano, the word “metaphysical” has several meanings. For the purpose of this post, I intend to use it to describe those things within our experience that cannot be described in terms of the physical. Some examples are faith in the unseen, psychic phenomena and other extra sensory issues. I will primarily focus on the complex aspects that makes our species unusual. More precisely, I want to focus on what it means to be human.

We can begin by asking several questions. Does a reality outside of the scope of our sensory experience exist? If so, is it a significant factor in human existence? If not, where do the myriad stories and countless commitments to religion originate within the scope of human thought? Of course, all of what is written here is theoretical. Bear in mind that I am not educated. I am simply an observer of behavior, a dweller in the land of ideas, and a partner in the human experiment. So please take everything I say with a serious grain of salt. I appreciate all analysis and critique.

My experience and limited research leads me to several presuppositional conclusions. First, I believe that all human beings are attached by strands of common existence. In other words, when we elect to call ourselves “human beings” we mean to say that, regardless of race or culture, something immaterial makes us inherently the same. This is is stark contrast to our other title, homo sapiens. One name describes our essence, the other our physicality.

One of the things that unite human beings is a tension between the physical and the metaphysical. We all live and breathe within the sphere of the physical universe. Much like the animals we require food, shelter, and clothing. However, something sets us apart. There is an aesthetic (beauty sense) aspect to our existence. Regardless of our cultural background, we seek to improve our world. The nature of those improvements are as different as the cultural contexts that exist among humankind. Nevertheless, we have an innate sense of betterment and beauty. We have a desire to order our lives. Whereas animals appear content to live by instinct alone, we overcome and act in opposition to instinct every day. Any time we act in a manner that isn’t rooted in our own preservation sense, we demonstrate this. I submit that this unique two fold existence is what we mean by “human being” as opposed to “homo sapiens”. I further suggest that this, with all of its implications, is what is meant when the Bible declares that we are made in the “image of God”. More on that another time. These concepts cannot be borne out by science or quantified by sensory means. You can’t put faith or honor or self sacrifice in a test tube. It isn’t possible to place a video camera into the minds of those who spend their time feeding the poor or comforting the sick without reference to their personal safety or needs. This immaterial aspect of humanity has to be evaluated as something wholly other than the physical frame work within which we build our societies.

One of the significant aspects of Enlightenment ontology (beliefs about the nature of existence) and epistemology (beliefs about how we know things) is that the development of scientific method and practice flew in the face of the Medieval spiritual environment. Until the advent of 16th century humanism (a rediscovery of the creative and positive aspects of mankind), the Catholic church dominated all discussions pertaining to art, science, politics, economics, et cetera. So, everything was controlled…the Church’s spin doctors ensured that nothing innovative got hold in the populace. Those who tried to innovate (see Galileo or Copernicus for examples) were promptly persecuted.

While it was necessary to challenge the Medieval intellectual construct, Enlightenment thinkers often rebelled completely against the ideas of faith or spirituality. Those dedicated to science tended to adopt a high skepticism which became agnosticism leading to atheism. These trends gathered momentum from generation to generation. In the end, they result in the perspectives embodied in the writings of Dawkins and his crew. The idea of spirituality being a crutch that the weak minded plebes rely upon to strengthen their resolve to live pitiable little lives caught on nicely.

The sad part is that such an ideology results in a dehumanizing process. Those who hold it fail to see that it is precisely the immaterial part of humankind that makes us unique. While we don’t have to belittle science in terms of its explanation of the physical universe, to deny our spiritual selves is to deny our better half. We are not merely complicated biological systems with so many chemical processes that stimulate the illusion of independent thought. We are, in fact, the link that provides a bridge between two dimensions. In humanity, nature finds its connection to the divine. We, like Christ, exist as the incarnation of God’s image. Of course, as a Christian I recognize the intrinsic differences between us and Him. At the same time, we cannot be afraid to recognize an amazing connection to another reality that transcends, or more precisely, that defines all which we experience here.

At the end of the day we need to recognize that science contributes a lot to our understanding of the universe. It is imperative that we don’t confuse this truism with the notion that science possesses ALL or, for that matter, even MOST of the understanding within the universe. The more we learn about our surroundings, the more we see resonance with what we always knew about our selves. There is a lot more under the surface than meets the eye. The Newtonian model of the Universe (highly mechanistic and predictable due to natural processes) is being replaced by a model that shows just how little we comprehend. Science serves a purpose that is necessary. But, the worship of science is just one more religion that is ultimately moored in the metaphysical. It simply fails to answer the larger questions and will continue to do so if it ignores the two fold nature of our existence.

World View And Honest Dialog

There are changes afoot within the environment in 21st century America and the rest of the Western world. I’m not referring to the physical climate and its changes (although we will touch on that, I am sure). I am talking about that all-pervasive concept known as “world view”. Basically, everybody who ever shared a stake in the human community has an infrastructure that informs their thoughts. In fact, these “idealogical I-beams” (to belabor the metaphor) are no less important than the skeletons that support the weight of a sky scraper. Essentially, they are formed from our earliest days by a combination of our hard-wired personalities and the things that our culture tells us are normative. The way we see the world, its people, its sociological interactions, its religions and so on doesn’t just happen. Our “life mixture” colors literally every viewpoint that we have. A fancy word for this concept is “presupposition”. We start with premises that are usually passed on to us from our chosen cultural leaders (parents, teachers, politicians, cultural icons, etc.). We believe the claims made because of our implicit trust in these individuals. No scientific method is applied to quantify the reality of the claims they make. Point of fact is that we will expend an immense amount of emotional energy defending a position that we really don’t know why we hold. We “presuppose” these things to be the truth without any outside, objective criteria supporting them.

For example, here in America a lot of assumptions are made by many of us who grew up within the traditional American cultural paradigm. A case in point is that we assume that we have certain inalienable rights. It is said that my rights end where your nose begins. If a foreign power decided to attack our country, it is highly likely that a citizen army the likes of which has never been seen would emerge to take the fight to the enemy. Anything to protect our all-important personal rights. This particular aspect of our cultural identity leads to numerous implications. The most significant issues probably pertain to our country’s foreign policy. Our tendency to project the American version of representative democracy upon other cultural contexts may stem from the American presupposition that every human being feels the same way about how personal rights should look. It is possible that we ignore the idea that other cultural milieu may produce other perspectives toward “inalienable rights”. Within our own cultural context, our presuppositions allow us to thrive. As a direct result of growing up here, having my thoughts formed here, and having received the advantages of living here I am entirely convinced that our country offers the best opportunities for a fruitful life. France may disagree. Germany DEFINITELY does. Iraq…the jury is out…

The bottom line is that every decision we make, every idea we accept or reject, everything we hold as normative and dear are directly informed by our presuppositions. Nobody can escape this. Nobody can stand in the position of true objectivity. Nobody can separate their analytical process from the very fabric that makes them who they are. We are all indelibly stamped by our particular version of the world. This “law” influences our thoughts and commitments politically, religiously, economically, sociologically, and so forth. It determines our perspective of family. It creates our position and dedication to work ethic. It makes us who we are.

If the above is viewed as accurate, one must take presupposition very seriously when attempting to discuss any idea. It becomes imperative that we try our best to identify as many of the variables that will color our perspectives as possible. This is harder than it sounds. The value of going through this process is huge. It allows us to consider alternatives that we haven’t looked at before without emotional backlash or dogmatism.

Setting the Stage

So, it falls to me to fire the opening salvo. It seems that the world is changing before our very eyes. Most philosophers and members of the academy agree that the Western world (which may be defined for the purposes of this conversation as that which is encompassed by Bertrand Russel’s “History of Western Philosophy” ) is in some stage of paradigm shift. It is probably appropriate to begin dialog by trying to grapple a bit with the whole notion of Postmodernity. A mere trifle intellectually. Of course, it is important to set a few ground rules first.

It is imperative that participants in this discussion try, at least to some extent, to keep their thoughts on point and rooted in some semblance of reality. Naturally, your reality may differ from mine…. Nevertheless, let’s try to keep things on an even footing.

Additionally, it is quite important to keep things “family friendly”. There are other spots for those who are drawn to the obscene to participate on the net. Have at it. But don’t leave it here.

Finally, try to keep the ad hominem stuff to a minimum. I appreciate sarcasm and intellectual dogfighting. But let’s remember that ideas are like balloons floating through the air. It’s our job to try to shoot the idea down…not its proponent. If the idea stays afloat, it must be given respect. Quid erat demonstrandum, until proven otherwise. Saying somebody has a big nose, therefore they can’t be trusted may be viewed as a suspect line of reasoning. This also pertains to differing presuppositional bases. Not to mention, baldness. Don’t make fun of bald people. They have feelings too.