Thursday, April 30, 2009

On the Development of my Thoughts (part 6)

My point in all of this is to show the negative effects of exclusive humanism taken too far. Certainly, good has come of exclusive humanism, but in the perpetual balance of good and evil in human nature, a lot of bad has come of exclusive humanism as well. The strain of individualistic thought has infiltrated seemingly all aspects of American culture. After 233 years, we are still fighting for our independence, except now we are all fighting against our own sources of oppression, for our own form of individuality.
It is a futile fight.
Individuality is a lie. To be truly your own person, to make decisions based solely on your own thoughts, considering only yourself, and affecting only yourself is impossible. Individuality can only be understood in terms of its opposite, which consists of normal, interrelated human dependence. Individuality is the withdrawal from these dependencies, but since it depends on them for its very definition, it is unachievable before it has even been attempted. This is a bit technical, but individuality is impossible even in the contexts in which most people think of individuality. No human can exist as an absolutely autonomous individual. Everyone has been affected by another person at some point or another, even if it is in the slightest way possible. More likely than not, every individual on earth owe most of their knowledge, behaviour, and views to other people who have influenced them. To truly become an “individual,” to become independent of these influences requires removing yourself from them. It may be possible for a person to survive “on their own,” separated from all humanity. Emerson's transcendental contemporary Henry Thoreau even managed to produce a great deal of writing while relying on only himself in the wilderness. However, any of these accomplishments are meaningless without any human interaction. If Thoreau had been truly independent, Walden would never have existed for anyone but him and thus, in effect, would not have existed at all.
This becomes especially significant for those who try to seek individuality as an accomplishment. This is ultimately unattainable because for the accomplishment to mean anything, there must be some standard to which it can be compared or someone to recognize it, but for the true individual, neither of these can exist. It is a catch-22. Thus there can be no achievement. This may not be the only reason people seek independence. Some people find their identity in being an individual. However, identity is a very complex thing. One of the prevalent ideas held by the average person today is that people can determine their identities for themselves, and the only thing that matters is a person’s self assessment. This may be a comforting notion, but it is illogically founded. Identity is as much determined from the outside as from the inside, from how people are perceived as much as from how they perceive themselves. The pressure to conform is enormous, especially against those who stand out. Therefore, if an identity must be perceived for it to exist, then it is not possible for a person to have an independent identity. If nothing else, every person owes their physical existence to someone else. Ultimately, it would seem that to truly be an individual would mean not only to be completely removed from all society, but not to exist at all.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

On the Development of my Thoughts (part 5)

What I tend to find most tragic is that this focus on individuality has bled even into the Christian faith. Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of the rise of exclusive humanism. It is possible to trace the beginning of this shift to around the time of the Protestant Reformation. There was a move away from dependence on the Catholic Priests as the only authority on scripture, and justifiably so. The church’s mistreatment of the Bible has been well documented, and I will not go into it here, but it deserves to be mentioned. The advent of the printing press helped this process along because it put scripture in the hands of the layman. As a result, there developed an increased emphasis on personal devotions, a trend which has continued and has actually increased in recent decades. It has even worked its way into the mainstream Christian vernacular. Almost every Western Christian alive today would describe themselves as having “a personal relationship with Jesus” or would say that they had “accepted Christ as their personal Saviour.” Christ is no longer preached as Saviour of the World, but as a personal Saviour for each individual. Of course, Christians still believe that Christ was crucified for everyone (unless you are a die-hard Calvinist), they simply represent him more often on a personal level.
The “relatability” of this Saviour and his teachings has overflowed into a plethora of denominations that comprise what is today known as the church. Just as society has fractured from unity into divided factions and further into divided individuals, so too has the church. Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the idea of one united church has become an increasingly impossible dream. Churches around the world, but American churches especially, adhere to the same sort of rules of competition as free-market businesses. There is almost a sort of supply and demand aspect to Christianity that caters to individuals. If a person does not happen to like what one church is offering, they will simply pick another one. And this occurrence is not difficult to discern. I have even heard the term “church-shopping” used referring to the process of picking out the “right” church for an individual. Many churches have even adopted similar advertising methods to businesses and have an increasingly consumerist atmosphere, but more on that later. For now, let it suffice to say that even Christians have an individualistic expectation that they will be served.
The church has also developed its own analogous sort of public sphere. It consists of a popular opinion on what it means to be Christianity. The writings of ancient church fathers are progressively more ignored in favour of the latest trend in Christian thought. Fewer Christians know scripture, and Bible studies often consist more of what God has revealed to individuals. It is also becoming easier and easier for people to get their own views and ideas spread to their fellow Christians. Now, I am not saying that all of these new trends are inherently bad things. It is a wonderful thing that Christians are exploring their beliefs and seeking divine revelation from God. It is fantastic that believers in Jesus can communicate their new understandings of scripture with one another. In fact, Christian thinker Rob Bell, one of the greatest perpetuators of the Christian public sphere, argues in his book Velvet Elvis that these new sort of cultural relevancies and interpretations of scripture are acceptable and perhaps even ordained by God (this is perhaps an unfairly brief summary of a very complex idea, but I am on my way to another point). However, when these are taken with an abandonment of teachings that have come before and a disregard for pastoral or even scholarly authority, they can be incredibly dangerous.
This brings me to one of the topics that most concerns me in Western Christianity, and that is the abandonment of the church. I do not necessarily mean the abandonment of religion, though that is quite prevalent in the West as well, but I refer to the disillusionment with organized religion and the disdain for formal services expressed by the more recent generations. There has been a long slow change in and gradual loss of belief in Modern society, but this is something new. It may stem out of the same inclination as the desertion of religion, but what makes it different is that it is a current running within among Christians as well. It is a strange sort of pluralism in which a person can claim Christianity while disregarding what has been its primary vessel for centuries: the church.
Reasons for this disillusionment with the church are as variegated as the reasons most of the modern world has for being disillusioned with religion itself. However, most of them stem from the failings of organized religion or anger at legalistic church policies. There are also many critiques of consumerism and materialism that are present in formal churches (this is probably done without the knowledge that the Reformation helped advance the rise of these concepts through the rejection of mysticism and the Protestant ethic). I admit that I myself have often been disappointed by the organized church and some of its ethics. I will not in any way pretend that mainstream Christianity is perfect. And this is why it can sometimes be so difficult to argue with Christians who renounce the church. They have some valid points. Prominent among these are attacks against churches that have been hostile toward or unaccepting of non-Christians, most notably in recent years, homosexuals. As a result of all of this, it has become almost popular to become independent of the church in favour of non-traditional or personal forms of worship and learning. A healthy personal faith is important for anyone, but it is not enough on its own, and it can far too easily become warped without any accountability. An important Christian principle is that “It is not good for the man to be alone.” So why then do Christians tend to abandon fellowship?

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

On the Development of my Thoughts (part 4)

This democratic process has been both a result of and a catalyst for exclusive humanism. Both of these constructs, democracy and exclusive humanism, have been augmented by the induction of the public sphere into society. Some of the credit for secularization can even be attributed to this public sphere. This is a very amorphous concept and entity, which makes it somewhat difficult to define; but essentially, it is the common opinion, the collective thought of society. What made this public sphere significant was that it was an authority on matters which was outside of either church or state. Nowadays, this seems to be the only opinion for which most people care. Religious authority still exists, but it is not usually taken seriously by most people. Governmental authority, on the other hand, is usually seen as restrictive or chafing. This government “of the people, by the people, for the people” resulted in people deciding things for themselves. It was inevitable as a result of exclusive humanism. Once all humans are valuable for themselves, what they have to say must then be seen as valuable, especially if a lot of people are saying the same thing. Beliefs, ideas, and opinions spread through writing and conversation and begin to be determining factors in beliefs, ideas, and opinions.
The internet has only increased this trend. That is largely where the public sphere exists today. It is essentially a database of knowledge independent of any central authority. Anyone can put things online saying whatever they want. The blog culture is built around people saying what they think about music, movies, news, religion, the world in general. Everyone gets to proclaim their own truth.
Our society has become focused on the individual. Inherent human worth taken to its fullest extreme leads to a heightened sense of self-worth (of course, a lot can be said about the very terminology behind the “self,” but that is another issue). Humans live with a self-focus and society is made to cater to the individual. It is all over the marketing campaigns in our society. The customer is always right. Think of the slogan: “Have it your way.” Burgers must be made fresh just the way the patron wants it. Think of the auto industry. One of the major failings of the Big Three auto makers in Detroit has been their lack of standardization. Most new American cars come with a variety of options that can be personalized for the individual, but the cost to manufacture so many different options has negated any revenue made by people being persuaded by these options. Meanwhile, automakers in the far less Westernized Japan are profiting immensely because of standardization. They even build chassis that work for multiple different models, thus lowering their production costs. And now Detroit is falling apart.
This trend has manifested itself negatively in other facets of society as well. It is quite interesting to see how exclusive humanism has manifested itself in the American dream. This dream so often involves its own sort of independence. The self-reliance championed by the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson has ingrained itself into the Western worldview (I am rather critical of Emerson's essay on self-reliance, and I once wrote a poem expressing my disillusionment with this specific concept). There is almost a pseudo-Romantic idea when it comes to achieving success “on your own.” However, for anyone who fails to reach a sufficient level of attainment, there is nothing but shame and depression to be had. When independence is viewed as one of the highest morals, needing any form of assistance is seen as weakness. Such ideas also create an aversion to trust and intimacy, which tend to create reliance. This becomes a problem because humans are intensely relational, and limiting trust and intimacy will inevitably create hollow relationships or prevent them from developing at all. What we have as a result contributes to the anomie proposed Durkheim. It creates a sense of vacancy of meaning or emptiness, which are often associated with depression. With these and other problems, I think our society has spent more than enough time focusing on the individual.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

On the Development of my Thoughts (part 3)

Now, I would love to continue discussing the wonderful social benefits to arrive with the advent of exclusive humanism, and there is much more about them that I could say, but unfortunately, humanity tends to drive itself to extremes with negative consequences, and this case is no different. It turns out that there is quite a bit that can be said in opposition to ideas of independence and individuality, and that shall be my main direction from here on out.
Prolonged focus on the individual and its worth was bound to lead to some form of egocentrism. C. S. Lewis calls pride “The Great Sin” because of its undercurrent in all other Biblical transgressions. Modernity opened the way for pride to become a way of life, a cultural norm which infiltrates almost every level of society. I must confess that most of my statements will be more directly referencing the United States. It is the only country where I have prolonged experience, but my basic understanding is that similar themes run throughout Western society, even if they are variations, and one of the principal unifying generalities regarding the West is this egocentric humanism.
The problem with taking exclusive humanism to the extreme is that it becomes ultimately self-serving. It creates a society filled with autonomous individuals who must pursue their own ends. That is why less than a century after America’s founding fathers penned the words “all men are created equal,” Abraham Lincoln was warning the nation that a divided house cannot stand. The astounding thing about this statement is that it was made in the midst of a conflict regarding racial injustice. As was mentioned above, fighting for human equality was a positive consequence of exclusive humanism. However, the Civil War was not really fought over slavery. It was the catalyst and the cause for which the North was struggling, but it was not the real reason. What truly divided the country was state rights. The southern states wanted the right to choose slavery for themselves. That is why they tried to form a looser confederation. Lincoln saw that if each state acted in its own interest as an autonomous unit and did not have regard for the whole, it would be the same as a home filled with self-serving individuals, and it would fall. This was a powerful analogy. In those days, it was a terribly tragic thing for a home to be divided and a family to collapse. It is still a terrible thing today, but it seems less tragic by becoming more commonplace. Nowadays, unfortunately, every home is filled with autonomous individuals.
Division has become more and more commonplace since the West entered modernity. It is not always strictly on state borders, nor does it always lead to armed conflict, but what modern divisions sometimes lack in scale, they more than make up for in scope and diversity. In today’s society, all people feel entitled to their own opinion which they decide for themselves. Gone are the days when a king could declare, “So shall it be written, so shall it be done” and have his word carried out without question. Gone are the days when the leaders of a society would decide for all what religion the entire community would believe. Vestiges of these practices remain to this day, but they are shadows left from an ancient world. Papal authority is still the ultimate deciding factor in Roman Catholic doctrine, but that is no longer a guarantee that all individuals or even all churches will adhere to those decrees. In most modern democracies, there is an executive leader, but he can take very little action without first going through the individual decisions of judges and legislators who themselves are chosen based on the decisions of an endless line of other individuals. No governmental decision is direct anymore, and all along the way, these individuals are embattled in their own civil wars, fighting for their opinion to be superior.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

On the Development of my Thoughts (part 2)

America is now the most technologically advanced and financially wealthy nation in the world. After more than 200 years, democracy is still going strong both in America and around the world. In a world that is constantly becoming more globalized, the robust American culture is spreading its influence on almost every society on earth. And thanks to the German philosopher Hegel, we firmly believe our society has advanced.
But has it?
Does increased comfort and scientific progress equate to a higher state of civilization? Is it really worth death to possess freedom? Is independence really even possible? If you view the world in a humanistic sense then I suppose you would almost have to say yes, and most people do, including Christians. However, I am not convinced that the world is that much better off since that fateful day in 1776. Most Americans I know or have even heard of would probably tell me that this is a ridiculous notion, and perhaps it is. I concede that there are a number of ways in which you could argue that the world has improved. However, with every generation, era, age, that comes and goes, there are gains and losses, especially morally, and that is the focus of my thoughts on this issue. I shall certainly point out the gains that have come as a result of the rise of these humanistic ideas (indeed, it would be misleading not to do so), but I shall spend more time on the negatives, especially those I feel are less known.
What I consider the greatest benefit in this cultural shift is the view that all humans have personal intrinsic value. This is one of most important ideas to develop in the history of humanity. It helped issue forth the civil rights and feminist movements, and it is why democracy can work. Sure, when the founding fathers wrote that all men are created equal, they may not have meant what we now believe they do, but they were laying the groundwork. Their statement was one important stage in this growing trend in modern thought. At this time, I feel I must acknowledge that democracy is a pretty good system. Is it the best possible form of government? By no means! Is it perfect? Not at all! However, this is not an examination of the effectiveness of the American government. The constitution lays the groundwork for a system of checks and balances which is absolutely necessary in government, and it gives the people a voice. These, in theory, are wonderful things, and they are things that would not have been possible without the rise of exclusive humanism. This development of intrinsic human worth also led to the prominent theme in the developing post-modern society of relativity, particularly in the sense of worldviews. It establishes the fact that each person views the world from a different and valuable perspective which determines much of what they believe and the manner in which they behave. Understanding of the worldviews of others, especially those in other countries, could go quite far to promote international peace. This may be idealistic, but that is a hope worth having.
Religiously speaking, this emphasis on the individual has had two prominent, positive responses. To begin with, there has been an increased emphasis on personal devotion throughout recent centuries, though the overall popularity of this trend has been in flux at times. However, personal study of and interaction with scripture is still a relatively new development in the Christian faith. A somewhat surprising turn as a result of this individualistic focus has been the overwhelming movement in churches today to stress the relational aspect of Christianity. I am not sure when the phrase “a personal relationship with Jesus” first began showing up in sermons, but nowadays it would be almost impossible to find a conversion story that did not contain that phrase. Apparently, when exclusive humanism is combined with a belief in an omnipresent, loving God, the result is a deity who will interact with each individual on a personal level. I believe this about God, but I wonder if its importance in the church of today is somewhat beyond the bounds of scripture. However, that is a thought for later in my ponderings.

Friday, April 24, 2009

On the Development of my Thoughts (part 1)

The world changed forever on July 4, 1776. I will not attempt to argue that it changed for the better, but it certainly changed: dramatically and unalterably. Certainly, the ideas that were infused into the document signed that day had been around before, but on this day they became reality. Suddenly there was a model for the humanistic nation. When you look at the over-arching storyline of history, it is not surprising that the United States of America currently has the oldest active constitution in the world. It is not surprising that in 1776, the fledgling nation formed the first modern democracy of its kind. America did not get something right, or stumble upon some great secret. The truth is, it could not have happened before this. America’s Revolutionary War was the first opportunity for the ideas which were becoming more and more popular among the intelligentsia to become actualized. On that hot summer day in Philadelphia, a group of brave men brought those ideas the final few steps to their realization.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

So it was that humanism found its vessel, the humanism that was to become the bedrock of modern society. It is no wonder that America proved such a dominant power and overwhelming culture in the modern age when you consider that it is founded on the very principles which define modernity. There are many, especially in the religious right, who will point to the above lines and vigorously assert that here is proof that America was founded on God and Christian principles, rather than on the atheistic materialism and self-indulgent humanism that now prevail in western culture. At some point, a flag will start waving behind them while “God Bless America” is sung, and a bald eagle flies over head. After this, I would kindly disagree with them. Certainly, there is some Christian truth to be found in these lines. After all, they even mention a Creator. I am not going to enter into a debate as to whether the founding fathers of America were true Christians, were Christians only in name, or were actually some strange amalgam of these through the common belief of Deism. What I will argue instead is that the ideas put forth in the Declaration of Independence are primarily humanistic in nature, not necessarily Christian. Organized Christianity may have provided a catalyst to the growth of these ideas, but by the late eighteenth century, they were a force of their own. The ideals of freedom, independence, and even the inherent value of human beings as individuals were all relatively new.

This is why there were no other democracies at the time. This is why America as we know it could not have existed much earlier in history. Democracy could not have come to be if there was not first the widespread view that people are inherently valuable as individuals. The world would not have been ready for it. Indeed, the French Revolution was proof that some parts of the world still were not ready for it. Perhaps the natural separation America had from Europe allowed these values to foster more quickly or more effectively. Regardless, these newer beliefs and ideals were the prime motivation in the revolution and formation of America. People often forget (I myself as well sometimes) that the primary cause of the Revolutionary War was taxation without representation. People just wanted to have value. It is not that they opposed the idea of a king, though this role was already beginning to lose its significance. Indeed, some early Americans would have been quite willing to appoint a King George of their own. However, Washington appears to have had the insight to see that such a position could no longer exist. Things had changed. Even if he had been appointed king, it could not have lasted for very long in a world with a rising belief in the equality of men. Once all men had value by nature as individuals, it became impossible to argue that there could be an inherently supreme nobility. In the modern world which was stabilizing, if people wanted supremacy, they had to gain it for themselves.

Friday, April 17, 2009

On Irony

I believe that God loves irony.

Think about it. He already knows everything. All of human history is just one big dramatic irony. With every stunning revelation, God must just chuckle and say, "Hey, I knew that!"

I think irony is one of my favourite forms of humour. As a result, God and I have had many a good laugh together. Those are some of the best moments I have with God. I will be talking to him, sometimes frustrated, sometimes broken, seeking for some answer, when suddenly I will realize that what I am seeking is a truth God has already told me or a verse that I have learned.

Then I will say, "Oh. Yeah. Now I get it." I usually end up laughing. What else can I do? It has been good learning to laugh at my occasional incompetence. I enjoy laughing with God. In those moments he seems so much like a best friend or an older brother. It is great. I love talking to God out loud.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

On the Rain

It rained today.
I loved it. The rain felt more like spring than any of the sunshine we have had so far. Don't get me wrong, I love the increasing warmth as much as the next guy (actually, with my high cold tolerance, most people probably love the warmth a bit more than me), but water is life. Life falling from the heavens.
The wind swept the drops like mist into my face. I wore my glasses today and had to wipe them off every time I entered a building. I don't really mind. Cleaning your lenses is just the right balance of appearing intelligent and appearing nerdy at the same time.
I bet Monet liked to watch the rain falling on the French hills. I certainly hope he did. Monet is by far my favourite painter. Water often makes me think of his work. So many of his paintings that I like best have water in them. I love going to the river and looking at reflections in the water. They look like a Monet painting turned upside down. It is wonderful at night, standing above the riverbank, watching the current paint the streetlights in hurried brush strokes, making them come alive.
Rain drops on your glasses makes everything blurry. Colours cluster in splotches that vaguely resemble forms you've seen, almost the way you see them in memory.
There is a song about rain by the Newsboys that I always loved as a child. On the night before his execution, Peter addresses Jesus. He asks him to let it rain because water always reminds him of Jesus. It describes the times where Jesus interacted with water. So many. So often it was miraculous. It is still one of my most beloved songs.
"A new dawn is breaking. Another hour, and then I'll leave this place. I am ready Lord to give my life up. I'm so ready, Lord, to see Your face. Water like a promise, and in this final hour, I think my final prayer shall be: Would you let it rain?"
It was a grey day. Sometimes people call days like this ugly. I don't think so, and I don't always understand why others would. Perhaps they don't care for the inconvenience or the slight chill you get from water droplets running down your skin. I don't mind.
Not at all.
We haven't had a thunderstorm in quite some time. I love thunderstorms. I love all sorts of weather, truthfully. However, the thunderstorm is the king of weather. Nothing compares to that sort of might. Everyone respects the thunderhead and his deafening shout as his lightning rends the sky.
Wind has fascinated me for years. There are so many wonderful analogies to the wind. One that stands out comes from another song of my childhood. This one is by DC Talk. It is about the eternal. One of the most poetic ideas I have ever had is to be carried away by the wind. At least, I hope that's poetic. It seems like it should be, and I've put it in a couple poems, so that's good enough for me.
"Can you see God, have you ever seen Him? I've never seen the wind. I've seen the effects of the wind, but I've never seen the wind. There's a mystery to it."
I shout sometimes. Not very often by any means. Just the rare sometimes. One night last year, it was raining pretty hard. I was hoping for a really heavy storm. When my heart is heavy, I have a spot outside where I like to go to talk to God by myself. That is where I go to shout. That is where I went that night. I wanted to feel God's presence so badly. I wanted to feel. I wanted to cry. And I wanted it to storm, for the heavens to rage and let loose their fury so I could be awed by the majesty, the wonder of it all. I felt like, if the floodgates of heaven could be loosed, perhaps my tears could be as well.
I shouted that night. I'm pretty sure I sang the chorus of that song by the Newsboys.
I didn't see any lightning that night.
And I didn't cry.
And I didn't feel the presence of God overwhelm me in an instance and fill me with divine emotion.
But he was there. I know with absolute certainty that he was there. That was the closest I had ever felt to God. And he whispered rather than shouting. When my tears finally did come, and they came in a torrent, the Spirit fell on me with a fury and overwhelmed me. I never saw it coming.
I was walking today, and a strong breeze blew across my path. I kept walking, but I faced the wind and closed my eyes. It was heavenly, and probably a bit dangerous. I could have easily walked into another person, hurting us both. But it would have been worth it. For a moment I was gone. The wind swept over me like a gentle caress, baptizing me with tears of compassion.
"Let it rain. Lord, we're waiting for Your rain to fall. Let it rain, bringing back the wonder of it all; and I can see Your face again, when You let it rain. I can see Your face again, when You let it rain."
I lived today.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

On Looking at the World

We live in a world of great darkness, filled with suffering, anger, pain, and brokenness. Terrible things happen to people, and people do terrible things. Tears, be they hidden, quelched, or patent, gather in the corners of everyone's eyes. Those tears exist for a myriad of different reasons, but their existence is irrefutable. The world should not be this way, but it is. This world is a tragic place.
But...
There is a God who is present and active in this world and he is desperate to set it free. He is absolutely desperate. Every now and then, God decides to show up and remind me of this.
Tonight, I got to talk to and pray with a couple of my friends about what God is doing in their lives. God is so great, and he is so powerful. Sometimes, it can be easy to forget just how mighty God is, especially when we limit our faith in him, but it does not change who he is or what he can and wants to do for his children. It was remarkable and awe inspiring to see God working in the lives of my friends, working with power. I don't think either of them knew this, but God used them as a reminder of his faithfulness and his desperate desire to redeem this fallen world. God is good.
Yeah. God is so good.
After these conversations, God set a song in my heart, one I have not heard in a very long time, but one which deserves to be sung more often. It is one that I personally love, and with a lot of things on my mind, it brought me a great deal of joy:

Hallelujah
Jesus is alive
Death has lost its victory
And the grave has been denied
Jesus lives forever
He's alive! He's alive!

He's the Alpha and Omega
The first and last is he
The curse of sin is broken
And we have perfect liberty
The lamb of God is risen
He's alive, He's alive!

Jesus is alive!