Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

7/21/10

The essence of memory and heritage...

In the NYTimes today i stumbled across two articles that got me thinking about identity, memory and grace.

The first article i read was about the bulldozing of Beijing's hutongs. It seems that in the rush to modernization and make money, many Chinese cities are razing and replacing their old neighborhoods with sky rises. Which of course is concerning to the people who don't live there and somewhat concerned with those who do. Many of the debates revolve around the preservation of cultural memory and neighborly connections. After all how many of us really know the people who live around us. When was the last time you invited your neighbors over for a bbq. It seems to me that in the US we're good at forming friendships with people we share interests with or similar lifestyles or life-stages with. (parent's groups/facebook/bible-study) but we're not so good anymore at knocking on a neighbor's door and getting to know them. (there are notable exceptions, I'm sure!)

I grew up in a teeny tiny town, and all my neighbors knew me and my extended relatives. This sounds like that these neighbors are small towns within a larger one. These places have literally existed for thousands of years. You did everything with your neighbors, even bathe and shared toilets. But the houses were drafty and hard to keep clean. So yeah, a shiny new apartment is very attractive if you live in those areas! It seems that these residents are faced with a rock and a hard place in terms of choices. They can have a warm, clean place to live, but they lose contact with the way of life and people they have known all their lives. They trade community for modernity and perhaps opportunity.

As i was mulling this over i ran into another article in the Times about the internet its looong digital memory and general lack of privacy. It tells the story about a woman who was kicked out of her program and had to change careers because of a single photo on her myspace profile, from 4 years earlier. The thought occurred to me that we in the west are on the other side of obliterating our communities and physical connections and replacing them with our internet connections. But on the internet there is no context and it appears no willingness to forgive even minor, youthful indiscretions.

But in small towns, sometimes the sins of the fathers, visit the children, entrapping them into that role. I have seen this up close and personal. There were several families in the small town i lived in that were entrapped by encyclical poverty. It seemed as if these kids were branded with failure once they were born and the townspeople would shrug and look the other way. So leaving was a way that many escaped this curse, to create new opportunities. But the internet may ruin even the possibility for reinvention and perhaps continue the polarization of our society.

What does occur to me is that China is in many ways following in our footsteps. That is what is scaring many western tourists, because we are living with the repercussion of our own industrial revolution, with its many unintended consequences in terms of our lives and communities. Which left us, in many ways, ill-equipped to handle the information revolution.

This leads me to a whole series of theological questions that i think we in the current christian community are asking, but afraid to answer. Questions about grace. When do we allow someone to make a clean break? Can we forgive someone even if we are constantly reminded of their past? What role does the church and community play in the west, in our fractured identities and communities. What does this forced integration of identities and selves means for the gospel? I'll be pondering that for a while....

3/5/10

Something that's been bothering me...

While i've been out of commission in terms of blogging i've been reading alot. Its about all that i've had the energy for this past many months...

After two editorials in the NYtimes one by Roger Cohen and one by David Brooks crystallized what had been bothering about the whole debate and the general dialogue on health care and government. David Brooks says it best "Members of both movements believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” is how Rousseau put it."

Ding!

Atonement, that's whats been bothering me. There are several different understandings of atonement and what Jesus accomplished on the cross, but one thing that is the same throughout is that all agree that humans are essentially evil/sin-filled walking sacks who are born that way and destined to die that way. Yes i know i've drastically simplified the theology, but this is a blog post, not a paper or academic abstract.

Here's what's been bothering me is that given the human propensity towards evil, it is obvious that we need safeguards in place to protect the weak and the defenseless. In addition without a sense of the common good or community, humanity has a dreadful proclivity towards selfishness and Darwinian self reliance. While if you're not a christian, or claim to be a bible thumper, you can be as selfish as you want to be.

But its been the movement of Tea Party idealogy into conservative Christianity that has really got me bothered. Where is the biblical basis of small govt and taking care of yourself and only yourself? Where is the biblical basis of not sharing the burden of living with those in your community.

And finally for the last time, politics and theology are not separate spheres. They inform one another, you faith/theology/worldview inform your politics and if you claim to be a bible believing christian, then you have no business attending the Tea Party or similar movements that preach self-reliance and individual liberty. Sorry, there's no scriptural basis for those ideologies.

*whew*

1/9/09

Augustine and Politics!

After having spent way too much time in seminary, anytime i see an early church father mentioned in a non-christian publication, it catches my attention. After all why else would someone quote Origen or in this case Augustine?! Of course given the american educational system, its amazing that any classical western philosophers or philosophers form anywhere int he world enter into the public debate. So when i came upon this essay by Stanley Fish i was amazed and then i sat down to digest...

Like many americans, i have been passively observing the soap opera that is Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his open senate seat. On the one hand, the governor with his wanna be "Donald Trump hair do" is quite amusing to watch. He's kind of the Al Davis of the political world. In complete and total denial and yet has way to much time and money to do anything constructive with it. His pick of Burris...genius. Talk about throwing a monkey wrench into the works and really pissing a bunch of people off. PBS news has been very entertaining of late!

Now here i have a confession to make, i don't remember anything of Augustine's theology. I vaguely remember studying the Donatist controversy. I know i read this stuff, wrote papers on it, but yup, dont remember it. Some of the problem is that i'm more interested in the historical stuff, not the actual details of the theology. Luckily Stanley Fish gives a nice refresher in his essay! Well that and i have books and google! (here's a nice review of Augustines life and times)

Upon my brief review of the controversy, it got me thinking about leadership in the church. (oh no!) It seems that recently, those of us in the non-liturgical, low church traditions with American culture have moved towards picking leaders based upon their personality, theology and also character(i hope!). Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing, after all Paul must've been a pretty dynamic guy. And what church wouldn't want that for their leadership?! But, if that person fails us, then we tend to not only dismiss the person, but the whole institution. The underlying conceit is that if the institution can't choose the best person, then the institution is flawed. This means that we take a position contrary to Augustine. We basically dont respect the position, whether it be priest or pastor, as being a representatative of the church, who's head is Jesus Christ. We want our church leadership to be full of saints, not humans trying their best to serve and represent God on this frail planet. The pressure to be a saint is burning out our clergy...

The recent trend of denominations to send their leaders to psychological testing and reviews isn't necessarily a bad thing. But what if God is calling someone into a position of leadership who may have some psychological issues, like addiction, or a mental illness. Another troubling thought comes to mind, "Should we pick leaders who are a good match for the church?" Or "Should we pick leaders who would be good for the church?" and "How do we know who God has determined to be the leader of the church?"

So maybe we should look into new models of leadership? Or maybe revisit the old models and adapt them to our 21st century context. In looking at different churches, i've noticed that in low churches there is a tendency towards personality cults. While high churches can sometimes place people into churches where they are a poor fit. The question is how do we find the balance? Hmm something new to ponder in the coming year...