This term keeps coming up in my thoughts. I was just asking myself what I thought was weighty enough to deserve my blog-attention, and "personal responsibility" came out louder than anything else (only narrowly drawing my attention from "Why do philosophers say so much to say so little?") So I'll ruminate a bit on personal responsibility. Grab your life-preservers, folks; I feel a stream of consciousness a-comin'... It may not be too deep, but it might move along swiftly over some rough patches.
In my previous entry I linked critical thinking to personal responsibility. It is every person's responsibility to consider all sides of an issue before forming a belief around it. The trick of critical thinking is to look around the slant and bias, beyond all the turns and twists and spins of an issue, and truly look at the issue in its raw, natural state. This takes more time and concentration than one is able to devote to any one subject on CNN's Headline News. I wonder, then -- is it is truly possible to form an educated, valuable opinion through precise critical thinking in our soundbyte-driven world? If our critical thinking abilities are hindered by our headline-news exposure, our decision-making abilities handicapped by information malnutrition, is it appropriate to call our media into account for poor decisions made by populations of voters and poll responders? Or would that be the news-consumers shrugging off our personal responsibility onto the media?
Personal responsibility and accountability seem to go hand-in-hand. Could that mean that we as human beings are unable to always assume personal responsibility if we didn't think somebody important to us would call us on the carpet?
It seems that to many (if not all) philosophers, the question does not concern the validity of personal responsibility, but rather to which person(s) we are responsible. Ethical egoists would say that I am responsible and accountable only to myself. Buddhists would say that I hold responsibility to all in the world to which I belong. Solipsism would seem to agree with the ethical egoist, since the existence of my consciousness is all that my cognition proves. Utilitarianism would split the responsibility right down the middle, making me accountable to the greatest happiness -- for all humanity, not just myself.
If all subjects taken on by philosophers are wells as deep as personal responsibility, perhaps it takes a plethora of words to draw them out. Then again, should our teachers and philosophers hold a personal responsibility to speak and write in a clear concise fashion, so as to more effectively reach our soundbyte generations?
Monday, March 5, 2007
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Jesus Camp, Culture War, and the lies we love to believe
I was at the movie shop about a month ago with my husband, perusing their selections. We were actually trying to choose between something semi-intellectual -- Pollock if I recall -- and something altogether more worthy of our time -- Idiocracy. But I came across a documentary I had heard some whispers about and was curious when I saw the lone copy on the shelf. As soon as I picked up Jesus Camp and flipped it over to read the liner notes, I got this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach -- you know the feeling I'm sure, as if you've been punched in the gut or are bracing for an impending blow. It's a knowing, that although your rational self is telling you to give it a fair shake before making judgements, your instinctual self is aware that this is not something you want to even entertain. So naturally I did what any intellectually-honest person who has ever had that sick feeling before would have done...
I put it down and walked away. Pollock won out that night.
A couple of weeks later, Jesus Camp came up in philosophy class. I still had not seen it, but I got that same sickened feeling just listening to conversation about it. It paralyzed me throughout the discussion. I couldn't get past this grieving sensation in my center to put together two meaningful words to contribute. Mainly because of the context in which the subject arose. We started class discussion on the concept of freedom as it applied to children forced into conscription in Liberia.
I still haven't seen it (and probably won't), but I know better now why I am so bothered by it. There are at least two reasons -- maybe even three. At least one comes from what few scenes I have seen at youtube.com, and another from the reaction of my peers; as small a segment of population the classroom may be, I'm sure the opinions and reactions therein are reasonably representative of much of the viewing audience.
First, some background. I am very involved in my church, which happens to be a nontraditional western Christian church. By that I mean we lean towards charismatic Christianity. While we have our quirks as all flawed people do, I'd say that we're not one of the wierdly cultic charismatic congregations. The spirit, mission, and message of Cathedral of Praise is not only hospitable, it is rational and completely based on the Bible and not loose interpretations. I am not a blind follower, and don't take every message at face value. I trust my pastor -- or else I'd attend a different church -- but I also trust myself to be able to understand the scriptures, to learn from God for myself because of my personal communion with God. I'm also a member of the children's ministry team; I have the opportunity to teach the kids once a month, and I take our group to our summer camp each year.
Adding my involvement in children's ministry and camps to my gut instinct when I touched the dvd at the movie store, equals a state of alert when the documentary came up in class discussion.
From snippets that I saw, that particular camp is not representative of all Christian summer camps. Not even all charismatic summer camps, or all charismatic children's ministry. The camp proprietor mentioned the culture war waged in America, and her intention to train the children to battle effectively against evil influence in popular culture. She said she wanted to see American children as radical about their faith as Muslim children are about theirs' -- ready to lay down their lives for it. This is very strong language, leaving the speaker open to misinterpretation, as if she were teaching Christian kids how to strap on explosives and walk into the local 7-Eleven. Judging by the reactions around the table in philosophy class, misinterpretation abounds.
Here's the deal. Most people in the western world that have grown bitter towards God and Christianity have done so because they haven't seen or understood true Christianity. Instead, they've seen Christian egoism. Religious laws and constructs make it so that one must follow a system of rules and regulations, so that true faith is subordinated to empty ritual and activity. Probably the most misunderstood person in all of history is God, and it's so easy for us to reject anything or anyone that defies our understanding. Either that, or readjust it so that it conveniently fits into our narrow understanding. That, in my humble opinion, is what has happened to the western church and its representation of God. Our mental icon of God is a great Patriarch with a flowing white beard, ready to pass judgement on humanity for all its evildoing. In reality, one of God's names in the Old Testament (for there are many names in the Jewish language, used to describe God) is interpreted as "the many-breasted one." It describes God's abundant provision and feminine capacity for maternal nurture. It also refutes any images of God looking for a chance to pummel us for screw-ups, replacing such images with a loving God wanting to hug us when we're down.
Humanity has conveniently categorized God's nature, and has made rules for following God, calling it "God's will." And many of us have fallen for it, assuming that God actually said what some people through history have said that God said. Reactions to this presumed word of God have ranged from blind following (without honestly researching and contemplating it) to bitter rejection of the message. Unfortunately, God is rejected along with the misrepresentation. And that's what saddens me, for that full rejection involves so much -- not just the hell that we've heard about (all too much) but also life, here and now. I'm saddened that my God is so woefully misrepresented and misinterpreted by those that would say that they are 'His servants' -- and also that so many of my peers would be so intellectually-dishonest to reject faith and God outright, without a fair amount of research. Personal responsibility comes into play here. Too many people that I've discoursed with throughout my life (NOT anyone I know currently, let me be clear) have based their disbelief in God on what other people have done or said, without doing any of the research (ie: reading the Bible) for themselves. That is the antithesis of critical thinking, and to my mind it's shirking personal responsibility.
Back to the "culture war". I hold very little regard for the "culture war". For while many things go on in celebrity pop culture that may raise my eyebrow, they are of little eternal significance. Trends change and sensibilities swing like a pendulum. Behavior is temporary, because life is temporary. What is eternal is grace. Grace is unmerited pardon and favor, and that's what my loving God offers. Grace removes all indiscretions of behavior and corrects them gently. The real war is against grace. Again, it defies our understanding. Probably because we labor under such self-inflicted guilt that we can't imagine the concept. So someone influential along the way struggled with forgiving (probably him-)self or someone else, and began to subtly change the message of God's grace or leave it out altogether. Some perverted form of gatekeeping ushered religion and legalism into our culture, and embittered generations have sprung up because of it.
And the real war doesn't view children as recruits for one side or the other. It's not good vs. evil like the comic books would have us believe. The real war rages over the souls of children, of the people they grow to become. Will they believe in God and grace, or will they reject it because of some misrepresentative message, or some person that let them down?
From what I've seen -- which admittedly isn't much at all (am I intellectually-dishonest by not watching Jesus Camp?) -- God and Christianity are being misrepresented in the film. Either by the camp itself, the people showcased in the documentary, or the filmmakers. After all, what redeeming qualities does the camp leader have that were left on the editing-room floor? But more of that momentarily. The misrepresentation saddens me. And the general public's willingness to believe the misrepresentation saddens me. It's all too convenient to say, "No thank you," to something beyond the scope of our imagination, to reject it from our reality, because to accept it would mean that we might have to change our reality.
The third sickening thought was that a film labeled "documentary" would be viewed automatically as an honest portrayal, as if a requirement for the name "documentary" was to not lie or misrepresent at all. Reality would prove otherwise. Filmmakers can film 5 people saying the exact same thing, and editors can fix it so that none of them said anything alike, but all of them support the slant of the filmmaker. A documentary's message isn't what the people on camera are saying, but what the filmmaker is saying. We cannot be naive enough to think otherwise.
I put it down and walked away. Pollock won out that night.
A couple of weeks later, Jesus Camp came up in philosophy class. I still had not seen it, but I got that same sickened feeling just listening to conversation about it. It paralyzed me throughout the discussion. I couldn't get past this grieving sensation in my center to put together two meaningful words to contribute. Mainly because of the context in which the subject arose. We started class discussion on the concept of freedom as it applied to children forced into conscription in Liberia.
I still haven't seen it (and probably won't), but I know better now why I am so bothered by it. There are at least two reasons -- maybe even three. At least one comes from what few scenes I have seen at youtube.com, and another from the reaction of my peers; as small a segment of population the classroom may be, I'm sure the opinions and reactions therein are reasonably representative of much of the viewing audience.
First, some background. I am very involved in my church, which happens to be a nontraditional western Christian church. By that I mean we lean towards charismatic Christianity. While we have our quirks as all flawed people do, I'd say that we're not one of the wierdly cultic charismatic congregations. The spirit, mission, and message of Cathedral of Praise is not only hospitable, it is rational and completely based on the Bible and not loose interpretations. I am not a blind follower, and don't take every message at face value. I trust my pastor -- or else I'd attend a different church -- but I also trust myself to be able to understand the scriptures, to learn from God for myself because of my personal communion with God. I'm also a member of the children's ministry team; I have the opportunity to teach the kids once a month, and I take our group to our summer camp each year.
Adding my involvement in children's ministry and camps to my gut instinct when I touched the dvd at the movie store, equals a state of alert when the documentary came up in class discussion.
From snippets that I saw, that particular camp is not representative of all Christian summer camps. Not even all charismatic summer camps, or all charismatic children's ministry. The camp proprietor mentioned the culture war waged in America, and her intention to train the children to battle effectively against evil influence in popular culture. She said she wanted to see American children as radical about their faith as Muslim children are about theirs' -- ready to lay down their lives for it. This is very strong language, leaving the speaker open to misinterpretation, as if she were teaching Christian kids how to strap on explosives and walk into the local 7-Eleven. Judging by the reactions around the table in philosophy class, misinterpretation abounds.
Here's the deal. Most people in the western world that have grown bitter towards God and Christianity have done so because they haven't seen or understood true Christianity. Instead, they've seen Christian egoism. Religious laws and constructs make it so that one must follow a system of rules and regulations, so that true faith is subordinated to empty ritual and activity. Probably the most misunderstood person in all of history is God, and it's so easy for us to reject anything or anyone that defies our understanding. Either that, or readjust it so that it conveniently fits into our narrow understanding. That, in my humble opinion, is what has happened to the western church and its representation of God. Our mental icon of God is a great Patriarch with a flowing white beard, ready to pass judgement on humanity for all its evildoing. In reality, one of God's names in the Old Testament (for there are many names in the Jewish language, used to describe God) is interpreted as "the many-breasted one." It describes God's abundant provision and feminine capacity for maternal nurture. It also refutes any images of God looking for a chance to pummel us for screw-ups, replacing such images with a loving God wanting to hug us when we're down.
Humanity has conveniently categorized God's nature, and has made rules for following God, calling it "God's will." And many of us have fallen for it, assuming that God actually said what some people through history have said that God said. Reactions to this presumed word of God have ranged from blind following (without honestly researching and contemplating it) to bitter rejection of the message. Unfortunately, God is rejected along with the misrepresentation. And that's what saddens me, for that full rejection involves so much -- not just the hell that we've heard about (all too much) but also life, here and now. I'm saddened that my God is so woefully misrepresented and misinterpreted by those that would say that they are 'His servants' -- and also that so many of my peers would be so intellectually-dishonest to reject faith and God outright, without a fair amount of research. Personal responsibility comes into play here. Too many people that I've discoursed with throughout my life (NOT anyone I know currently, let me be clear) have based their disbelief in God on what other people have done or said, without doing any of the research (ie: reading the Bible) for themselves. That is the antithesis of critical thinking, and to my mind it's shirking personal responsibility.
Back to the "culture war". I hold very little regard for the "culture war". For while many things go on in celebrity pop culture that may raise my eyebrow, they are of little eternal significance. Trends change and sensibilities swing like a pendulum. Behavior is temporary, because life is temporary. What is eternal is grace. Grace is unmerited pardon and favor, and that's what my loving God offers. Grace removes all indiscretions of behavior and corrects them gently. The real war is against grace. Again, it defies our understanding. Probably because we labor under such self-inflicted guilt that we can't imagine the concept. So someone influential along the way struggled with forgiving (probably him-)self or someone else, and began to subtly change the message of God's grace or leave it out altogether. Some perverted form of gatekeeping ushered religion and legalism into our culture, and embittered generations have sprung up because of it.
And the real war doesn't view children as recruits for one side or the other. It's not good vs. evil like the comic books would have us believe. The real war rages over the souls of children, of the people they grow to become. Will they believe in God and grace, or will they reject it because of some misrepresentative message, or some person that let them down?
From what I've seen -- which admittedly isn't much at all (am I intellectually-dishonest by not watching Jesus Camp?) -- God and Christianity are being misrepresented in the film. Either by the camp itself, the people showcased in the documentary, or the filmmakers. After all, what redeeming qualities does the camp leader have that were left on the editing-room floor? But more of that momentarily. The misrepresentation saddens me. And the general public's willingness to believe the misrepresentation saddens me. It's all too convenient to say, "No thank you," to something beyond the scope of our imagination, to reject it from our reality, because to accept it would mean that we might have to change our reality.
The third sickening thought was that a film labeled "documentary" would be viewed automatically as an honest portrayal, as if a requirement for the name "documentary" was to not lie or misrepresent at all. Reality would prove otherwise. Filmmakers can film 5 people saying the exact same thing, and editors can fix it so that none of them said anything alike, but all of them support the slant of the filmmaker. A documentary's message isn't what the people on camera are saying, but what the filmmaker is saying. We cannot be naive enough to think otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
