Something Special or Nothing Special?
One of the things that I have examined, looked at, pondered, whatever you want to call it in recent years is the ambiguity that appears to exist in our culture between self-effacement and egocentrism. it appears that so many of our institutions simultaneously teach that a person must have a healthy self esteem, while still considering themselves to be no better than anyone else.
A great example of this is our treatment of celebrities, who we laud for their unique abilities, exceptional talent, notable achievements, and alluring physical beauty; yet we simultaneously lampoon, ridicule, and condemn them for their arrogance, aloofness, and self-centeredness. It is almost as if we set up our idols for the sole purpose of knocking them down. Our culture appears to be confused as to whether or not these people should be regarded as "Special" or condemned because they think too highly of themselves.
This dynamic is also present in our public education system, where students are lauded for academic achievement by some educators, yet are simultaneously treated with contempt by others, and especially their peers. Exceptional artistic talent is treated with ambivalence, while exceptional athletic talent is praised and lauded. Regarding Athletes in the educations system, they are treated as heroes, almost god-like when they are winning, and so many oversights are made for poor academic achievement, inappropriate and violent behavior and substance abuse. then when these young people reach critical mass and something bad happens, the very public which deified them turns and criticizes them and the system that created them.
This inconsistency is present in our Mental Health and Counseling Professions, which are quick to diagnose and treat chronic hopelessness and self esteem problems, while also labeling individuals (frequently the SAME individuals) as grandiose and egocentric. So, which is it, is the individual grandiose, or do they have poor self esteem?
Christianity, as it is often manifested in our culture, is, in my opinion, one of the worst culprits of this inconsistency. The New Testament simultaneously teaches that we, as people are precious enough in God's sight for Him to give His Son, but at the same time, we are taught that we are lower than the lowliest, and that it is only through self effacement that we will become first int he Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore we have Churches that are full of people who are diminished, lowly, beaten down, under the control of the "exceptional few" who are able to consider themselves as "God's Workmanship". Again, which is it? Do we efface ourselves so that the last shall be first? Our do we live our lives boldly with courage knowing that God has saved us? Both are Scriptural ideas. . .is the God of the bible himself having the same sort of identity crisis that it appears our culture is having?
I myself can't speak to the truth and falsehoods of any of these institutions, but what I know is this: When I bought into the idea that I had to be what ANY of these systems taught me, either SOMETHING Special or NOT special, I was miserable. . .a person can't live up to the definitions that others ascribe to them. I have found that I define who I am--either special or not special. That is up to me. If that makes me grandiose or self centered, or if that makes me humble and downtrodden, oh well. at least I own it.
A great example of this is our treatment of celebrities, who we laud for their unique abilities, exceptional talent, notable achievements, and alluring physical beauty; yet we simultaneously lampoon, ridicule, and condemn them for their arrogance, aloofness, and self-centeredness. It is almost as if we set up our idols for the sole purpose of knocking them down. Our culture appears to be confused as to whether or not these people should be regarded as "Special" or condemned because they think too highly of themselves.
This dynamic is also present in our public education system, where students are lauded for academic achievement by some educators, yet are simultaneously treated with contempt by others, and especially their peers. Exceptional artistic talent is treated with ambivalence, while exceptional athletic talent is praised and lauded. Regarding Athletes in the educations system, they are treated as heroes, almost god-like when they are winning, and so many oversights are made for poor academic achievement, inappropriate and violent behavior and substance abuse. then when these young people reach critical mass and something bad happens, the very public which deified them turns and criticizes them and the system that created them.
This inconsistency is present in our Mental Health and Counseling Professions, which are quick to diagnose and treat chronic hopelessness and self esteem problems, while also labeling individuals (frequently the SAME individuals) as grandiose and egocentric. So, which is it, is the individual grandiose, or do they have poor self esteem?
Christianity, as it is often manifested in our culture, is, in my opinion, one of the worst culprits of this inconsistency. The New Testament simultaneously teaches that we, as people are precious enough in God's sight for Him to give His Son, but at the same time, we are taught that we are lower than the lowliest, and that it is only through self effacement that we will become first int he Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore we have Churches that are full of people who are diminished, lowly, beaten down, under the control of the "exceptional few" who are able to consider themselves as "God's Workmanship". Again, which is it? Do we efface ourselves so that the last shall be first? Our do we live our lives boldly with courage knowing that God has saved us? Both are Scriptural ideas. . .is the God of the bible himself having the same sort of identity crisis that it appears our culture is having?
I myself can't speak to the truth and falsehoods of any of these institutions, but what I know is this: When I bought into the idea that I had to be what ANY of these systems taught me, either SOMETHING Special or NOT special, I was miserable. . .a person can't live up to the definitions that others ascribe to them. I have found that I define who I am--either special or not special. That is up to me. If that makes me grandiose or self centered, or if that makes me humble and downtrodden, oh well. at least I own it.
posted by Thomas J. at 2/11/2007 10:23:00 AM
4 Comments:
hmmm. thought-provoking. I wonder if there is a difference between being "unique" (i.e. one-of-a-kind and created by god), and "better." it might be possible to be both uniquely created by god AND the servant of all.
another thought...i truly believe that the emphasis on the individual is simply NOT in scripture the way we have been taught. honestly, if i were the only person on earth, i don't think jesus would have come. jesus came and died to re-claim an entire people as the people of god, and only in the context of that community are we truly meaningful. but that's just my opinion.
interesting take on it Duane. . .That is certainly what Desmond Tutu teaches. . .I blogged about that Here:
http://thomasjwilson.blogspot.com/2006/08/ubuntu.html
As is true to my fundamentalist background, I think i want to do a scripture study regarding what you bring. .You know us fundamentalists, we always have to be either right or wrong.
The other thing to note, is that I think that there is a significant difference between Christian theology and scriptural teaching. . .I am talking about what is taught in the majority of Churches, which is often VERY different than what is taught in the bible. (and what is coming from the pulpit is often much MUCH more damaging and toxic) So, there, I'M RIGHT (nyah nyah nayh)
According to your thinking, how would you define community? The Church certainly wants that community to be defined as "The Church", but can it be larger or smaller than that? This is especially significant for those of us who are churchless, as well as for those of us who are stay at homes!
of course you're always right, thomas. sometimes you're just more right than other times. :-)
as for the "community" question, there are way too many ideas out there better than mine. but since you asked, i would say the short answer is that it has to be defined on multiple levels. first off, in my comment i mentioned that christ came to "re-claim an entire people," by which i meant that he came to reconcile the jewish people (israel) to their one true god. when they didn't go that route, he effectively "opened up" the promise of the new covenant to all the rest of humankind, including gentiles from whom most of us are descended.
now, with that overly-simplistic christology in mind, it seems that the "jesus died for YOU" statement is much less true than "jesus died for US" (and by 'US' I don't mean the united states!). and if jesus's atonement (i know, that's loaded too) was for ALL of us, as a people, then we have to ask for what purpose were we reconciled to god?
it's my strong opinion that all the people who choose to live under the rule and reign of god are part of "god's kingdom." those who do not choose this are not part of god's kingdom as he does not impose his rule and reign on any person (this idea is mostly from reading dallas willard). therefore, our identity as the people of god, or god's kingdom, is wrapped up in the "call" or mission god gives to people within his rule and reign. again, my opinion here, but i see jesus's words in the model prayer as the touchstone..."may your kingdom come on earth, just as it is in heaven."
simply put: our job is to make earth more like heaven. anyone who does this in the name of jesus of nazareth is part of our community. incidentally, this has little to do with church membership rosters.
but that's only one level. you know all the biblical images for the community, most notably the "body" metaphor. bodies work together quite closely, so with this metaphor in mind we should also define community as those with whom you closely (and i would add "inter-dependently") work to bring about the rule and reign of god (i.e. the kingdom). in other words, the people we need on a daily basis to be who we are and to do what we do.
now the problem comes when we mix the sacred and secular ideas. sure, i have a community that is made up of followers of christ as well as those who don't. i certanly don't discriminate on the basis of religious preference. if anything, i discriminate severly on the basis of whether or not someone is boring! and i wouldn't be off-base to call this my community. the word isn't limited to any particular religious ideology. but that community isn't necessarily a subset of the kingdom of god to which i belong.
somewhere in the middle are churches-too big to be close and inter-dependent, too small to be a significant global power for the kingdom of god (by the way, i think this is a very good reason to be catholic!). yet that's where we spend most of our "community" currency...relating to people with whom we are neither intimate nor working for kingdom goals.
bet you wished you'd never asked!!!
Nah, I am glad that I asked. ..to get you to spend time out of your VERY busy schedule to engage in a blog discussion is no less than an honor.
And of COURSE I am always right. . .the sooner the world realizes that, the better off we all will be. (NOTE: KIMBERLY. . .you may ONLY respond to that comment if you can find a way to show your eyes rolling WITHIN the post)
Duane, I understand where you are coming from, in finding a way to understand the concept of "one world under god" so to speak. I will disagree with this statement:
"christ came to "re-claim an entire people," by which i meant that he came to reconcile the jewish people (israel) to their one true god. when they didn't go that route, he effectively "opened up" the promise of the new covenant to all the rest of humankind, including gentiles from whom most of us are descended."
Remember that the story of the good Samaritan is a Parable that Jesus taught about community--it was in response to the question "Who is my neighbor". It was a Samaritan, not a Jew, who exemplified Christ's mission of community. this was prior to his rejection by the Jewish Kingdom. the very narrow view that Jesus came to reconcile Israel, and then said "Ok, come one come all" after his rejection by the Jewish People, may fit into the parable of the Wedding Banquet, but not the Good Samaritan.
Nor does it fit into Paul's Statements of "Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst"
Again, the mixed messages apparent within Christian theology are confusing, and I am not at all sure that, like the education and psychology systems, can be trusted to be accurate.
I don't know, maybe this is just one of those dualities that exists. . .and one that our culture of absolutes, our culture of black and white thinking is unable to reconcile. I personally think that w, as people, can come to a place of "loving others as ourselves", which is what the bible teaches, as well as many other religions and cultures. . .I think that the prerequisite for this is to recognize that each of us, IS something special.
As for me, I know that I kick ass. . .but I think that you do too.
Post a Comment
<< Home