Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Wilson on 11th mo. 30, 2017 at 2:30pm

A few additional responses:

I don't regard wikipedia as a reliable source.  Just saying.  My comments about the nature of ideological thought isn't original; I'm not saying anything new.  Not all systems of thought are ideological.  I think this is difficult for modern people to see because modernity is embedded in ideological constructions and is difficult to step outside of that way of thinking.

Let me offer an example of a non-ideological system of thought; Platonism.  Platonism has some definite metaphysical assumptions, but in contrast to ideological systems Platonism is more open-ended as to how these assumptions are to be understood.  I think this goes back to Plato's Dialogues, many of which end inconclusively and are therefore inherently open-ended.  Add the fact that Plato sometimes changes his mind from dialogue to the next, and his use of parables and allegories to illuminate his own insights, and instead of a rigid system you have an occasion for conversation about certain issues and how to look at them.  That is why Aristotle, Plotinus, Hypatia, Ficino, Anne Conway, Alfred North Whitehead, et al can be Platonists and disagree about many specifics.  

In contrast ideologies are closed systems which are to be learned and accepted; Marxism is the best example of this.  And it is this attitude towards their own system, this attitude of having a closed system, which leads to totalitarian results.

When it comes to something like the Gospels, one of the interesting aspects of them is that there is almost no theology in them.  Like Plato they contain a variety of textual types such as parable, allegory, and conversation.  But our tendency is to insist and impose upon them an ideological way of looking at the world that, in my opinion, they simply do not embody.  The Gospels are not a manifesto for political reform.  

Best wishes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 30, 2017 at 4:52pm

Wikipedia is a correctable source. While it's quite possible for most people interested in a subject to be wrong about it, people with other perspectives and sufficient pigheadedness can get their take included. What it shows in this particular case is that there does exist a wide range of usage and interpretation. Hence neither of us gets to wrestle it into compliance with whatever meaning we'd like to give it.

What you said initially was that Jesus was "not ideological" -- by which you seem to mean 1) that his message did not reduce to anybody's modern economic interpretation (Granted!) but also:

2) that the concept of "the Kingdom of God" did not imply any political or economic content. References to "the poor" have no relation to other people accumulating large estates (constructing the land in them from thin air? -- or by "coveting" [and appropriating] land from its previous owners?) -- nothing to do with beggars dying with open sores at rich people's gates. Oh well, he must have been crucified by mistake.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 11th mo. 30, 2017 at 5:45pm

...asking first of all for God's Kingdom -- Israel as it was meant to be...

Exactly.  The Promised Land is the whole of Creation, though in practical terms is Planet Earth and environs.  Nation-states may confuse themselves with Israel, but that's ideological.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 30, 2017 at 6:14pm

Jacob got that designation by wrestling with God. (It's a serious mismatch, but we get points for trying...)

I don't gather that any nation or government has been given a monopoly. For anyone sufficiently foolish, it's like inviting a Kzin to honorable battle. All one need do is scream one's challenge and dive in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patricia Dallmann on 12th mo. 1, 2017 at 9:21am

Love mercy and true judgment, justice and righteousness; for the Lord delighteth in such. Consider these things in time, and take heed how ye spend your time. Now ye have time, prize it; and show mercy, that ye may receive mercy from the Lord: for he is coming to try all things, and will plead with all flesh as by fire (Works, 1:115)

This statement is from a letter that Fox wrote in 1651 while he was being held in Darby jail. In this letter, Fox admonishes local judges to love virtue, specifically “mercy, true judgment, justice and righteousness.” Notice that he does not reason with the judges about their duty, nor does he argue that virtuous behavior would benefit society. Both of these arguments would call upon the judges to choose virtue so that some ideal of character or society could be met. Fox, instead, gives different reasons for being virtuous: 1) the Lord delights in virtuous behavior; and conversely, 2) the Lord will judge and punish harshly those who refuse virtue, “[he] will plead with all flesh as by fire.” Fox is claiming that virtue is a necessary mediate condition for receiving the proximate favor of God, not a practical measure for achieving some human ideal.

--an excerpt from https://patradallmann.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/the-mediate-role-of-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Wilson on 12th mo. 1, 2017 at 2:32pm

Thanks, Patricia, for this reference.  I always appreciate your ability to reference Fox who always seems to clarify the issue at hand.  

Best wishes.

Patricia Dallmann said:

Love mercy and true judgment, justice and righteousness; for the Lord delighteth in such. Consider these things in time, and take heed how ye spend your time. Now ye have time, prize it; and show mercy, that ye may receive mercy from the Lord: for he is coming to try all things, and will plead with all flesh as by fire (Works, 1:115)

This statement is from a letter that Fox wrote in 1651 while he was being held in Darby jail. In this letter, Fox admonishes local judges to love virtue, specifically “mercy, true judgment, justice and righteousness.” Notice that he does not reason with the judges about their duty, nor does he argue that virtuous behavior would benefit society. Both of these arguments would call upon the judges to choose virtue so that some ideal of character or society could be met. Fox, instead, gives different reasons for being virtuous: 1) the Lord delights in virtuous behavior; and conversely, 2) the Lord will judge and punish harshly those who refuse virtue, “[he] will plead with all flesh as by fire.” Fox is claiming that virtue is a necessary mediate condition for receiving the proximate favor of God, not a practical measure for achieving some human ideal.

--an excerpt from https://patradallmann.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/the-mediate-role-of-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David McKay on 12th mo. 2, 2017 at 8:15pm

By all means seek light where and while it may be found. In the Quran and elsewhere. 

Funny though how the word "ignorant" inevitably privileges our own practice at the expense of someone else's. 

Kirby Urner said:

These days I'm seeking God's will and/or politics in the Quran.  As a Liberal Friend, I feel encouraged to do so. To focus on the Bible only is the mark of an ignorant man (in this day and age -- in an earlier time, any literacy at all was unusual).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 12th mo. 2, 2017 at 9:47pm

Funny also how "privilege" has become such a charged word of late.  One dis deserves another I suppose.

David McKay said:

Funny though how the word "ignorant" inevitably privileges our own practice at the expense of someone else's.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 12th mo. 2, 2017 at 11:50pm

The key consideration is love.

Fox, like others of his time, was dealing with fears of God's [potentially] harsh judgement.

Jesus had spoken both of love and judgement -- telling the socially designated "sinners" of his time that they were loved and forgiven, warning those in leadership positions that God would hold them responsible for failing their people, warning those with extensive property that impoverishing their neighbors was a sin, not a sign of God's blessing.

God has no direct vulnerabilities, that 'He' would suffer injustices. It's love that makes justice an issue for 'Him'.

People in the Judea of Jesus' time suffered injustices, and hoped for 'judgement'  to rectify matters, to restore what they needed to survive honorably. The covenant with God was intended to produce such conditions, yet the provisions that forbade personal enrichment at your neighbor's expense -- were being neglected; the victims being blamed for their poverty. Much like today for some reason.

Jesus even has an parable (about prayer) where he compares God to an unjust judge, one who'd been stalling from giving a certain widow her due, but would have to come around if her indignant cries embarrassed him enough. It seems to be human beings (even Abraham), not God (not directly, at least), who bring up these awkward issues.

Yet justice does seem to be a spiritual matter. We can say what it's like, but we can't define justice or reduce it to anything material, emotional, intellectual. [Modern courts, unwilling to tackle anything they can't specify precisely, tend to give you "due process" and hang you. That's the opposite of what the word 'justice' demands in the Bible.] Given that we haven't just made it up, justice would have to be spiritual.

Justice isn't the same thing as "love", not even in that utterly practical 1st Century sense. Jesus depicted God treating both "the Just" and "the Unjust" lovingly -- insisting that we should strive to do the same.

But we're also supposed to pray for the arrival of something called 'the Kingdom'. Which is like a farmer's crop; it comes of itself, given half a chance, but the farmer has to do the work. We don't know what it is or how to make it happen, just what it looks like: like Shalom: like a land at peace, governed justly and lovingly inside and out. It's not a personal condition.

It's more like a gift of love than like a threat of harsh judgement. Everything people have been doing instead looks scary; yet that Kingdom, somehow, is God's intention for us. We can't force anyone to go there -- and yet we can't get there alone. God help us, yes?

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page