One of the many amazing aspects of literature that is seldom considered by those of us who are not professional critics is the role which many disabilities play in helping an author create a level of depth and complexity which could not otherwise be achieved. Often we as readers superficially assume that such infirmities are irrelevant and gloss over the blind, the deaf, the lame, and the crippled characters a text so obviously presents to readers begging us to examine more closely the link between the infirmity and the human condition. This is nowhere more true than in scripture. We are often taught of the miraculous healing of the blind, deaf, and lame and as readers of scripture do no further analysis of the symbolic constructions of these conditions. The point is, infirmity is never simply infirmity. It is always present in a text and it is always more significant than we are aware. Blindness, for example, is never just blindness.
For instance, in Mark 10:46-52 the Apostle Mark relates the story of blind Bart. Bartimaeus (Bart) was sitting along the road to Jericho begging, a common profession of the blind in Biblical times. When he hears that Jesus is coming he cries out “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Many sermons I have heard and commentaries which I have read state simply that Bart identifies the Messiahship of Jesus by stating Jesus is the “Son of David.” A very true and accurate statement. Jews believed the Messiah would come from the line of David and this statement does indeed suggest that Bart had an insight that others may have not. (Get it? A blind man with in-sight!) The simple fact is that Bart sees on deep spiritual level that those in the crowd are incapable of attaining. They, in fact, attempt to hush Bart rebuking him for his loud and incontrovertible cry.
Much like Tiresias in Oedipus Rex, Bart does indeed know the whole truth about the king and I think this is the point. In contrast to those in the crowd who hush and rebuke, Bart cires out. Many times in life we know God is near and yet are blind to His presence. We may not be certain and full of doubt. We may be lost in our own self pity and self victimization. But Jesus makes His sound plain so that we can hear Him and know His coming; however, due to those circumstances “who” hush and rebuke us we seldom cry out "all the more." The point is that we must scream like Bart. You know it's Jesus, you just need a little, or a lot of faith. In the end, it is this faith, the ability to see where the blind (in this case spiritually and not physically blind) cannot, that prompts Jesus to heal Bart. You see, Bart could always see just not in the the obvious way.
But it’s not always this simple. Blindness in a text is not always the difference between spiritual blindness and physical blindness as in the story of blind Bart. (I know. You’re all thinking something Simpsonish). Blindness, according to Thomas C. Foster in How to Read Literature Like a Professor, presents the author with many difficulties that are not very easy to resolve and very often change the interactions of characters within a text. The changes may be subtle but the fact that an author has chosen to undertake these difficulties is significant. “Clearly the author wants emphasize levels of sight and blindness that go beyond the physical” (202).
The second example is taken from the Gospel of John : “1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:1-2). The question the disciples ask is three fold when it come to the issue of blindness. The first is “Why has this man been blind from birth?”, the second, “Is his blindness the result of some sin?”, and the third is, “Who did it?”. Your question, I am sure, is “Where do you get three questions from the one the disciples ask?”.
The answer to this question is “That’s what the text is asking.” Jesus answers the first pretty plainly by saying that this man’s blindness is not the result of any sin. As we can see, the text implies a cultural belief concerning the spiritual nature of infirmity. If you’re born blind, someone did something that requires atonement or forgiveness and somewhere along the way the appropriate sacrifice was not made. The sin has gone unrepented and the resulting punishment from God is the infirmity. Perhaps this man’s father threw a stone off a cliff and killed a man walking by below and never realized the consequence of a mundane action. Maybe his mother worked past the allotted time preparing for the Passover and said nothing. Who knows? The point is Jesus is telling his disciples that God doesn’t work that way and he probably never did.
Jesus is overthrowing a cultural worldview conception of God by removing the spiritual aspect of blindness. Jesus answers the first question by stating that this man’s blindness is for the purpose of glorifying God. Yes, even bad things are there so that God can bring glory to himself and demonstrate His sovereignty over all things (C. S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain). A great example of this is the Book of Job. Job suffered for no other reason than to demonstrate to all those around Job that He was in control. Not even Satan can act against us without God’s permission. Now that’s a pretty awesome statement of power and this is a lesson the disciples need.
The disciples need to learn that God presents us with certain difficulties to challenge our preconceived notions of who He is and, as a result, give us a more clear and accurate conception of Himself (A. W. Pink’s Attributes of God). So this answers the second question: God made this man blind. This man lived his whole life as a blind so that this moment could occur. Seems pretty cruel, I know, but this is what the text implies. And this is perhaps the most difficult aspect to reconcile. Why would God perpetrate an “evil” so that He could demonstrate His omnipotence?
The simple answer is because. (Bad English, I get it.) You see, it is not for us to fully understand the why behind God’s actions and this is the deepest lesson of the passage. Paul writes many times of the “mystery” of the Gospel. In some way Paul is suggesting to us that if God gave us answer for everything He did we would have no reason to rely on Him and have no reason for faith. The true test of faith is accepting things as true that we do not fully comprehend. It’s not a “Bible tells me so” situation however. It’s more like “I’ll answer that question when we meet” kind of thing. Not knowing inevitably produces a need and dependence like nothing else can. If we went into a job already knowing everything, we have no reason, no purpose for doing that job any longer. We would be bored, apathetic, and uninterested. The key component of mystery is the excitement of discovering the answer and the thing that keeps most of us going to work is the possibility of a new challenge. This is what gives this passage its coup de gras.
The last passage on blindness suggests something still a little grander than the latter and perhaps along the lines of the disciples thinking. Isaiah writes in poetic prophecy,
18 “Hear, you deaf;
look, you blind, and see!
19 Who is blind but my servant,
and deaf like the messenger I send?
Who is blind like the one in covenant with me,
blind like the servant of the LORD?”
In this context, blindness is the result of obedience. Seems a little strange I know but true all the same. I think that sometimes we miss the point that we are simply to follow the commands of God without question. Blind obedience is doing what we are asked without knowing why or what the outcome will be. Like a missionary who drops a bunch of tools into Amazonian natives only to be killed with those same tools later. Asinine isn’t it. Or like God sending Himself to pay the price He Himself required for our sin. The point is that these ironic situations shed light in the darkness we so often curse.
Our faith, when it comes to obeying God, is best described as a darkness with a pin point of light we strive to reach. Sometimes we seem to be closer to it and at other times it’s so very far away. What we fail to realize is that what appears to be a small point of light in the distance is actually illuminating the path we walk. This is why scripture is described as a light unto our feet. It’s okay to have doubts, to question, as long as we are obeying what scripture says while we seek out the answers. This is the whole point of God saying “Come, let us reason together.” Part of reasoning is not rejecting the answer because we do not quite fully understand them. We need to keep obeying and keep asking.
The Israelites did the opposite. They didn’t understand and walked away which led them to suffer the consequence of disobedience and spiritual blindness. They weren’t blind because of their sin; their sin led them into blindness. If we stumble about a dark room, the result is stubbing a toe or falling over that coffee table we swore was some place else in the room. When we kick the couch it’s a reminder to turn on the light. In other words, when things aren’t going well for us we may need to turn on the light or open our Bibles and do a little soul searching. Trouble is God’s attempt to remind us that, to some degree, we have forgotten to wait and listen for and to the answers He is giving us and to keep asking questions.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Saturday, July 10, 2010
“Patriotism no one thinks discreditable; nor does any one deny that war is the romance of history. But inordinate ambitions are the soul of every patriotism, and the possibility of violent death the soul of all romance.”
– William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War” 1910
Jim Wallis writes in God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, “Nonviolence must address what’s happening to Jewish souls as well” (178). In this one simple statement Wallis recognizes something key to any movement which hopes to achieve pragmatic and deictic change; change must achieve a reformulation of ethos not only for those we wish to liberate from oppressive and tyrannical structures but also within the ethos of those who impose such structures. It is not enough to present a “better way” with substantial answers, but this new, “better way” must penetrate deep into cultural traditions reinforced through educational, political, and religious institutions (Wallis 149). To propose change is to insist the paradigm shift within the American identity. But in order to accomplish this significant change, it is not enough to propose only answers, but an intermediary self must be constructed to bridge the gap between whom we are and whom we hope to become.
Thus, Robert Jensen’s argument in his article “Saying Goodbye to Patriotism” touches briefly on the American ethos which says “. . . America is the greatest nation on earth” (6). Jensen suggests that American patriotism is a rejection of peace and justice and thus moving forward toward a truly internationalist society is to debunk the “American mythology about the nobility of our wars and their motivations” (Jensen 1). Jensen argues for the deconstruction of patriotism by suggesting the only two possible definitions, loyalty and dissent, both carry “. . . arrogant and self-indulgent assumptions” about the American identity which ultimately leads to a devaluation of foreign life, property, and culture and the values of America are not uniquely American (Jensen 3). Finally, Jensen
put[s] forward the radical proposition that we should care what the facts are. We should with the assumption that everything about the United States, like everything about any county, needs to be examined and assessed. That is what it means to be a moral person (5).
Essentially, what Jensen attacks in statements such as “America is the greatest nation on earth” and the word “patriotism,” is autonomy. Yet, his proposal, saying goodbye to traditional American Patriotism is incomplete. It is not as simple as wishing a fond farewell to the old self. We must have a vehicle which will transport us to the new. Jensen dismisses rather than transforms.
Jensen’s argument was adumbrated by Sacvan Bercovitch in 1975 with the publication of The Puritan Origins of the American Self. Bercovitch introduces the concept of “’Auto-machia,’ since it evokes both modern autonomy and medieval psychomachia (battle for man’s soul)” as he abstrusely describes the Augustinian dichotomy of opposing wills which, he believes, rests at center of the Puritan identity. Thus the Puritan’s goal in effacing self was to move to complete Imitatio, or imitation of Christ. Through imitatio saint-hood was achieved: an intermediate state of self. Thus the “Puritan vision” of self was affirmed through the “hermeneutics of the American landscape, and nowhere else is the Puritan concept of intermediate identity more strongly affirmed – where intermediacy . . . indicates not a historical limitation but a comprehensive prophetic selfhood” (Bercovitch 151). Thus, American patriotism is not simply rooted in assumption, but in the belief that land itself it the physical manifestation of God’s presence on earth and that the American is “A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the Lord . . .” (Isaiah 40:3 NIV). Yet we have seen the fulfillment of this intermediary construction. It is our current state.
Today, “atuo-machia,” or the American concept of self, is deeply ingrained in our culture. As autonomy and spiritual conflicts in our nation continue to grow, it is clear that the “drama of autonomous individualistic climbing divorces us from what from what character ethicists call the good, or the telos, or the lager human purpose of life” (Stassen, Gushee 56). Thus, to engage American patriotism, to propose “Character Ethics as a better way of reasoning” is “To counter the corrosive force of modern atomistic individualism” prophetically preached by Ralph Waldo Emerson during the 19th Century (Stassen, Gushee 56). It is Emerson’s natural theology which has led to a post-modernity which encourages the development of autonomous individuals and thereby rejects any moral standard. Post-modern autonomy encourages the severing of cultural, filial, religious, and moral connectedness that Christian or Kingdom ethics encourage, instill, and develop (Stassen, Gushee 56). It suggests intermediate self is not necessary because no evolution of self is necessary.
However, Glen Stassen and David Gushee’s purposed “Four Dimensions of Holistic Character Ethics” is, perhaps, an attempt to create the deictic change which addresses both the fault of the current American identity and the need intermediacy. “The Way of Reasoning Dimension” suggests that reason creates an ethical consistency which affirms virtues “aim[ing] toward discerning and doing what is good for our purpose in life as humans” (60). “The Way of Reasoning Dimension” emphasizes a life of servanthood which subverts post-modern autonomy. To serve the “other” is to begin unwrapping the American identity from the “mythology about ‘how good we are’” (Jensen 7). To adopt a persona of servanthood is to recognize self in the other and redefine self as “we” rather than “me.” Thus the Purtian tradition of self effacement is upheld in that we must “deny [ourselves], take up [our] cross and follow [Jesus]” daily for the good of humanity rather that achieving sainthood (Luke 9:23 NIV). Servanthood thus becomes one characteristic of the intermediate self.
Second, Stassen and Gushee attempt to give readers a “right conception of God” in the “Basic Conventions Dimension” of character ethics. Through this ethical dimension Stassen and Gushee suggest that the “secularizing dualism,” the “gospel of Jesus has no relevance in the world, so all our ethics in world should come from secular sources,” is creating resentment and opposition to justice in our world. Thus the church must become a united force through an interconnected community of believers. (Stassen, Gushee 61). Once these changes, among others, occur the communal and international vision of Jensen, Wallis, Stassen and Gushee becomes a potentiality. Allowing Christian ethics back into the public square means reconstructing the American worldview on the foundation of “well-conceived theological conviction, fundamentally the vision of the reign of God” (Stassen, Gushee 63). In doing so, it becomes possible to claim victory in the “struggle to save ourselves” and the “struggle to save the lives of vulnerable people around the world” (Jensen 8). Thus, at the core of the intermediate self is the need to reassert the evangelical doctrine of sola scirptura. We must have a “clear mental apprehension of His perfections revealed in Holy Scripture” (Pink 6).
Third, we must recognize where our loyalties lie. As Stassen and Gushee illustrate in the “Passions/Loyalties Dimension”, passions are deeply related to our loyalties and interest (63). All forms of patriotism are vested interests in that lands from which we come are deeply connected to the formation of our identity; thus, our difficulty in “saying goodbye to patriotism.” Stassen and Gushee suggest that “We can change our emotions by changing our habits, by encouraging other emotions, or by understanding the causal history of our emotions” (63). But William James suggest in “Pluralism, Pragmatism, and Instrumental Truth,” shifts in truth cannot occur unless an internal mediation between the old and new systems occurs resulting in a new truth” (www.des.emory.edu). Thus, “understanding the causal history” or current ideological American self means beginning the mediation between who we are and the Christocentric self we want to be. This intermediary self must become “sartor resartus” distinguishing between the clothes of American Imperialism and the clothes of Christian justice (Bercovitch 174).
Finally, “The Perception Dimension” suggests that perception shapes ethical action (Stassen, Gushee 65). If Holistic Character Ethics is to effect change in the American ethos, than we must have a clear and defined perception of the context of our actions. We can no longer “speak of ‘them’ being evil and ‘us’ being good, that evil is all out there and that in the warfare between good and evil others are either with us or against us” (Wallis 143). This is “bad theology” as Wallis posits. Good theology, as Stassen and Gushee suggest, is “incarnational discipleship” (65). Incarnational discipleship venerates the humanity of the “other” and sees beyond the ill-conceived notions of other as “evil.” Stassen and Gushee suggest one central area or perception is authority. “What people assume about the powers and authorities of their time and place has a powerful effect on their perception of the context of moral action” (66). Wallis gives insight to this statement by suggesting that Bush saw his presidency as a God ordained event and therefore, much like the monarchs of the medieval age, his actions are justifiable. However, we need to be realistic about what God ordains and “test the spirits . . . because many false prophets have gone our into the world” (I John 4:1 NIV). By using biblical allusion in such a way that scripture is “. . . employed in ways quite different from their original meaning,” our vision is veiled and a right conception of God, justice, America, and the self is lost (Wallis 142). The intermediate self must be purely objective.
Bercovitch’s perspective of the American self sheds light on aspect of patriotism which Jensen glosses over, which Wallis recognizes but has no “better way” of dealing with, and which Stassen and Gushee offer alternatives to, but no pragmatic intermediary with which to bridge the gap. To confront the “American myth” is to attack an embattled notion nationalism which is deep seeded in the fervent religiosity of self and not simply undoing the public understanding of international, economic, and military policy. To institute true “kingdom ethics,” as Stassen and Gushee would have it, necessitates the undoing of centuries of natural theology which has made the American landscape our god. Debunking patriotism is not as simple as acquiescing to authority of the United Nations.
To undo American patriotism is to insist on a paradigm shift within the American ethos. Jensen is right to suggest that we must deal with facts but not merely facts of policy but also facts of self. Stassen and Gushee are right in suggesting that our post-modern, autonomous society rejects all moral standards. Wallis is right to suggest that our leaders use our mythology to mislead and dissuade us from truth. Yet, we cannot simply leap to the end result. The ideal of the communal, cosmopolitan, international society which Jensen, Wallis, Stassen, and Gushee hope to create will be slow in coming. So, instead of saying “goodbye to patriotism,” which, in essence, is saying goodbye to me, we should be saying hello to a much older self founded solely in the principles of “all men are created equal” as our intermediate. This self must adhere to infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God and the principles of the Constitution. We must attempt to give these ideals pragmatic, objective applications remembering that everyone is from somewhere and generally “wouldn’t stand for no knockin’ the place” (O’Henry 13).
Works Cited:
Bandura, Albert. “Pluralism, Pragmatism, and Instrumental Truth.” William James. Emory U, Sept. 2009. Web. 9 July 2010.
Bercovitch, Sacvan. The Puritan Origins of the American Self. London: Yale UP, 1975. Print.
James, William. “The Moral Equivalent of War.” The Best American Essays of the Century. Ed. Joyce Carol Oates. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000. Print.
Jensen, Robert. “Saying Goodbye to Patriotism.” Witness Magazine March 2002: 16-20. Fuller Online. Web. 21 June 2010.
Life Application Study Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991. Print.
Pink, Arthur W. The Attributes of God. Blacksburg: Wilder Publications, 2008. Print.
Stassen, Glen Harold, and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Print.
Sydney, William. The Complete Works of O’Henry. New York: Doubleday, Page and Co., 1927. Print.
Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. New York: Harper One, 2005. Print.
– William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War” 1910
Jim Wallis writes in God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, “Nonviolence must address what’s happening to Jewish souls as well” (178). In this one simple statement Wallis recognizes something key to any movement which hopes to achieve pragmatic and deictic change; change must achieve a reformulation of ethos not only for those we wish to liberate from oppressive and tyrannical structures but also within the ethos of those who impose such structures. It is not enough to present a “better way” with substantial answers, but this new, “better way” must penetrate deep into cultural traditions reinforced through educational, political, and religious institutions (Wallis 149). To propose change is to insist the paradigm shift within the American identity. But in order to accomplish this significant change, it is not enough to propose only answers, but an intermediary self must be constructed to bridge the gap between whom we are and whom we hope to become.
Thus, Robert Jensen’s argument in his article “Saying Goodbye to Patriotism” touches briefly on the American ethos which says “. . . America is the greatest nation on earth” (6). Jensen suggests that American patriotism is a rejection of peace and justice and thus moving forward toward a truly internationalist society is to debunk the “American mythology about the nobility of our wars and their motivations” (Jensen 1). Jensen argues for the deconstruction of patriotism by suggesting the only two possible definitions, loyalty and dissent, both carry “. . . arrogant and self-indulgent assumptions” about the American identity which ultimately leads to a devaluation of foreign life, property, and culture and the values of America are not uniquely American (Jensen 3). Finally, Jensen
put[s] forward the radical proposition that we should care what the facts are. We should with the assumption that everything about the United States, like everything about any county, needs to be examined and assessed. That is what it means to be a moral person (5).
Essentially, what Jensen attacks in statements such as “America is the greatest nation on earth” and the word “patriotism,” is autonomy. Yet, his proposal, saying goodbye to traditional American Patriotism is incomplete. It is not as simple as wishing a fond farewell to the old self. We must have a vehicle which will transport us to the new. Jensen dismisses rather than transforms.
Jensen’s argument was adumbrated by Sacvan Bercovitch in 1975 with the publication of The Puritan Origins of the American Self. Bercovitch introduces the concept of “’Auto-machia,’ since it evokes both modern autonomy and medieval psychomachia (battle for man’s soul)” as he abstrusely describes the Augustinian dichotomy of opposing wills which, he believes, rests at center of the Puritan identity. Thus the Puritan’s goal in effacing self was to move to complete Imitatio, or imitation of Christ. Through imitatio saint-hood was achieved: an intermediate state of self. Thus the “Puritan vision” of self was affirmed through the “hermeneutics of the American landscape, and nowhere else is the Puritan concept of intermediate identity more strongly affirmed – where intermediacy . . . indicates not a historical limitation but a comprehensive prophetic selfhood” (Bercovitch 151). Thus, American patriotism is not simply rooted in assumption, but in the belief that land itself it the physical manifestation of God’s presence on earth and that the American is “A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the Lord . . .” (Isaiah 40:3 NIV). Yet we have seen the fulfillment of this intermediary construction. It is our current state.
Today, “atuo-machia,” or the American concept of self, is deeply ingrained in our culture. As autonomy and spiritual conflicts in our nation continue to grow, it is clear that the “drama of autonomous individualistic climbing divorces us from what from what character ethicists call the good, or the telos, or the lager human purpose of life” (Stassen, Gushee 56). Thus, to engage American patriotism, to propose “Character Ethics as a better way of reasoning” is “To counter the corrosive force of modern atomistic individualism” prophetically preached by Ralph Waldo Emerson during the 19th Century (Stassen, Gushee 56). It is Emerson’s natural theology which has led to a post-modernity which encourages the development of autonomous individuals and thereby rejects any moral standard. Post-modern autonomy encourages the severing of cultural, filial, religious, and moral connectedness that Christian or Kingdom ethics encourage, instill, and develop (Stassen, Gushee 56). It suggests intermediate self is not necessary because no evolution of self is necessary.
However, Glen Stassen and David Gushee’s purposed “Four Dimensions of Holistic Character Ethics” is, perhaps, an attempt to create the deictic change which addresses both the fault of the current American identity and the need intermediacy. “The Way of Reasoning Dimension” suggests that reason creates an ethical consistency which affirms virtues “aim[ing] toward discerning and doing what is good for our purpose in life as humans” (60). “The Way of Reasoning Dimension” emphasizes a life of servanthood which subverts post-modern autonomy. To serve the “other” is to begin unwrapping the American identity from the “mythology about ‘how good we are’” (Jensen 7). To adopt a persona of servanthood is to recognize self in the other and redefine self as “we” rather than “me.” Thus the Purtian tradition of self effacement is upheld in that we must “deny [ourselves], take up [our] cross and follow [Jesus]” daily for the good of humanity rather that achieving sainthood (Luke 9:23 NIV). Servanthood thus becomes one characteristic of the intermediate self.
Second, Stassen and Gushee attempt to give readers a “right conception of God” in the “Basic Conventions Dimension” of character ethics. Through this ethical dimension Stassen and Gushee suggest that the “secularizing dualism,” the “gospel of Jesus has no relevance in the world, so all our ethics in world should come from secular sources,” is creating resentment and opposition to justice in our world. Thus the church must become a united force through an interconnected community of believers. (Stassen, Gushee 61). Once these changes, among others, occur the communal and international vision of Jensen, Wallis, Stassen and Gushee becomes a potentiality. Allowing Christian ethics back into the public square means reconstructing the American worldview on the foundation of “well-conceived theological conviction, fundamentally the vision of the reign of God” (Stassen, Gushee 63). In doing so, it becomes possible to claim victory in the “struggle to save ourselves” and the “struggle to save the lives of vulnerable people around the world” (Jensen 8). Thus, at the core of the intermediate self is the need to reassert the evangelical doctrine of sola scirptura. We must have a “clear mental apprehension of His perfections revealed in Holy Scripture” (Pink 6).
Third, we must recognize where our loyalties lie. As Stassen and Gushee illustrate in the “Passions/Loyalties Dimension”, passions are deeply related to our loyalties and interest (63). All forms of patriotism are vested interests in that lands from which we come are deeply connected to the formation of our identity; thus, our difficulty in “saying goodbye to patriotism.” Stassen and Gushee suggest that “We can change our emotions by changing our habits, by encouraging other emotions, or by understanding the causal history of our emotions” (63). But William James suggest in “Pluralism, Pragmatism, and Instrumental Truth,” shifts in truth cannot occur unless an internal mediation between the old and new systems occurs resulting in a new truth” (www.des.emory.edu). Thus, “understanding the causal history” or current ideological American self means beginning the mediation between who we are and the Christocentric self we want to be. This intermediary self must become “sartor resartus” distinguishing between the clothes of American Imperialism and the clothes of Christian justice (Bercovitch 174).
Finally, “The Perception Dimension” suggests that perception shapes ethical action (Stassen, Gushee 65). If Holistic Character Ethics is to effect change in the American ethos, than we must have a clear and defined perception of the context of our actions. We can no longer “speak of ‘them’ being evil and ‘us’ being good, that evil is all out there and that in the warfare between good and evil others are either with us or against us” (Wallis 143). This is “bad theology” as Wallis posits. Good theology, as Stassen and Gushee suggest, is “incarnational discipleship” (65). Incarnational discipleship venerates the humanity of the “other” and sees beyond the ill-conceived notions of other as “evil.” Stassen and Gushee suggest one central area or perception is authority. “What people assume about the powers and authorities of their time and place has a powerful effect on their perception of the context of moral action” (66). Wallis gives insight to this statement by suggesting that Bush saw his presidency as a God ordained event and therefore, much like the monarchs of the medieval age, his actions are justifiable. However, we need to be realistic about what God ordains and “test the spirits . . . because many false prophets have gone our into the world” (I John 4:1 NIV). By using biblical allusion in such a way that scripture is “. . . employed in ways quite different from their original meaning,” our vision is veiled and a right conception of God, justice, America, and the self is lost (Wallis 142). The intermediate self must be purely objective.
Bercovitch’s perspective of the American self sheds light on aspect of patriotism which Jensen glosses over, which Wallis recognizes but has no “better way” of dealing with, and which Stassen and Gushee offer alternatives to, but no pragmatic intermediary with which to bridge the gap. To confront the “American myth” is to attack an embattled notion nationalism which is deep seeded in the fervent religiosity of self and not simply undoing the public understanding of international, economic, and military policy. To institute true “kingdom ethics,” as Stassen and Gushee would have it, necessitates the undoing of centuries of natural theology which has made the American landscape our god. Debunking patriotism is not as simple as acquiescing to authority of the United Nations.
To undo American patriotism is to insist on a paradigm shift within the American ethos. Jensen is right to suggest that we must deal with facts but not merely facts of policy but also facts of self. Stassen and Gushee are right in suggesting that our post-modern, autonomous society rejects all moral standards. Wallis is right to suggest that our leaders use our mythology to mislead and dissuade us from truth. Yet, we cannot simply leap to the end result. The ideal of the communal, cosmopolitan, international society which Jensen, Wallis, Stassen, and Gushee hope to create will be slow in coming. So, instead of saying “goodbye to patriotism,” which, in essence, is saying goodbye to me, we should be saying hello to a much older self founded solely in the principles of “all men are created equal” as our intermediate. This self must adhere to infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God and the principles of the Constitution. We must attempt to give these ideals pragmatic, objective applications remembering that everyone is from somewhere and generally “wouldn’t stand for no knockin’ the place” (O’Henry 13).
Works Cited:
Bandura, Albert. “Pluralism, Pragmatism, and Instrumental Truth.” William James. Emory U, Sept. 2009. Web. 9 July 2010.
Bercovitch, Sacvan. The Puritan Origins of the American Self. London: Yale UP, 1975. Print.
James, William. “The Moral Equivalent of War.” The Best American Essays of the Century. Ed. Joyce Carol Oates. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000. Print.
Jensen, Robert. “Saying Goodbye to Patriotism.” Witness Magazine March 2002: 16-20. Fuller Online. Web. 21 June 2010.
Life Application Study Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991. Print.
Pink, Arthur W. The Attributes of God. Blacksburg: Wilder Publications, 2008. Print.
Stassen, Glen Harold, and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Print.
Sydney, William. The Complete Works of O’Henry. New York: Doubleday, Page and Co., 1927. Print.
Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. New York: Harper One, 2005. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)