[amc] Re: Jesus and Jihad
- From: "Ray Gingerich" <RGingerich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Austin Mennonite Church" <amc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:59:52 -0500
Nevitt,
I embrace most of your argument, but have a few comments. Again, Nevitt, thank
you for making me think. These are tentative thoughts, probably far removed
from absolute truth.
(One comment that you made, I hope tongue-in-cheek: "I'm speaking of the
American majority in which I include myself but no one else at AMC," I think we
would all plead guilty to--we work at an alternative value and lifestyle, but
are nevertheless complicit, as are the Amish, just less so.)
I'm all for reason. And I'm for knowledge. And I'm for facts. When knowledge is
inadequate to answer questions, then isn't it "reason"able to proffer
hypotheses and test them out? I see the love ethic as taught and practiced as
an example of such a hypothesis as a method of dealing with human conflict. The
hypothesis: shalom (human well-being: harmonious relationships with oneself,
with others, with creation) is increased when love is the means and ends of the
relationship and shalom is decreased by means/ends other than love. Before
Jesus (in the ancient mideast), various moral praxis increasing approaching the
Jesus version of love were tried. So, in western civilization, Jesus introduces
love (agape) as the new experiment.
He does it with religious language and in a religious context. So what? I'm not
convinced that philosophy and science have any particular corner on
truth--haven't they been just as fallible, limited and susceptible to
perversion as religion in the area of human relationships? (You mention
hypocrisy among religious people, Hmmm, were Oppenheimer and friends in pursuit
of pure science, governed by logic and reason, uncontaminated by questions of
morality).
We know that violence has caused enormous suffering for humanity for all of
human history. Harvard professor Kohlberg, identifies 6 steps of moral
development. The lowest step is the pain-pleasure principle; the sixth is
unconditional love, social contract is somewhere in the middle. He presents
evidence that each step up the ladder results in an increase in "the greater
good" and a decrease in human misery. (Why he committed suicide, I don't know).
Certainly, such information of this falls short of "absolute truth." But, it
seems to comply with your demand for reason. And, that some people have
intuition (or possibly are moved by the spirit) before Kohlberg gets around to
publishing his findings, is it unreasonable that they should act on that
intuition (or faith).
Yet, to declare that one is promulgating absolute truth I find repugnantly
arrogant. I believe love to be humble and kind. I can't prove it, but until I
can, should I be arrogant and abrasive?
I just finished reading Unconquerable World by Jonathon Schell. In 1989 alone,
one recent year, of the fourteen major political revolutions in the world that
year, thirteen were non-violent. Twelve were "successful" (in the usual sense
of that term). How will we ever know the truth until someone acts on faith?
(Actually, what is ironic, in most of those revolutions, non-violence was the
only choice because the revolutionaries had little access to arms whereas the
oppressors had overwhelming access to arms, thus, they engaged in the
non-violent experiments by necessity, not by choice.).
There is a nuclear physicist at UT who is conducting experiements on the power
of prayer to effect change over great distance. His theory is based on super
string theory, a non-religious concept. Not only is he finding prayer
effective, he is explaining it scientifically. So, is it un"reason"able that
people had faith in the efficacy of prayer for eons? Or would have it been more
"reason"able that they not act on their faith and wait until the 21st century
for a scientific experiment?
As much as I am in favor of reason, what does one do when people and systems
continue to act contrary to reason and evidence. I have spent my career
"teaching" (has the teacher taught if the student hasn't learned) non-coercive
methods and techniques for eliciting changed behavior in offenders. There is
overwhelming scientific evidence that reason, invitation, helping offenders
make decisions based on consequential thinking, increasing their social skills,
helping them learn empathy, etc. "works" to increase law-abiding behavior and
that coercive techniques are counter-productive--result in increased
law-breaking behavior. Yet, from my observations, having done training in more
than 40 states and all 5 regions of Canada, that the criminal justice system in
this country (in contrast to Canada) has become more coercive, rather than
less, in the last 35 years. On the other hand, there are pockets of
hope--restorative justice initiatives are spreading throughout the
country--programs begun by those unreasonable Mennonites, begun on faith--but
proving to work! (Do I hear a "praise God?")
I agree with you that it is wrong to try to compel consent for ones beliefs.
But, what is wrong with inviting others to join the experiment? Jesus doesn't
compel. He invites. And, when you observe what seems to you clearly a matter of
evil (invasion of Iraq, death penalty), what is wrong with joining others in a
demonstration to bring attention to the issue? I rather admire Jesus'
demonstration in the temple. Sure, there are violent protesters. There are also
protesters who avoid violent rhetoric. I see them as joining a referendum to
bring important matters to peoples attention, people who may not get the
information from the mainline media. I often hold a sign on execution days in
front of the governor's mansion which states: "Today at 6:00 p.m. we, the
people of Texas, will with pre-meditation and malice aforethought, kill a human
being," What is unreasonable or coercive about bringing that fact into people's
conscienciousness? The mainline media won't. Or before March 20, 03 holding up
a sign that "We intend to invade Iraq contrary to international law." What's
unreasonable about bringing that fact to people's attention when even NPR is
unwilling to state that fact?
Finally, I sojourned with the Unitarians for 20 years--no Menno church here
when I moved to Austin. I think your treatise would be soundly endorsed among
that group. I found nothing particularly wrong with the Unitarians. Yet, when I
visited AMC on September 16, 2001, heard Kathy's sermon, mingled with y'all,
there was something there that I would call "spirit" that was different. Maybe
it is just comfortable stuff like four part harmony and Mennonite tradition,
but I think it is more than that. I felt love. I can't define it. But, I felt
it.. And, if the Unitarians are motivated to do good by reason, and I am
motivated by something else, what's the problem? We both show up at the
governor's mansion in a common cause, possibly on different roads to the same
destination: absolute truth.
Democracy and "free" will will have to wait.
Ray
P.s. I didn't have time to proofread--hope it's intelligible.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." A. J. Muste
----- Original Message -----
From: Nevitt D.Reesor
To: Austin Mennonite Church
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:50 PM
Subject: [amc] Re: Jesus and Jihad
... this message is extremely long and you will probably find it terribly
exasperating. Delete it now before your blood pressure starts to rise.
Ray,
You say there is an absolute Truth but "it remains a mystery to us [... and]
we can't quite define it. or know it [...]." One of my points is that having an
unknowable absolute Truth is practically and functionally equivalent to having
no absolute Truth at all.
(Do you/we mean that we know there is an absolute Truth, but we don't know
what it is? Or do we mean we don't know whether there is an absolute Truth at
all? I can't see how we could know that there is an absolute Truth. Your
comments suggest that you believe rather than know that there is an absolute
Truth. Does this mean it's a matter of faith? And you seem also to believe
rather than know that the Truth is love. And, given these tentative beliefs,
you seem to be less than confident in our ability to discover what "love"
means. This is all in the way of clarification. I'm sorry for the level of
detail; by this point in my life it's built into my nature.)
Anyway, assuming we mean something like, "I don't know for sure whether there
is an absolute Truth, and even if I assume there is such a Truth I wouldn't
know for sure what it exactly entailed. But, I have faith that there is such a
Truth and that it is love." The problem still stands that faith is a matter of
individual intuition/inspiration and/or conviction. Or, at most, faith is a
matter of community intuition/inspiration and/or conviction.
I am very much aware that many people, especially in faith-based
organizations, (eeek!), are quite disenchanted with reason (as opposed to
faith). In fact, I have some sympathy with this feeling. However, it seems to
me that reason provides the only common basis for dialog that is relatively
impervious to prejudice and other distortions. Why? Because the nature of
reason is universal. The rules and structures that govern reason are
independent of any creed, any emotion, any historical period, etc. They are
accessible equally to all people everywhere in every time. This isn't at all to
say that rational relationships shouldn't take into consideration the full
range of human experience, including feelings and emotions, physical and
spiritual needs, etc. Nor is it to say that reason can't be misused by
dishonest people who intentionally hide certain information or construct false
arguments in order to serve their own desires. But this only means we should
provide universal education in the rigorous use of reason and universal access
to information.
So, the only truly common basis for universal human discourse is reason. This
doesn't mean that we must know everything for certain before we can make
progress. Knowledge admits of degrees. The more we know and with greater
reliability, the better off we will be. So, given that we can't know everything
with certainty, we should strive to know as much as possible with the highest
degree of probability we can manage.
To return to the problem of faith as the basis for social change, civil
values, etc. Faith, as I said before, no matter how strong the intuitions and
no matter how clear the revelations and no matter how large the community and
no matter how long the traditions have been living and vibrant, is ultimately a
private conviction. The basis for my faith is inaccessible to you or anyone
else, even, ultimately, to those in my own faith community. And the basis for
the faith of different cultural communities is even more difficult to grasp.
Since the beliefs fostered by faith are grounded in deeply personal
"realities," even if those of a whole community, they can never serve as the
foundation for universal values. We can't reasonably ask others to embrace our
values if they are based exclusively on faith because others don't have access
to the ground of our faith.
(Actually this last point might be a good starting point for supporting
evangelism purely on social/political grounds. If we can induce others to have
faith experiences similar enough to our own, perhaps they would then be willing
to embrace our values. Maybe this is the hidden, subconscious agenda of all
politically active people of faith who are strongly evangelical. But I have a
suspicion it has more to do with exertion of raw power.)
Which brings me to the next issue. If our convictions regarding the nature of
Truth are based on faith, and if we believe that these truths require us to be
engaged socially and politically, then it seems to me we have no real choice
but to engage in the power struggle. We can't argue for our viewpoint, because
our viewpoint is not based on reason. Perhaps we think our view is reasonable,
but its ultimate foundation is in convictions that lie "beyond" reason. All we
can say is, "I believe this is true with all my heart. I believe universal love
is the key to all human well-being, yours, mine, everyone's. And I believe that
peaceful means are the only acceptable way to achieve this goal." But these are
our convictions. How do we convince others that they should also be theirs?
Perhaps we must evangelize. But, as you know, I tend to think traditional
evangelism is thinly disguised coercion. So, what other choices do we have? The
only one I can think of is, again, to enter into the power struggle with
everyone else. And this is, I think, what we are now doing.
Our faith does not allow us violent means to promote our values. So, we use,
among other tools, persuasive rhetoric, believing it to be a non-violent tool.
But rhetorical "argument" is not really argument. Arguments proceed according
to reason, and reasons are supposed to "compel" consent, not through rhetorical
persuasion, but because they simply make sense. Any rational person will see
the sense in a rational argument. Rhetoric, by contrast, truly compels consent
through manipulation, almost always through appeal to the emotions and often
through the misuse of reason. People of faith often press their views in this
way because they cannot offer fundamental reasons for their beliefs. The best
they can do is to "argue" for their beliefs, that is to try to convince others
through clever and emotional talk.
Or, we engage in the various "non-violent" means of protest. But, it seems to
me these are often nothing more than active demonstrations of "rhetoric," that
is, they are intended to "convince" people by arousing various emotions such as
indignation, frustration, disappointment, disaffection, outrage, and even
anger. If any reasons are offered why people should feel justified in having
these emotions these reasons are generally shallow and poorly thought-out and
are rarely rooted in good arguments.
When "non-violent" action is not of this "rhetorical" sort it engages the
powers directly: sit-ins, tax resistance, marches intended to cause social
disruptions, etc. This may not be violent in a literal sense, but it does look
rather coercive to me. It attempts to force others to act in the way we want
them to act, albeit through more or less passive means. But the essence of
coercion is, I think, trying to get another person to believe, think, or act in
the way I want her to believe, think, or act through means that do not leave
her absolutely free to choose for herself. And only rational freedom is real
freedom. If I am to leave the other person really free, all I can do is give
her the reasons why I think she should adopt my viewpoint, without rhetoric,
without demonstration, without any attempt to sway her choice through the
manipulation of emotion or through the imposition of physical discomfort. She
can then decide freely, for herself, without any compulsion of any kind.
But this is exactly the sort of free rational argument that cannot be offered
by people of faith because the foundations of our beliefs lie in certain
experiences, intuitions, revelations, inspirations, trust in traditions, etc.
rather than in reason alone. Thus, if we want to work for change, and at bottom
this means trying to get the social structure to reflect our values, we have no
choice but to engage the powers in ways that do not leave them free, in ways
that compel through rhetoric, emotion, and physical discomfort. Yes, these are
non-violent according to the letter of the definition but, I think, coercive in
spirit. (Perhaps this is what motivated the early Anabaptists to try to live
according to non-resistance rather than non-violence.)
So, it seems to me faith can never provide the basis for fundamental,
universal social change nor the social and political basis for a truly
worldwide human community. Faith, that is, a multitude of different faiths, may
provide individuals or communities with the motivation to engage in the project
of widespread change. But the beliefs held by particular faiths cannot justly
be used to decide how change should go forward nor what particular changes
should be made unless these beliefs are subjected to rigorous rational analysis
and reformulated in the terms of rational arguments accessible to all people
regardless of faith or lack thereof. If people of faith are unwilling to follow
such guidelines I think we should be honest and admit that we are playing the
same power game as everyone else, but we just try to play it less violently and
less coercively than others.
If this is true, if rational dialog is the only way to transcend vast human
differences, it would seem democracy would be the ideal social and political
environment for this to take place. Democracy is supposed to derive the right
of power from the consent of the governed. Thus, it seems to be the social and
political system that offers maximum freedom to individuals. However, the
American experiment has shown, I think, that the vast majority of human beings
will give their consent to be ruled by the powerful as long as the powerful
satisfy their basest appetites. As long as we have plenty of toys, pleasures,
and entertainment we are happy to let the powerful do whatever they want. We
(I'm speaking of the American majority in which I include myself but no one
else at AMC) are even willing to let others suffer as long as we have our
pleasures and relative security. So, the powerful only have to satisfy enough
people to keep them elected and "all is well." In other words, Democracy would
seem to be the best place to start implementation of a rational system of
social justice, but people don't want to be rational. Perhaps there are two
basic groups in a democracy, those who want power and those who want pleasure.
Maybe the difference is between those who get pleasure from power and those who
get pleasure from fulfilling more basic desires. At any rate, neither are
interested in thinking things through carefully, they just want to get what
they want.
Having subjected you to such a long and excruciating (and probably
infuriating) defense of reason, this last comment on democracy suggests that
even reason may not provide the necessary means to move the world toward
universal communion. If democracy provides us the best environment for
implementing universal rational dialog (assuming such dialog is the best way to
freely engage the whole human world in the project of maximizing human
well-being) but democracy is doomed to failure in this regard, it looks like
reason is not the pancea. In addition to this serious difficulty there are
fundamental problems with the nature of reason itself that threaten its ability
to accomplish these sorts of goals. But this is another long discussion.
So, my conclusion is that secular reason provides a much more ethical way to
work for social change than does faith, and that secular reason provides a much
more ethical way to discover universal principles of human community than does
any kind of faith. But finally reason may fail. In this case, or even if we
just think reason is too hard or too abstract or too impractical or too
anti-religious or whatever,
we may have to appeal to the "truths" of faith to lead us in the struggle.
But I still think, ironically, that the methods which people of faith must
resort to are unethical in very important ways. So, on my view, we can admit
this and jump into the fray with everyone else, or we can go live with the
Amish.
Nevitt
On Jul 20, 2004, at 2:18 PM, Ray Gingerich wrote:
Nevitt,
Tentative thoughts: I guess I believe there is absolute truth (faith), but
it remains a mystery to us, that it is within us (and in
everything--panentheism), but we can't quite define it, or know it, that it is
love (I think I believe 'God is love' literally, or close to it), but that we
still have dilemmas on what love really is, or how it acts--we accept it as our
mandate, but it often eludes us. I agree with you--that we often learn what it
WAS in hindsight, when we thought we knew what it was in foresight. Human
finitetude causing human tragedy.
(But, while seeking the moral way and missing it is probably the more
profound tragedy, it is not the tragedy of greater consequence. That "tragedy"
would probably more properly be named insanity: repeating the same behavior
over and over since pre-history and expecting different results.)
So, we often sin (miss the mark), even though partof the time we think our
intentions were good and honorable. But, if we follow the Jesus ethic, we don't
try to force others (the rich and powerful) into adopting our viewpoint--we
invite them to join our experiment. If/when they reject the invitation, we
don't coerce them, because we don't believe good ends can be achieved by evil
means. While we don't have the corner on absolute truth, we do have access to a
sketch of Jesus' life and teachings (compiled from an oral tradition a
generation after his death by writers who have a clear bias) and we think "he
got it." Is he the only one that got it? He is quoted as saying, that
everybody's got it within them, which brings in the other two sources of access
to truth, the Spirit within us, and the Spirit within others. And since all of
those sources are mediated through fallible human beings, we can only get close
to moral truth, but never know for sure we have it.
So, when you say that we have no criteria for arbitrating moral disputes, I
would agree that the criteria are not absolutely clear. But, we do indeed have
criteria, by Jesus' teachings and example, sketchy though they may be, our own
inner voice, and the testing of that voice in the community of other inner
voices. Part of what convinces me of the authority of the sources is that they
all come up with the same criterion. The same criterion taught by Jesus is
taught by the other great moral teachers of the world: CONCERN FOR THE OTHER,
i.e., love. That that criterion may coincide with biological and evolutionary
criteria for survival may be coincidental. I happen to believe it is the "God
within all"--in the moral teaching of Jesus, Buddha, etc. AND at the core of
both our physical and spiritual being--it is all connected--it all springs from
the same source. It is at the core of life--no, not just life, but being
(Tillich) that vibrates within us and in everything in the universe. Yet, as
humans, we have been given the choice to embrace it or reject it--the choice of
Adam and Eve and all the rest of us. I believe we can get close to it and
embrace God, the essence of the universe, or reject it for the temporal and
trivial. Yet, the boundaries between those two, between good and evil, are
somewhat ambiguous--so along with God in everything, there is the devil too,
and at the boundaries, we sometimes struggle to know the difference. At the
boundaries, but not at the core. At the core, we have a pretty good indicators
of what is good and what is right and what is not, what is love, what is not.
So, we know that concern for the other (love) is the ideal. But, then when
faced with evil, especially when it threatens the well-being of others, we are
tempted to use evil means (violence and coercion) to achieve good ends. But, we
have Jesus' teaching that to embrace evil to achieve good is "devil worship."
Instead, the God within Jesus appeals to the God within the other to seek a
common good. When the devil within the other rather than the God within the
other responds, Jesus rebukes the devil within himself (temptation) and allows
God to respond and invite. In Jesus' final conflict the God within the other
never responds but only the devil responds and we end up with a crucifixion.
Faith says that following the Jesus way is not only the moral way, but
eventually, the pragmatic way. Walter Wink (the "Powers" books) and Jonathon
Schell ("Unconquerable World") make the case that Jesus' way is proving to be
the pragmatic way.
But, back to a point you made with Steve, few if any, of the recent
successful non-violent revolutions in the world would put Jesus' or God's name
to their efforts. Why does this matter? Isn't it only a matter of pride? Our
pride, not God's. If either a Ford or a Chevy get us to the same place, who
cares what label is on the vehicle?
Back to the premise: Absolute truth? Can we know it absolutely? I don't
think so. Can we come close to it? I think so.
Ray
Other related posts:
