I posted this on FB:
There is no virtue in compromise when compromise involves what you believe deep down.
B.R.: For example...
Me: Name any of your deeply held beliefs. Imagine compromising. Possible? For example, would you compromise in any way on sending help to the victims of Sandy? Would you say that 20% of those who should receive help will not because of your willingness to compromise?
B.R.: I see a big difference between compromise and sacrifice. The Sandy scenario is wide open, so it's hard to say what I would or wouldn't do. But I can say that the more I care about something, the more I want progress for it. For example, I'd be willing to compromise on gay marriage in the short term, if it meant progress in the long term. I'd be willing to compromise on some policies I favor, if it meant big steps forward for others. Some people would prefer no steps forward for their own causes, as long as it means no steps forward for their opposition's causes. I feel the opposite: I'd rather see halfway gains for me and halfway gains for my opposition. Of course, this is all case-by-case specific - there ARE some deals I'd turn down.
Me: Incrementalism (that is, forgoing some of what you want now is order to get it later) is not compromise. I note that your framework for response is political in nature, but I am not necessarily referring to political compromise.
Compromise always involves giving up a piece of something you want in order for your opponent to agree to the deal. If what you give up is a core principle of what you believe, you have given something that cannot be regained, and by definition you are unprincipled.
B.R.: Hmm. Interesting thoughts. Is there an actual compromise you're referring to, with Sandy?
Me: Sandy was just an example. My thoughts actually were spurred by the way the Catholic church has compromised on some of its teachings in order to get along with modernists (no, I'm not Catholic). It seems to me there are some things that cannot be compromised, and truth is one.
B.R.: That strikes me more as evolution than compromise. Of course, many Catholics don't believe in evolution as a concept, but...I don't know, Christianity has evolved over time as well, they don't enforce or practice the same things as they did long ago. Would you expect the Catholic church to retain the same standards throughout time?
Me: Whether it is evolution or devolution is a matter of perspective and world view, don't you think? If the Catholic church believes what it believes is true, how can one compromise truth? Or, as Scripture puts it, "What fellowship does light have with darkness?"
Of course you are correct. No one does what they used to do. People change. Sometimes they change for the worse, sometimes for the better. But an institution, a foundation, a basic premise for understanding, those things cannot change. One cannot change the foundation of a house without the house being profoundly affected.
It would be like you deciding to become conservative Christian. Everything in your life would change. Not a single thing would be unaffected. No one changes a core principle of their understanding unless there is something way beyond the ordinary reasons.
Me: I, of course am presumptuous. I didn't mean to suggest your religious faith, if any, is lacking somehow.
B.R.: No offense taken. My faith is quite strong, and though it is always spiritual, it is only sometimes religious. I'll take pleasure in thinking more about this today. I think there are core precepts of the Catholic faith that, you're right, can and should never be compromised or altered, or else they become something different than the Catholic faith. However, every rule and expectation surrounding those core precepts should be up to Catholics to evolve as they see fit. I think organized religion is a communal conduit from humanity to divinity, and the conduit should adapt to its community, to continually provide the best possible experience with the divine. Those adaptations can be slow and very thoroughly considered, but they should happen.
Me: Now you've given me something to think about. I might want to quibble over the idea of organized religion being the conduit to anything, let alone the divine, but the concept of the conduit adapting to community is worth exploring.
The expressions by the community of faith do and should change over the course of time, but those expressions continue to be traditional concepts, albeit in a variety of forms as they find context in the cultural environment. Hence, we have a vibrant contemporary church expression, with quality contemporary music, impressive lighting and presentation, and with enthusiastic participation. Yet the message is remains the historic teachings of the faith.
I note that only Christianity seems to manifest this phenomena. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, none of them are taken up with contemporary expressions.
The reason I'm attract to the idea is because I've written a bunch of faith songs, the style derived from contemporary culture, but with the traditional message.
B.R.: I like your distinctions, and I agree that CULTURAL CONTEXT should be a guiding force for the way religion operates. The contemporary presentation of Christianity that you reference is a good example of surface-level evolution, but I also think deeper evolution is possible, and in some ways important. For instance, if a religion was founded in a culture where women had no rights, then I believe that religion has a duty to adapt its teachings to this culture, where women have rights. If a religious text originally suggested or demanded that its followers commit acts of violence that were acceptable when the text was written, that religion should honestly and openly reevaluate those suggestions and demands. The deeper truths, I believe, can still be preserved and upheld, while the outdated elements can be labeled as such and discarded from practice. I know that this is a slippery slope, but I think it's the duty of religious institutions to live in the Now, and that means facing hard questions about how to practice and lead in the present culture. Also, I'd totally love to listen to your faith songs.
Me: I think we can conclude that ancient concepts that can be expressed in contemporary cultural environments yet remain intact and meaningful, are, for lack of a better way to say it, immutable truth.
Now, regarding your list of things that must evolve. Women were liberated by the teachings of Jesus, liberated from the "current cultural expressions." Nothing in Scripture places women in subjugation. It was culture that did that. Regarding violence, I'm not sure what you mean there. Jesus called no one to commit violence.
The reason religion persists is not because believers are stuck in a reality that no longer exists, it's because those religious concepts are still relevant today. Though imperfectly followed by imperfect people, those teachings have not been shaken because they cannot be.
As soon as figure out how to get my songs posted online somewhere, I'll do so.
B.R.: I wasn't referring to Christianity specifically, but I'm sure you've seen how sexism and violence have been carried out in Jesus' name over the years. Lemme know when your songs go online! Soundcloud is one option, you can create an account and upload individual sound files as tracks.
Me: Granted. Some very bad things have been perpetrated in the name of religion. In the name of irreligion as well, I think. I would say, though, that what people do in the name of religion are not religious expressions, since they violate the precepts of the religion. When this happens, it simply points to the weakness and fallibility of people, not the religion. Evil people do evil things, and use any excuse available.
No comments:
Post a Comment