01.03.06
Posted in faith, philosophy at 9:46 am by Brandon
Probably, you don’t recognize the dude on the right. But, if you do, I’m pretty proud of you. I’ll give you a few hints:
- Former prime minister of the Netherlands.
- Founded the Free University.
- Delivered, in 1898, the Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary.
- Edited various publications.
The guy’s name is Abraham Kuyper. I’m not really sure why I posted his picture other than that I wanted to try out this new photograph functionality that I’ve got through wordpress. Snazzy, eh?
Anyhow, to recap, I’ve been writing a tad about reformed Christianity–as I see it, and as it appeals to me–and have covered what appeals to me about total depravity, and the value of community. (Not that total depravity is appealing to me…more that I like the theology surrounding it.) While I’m on the total depravity note, I only think it’s fair to respond to a comment. One commenter felt that total depravity was the bane of reformed theology. That commenter called it ‘lock, stock, and barrel total depravity,’ I think. Well, I do believe in lock, stock, and barrel total depravity. Although, as I’m sure I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean that all of creation has been TOTALLY warped by sin and is not worth being a part of. It means, rather, that the scope sin’s warping of creation was total–though it’s depth of tainting was not.
Anyway, I talked a bit about total depravity and truth, and I blabbered on about community for some time. The next logical step it seems would be to talk a bit about the characteristics of the community itself. Of particular importance, I think, is the way that communities handle the minority voices in them in accordance with the understanding that those minority voices, as bearers of truth, must be heard.
I must, again, offer a bit of disclaimer at this point. I haven’t read many folks in the reformed Christian tradition that really espoused this particular view of the characteristics of community. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t any people who do, I’m just saying that if you go looking for an official doctrine of minority voices in community, you’re not likely to find one. These are just some ideas that seem pretty logical to me, so I thought I’d share. Anyway, on to the point.
My contention is that minority voices in community should be treated somewhat differently than majority voices. I think that there are a different set of rules that govern interaction. Probably the first question I should answer is, “Why?” Why, within a community, should minority voices have to abide by a different set of rules is an important question, I think. The answer lies in the way that majority voices tend to group together. If one thinks about the way majority voices tend to behave in groups, it becomes more obvious what the problem is.
When a majority believes something that is questioned by the minority, it’s pretty easy for the majority to poo-poo what the minority is saying. The power of many voices makes it relatively easy to come up with counterpoints. Some of those counterpoints will even be valid counterpoints. Majority voices, however, have the luxury of a lot of support. If you’re a member of the majority, you don’t need to be able to defend your ideas as well as a minority member–because, if you don’t have “the right” answer to question someone else will.
So, what are these rules that should govern minority interactiona and how are they different from those that govern majority interaction in communities. Well, I think that, first of all, there should be a bit more latitude for the minority voice in a community that doesn’t have every angle worked out just yet. I think they shouldn’t have to be as precise when it comes to having each and every view all worked out. Enforcing the same standard of perfection on minority voices discourages people from sharing valid opinions, and eventually risks losing those voices altogether.
So, am I saying that a minority viewholder in a community can say whatever the hell she wants? Of course not. That person still must be have according to a certain ethic. An ethic that I and others have worked to explicate a tad. And, there are still questions left unanswered. I don’t know for sure how this all would apply to this community, in particular. Most of us are minority viewholders–so does that make the majority here minority viewholders? Perhaps that’s why we (read: I) react so strongly when our sub-majority is treated like we’re used to being treated by the regular largely conservative Christian majority.
I do know this: every voice is necessary and valid. Every voice deserves to be heard. And, I think that a Christian community has a responsibility to itself to be marked by a culture of listening, a culture that accepts minority viewpoints and listens to different perspectives. Because, in those perspectives, there is truth.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/01/03/reformed-christianity-and-minority-voices/trackback/
Posted in faith, philosophy at 9:46 am by Brandon
Probably, you don’t recognize the dude on the right. But, if you do, I’m pretty proud of you. I’ll give you a few hints:
- Former prime minister of the Netherlands.
- Founded the Free University.
- Delivered, in 1898, the Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary.
- Edited various publications.
The guy’s name is Abraham Kuyper. I’m not really sure why I posted his picture other than that I wanted to try out this new photograph functionality that I’ve got through wordpress. Snazzy, eh?
Anyhow, to recap, I’ve been writing a tad about reformed Christianity–as I see it, and as it appeals to me–and have covered what appeals to me about total depravity, and the value of community. (Not that total depravity is appealing to me…more that I like the theology surrounding it.) While I’m on the total depravity note, I only think it’s fair to respond to a comment. One commenter felt that total depravity was the bane of reformed theology. That commenter called it ‘lock, stock, and barrel total depravity,’ I think. Well, I do believe in lock, stock, and barrel total depravity. Although, as I’m sure I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean that all of creation has been TOTALLY warped by sin and is not worth being a part of. It means, rather, that the scope sin’s warping of creation was total–though it’s depth of tainting was not.
Anyway, I talked a bit about total depravity and truth, and I blabbered on about community for some time. The next logical step it seems would be to talk a bit about the characteristics of the community itself. Of particular importance, I think, is the way that communities handle the minority voices in them in accordance with the understanding that those minority voices, as bearers of truth, must be heard.
I must, again, offer a bit of disclaimer at this point. I haven’t read many folks in the reformed Christian tradition that really espoused this particular view of the characteristics of community. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t any people who do, I’m just saying that if you go looking for an official doctrine of minority voices in community, you’re not likely to find one. These are just some ideas that seem pretty logical to me, so I thought I’d share. Anyway, on to the point.
My contention is that minority voices in community should be treated somewhat differently than majority voices. I think that there are a different set of rules that govern interaction. Probably the first question I should answer is, “Why?” Why, within a community, should minority voices have to abide by a different set of rules is an important question, I think. The answer lies in the way that majority voices tend to group together. If one thinks about the way majority voices tend to behave in groups, it becomes more obvious what the problem is.
When a majority believes something that is questioned by the minority, it’s pretty easy for the majority to poo-poo what the minority is saying. The power of many voices makes it relatively easy to come up with counterpoints. Some of those counterpoints will even be valid counterpoints. Majority voices, however, have the luxury of a lot of support. If you’re a member of the majority, you don’t need to be able to defend your ideas as well as a minority member–because, if you don’t have “the right” answer to question someone else will.
So, what are these rules that should govern minority interactiona and how are they different from those that govern majority interaction in communities. Well, I think that, first of all, there should be a bit more latitude for the minority voice in a community that doesn’t have every angle worked out just yet. I think they shouldn’t have to be as precise when it comes to having each and every view all worked out. Enforcing the same standard of perfection on minority voices discourages people from sharing valid opinions, and eventually risks losing those voices altogether.
So, am I saying that a minority viewholder in a community can say whatever the hell she wants? Of course not. That person still must be have according to a certain ethic. An ethic that I and others have worked to explicate a tad. And, there are still questions left unanswered. I don’t know for sure how this all would apply to this community, in particular. Most of us are minority viewholders–so does that make the majority here minority viewholders? Perhaps that’s why we (read: I) react so strongly when our sub-majority is treated like we’re used to being treated by the regular largely conservative Christian majority.
I do know this: every voice is necessary and valid. Every voice deserves to be heard. And, I think that a Christian community has a responsibility to itself to be marked by a culture of listening, a culture that accepts minority viewpoints and listens to different perspectives. Because, in those perspectives, there is truth.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/01/03/reformed-christianity-and-minority-voices/trackback/
Jacke said,
January 3, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Brandon writes:
Well, sure. I agree that a Christian community, and would even say especially a Christian community should listen to and consider minority viewpoints and different perspectives, however, while there may be truth in those viewpoints and perspectives there also may not be truth in them. We listen to and consider other viewpoints every day, some from the majority, some from the minority perspective and we judge which are of value and which are not of value, right?
You seem to be trying to make a case that minority perspectives and views should be treated differently, why? You did not make the case of why you feel that way.
Brandon said,
January 3, 2006 at 10:52 pm
The quick answer, Jacke, I simply that I think that it’s important to encourage the proliferation of the sharing of a minority perspective. If a minority perspective is expected to behave according to the same standard as a majority voice, minority voices won’t be heard because a minority opinion isn’t capable of accomplishing the same things a majority one is simply by virtue of the fact that more people are around to both share and confirm majority opinions.
Recovering Evangelical said,
January 3, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Thanks for the entertaining and enlightening blog! Keep it up.
Jacke said,
January 4, 2006 at 10:34 am
Okay, Brandon, so how do you think this encouragement of proliferation of the minority perspective should be promoted?
Brandon said,
January 4, 2006 at 11:36 am
By listening to them rather than trying to plan out why you think they’re wrong.
Jacke said,
January 4, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Brandon,
How do you “plan out why you think they’re wrong” if you aren’t listening to them in the first place? Again, I agree that minority views and perspectives should be listened to and considered but because they are minority views does not mean that I cannot disagree and even make argument as to why I might feel a particular viewpoint is wrong. It just seems to me that you are trying to set it up so that if anyone thinks a minority viewpoint is wrong and speaks out in disagreement that it somehow means they didn’t listen and their only motive is to plan out why that minority is wrong, like you are trying to set up a scenario wherein if anyone disagrees with their viewpoint that they are bigoted and intolerant.
Please, tell me what you are actually saying here so that I am not required to speculate and figure it out on my own, you may not like my speculation and assumption. I am making an effort to “listen,” here.
Stephen said,
January 4, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Jacke,
I think what Brandon is trying to say is that it is very common to come across a situation similar to the one I had with my mother-in-law this holiday season. I should note that my MiL is a fairly intelligent, educated artist/teacher.
MiL: So, what is it that you are studying again?
Me: Well, I am in the Culture Studies program, but that means that we look at the cultural texts around us and try to determine the forces/people that form them and how these form us at the same time.
MiL: Oh, Jenna said it had something to do with studying postmodernism. (I must note that postmodernism was stated with the same contempt as some might say “dog shit”.)
Me: Well, yes, I am specifically looking at the ways in which “postmodern” has roots in the development of modernism at the turn of the 20th century, especially in film.
At this point, my MiL begins to go off on how everyone says postmodern this or postmodern that just to justify a bunch of junk. She uses a number of artistic examples, most of which were at the center of obscenity debates.
The reason that this is relevant is because, while my MiL “heard” what I said. She was not really interested in “listening” and engaging with the ideas. She had a preconceived notion of what “postmodern” is, and she was basing her discussion on that and not on what I had actually said.
This comes up a great deal when I tell people that I am a Christian. In some ways Christians are both a majority and a minority, depending on one’s topic and location. What Brandon seems to be trying to say is that it is TOO easy in ideological discussions to become convinced of one’s opinion because it is yours and that held by a great number of other people.
The minority opinions and perspectives are those that challenge those commonly held by the group in power in the given situation. One can readily look at the beliefs of the Quakers and the Baptists in forming early American notions of ideas like the separation of church and state, pacifism, slavery, and a different perspective on the Native Americans.
At their time, they were heavily oppressed and disregarded for their beliefs. The majorities in their areas had very solid (in their eyes), Biblical basis for their disagreement. However, over time, these minority opinions have had to be pushed by blood, sweat, and tears into the public eye in order to serve a greater sense of order and justice than the majority opinion would allow for.
Brandon seems to be, somewhatly utopically, hoping that the Christian church would be a place where minority opinions would be given a privileged listening without being disregarded because “we have always done it this way before.”
The church, as described by Christ in the gospels seems to be a real location of service to those who have been pushed aside my the mainstream. Orphans, widows, Samaritans, tax collectors, even the lead Jewish oppressor of the early Church were encouraged and welcomed not out of charity but out of necessity. The Church was not being nice to take care of the marginal people: it was their calling as a community. I can only assume that Christ would also want us to listen to the voices of these people in addition to giving them food and clothing.
Brandon said,
January 4, 2006 at 5:47 pm
While Stephen said most of what I was thinking (and even correctly identified my thinking on this as utopic) I’ve got one other thing to chime in with here.
I think the root of what you’re not getting, Jacke, is that this whole series, thus far, has been written with the concepts of total depravity and common grace rooting around in the background. Frankly, what it feels to me like you’re trying to say is that you feel like you’re right.
The idea of total depravity and common grace sort of precludes the possiblity that anyone’s perspective can ever be 100% exactly “right on” all of the time. The common grace in the background, though, sort of infers the notion that each voice is inherently worth listening to because it has something valuable to add.
My point is this: if you focus on why a perspective is wrong in a dialogue you’re likely to find something–because, I believe, most perspectives are wrong (in part, at least). However, especially when you’re a majority viewholder, it’s important to listen to those in the minority because without your careful attention the truth they have to share might just never be “listened to”.
Once again, this is not an argument for the lack of absolute truth. I’m not saying either that you have to agree with me. I’m just trying to share my view of the value of community and faith.
Jacke said,
January 4, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Brandon writes:
Ya know, Brandon, I’ll be honest with you, here. As a matter of fact I always try to the best of my ability to be honest. What I like to think I have is common sense since life didn’t deal me the cards with which I could take advantage of an education in the same way that some, such as yourself and Stephen, have been blessed. So, I, if you will, am an uneducated minority in your group, I am also ignorant about reformation, and the concepts of total depravity. Much of this discussion seems like elitist semantics to me.
I think it is wrong for you to assume that what I am trying to say is that I am right, right about what? What have I done but ask questions and try to find out what you mean when you make statements like:
What have I done but seek clarification on how they are to be treated differently? What I have gotten, it seems to me, is a bunch of mumbo jumbo with the attachment of we should really listen, not simply look for reasons to disagree. Well, I’m sorry, but to me really listening involves communication, understanding, discussion. Communication sometimes involves disagreement. Certainly there is value in all viewpoints, to some degree, that is when people are being honest with one another, but to treat them differently, as you say, that is the part of my question which has gone unanswered to my satisfaction. I have not received an answer as to why the Christian community should treat minority voices differently because shouldn’t the Christian community be listening to EVERYONE without looking for reasons to disagree?. I wouldn’t be treating minority voices differently if I truly listened to them because I make an effort to truly listen to everyone. That, Brandon, is my point.
Brandon said,
January 4, 2006 at 10:30 pm
I think, Jacke, you need to relax a little. Nobody’s giving you mumbo-jumbo, we’re just trying to answer your questions. Without stating your intentions, it’s pretty hard to divine exactly what you’re getting at, thus, you’ve not gotten the answers to your questions like you hope. I’m sorry you haven’t, but there’s no reason to get upset about it. Both Stephen and I have tried to help by answering your question. If you disagree with our framing of the issue, that’s fine.
My answer to your question remains, though perhaps it’s more clearly put this way, that we don’t necessarily need to treat minority perspectives differently as much as we shouldn’t have the same expectations for decorum and perfection that we expect from a majority voice. In a perfect world, Jacke, your assesment works just fine. People would truly listen to everyone equally and make up their own minds. Unfortunately, the world isn’t perfect. People form groups, they tend to gravitate toward people they have similarities with. This, of course, creates polarized groups. It sucks and it’s not right, but that’s the way thing work with group formation. People, like water, choose the path of least resistance.
If everyone truly listened to eachother, well, then I like your solution. Thing is, they don’t. We all need eachother, and I think we need the quietest voices the most. That’s my point.
Jacke said,
January 5, 2006 at 11:48 am
Brandon writes:
I have no idea why you think I am tense or upset, Brandon. I am neither. I am trying to understand what you are saying. I have asked some questions in an effort to do so, I have repeatedly told you that I am asking these questions to try to understand what you are saying so that I will not have to come to my own conclusions and make assumptions about what you have said, that has been what I am “getting at,” and nothing more. Are you assuming the position of one who is not listening because you are concerned that I might be trying to get at something with which you might not care to assist? So far I certainly do disagree with your framing of the issue as I have been able to understand it. I will state why as we continue this completely relaxed discussion.
Brandon writes:
On one hand you say we shouldn’t necessarily treat minority perspectives differently but that is exactly what you stated here…:
…and you continue to try to give me reasons as to why minority perspectives should be treated differently. In your most recent comment you give me a new reason by stating that the quietest voices are what you think we need to hear the most.
You have expressed a sentiment that you don’t understand what I’m getting at, well, I’m going to explain it to you right now, first let’s look at some of what you and Stephen have said that I cannot agree with, I include Stephen because you seem to have wholeheartedly agree with him, though I found less to disagree with in Stephen’s comments than yours:
Okay, where I differ with you is this idea that the minority perspective should be treated differently than majority perspectives. Who decides which individual person is either a minority or a majority voice? Is it not true that every single one of us is a minority unto ourselves? No matter who I talk with, no matter how close I am to their positions and views on many matters there are just as many matters with which I would disagree with him or her. Minority, majority, I think is largely in our minds, we like to label each other, slip each other in a neat, little slot because it is convenient to us to then pretend that we know how they should be treated from this day forward because we have discerned they are Conservative, Progressive, literate, illiterate, educated, uneducated, black, white, yellow, a minority or a majority voice, when the fact is we are all just individuals. We are all a minority. Each and every one of our voices should be treated with, as Stephen put it, “privileged listening.” People are people. I think, rather than promoting “privileged listening” to what you perceive as a minority voice we should be promoting “privileged listening” to all people, if we are really listening to all people, as we should be, then this issue of paying more attention to “minority voices” wouldn’t be an issue at all. Now, you sluff me off because you say:
I could just as easily say: In a perfect world, Brandon, your assessment works just fine. People would listen to minorities equally and make up their own minds.
Here’s what I think, since you have been kind enough to share with me that you think that we need the quietest voices the most, I think we need to listen to all voices with that “privileged listening” and that all people, individually, have a single quiet voice and that all people, individually, are a minority unto themselves. Therefore, I believe your position that some members of society should be treated as though they are somehow “special” or privileged based upon your own view of what constitutes a minority is moot. It is an effort to label and separate people into this group and that group, complicating a simple issue and dividing mankind unnecessarily. That’s my opinion.
Nicole said,
January 5, 2006 at 5:27 pm
I agree, Jacke, that it is difficult to process and understand a lot of what Brandon says on his blog because he is advanced in his studies. I think this is true of any discipline where someone is immersed in its study. Just like theology, my own area of study, psychology, has a whole plethora of concepts, ideas, and terminology that those outside of that domain have to struggle to get a foothold on. I think Meg talks about that over here.
Until I came to graduate school at a Christian school and was required to take some graduate level theology classes, nay did I understand all that “elitist semantics.” I think it made me angry at the church, because I think it’s a sad commentary on the church that I can grow up in the church all my life and not encounter terms such as “total depravity” and “reformation.” Two key concepts, one a theological concept, the other a major historical movement and tradition within the church, are important to our understanding of what it means to be a Christian and what it has meant to be a Christian.
All that being said, I’m glad that you’re here. I’m glad that you can see that at times I do hide behind my education. However, I also challenge you to go out and learn some of these things. You don’t need a graduate school education, or even any education. You obviously are drawn to this place for a reason. Yes, it’s probably so that you can teach each of us something, but also because you’re sensing there’s something deeper to your faith than what the majority of church communities have to offer. I feel that you are losing out to not go out and learn a deeper side of your faith that, unfortunately, you may never encounter in most churches. I appreciate the challenge discoursing with those who have more education than I do in this area of theology. It challenges me. It makes me strive to learn and know God in a way much differently than I would ever be motivated to do on my own.
I disagree. I think this is a cultural idea. Many people of color would disagree. As a psychologist, I disagree. You are an integral part of your past, your family, your church community, and the like. You can not be separated from the collective and the collective can not be separated from you. Even in your abscence from it, you affect the groups that you are a part of. God made us interdependent, we do inherit the legacy of those who come before us. We inherit sin, we inherit identity, we inherit good, as well. As a white middle class American, I can’t say that I can think of a minority that I am a part of that has difficulty having my voice heard. The only area I think I feel this is being a woman, and that is swiftly changing in many areas.
My friends of color tell me that their voices don’t get heard on an equal basis and I believe them. My liberal friends in America’s church don’t get heard with the same care. So we need to make room for them. We need to pause and attend with care because the majority voice so easily drowns out the minority voices. And prophetic voices tend to be a little left of center, and a whisper that we have to be straining and in silence to hear.
Jacke said,
January 5, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Nicole,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, which I take to heart.
I wonder if you understand what I am saying about a minority voice. Aren’t people of color an integral part of their past, their families, their church communities and the like? What is the difference? I see no difference between the black and the white. The only difference is that people expect there is a difference, it is promoted that there is a difference. The real fact is that we are each and everyone human with the same human capacities, feelings, emotions, strengths, weaknesses, advantages, disadvantages. Though this is a little variation of what I spoke of before, each of us could claim to be a minority voice in some capacity, each of us could form a club under the heading of that specific minority label, build a coalition and demand special attention for our being. I would also suggest that those in our church communities who are the traditionally defined as “minorities” in America, if a minority segment of that church community, likely ARE already receiving that “privileged listening.” It is the nature of human beings to be interested in what is unusual or different, would you agree? This may well be an issue on which we may have to agree to disagree.
Jacke said,
January 5, 2006 at 7:55 pm
For the record, the fact that I disagree on this issue does not in any way mean that I have any less respect for anyone, whether host or commentator, on this blog. I try to be open minded and teachable, I just don’t agree that someone’s minority status requires them to be given any “special” treatment over any other human being. Just wanted to make sure you all understand I enjoy my participation in this blog community and value the perspectives I find here, even when I disagree I learn about myself and my own perspectives. Thank you for the interesting discussion.
Stephen said,
January 6, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Jacke,
What I hear you saying is that because all people are individuals, the fairest way to treat them is equally since all are equal because of their possession of the title as “human” or “individual”. To treat people differently is wrong because a couple different reasons:
1. You seem to feel that some degree of discernment is required by Christians when considering different points of view. To specially treat opinions because they are minority is wrong because this ignores the standards which God sets down in the Bible.
2. To treat people differently because they are members of a minority community is wrong because it focuses on the differences rather than the similarities.
Do I have that basically right?
I think I mostly agree with what you say here. God does give us standards to use in our judgement. Also, we are supposed to respect each other because we are all children of God.
I think that what I want to do is to extend this a bit further by also including other directives.
First, I think that there is Biblical support for treat individuals differently based on their social situation, when that situation is unfair and puts them at a disadavantage.
Christ, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, sets out the stereotypically weak as the guides for our actions. Also, the early church is directed to look out for the poor, imprisoned, orphaned, and widows. They are not instructed to distribute money evenly to all.
This is equally seen in Christ’s treatment of rich and smart people differently. For example, it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven…. Also, the instruction to Joseph that he “must be born again,” when he is seeking an intellectual and theological foothold for salvation, carries an understanding that his social status acts as a stumbling block.
Therefore, when the Christian community is presented with an unpopular opinion, it must be tested with greater care (in the multiple meanings of the word) than it would be in the mainstream.
Let us take for example the black/white division that you bring up, Jacke. Yes, black and white should not matter in the body of Christ, but depending on your ethnicity and socio-economic status, you will generally attend a different church.
Sure, churches do not actively (usually) divide Christians by race, but people like to go to church where the feel comfortable. Thus, in my mid-western college town, there is a sharp divide between the black church and the white churches. This fundamentally impedes community and communication, not because there is some vast conspiracy or mumbo-jumbo, but because it is harder for humans to see things from other people’s perspectives when they don’t actively know and interact with people who are different.
This is why Christ continually shows by action and word that one of the things that Christians should do is to circulate and really connect with people who are at the margins. This means that we should strive to serve those at the edges of society.
Another problem in communication between you and Brandon might come from a different perception of what a “minority perspective” is. You might avoid confrontations be being as specific as you can. I can tell that Brandon is avoiding this because he does not want to get caught up in specific details, rather than engage with the larger ideas. This can be very confusing, and I think that is why Jacke might be having some problems understanding.
Jacke, maybe you can give us a scenario that will allow us to ensure that we are all talking about the same thing.
zalm said,
January 6, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I finally got caught up with this series and this conversation. Great stuff.
As I’ve watched Jacke and Brandon try to understand each other in this dialog, it seems to me that both of you are making valid points that aren’t so much contradictory as different.
Jacke, I hear you saying that what matters most in a discussion like this is the idea that we are all individuals interacting with other individuals. And I think you’re very much right to say so. We’re certainly individually responsible for how we interact with other individuals. And we are certainly called to treat each other with as much dignity as we feel we ourselves deserve.
At the individual level, I think you’re also right to argue that a word like “minority” isn’t terribly relevant. Maybe on this level, we need to give “privileged listening” not to whoever we think the minority might be, but rather we should pay particular attention to those individuals who are different from us.
In our sinful human nature, we tend to give privileged listening to those who are like us or to those who agree with us. But loving your neighbor and loving your enemy in the way Jesus asks us to requires a kind of empathy and a kind of humility that runs absolutely contrary to that nature. I think that trying to understand and love others who believe differently or live differently requires that we try harder to listen to them.
But we’re also called to community. And I hear Brandon arguing that once individuals interact in a larger community setting, certain group dynamics can take on a life of their own. Our individual actions and natures can be magnified into corporate or even structural sin. Just as it’s not in our individual natures to love those who are different from us, it’s often not in our corporate nature to treat with dignity those who don’t quite fit in to whatever group we’re a part of. I think Stephen did a wonderful job in his last comment of speaking about the special place Jesus had in his heart for those who had been marginalized by the aggregate sinfulness of that society.
Maybe the disconnect here is that Brandon is talking in abstractions, because he’s interested in the group dynamics, but Jacke is more interested in the specific interactions of individuals. And maybe a question that might bring the two interests together might be: how should we as individuals act in community in light of the idea that group dynamics tend to marginalize those who don’t quite fit in? Or, in light of Brandon’s next post about service, what is it in our communities that is in need of renewal and how should we act in community in a way that might lead to reconciliation?
Jacke said,
January 6, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Zalm writes:
and nails it!
I have some comments on both Stephen’s and Zalm’s comments but don’t have the will to tackle it right now. I think I’ll “stew” on all that a little while.
Excellent comments!
P.S. I’m also determined to continue to post little smileys just to bug Brandon. Lol.
Jacke said,
January 7, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Stephen writes:
I would not argue with this idea, Stephen. I would merely ask you how. Have a social in which you invite other churches to come together with yours? Is that the kind of thing you are speaking of? And what would the purpose be? Are each of these churches not doing just fine in the community of their choice? Are they not attending a church of their choice, a church in which, as you put it, they are comfortable?
As far as serving those at the edges of society, what are missions? Isn’t that serving those at the edges of society? Isn’t serving those at the edges of society an individual undertaking? You can call upon people to come to socials, you can call on people to serve their community but it all comes down to the individual choices of individual Christians. Each of the members of that group which is serving those at the edges of society was required to make an individual choice to be there. In my opinion this is all about the individual…we must educate the individual, inspire the individual or there will be no “Christian Community” with which to serve.
Stephen writes:
Let me get this straight. Brandon is endeavoring to tell us his views about “Reformed” Christianity but intentionally being very abstract and non-specific because he doesn’t want to engage on specific details but rather larger ideas but in order for me to communicate with him I am required to be much more specific than he? Is that what you are saying? Excuse me? For what reason is he even blogging about Reformed Christianity if he is so loosely broad in his descriptions that a person can’t even understand his point or what he is actually saying?
Jacke said,
January 8, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Zalm, I agree that we are all called to community. I think much of what is being discussed would warrant that we define why we even meet as a community to begin with. I am going to have to assume that some of you meet in a community for different reasons than I might.
One reason I meet in a community is for fellowship with believers. The reason that there are so many different denominations within the Christian faith seems to be that different denominations interpret certain scriptures in different ways.
I went to this site,:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/reading/article.cgi?id=55
which defines the beliefs of Reformed Christianity in a much more black and white manner than the way I am seeing on Brandon’s blog and I agree with the beliefs of Reformed Christianity as put forth in this article.
There are, however, denominations which do not believe in those precepts, those people generally will gravitate to the denomination which shares their views. They will meet with a community in which they feel fellowship. If I am a Baptist, I will likely not seek out a Lutheran church to join, if I am a Catholic, I’ll probably not attend services in the community of the Church of Christ. I am a member of a particular church so that I will be with a community who holds the beliefs of what is outlined in the above article. I suppose some of the clarification I need does revolve around what “minority voices” we are speaking about.
If the “minority” finds themselves in a position where they do not believe the same way as that particular “community” of believers, perhaps they should try another denomination, or if no such denomination exists, what would be wrong with them finding like-minded people who would like to meet with them in an more informal setting, such as a home, and start a church of their own? There are some scriptures which can be interpretated in different ways, certainly, but if a “minority” thinking individual varies drastically from the general views of the community I would think that it would be that “minority’s” voice which might be in need of seeking a DIFFERENT community, one in which he or she feels more comfortable. Does that make sense? I do believe that we should listen to everyone, but being one who recently went through a hideous church break up, I’ll have to say that I don’t think the minority should split the majority community because of their complaints or minority viewpoints. I watched a minority of complainers tear a church apart! Personally, if I had been that uncomfortable there I would have looked for a new church rather than tear the existing church apart.
Now, another reason I go to church is to be involved with a community of believers to worship and learn, to be inspired to go back out into the world and make my INDIVIDUAL mark for Jesus. If we, as individuals, wait to take action in our communities until an adequate amount of our fellow believers in the church can be organized then there is much that we could do on an individual basis that would go undone.
SPECIFIC example. My husband and I have adopted (not literally) three childen whom we pick up and take to church, we buy them meals, we buy them clothes, we purchased all the big items they asked “Santa” for this year because their parents cannot afford it. Yesterday, one of those children stopped by our home and delivered a Christmas card that he had made for us and forgotten to give us. I read it and it was very cute, he’s 10, when I thought I was finished he prompted me to turn it over and read the back…on the back he had written “for my guardian angels.” I was choked up to say the least and plied him full of chocolate pudding and candy before he left. But here’s my point…what if my husband and I, rather than taking the initiative to take these children under our wings had asked our Sunday School class to make this family a project? We’d have to have a committee to decide who was going to do what, how the money collected would be best spent…would they have voted to buy the little girl the Cinderella Kitchen she wanted for Christmas? Would they vote to buy them McDonald’s Happy Meals after church every Sunday morning and icecream on Wednesday night? Would each of the members of that class open their home to them when Mom and Dad have a fight? Would someone drive them to camp in the summer? It becomes much more complicated when done by committee than when individuals take the initiative. At the spur of the moment when the boy asked for cookies for his class for the Christmas party…would the committee have acted fast enough to get them to him the next day?
Our Sunday School class held an auction to raise funds to have the carpet cleaned. There was money left over, we are trying to be good stewards with the money and looking for ideas on how to spend it, an outreach to the community of some kind…well, it was brought up again this morning…three weeks after the fact and we still don’t have any ideas on what to do with the money. Am I making any sense here?
We, each of us, INDIVIDUALS, make up the community of believers, if we are all acting, INDIVIDUALLY, we can do much more AS a community than if we try to organize some sort of committee within the community to DICTATE to us what, how, when and why we do things. If as INDIVIDUALS we all listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in our lives, I believe the COMMUNITY of believers has the power to make a huge difference in our society. This is my conclusion: The individual IS the community.
Stephen said,
January 9, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Jacke and Brandon,
Excuse me for the large block quotes. I know that this annoys many people, but I constantly forget things that I am trying to say unless I have them right in front of me as I write.
That is the age-old question, Jacke. I have many personal opinions on the “how,” but in the end, it depends on the church and the community that it resides in. There are also, as many people’s comments have indicated, layers in which these interactions would take on different forms. There are individual, small group, church, town, region, state, national, and international levels, to name but a few off-hand, and these will each have different things to be taken into account.
As for the “social” idea, I don’t know if that is a bad idea to start with. I remember being in AWANA and having very productive meetings where we got together with inner-city AWANA programs for games, worship, and speakers. This is just the beginning, but I think that being in the same place at the same time will help us get to know people who are different.
The purpose would be simple but difficult: to enhance a community working together towards the Kingdom of God. I don’t think that all of these churches are doing “fine,” but I don’t know what you mean by “fine.” Is that a demarcation of the size of a church? It’s prosperity in terms of money? The size of the building? The number of people saved? The number of missions projects? How does one measure the success of a church?
Paul and Christ seem to indicate that it is a matter of paying attention to the church’s fruits. However, we are not clear if that is really a quantitative game.
As for the notion of “choice,” I honestly don’t know. I know that there are very strong pressures on largely white churches to move out of the inner-cities. Much of this pressure is economic, but in the churches that I have attended, the choice is not about, “Where can we serve the Kingdom of God best,” it is about, “Where can we drive the shortest from our enclaves and not have to worry about parking?”
Also, when did God tell the Church that their worship and service should be comfortable and at the choice of the participants? It seems to me that the examples of those called by God to do service has always been a matter of discomfort and sacrifice. So, we might not have jumbo-trons or a gym or a full stage and lighting in a service (the examples of “blessings” and “service opportunities” that have been given in new suburban, mega-churches), but is that really the function of the church?
In other words, is it really about our “choice” even if we assume that all Christians in an area are really free to choose ANY church to attend?
Good question, Jacke, what IS the purpose of missions? It seems to me that there are two different notions of missions: 1)salvation and 2)services.
Now, my family has a very strong background in long-term missions both domestically and abroad to Thailand, Kenya, Senegal, Bangladesh, American prisons, and South Africa. Some of my family has served primarily in the first area where they focus on conversion and church planting, while others have focused on providing health-care, political support, and agricultural education. These are not mutually exclusive, but the way that mission boards are worked in America force the missionary (in this sense used for one whose main profession is in missions work) to primarily focus on one or the other.
The problem that my relatives have all spoken about or exhibited is that even in domestic missions, the people being ministered to are primarily seen as an exterior group. “We” are going to help “Them.” Sure, relationships are formed and friendships made, but there is never really mission to integrate into the community that one serves. In fact, “going native” whether literally or figuratively has long been a concern of churches who direct missions projects.
Even when missions is seen as an individual undertaking, it is almost always supported in some way by a community of believers, whether financially, emotionally, physically, or spiritually.
However, when does Christ indicate that missions, whether locally or globally, should be an individual pursuit? It seems to me that Christ is calling the disciples in the Great Commission to all go, in a communal sense. I know that when Christ first sends the disciples out on their own that he sends them in small groups.
Ultimately, yes, we all must choose on our own to do our own missions, whatever that may mean, but does that mean that it is an “individual undertaking”? No, I don’t think so. I think that the image of the Church as the “Body of Christ” does not allow for anything done in the Church to be totally individual.
Jacke, while I agree that there is a great need to inspire and educate the individual to service, I am not sure how you get from every decision requiring an individual decision to it being “all about the individual.” Who is doing the education and inspiring? Is this another lone individual? Even if it is, what happens when we have one individual educating or inspiring one or two individuals? Do we not get a group?
Let us use an example from language. We are not born knowing how to speak, correct? Nor are we taught speech by just one person. Even if we were to lock a newborn with a caregiver in a room until speech was fully formed, that caregiver learned to speak from someone. This means that we have a group/community, even if it is just generationally.
Therefore, while we cannot ignore the individual choice necessary for service/missions, we must also take into account the community of influences as well. It is not an either/or. It is a both/and.
First, Jacke, I must ask whether you genuinely desire to be “excused” or if that is some of your poetic license which some might take as aggressive or rude? Most of the time in contemporary society, people use “Excuse me,” when they mean something like “F— Off.” I am not saying that you mean that. It was merely unclear to me in what tone/mood you have written your comment.
Now, I must literally beg your pardon for expressing myself poorly. What I meant was that Brandon seems to want to talk about the reformed tradition generally. You seem to understand more clearly when ideas are related to specific examples or ideas.
Therefore, in order to foster dialogue, I was suggesting that BOTH of you adapt your communication methods. This means that if you come from your end (the specific) and ask questions about whether this is in line with the ideas that Brandon puts forth (the general) and Brandon does the reverse, then progress might actually be made.
In other words, Jacke, rather than saying “Brandon/Steve, you seem to be saying X. This is not clear to me, therefore, you have failed at making your argument,” or, “Brandon/Steve, I do not understand what you are saying about missions, explain ‘missions’,” you can do what you did in providing the example of the social. I think that that was a fantastic sort of way to give both parties in the dialogue something concrete to help act as a foundation for the complicated ideas that each are trying to refine.
I could respond to something that was clear to both and build my ideas on that. Then, when you respond, you can build and adapt that. Brandon and I are both very bad at this as well. It is very easy to just assume that everyone reading is following us as we write, and for any confusion that I might have caused, I whole-heartedly apologize and welcome specific feedback and questions.
Jacke said,
January 9, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Stephen, I appreciate the time you took to exhaustively answer me. I think if you will read the post I made to Zalm some of what I was trying to get at with you will become a little clearer. I’m not sure that I can add much to that. I think I would be repeating myself if I continued in this discussion, and to be honest with you, I fear that most people may be growing tired and bored with my input.
You were correct about my tone. I have found the discussion a bit frustrating and I let that frustration come out in my answer. I have apologized to Brandon, I also apologize to you for that weakness.
I have no big disagreement with anything you or Zalm have said and both of you clarified much for me. Thanks to both of you for taking the time. I view that as a sacrifice and it is appreciated.
Sincerely, Jacke