-
Technorati
-
Feed Burner
-
Recent Comments
DB on Women and Children First
musicman on Family Member Tomczak Responds
John Immel on Women and Children First
carlotta on Women and Children First- John Immel on Women and Children First
sopwith on Women and Children First- Sopwith on Women and Children First
- Sopwith on Women and Children First
- carlotta on Women and Children First
- DB on Will to Live … Fight to Die
Joe on Women and Children First- John Immel on Family Member Tomczak Responds
- carlotta on Women and Children First
- DB on Family Member Tomczak Responds
Joe on Will to Live … Fight to Die
-
Protect yourself
Toga-Induced Christian Tribalism
I originally posted this on Texas HB 36: Informed Consent to an Abortion in response to something Canary, resident commentor extraordinaire, said about the concept “First among equals.”
Here is what she said:
BU-WA-HA-HA-HA.
Gee - I thought the Greeks were a bit wiser than that. To tell someone “We are all equal, but I’m first” is really dumb, and that Christian Theology adopted the idea is even dumber. Even a first grader at the end of the lunch line knows just how DUMB that saying really is in literal terms. “If I’m equal, hows come I didn’t get a slice of the sausage pizza like those in the front of the line, and hows come I didn’t get equal time to eat my mystery meat casserole?” Amazing what sort of nonsense we will ingest simply because a leader assumes authority over us and therefore must know everything. Down, Kitty. I’m finished
However, after adding my comments, I got some off line heat about my responde being a post of its own. They raised all sorts of ruckus, telling me the thoughts would get lost. People are always looking out for me.
So…even though I have been saying in my previous articles that I was going to follow a theme for three successive posts, I am going to give in to pressure and render this to the world for blogging consumption.
Enjoy.
*****
Canary’s ever so hysterical satire of “first among equals” notwithstanding…I want to wax brainy for a minute.
Political and social thought has been in flux, well, since humans formed confederations based on genetic codes. We call them tribes. The function of tribalism is nothing more than protection. When individuals realize they do not have the requisite strength to fend off all interlopers against their person, they look for ways to increase that power. The historic challenge was to know who was willing to share mutual best interest: value you and defend you. The easiest distinction is to gravitate to those who look like you do. Tribal-ism is effectively racism: the belief that genetic heritage means philosophical solidarity. That was a wordy way of saying that because you look like me, you will be most likely to value me.
Racism was (and still is) the lowest common denominator of social/political organization. The problem with Tribalism is that it is a bloody, bloody, bloody way to live. History proves that out.
The question becomes in every tribe: Who decides what the individual sacrifice is for the sake of the tribe to participate in the protection?
This is the beginning of political theory.
By the emergence of the Greco/Roman culture, the world had been awash in blood from the ruling power of warlords and mystic despots since time immemorial. The end result was to wrestle with that very fundamental question stated above: “Who decides the nature of sacrifice?”
The historic power to dictate was called king, despot, ruler, emperor et al. But this has begged a predicate question: what makes this man qualified to dictate to everyone else? The gods? Genetics?
Does being Emperor make this man a qualitatively better KIND of man?
If so, who can oppose him?
Do the gods oppose him?
If he is not a qualitatively better person, what does that say of all men?
(And here was the radical evolution of thought.) Could it be that all men are equal? If all men are equal, then how can we justify who is in charge?
The Greco/Roman world wrestled with this very question seeking many different political answers. First among Equals was one of those answers: primus inter pares I think is the Latin.
Christianity hit the world stage dead square in the middle of this ongoing political debate and rode the evolution of thought into the Middle Ages. By the middle of the 2nd century, Christianity had become fully inundated with Greco/Roman preoccupations and concerns. Christianity found itself needing to answer a very similar tribalistic question: Who is authentic and able to participate in our group?
Over time I will expand on this BUNCHES to make my point, but I will offer this fodder now.
Philosophical tribalism is called Sectarianism. Sectarianism is really nothing more than intellectual racism: the assumption that those of like MIND will be most likely to value and validate and protect me.
So, here is the issue. The Greco/Roman world was not stupid as such… they were struggling to understand the proper relationship between the governed and the governing.
They were making an evolution of thought from the utter inequality of people, to considering how can we have all men equal but some exercise governance?
And I will never let you forget that Governance is ALWAYS FORCE.
Historically, Christianity decided that AUTHORITY dictated good and men in authority were indeed a better KINDS of men. Christianity also decided that genetics mattered in who had authority. Apostolic Succession is the Catholics’ solution to ”Who is Qualified?” which is really the non-genetic version of Monarch succession via birth, which really has its roots in Tribalism.
Protestants have a problem, however. They can’t claim succession, so they need a justification for “Who is qualified?” And because they started this whole reformation dealeo by saying that everyone can read the book for themselves–scripture alone–they needed to find a political concept that seems to satisfy the very obvious Biblical idea that all men are in fact equal.
Some half clever folks decided to reach back into history and pull out some Latin, with some ties to political theory. “First among Equals” fits the bill.
Political thought and evolution did not stop with the first, second, or third century. And canonical literature draws no definitive lines around the subject: the writers tending to emulate historic Judaic social/political organization or copying emerging Greco/roman political development. And more insidious, successive generations of Christian leadership just hijacked existing Roman political structure and retrofitted with biblical shamanism to sanctify their actions.
The atrocities committed by the perpetrators of biblical shamanism and subsequent spiritual tyranny have been covered up by modern academic shills who fail to scrutinize the relationshp between the source ideas that produced the historic doctrines. It is easier to sanctify the ideas with the wonder word ”orthodoxy,” and start screaming Heresy the moment anyone points to the slithering, writhing mass of Helenisitc/Plantonist Christian thought as the source of tyranny. This is how they get around having to address the obvious destructive outcomes.
Humanity has made all sorts of social and political improvements in the last few thousand years in spite of the church. That is a hard reality to absorb, but it is obvious to those that look. Christianity has not been an agent of political or social liberty. This reality inspired these quotes by James Madison in Memorial and Remonstrance 1785:
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.
Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
James Madison
Why do Christians ignore the social and political evolutions over the last 1,700 years? Because no one wants to argue with Latin.
>snicker<
We ignore the evolutions because of a vain commitment to interpretive literalism and misplaced “Biblical Modeling.” These intellectual Red Herrings lead to theological cul-de-sacs and are exacerbated by slavish commitments to historic arguments and the endless dance around the “orthodoxy” tree.
But if you start asking the right questions, the Toga-Induced Christian Tribalims starts to lose its power, and eventually one realizes that the source of the spiritual tyranny is deeply embedded in sectarianism.
Comments
16 Responses to “Toga-Induced Christian Tribalism”
Got something to say?
for some reason, the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is coming to mind about now….hehehe
John, this progression of thought and subsequent transition into the understanding of modern Protestants/evangelicals is astounding…it really does make a difference to know why we believe what we believe…or at least understand why those who TELL us what to believe, believe what they do…
amazing how much we just take without thinking…and when you trace it back, the lightbulbs begin coming on..and lots of those “aha!” moments happen…it’s the stuff dreams are made of <giggle>
and Dan…nanny, nanny boo boo
Good, John. Very good.
It sure helps to know history. I think it is amusing how the Protestants got around the equality of all by adopting “first among equals”. It seems like, for ions, men and women have always wanted someone to lead them. Isn’t that why the Israelites asked for a King?
Maybe it does help us feel “protected” when there is a leader up front who will tell us what to do, and maybe save our booties from the enemy, in the meantime. It sure clarifies the recent U.S. elections for me. NOW I understand why a certain some-one (may his name be forever revered) was elected by half the country. Half of this nation obviously doesn’t know their history.
It is interesting to shrink this “first among equals” down to elementary school size thinking. Who decided that the “W’s” had to always go last in line? Who was in charge of the school, and all of us little tykes?
Well, the principal. But how did he get to be in charge? The school board. Who elected them? Hmmm…I don’t know that one. I’m sure we can follow this chain of authority all the way up the ladder.
Then, of course, there were teachers. My third grade teacher by the name of Mrs. Teemer, would walk around the room with her long ruler, and threaten to “shake us baldheaded” if we acted up. Who gave her that authority? I guess, the almighty school board did.
There were the hall monitors, older kids, who got to tell us little runts where to go. They got their authority from the teachers.
Don’t forget the bullies, who liked to boss around the weak and defenseless, taking our lunch money when they could. Obviously, they assumed their own authority over those of us who were too small to defend ourselves.
My point is, someone gets to be “first among equals” because someone else gives them that authority (unless they assume it on their own). In the church, we want a king, a protector, a leader to have faith for us, sometimes so that we can be lazy in our own faith. We think, superstitiously of course, that being “under” someone’s authority will protect us from bad stuff happening to us. Man, is that a rude awakening when you find out it isn’t true.
I believe that the Word of God is the standard by which to live. In the word, Peter asked that leaders be chosen BY THE CHURCH to help serve, so that he could be freed up to preach about Jesus. He said, “choose men filled with wisdom and the Holy Spirit”. These men were not to be kings (bishops, popes, pastors, bullies), but SERVANTS, filled with wisdom and the Holy Spirit.
By the way, John. I spelled “nonsense” wrong in the quote you used. Ha! Guess I need a dictionary. By whose authority was that written? Who decided how “nonsense” should be spelled? Oy, my brain is trapped in a round-about…
Canary…heehee I love how your mind works sister!
you said: We think, superstitiously of course, that being “under” someone’s authority will protect us from bad stuff happening to us. Man, is that a rude awakening when you find out it isn’t true.
I think the same people in authority over us sell us this mindset so that we will 1) seek out such authority over our lives and 2) remain under it indefinately. But in order to do this they must maintain three things: 1) we need their covering (total depravity) 2) there is a threat we need to be protected from and 3) they are the ones qualified to do it
Divine right of Kings doesn’t fly so well anymore in the politcal arena…except in the Church it does of course where CJ and others assume such right because of their callings and giftings..um, and not the mention their gender..but who gave them this right? God? How do we know that for certain? Did CJ have a burning bush experience he failed to mention? Like your heirarchy in school…we rarely stop to ask these questions…we just keep getting bullied.
Christians have continued under this divine right assumption far too long…it’s silly. How can they live in a nation founded on principles of all men being created equal (and THAT is the divine right we do all have - right to EQUALITY among mankind) and yet chuck that logic and truth and submit to men quite obviously who assert themselves as superior to them?
I can see this mindset in a nation where the political system is heirarchical or a dictatorship..but in America? It doesn’t make sense.
Juli, I have had the same thoughts, especially in reference to women. How can we accept our freedom in this country, such as owning property, voting, and such, yet put our liberty in Christ aside when we enter churchdom? How could I have done that? It is because I was manipulated by leaders who did not have a grasp on this freedom given to us by God. They tried to own me and, in my ignorance, I allowed this, thinking it was God’s desire.
So perhaps it is ignorance of God and His ways that make us slaves to tradition. I just know that I must keep on knowing Christ, and understand who the Father is, and allow the Holy Spirit to work in me. It is so vital to my life and liberty!
John, may I add that I am going to give you the greatest compliment I could possibly think of: YOU MAKE ME THINK.
It really does boil down to Who owns you. I think I would like to tackle answering this:
I OWN ME. God gave me this gift, calling it free will. As a Christian, I gladly give my life back to Him, but it is mine to give.
I continue to marvel at the wisdom of our founding fathers. They stated that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Intrinsic in this (extrapolating a bit here from a Christian view) is the idea that each one has value, purpose and giftings given to them by God. A healthy society is one in which, among other things, each person has the freedom and safety to pursue those treasures God has placed in their hearts - whether it be delving into the sciences or the arts or philosophy or philanthropy, etc. God has deposited something in each one. We find those treasures, cultivate them, and use them to glorify Him and find fulfillment or “happiness”. Hand in hand with the concept of personal liberty also comes personal responsibility or self-government. Democracy will not work well if each citizen does not take seriously his responsibilities as parents, students, workers, voters, etc. - to be productive, self-governed members of society. Even so, I believe our founding fathers knew well the weaknesses of human society and so included many checks and balances to hold each branch of government accountable. This system, though it too is imperfect, is probably the best man will ever come up with. Even the travesty of slavery was eventually righted due at least in part to folks believing that all men (and women!) really ARE created equal and that one man should never own another.
We had a speaker from South Africa come to our church once. This man had traveled the continent of Africa and had spoken many other places around the world. He had gotten a spiritual feel, so to speak, of each place he had visited. In regard to America, he said, when you arrive here, you feel like you can do ANYTHING! It was a wide-open, the sky is the limit, go for it kind of atmosphere. I loved that. Freedom! We sometimes don’t realize what we have here.
So, the question is (as canary stated), why, when this is our heritage, would we ever give up these precious freedoms? How could we willingly, without a fight, lay down that which was purchased for us at such a terrible price? Purchased by the life blood of many good Americans. Purchased by Jesus’ life blood.
I state it again: I OWN ME. The state does not own me. The church does not own me. I do. I take this precious gift of my life and yield ownership of it to the Lord Jesus. He is the only one worthy of this sacrifice.
I am not sure how this fits into the Calvinism/Armenianism debate. I have ideas, but that’s another topic altogether.
So, as Bill O’Reilly would say, where am I wrong?
Good ole’ Gracie. You put it just right!
If I am remembering my history correctly, President Lincoln said of Harriet Beacher Stowe (Uncle Tom’s Cabin) that her book helped to begin the Civil War, because it revealed the atrocities of slavery for the country to see (of course, there was also the sucession fight, too). I think her story gave people the passion they needed to fight the horrors of people owning people.
Maybe blogging is our “Beacher Stowe” method of creating the passion needed by believers to “set My people free”! If one,
19th century woman could have such an impact on our nation, imagine what a group of us could have on God’s nation of believers through cyberspace. The heart of the Lord cries out, “Set My people free!”.
Canary and Gracie…you go girls!! I love you two so much! You inspire me with your own inspiration and belief in individual freedom and personal ownership…the power and blessing of faith in the life of the believer only comes through freedom, not incarceration of the mind, spirit, or soul. I have spent far too long bound up by adopting someone else’s beliefs..and not my own. As a result, I was joyless, powerless, and faith-less…the worst of all.
Canary..that is an amazing parallel to Harriet Beacher…I do think the recognition of suffering at the hands of tyranny - be it spiritual, social, political, whatever…is the beginning to freedom. Someone has to speak up - and that is the hardest part at times…keeping things in the dark allows them to remain, and grow darker.
Shedding the Light of the Truth on every aspect of our lives, individually, collectively…is the path to freedom, blessing, joy, peace, and life!
Great men and woman have fought throughout history for liberty, at all levels…and we benefit as a result. I want my children, my grandchildren, and generations behind me to be able to continue in the spiritual freedoms God intended for us to have in Christ, by faith, as we choose life and not death. There is much work ahead…and much reward.
Canary….. thanks for the compliment! Gotta love thinking women!
Canary, Gracie, and Juli,
Actually I am going to say that the current trend in American politics is the logical conclusion of cultural assumptions.
The United States no longer defends the rights of the individual. It defends the cause of the greater good. It justifies taking from the individual with the moral premise of altruism. Listen to our political leaders… they are no longer making policy statements, they are making moral arguments, advancing concepts like, sacrifice, and selflessness, overtly saying that individuals are selfish for seeking ends that benefit themselves. They villainize those who take personal initiative without the express consent of those in governing power.
They speak of predestination though they don’t use that specific word. They speak of depravity as the moral predicate of ambition and self. They advocate pain and suffering as man’s natural state. And condemn all who do not share equally in pain and suffering. With impunity they hijack Bible ideas and claim spiritual absolution for their moral failings all the while exploiting the sum of individual lives.
Where else have we heard these ideas advocated? I will let your lightning fast minds ponder.
Notice: the justification of slavery is always the same: predestination, moral depravity, suffering as the natural state of man, sacrifice is the highest human virtue.
Go read the Christian defenders of slavery before, during and after the civil war and you will see these themes pounded relentlessly from the pulpit.
I am telling all who will listen…. We are resurrecting the very doctrines that produce destruction, and death and corruption. We the church are being swallowed whole in the mire of our own intellectual and philosophical bankruptcy.
We love to claim credit for the US constitution and in the next breath preach doctrines that subvert the very premise: Human equality means that all men are to be defended in their individual pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. You cannot have it both ways. Either man was created as an end in himself, or man is a sacrificial animal to be bled to death by the howling masses.
Gracie,
You asked where this fits into the Calvin/Armenian debate. ; ) trust me … we will get there.
I will eventually have to wade into all of that… but I’ve got a lot of ground work to do first. But after I do lay that ground work… I suspect that, first you will be made uncomfortable, then you will be angry, and then… you will shout for a joy you did not dream possible.
John - talk about whetting the appetite for more….you’re such a tease…
love the description of what’s ahead btw..in terms of the groundwork and ultimate realizations that will come
Don’t you think that if the individual is valued, if each one is given dignity and a chance for a better life, that slowly but inevitably, society as a whole (or the greater good) will be positively affected?
I have rambled on the blogs about how I think some pastors, particularly some SGM pastors, are skewed in their thinking regarding their authority and function in the Body. It always made more sense to me that pastors should be looking for those things stored up in each believer, fan those to flame, train and equip the saints, and turn them loose, not only in the local church, but anywhere the Lord would lead. Doesn’t this seem a more effective way of reaching the lost, helping the poor, invading (for lack of a better word) business or political arenas, music, art, theater … or, in a nutshell, demonstrating God’s Kingdom in every facet of life?
I cannot understand, nor will I ever “submit” again to a man dictating to me what HE thinks is in my heart. Sorry boys, but you guys are infallible, you often have an agenda and a very narrow view of what service to God looks like. Too stifling.
In regard to our nation, John, I see what you are saying. Sadly, the same commentary applies here but the repercussions are far greater.
I cannot understand, nor will I ever “submit” again to a man dictating to me what HE thinks is in my heart. Sorry boys, but you guys are (not) infallible, you often have an agenda and a very narrow view of what service to God looks like. Too stifling.
You are right, as usual, Gracie. If leaders would allow the Lord to “raise His own kids” (go, Juli!), there would be so much more power in the church to bring in the lost.
Thanks, Canary! I forgot to insert the “not”.
They are fallible. Heh heh. But NOT infallible.
Canary - “God can raise his own kids” is John’s phrase, not mine…
but I steal it from him quite often because it is so good and right!