ON THE LIGHTER SIDE

WHY AM I SO TIRED ?

The population of this country is about 237 million.

104 million are retired.

That leaves 133 million to do the work.

There are 85 million in school, which leaves 48 million to do the work.

Of this there are 29 million employed by the federal government, leaving 19 million to do the work.

2.8 million are in the Armed Forces, which leaves 16.2 million work.

Take from the total the 14,800,000 people who work for State and City Governments and that leaves 1.4 million to do the work.

At any given time there are 188,000 people in hospitals, leaving 1,212,000 to do the work.
Now, there are 1,211,998 people in prisons.

That leaves just two people to do the work.

You and me.

And you're sitting at your computer reading jokes...

STICKS AND STONES . . .

Prov 2:12 - Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse . . . . NIV

FUNDAMENTALISM:
Everyone is a fundamentalist
No one is a fundamentalist

The way the term "fundamentalist" is used today is so unhelpful and prejudicial in nature that it makes me wonder what kind of purpose it has, other than to divide people and create barriers of communication. I think it generates murkiness rather than clarity, and unfriendly attitudes rather than openness. Anytime we label others, or even label ourselves, we create false unnecessary barriers between ourselves and others, and define limits for our perceptions about who we are, who others are, and about possibilities of communication between people. At present, there is no universal interpretation for the term "fundamentalism." It is merely used as sharp stick to jab and harm people. It has no beneficial purpose that I can tell, and it is certainly not descriptive in any useful way.

Once, in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner, I suggested to a person with whom I was having a discussion about fundamentalism, that the term had a very precise definition, and he needed to be careful about how he used the word, and who he labeled as a fundamentalist. The gentleman agreed with me, and fired back with a definition of fundamentalism based on an early twentieth century description of Protestantism that he had once read. I could tell he felt very proud of nailing me with his knowledge. I did not respond to it or disagree with him. That would have invited an endless argument; not something I'm fond of. I just smiled and let it pass.

But, this encounter underscored for me what I had already suspected, that the term fundamentalism is tossed about without much understanding, and without much relevant contemporary definition. Usually the term is used to indicate someone who is intolerant of others, resistant to ideas that do not line up with their view of reality, resistant to change, closed-minded to new ideas, forceful and persistent in presenting their own views to the exclusion of another's views, and unkind to those who hold different beliefs; maybe even willing to use violence to promote their ideas, or to suppress alien ideas. Of course, this is not a precise definition, only a summation of the way I hear the word being sometimes used.

But that is just my point. There is no completely articulate definition of the word, especially as it is being currently used in the media. It is employed more as a dismissive label about some rube who has no common sense, no connection to the modern plurlistic world; one who wouldn't recognize the truth that there is no such thing as truth, if it jump out and bit them.

If fundamentalism can be described in at least some of the ways I put together in the previous paragraph, then, if I use that as a lens to look at people and groups, families, and governments, church leaders and philosophers, scientists and school teachers, it would seem that everyone I've ever met was a fundamentalist at some point, and many people at numerous points. This is the problem with the use of the word. It has no substantive meaning, other than to indicate, in a rather intolerant way, that some OTHER person is intolerant, but not the one using the term. The term "fundamentalism" itself is an intolerant label. It oozes disgust the way it is employed. That is curious to me in such a culture of tolerance as we claims ours to be.

The word "fundamentalism" is a bomb that whoever uses the term first automatically holds the moral high ground, and the other person (the person being accused as a fundamentalist - and that is what it is, an accusation), must prove they are NOT a fundamentalist. The burden of proof is placed on the so-called "fundamentalist" to deny it in some tangible way. The use of the term is demeaning and coercive in the manner in which it is wielded.

The employ of the word is a kind of labeling, like using the "N" word to demean another person, or like placing "the scarlet letter" on some one's coat, so all can see the "undesirable" person in the midst -- the outcast -- the sinner -- the freak. It marks one in the eyes of others and dialogue becomes pretty much impossible, to say nothing of dignity and camaraderie. The term is pejorative.

Some people don't seem to mind being called a fundamentalist. In my view, this is much like when a dog owner calls their dog unkind things in an pleasant tone and the dog wags its tail, thinking the owner is saying something nice. Some people are just a little too slow to understand the depth of the insult. This is unfortunate, and it is sad. At least to me it is.

Let's face it. We all have beliefs we think are right - or best - as opposed to ideas we think are not as correct, or not as good. How else can one develop any kind of personal opinion at all? One has to make decisions about ideas; which ideas are worthy and which ideas are less worthy. To imply we don't do that is just plain dishonest. It is not possible to have no opinion. Even if one tried, it would indicate that one is of the opinion that that is preferable. So, in that sense, we are all a little fundamentalistic (is that a word?)

We are living in an impossible world today. No one wants to be seen as intolerant, so they down play their beliefs so as not to offend someone else. This will prove itself unproductive in the end. I personally don't mind if someone has views different than mine, even if they think my ideas are crap and theirs are totally right on. I can listen to divergent views in an open and engaging manner without either capitulating or wanting to retaliate. I want people to own their beliefs, just as I would like the freedom and courtesy to own my own beliefs. Is that bad?

I too would like the respect of being allowed to hold my own beliefs without being labeled as cultural-undesirable, or a fundamentalist. Or, here is another solution; I will allow others to call me a fundamentalist for my beliefs, if they will allow me to call them a fundamentalist for the things they believe. Then we might be at least closer to an understanding of how unnecessary the term is. It is one of the many useless words floating about in our language that does more harm than good. Words in my opinion, should be used for good, not for harm. This is what I am striving for, and, perhaps, making some headway . . . I do hope and pray this is true.

There are certain words I think we should call a moratorium on and never use again. One of those is of course the "N" word, as well as slang for Mexicans, Jews, Italians, Polish people, and so on (I'm of Italian decent, so I know the pain words have caused my grandparents and mother - I am not immune to it). But the words I think we should ban from our ordinary speech are words like Right-Wing, Left-Wing, Christian, Conservative, Liberal, and Fundamentalist . . . among numerous others. These words create more confusion than they remedy. They no longer clarify, they only falsify an idea about another human being. All such falsification through labeling is bound to be less productive and more divisive, more intolerant and less respectful, than learning to know each other as people, and being able to share our views openly and freely, even if we have views to which we hold passionately.

Listen for the word fundamentalism in the news, in the speech of others, in the public square, and see for yourself if it doesn't have a prejudicial quality to it. See for yourself if it is not spoken with disdain. Then ask yourself, if the one using the word about others, is doing so because they believe their own views are more "fundamentally" true and better than the one whom they have labeled as the "fundamentalist?" Couldn't such a person also be considered a fundamentalist of their own worldview? I am hoping that we all can start listening to ourselves a bit more analytically, and ask ourselves if the words we use are not only accurate and helpful, but if they are respectful and enlightened. Words really are important.

ARE YOU AN ICONOCLAST?

BREAKING OF IMAGES

We all know what a religious icon is. It's a painting, usually by an artist of the Eastern Orthodox Church persuasion. The painting of icons is an antique practice that survives till today. But the idea of an icon includes MUCH more than religious images. It includes ideas and values of all kinds, religious and secular. An icon, generally speaking, is a symbolic image that represents ideas, beliefs and values. The term icon has even come to include the tiny images on a computer monitor, or a telephone screen.

A person who uses icons is called an iconophile -- image lover, and one who does not like icons and tries to destroy them is called an iconoclast -- or image breaker. When iconoclasts in the past have gotten together and gone around breaking images, these events, and sometimes whole movements, are called iconoclasms.

An iconoclasm happens when one group of people break (destroy) the images of another group of people. This is not just true in the world of religion and art, it is also true in the area of culture. We have all heard the term Postmodernism, and there are many facets of Postmodernism, some good, and some not so good, but one of the central features of Postmodernism is its iconoclastic tendencies.

Postmodernists (at times), tend to through the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. In a wholesale approach to defacing, rearranging, or outright destroying previous notions of culture, Postmodernists occasionally employ iconoclastic techniques to rearrange everyone's world. It can be very coercive, authoritarian, and elitist, while claiming that no one has the right to dictate to others how they should live. It is often self contradictory.

This tendency to "break" the images of others is not just true of Postmodernists today, but it was true also of many groups throughout history, from the Protestant reformers to the revolutionaries of the French, from American patriots to people who burned the records of the Beatles in the 1960s. Some of the English Protestants of the Seventeenth century even took to smashing stained-glass windows, hacking off the faces from religious statues, and whitewashing over artwork in the churches that they found offensive.

There have been lots of iconoclasts through history. iconoclasm is as old as civilization itself. Every time there is an revolution, the old icons are gathered up and destroyed, and new icons take their place; images that are imbued with their own "new" ideas, meanings, and values.

The irony is, every succeeding generation of iconoclasts believes with complete confidence that the old must be removed to make way for the new, only to find that within a very short time (usually within about two generations), the new is not doing as well as it thought it would.

It then becomes the stuff against which the next revolution will rebel. It is a vicious cycle, and one would think we'd learn something from this screwy process. Some optimistic souls believe that each revolution bring us up one more rung on the never ending ladder of human / social / political / religious evolution. You gotta love that kind of optimism.

Iconoclasms may be unavoidable, but there is no guarantee that they are a means to progress. Progress is basically a myth of western culture. To what are we progressing? What does progress mean? Progress is basically an antiquated idea left over from the French Enlightenment that was made possible by the Christian Humanism which preceded it. The idea of progress makes us feel good about ourselves. It gives us a sense that there is meaning in the universe, even if we could not say exactly what that meaning might be.

There is, in fact, no way we can know if we are "Progressing," or "Regressing," or going nowhere at all. The notion of progress is one of those non-scientific left-overs from an age when faith itself was valued because of the influence of the Church on society. The idea of human progress is a construct of faith, not fact, yet it continues to be a deeply held idea in many Western societies - even within our scientific communities. It is an idea that will eventually give way to scrutiny, then ambivalence and ultimately decay. Then a new civilization will replace us with new ideas and will smash our precious icons to pieces, instituting images of their own. History has proven that this is the way of all flesh, in every case, without exception. We Americans will not escape the process. Today we are still safe because progress is a value we continue to hold dear.

It is important, I think, to make a case for the continuity of certain things; for history, for antiquity and for all that came before. The Russian Marxist/Leninist thought to bring about a utopia by sweeping away the icons of Czarist Russia, and what did it do? It left a permanent scar on the face of the earth, and an eternal lament in the hearts of many of the Russian people. Stalin killed millions of his own countrymen and women, in search of the progress that would liberate humankind from the tyranny of Capitalism, so he thought, yet Stalin is dead and Capitalism is still alive and VERY well in this world. So much for that agenda, yet Capitalism is not the savior of human kind, and it is its own kind of tyranny. The story is not fully told.

Sure, things do change, and even more needs to change than has. Change feels like the only constant in the universe, but not all change is beneficial, just as not all iconoclasms are helpful. Much irreversible and unfortunate damage has been done in this world due to such behaviors and attitudes.

Today, however, we are in an iconoclastic age. The images of Modernity are being destroyed "left and right." Maybe some of this is good, but I'm willing to bet we will look back and regret some of the changes we are making these days. For those of you who have time, find Leonard Cohen's song, "The Future," and listen to it for awhile. See if you don't hear the echo of some of the same things I'm trying to get at in this blog.

It is probably important to accept the fact that not all conventions need to be swept away. Only an immature or twisted mind would think such a thing. Not everyone over thirty is untrustworthy, not every young person is irresponsible, not every old person is to be tossed aside for the sake of "hipper" generations. Some categories, like family, authority, virtue, and human kindness, need to remain stable, long-lived, protected, and honored from generation to generation. The gospel is another one of those things. Art, not a particular style, but art in and of itself, is another one, and should remain part of one's spiritual life, both individually and corporately. Many things should, regardless of innovation, remain constant in our civilization.

The next time you feel tempted to trample on an older person because they are in-the-way of your progress, push aside someone from a different ethnicity because you feel threatened by their color or their practices, ignore the values of your parents' generation because you think yourself more enlightened, mock your grandparents for being irrelevant in modern society, reject a pastor's wisdom as outdated or out of touch, or curse your leaders because they represent ideas you do not embrace, think again. Things are not always what they seem.

The next time you feel like smashing an image that represents ideas from before your time, or from before America's time, reconsider your feelings. It is not always necessary to crush an idea the preceded your own. It is not necessary to hate/fear people with whom you disagree.

The next time you feel the urge to join the pack and deface the meaningful images others give to the things they value, ask yourself if you are just being a knee-jerk iconoclast, or a thoughtful contributor to human society.

I am very aware that church folks are just as guilty as any one else in these things, and often more so. It only takes a moment of rashness, unthoughtfulness, religious zeal or personal passion to become an Iconoclast. It take a bit more gray matter, godly virtue and wisdom to know what images need white-washing (if any), and which images simply need a fresh coat of paint.

THE CRISIS OF THE SACRED SPACE

Once upon a time, people took pride, the good kind of pride, in the things they made for God. They gave the best they had and they made the best they could make. They made the name of Jesus beautiful with the works of their hands.

Then came along those who criticized the things made with hands, and they called those works idolatry and wrong. They smashed the beautiful things and replace splendid spaces with bare halls and empty walls, all in the name of being holy. The beauty of sacred places was suppressed.

Today, people meet in gymnasiums and nightclubs for their church services. They believe they are more relevant to the culture this way. They have either forgotten or rejected the notion of the importance of sacred spaces, and of making things with one's hands to beautify the name of Jesus.

As a result, in my personal opinion, the church and the world have become impoverished by this attitude. The world sees religious people who have no love for beauty, not respect for beatutiful things, no interest in aesthetics, and they ask, "Why should I be like that?" Exactly. Why indeed?