During this morning’s church service I had a serendipitous insight into a commonality of principle between a teaching of my faith and one of the tenets of our democracy. On the faith side, the homily emphasized the principle that discipline is a salient aspect of life. This insight relates to how that discipline carries not only to my faith but equally to my political philosophy.
Discipline is a normal part of growing up; and then if successfully acquired becomes a life-long lifestyle requirement if we are to endeavor to live righteously (or democratically in a narrower context). The discipline that God brings into one’s life is intended to provide instruction to guide and to strengthen the mind and the body to be able to endure and even flourish in our lives. If we are not taught the principles that we should live by, learn and understand them, and then be held responsible to adhere to those principles even when they are difficult, unpleasant or unpopular then we will suffer the consequences from our lack of discipline. It must cause us to expect that we will not be rewarded with the benefits and blessings that following those very principles provide. Many of us understand later in life that the discipline that our parents imposed upon us in our youth was beneficial to us; some I am sure never come to that realization. But we grew stronger and more prepared to deal with life because of that discipline.
Many people who believe in God also believe that He places trials and burdens into our lives that are also intended to strengthen us. It is often cited that “God does not place any burden on us that we cannot carry”. The take-away from this is that you cannot know what is righteous and gain the rewards that come from it unless you actually lead a righteous life. And that requires the discipline to follow what you believe in; including the fundamental principles that Americans have regarding our democratic system.
The same disciplinary perspective is demanded of a people that are dedicated to being free. The democratic nature of our nation is dependent upon our ability to follow the principles that define our freedom. This includes the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men. It may be difficult to accept that principle when you see someone or a group doing something that you disagree with, and it may require you to accept the rights of those individuals to choose to act as they have despite your views. And while this may be especially hard where there are emotional, religious or political issues at the point of contention between groups that you don’t approve of or accept into your own view of being American; it is explicitly in these circumstances that your need for discipline is the greatest. It may only be through discipline that we can retain and preserve our freedom. We must as surely have the discipline to hold fast to the principles that we are a nation of laws and that we must uphold the freedom of each and every citizen to their rights guaranteed by those laws.
Thus both the principles of my faith and of my country demand that I have the discipline to live in accordance with those principles. If I do not have the strength or the wisdom to follow those principles than I cannot hope to gain the advantages that they offer. If we do not do what is right according to our laws then how can we expect justice for ourselves? It does not matter if that right is based upon my faith or my politics. To expect a democracy to protect your freedom, it must be a democracy that protects everyone’s freedom in exactly the same way. If our desire to be a free nation is a righteous principle to live by and to live for, then we have to exercise the discipline of insuring that that same freedom is given to all citizens and is protected by our laws and our efforts.
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A Test Of Faith
The current priests’ sex scandal within the Catholic Church in European countries, mirroring the one that spread across America over the past decade has occasioned the Pope to express that this is a test for both him and the Church. And he Pope is correct that this is a test, and in fact a ‘test of faith’ for not only him but for the Church itself. But what exactly do you think the Pope or the Bishops, or any of the multitude of groups embroiled in the issue would mean when they say that this crisis for the Church is a ‘test of faith’?
I suspect that in many cases, the ‘test of faith’ concept relates to fulfilling precepts of their faith. Thus the Catholic clergy have voiced the need for all parties involved to do their proper penance for their actions/inactions, to admit to their sins or mistakes (of omission or commission); to seek forgiveness from God and from those they have harmed/failed; and to try to go forth and improve themselves (and sin no more) in the future. There is nothing wrong with this in actually. First, it is a ‘practice what you preach’ principle being followed; and second, as the leadership of the Church they are responsible for guiding the Church through every circumstance that they and their congregations encounter.
Beyond this sense of a ‘test of faith’ is another; the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, and the faithful are challenged to find the strength and courage to forgive. This is far harder actually than the admitting, or repenting, or the improving efforts; and certainly more difficult even than the ‘not doing it again’ directive. This forgiveness article of faith requires a depth of belief in the power of redemption.
Is it strange then that we see little so little of these very principles of faith coming forth from all sides in the controversy? I don’t think so, because there is a wide divide between knowing and advocating the tenets of one’s faith and of actually being able to adhering to and applying them to your actions. This is the very nature of the conflict between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, of following the path of faith or of falling by the wayside.
But there is another meaning to the ‘test of faith’ occasioned by this crisis. This concept of ‘testing one’s faith’ does not revolve around knowing the rules or whether you follow those rules in practice; but it concerns whether you understand what justifies the rules, precepts, tenets and beliefs as being the right principles by which you should live. And here is where the Catholic Church and other religions do poorly. By not achieving a better understanding of the justifying principles that support the religion’s teaching; and not incorporating that understanding into their teaching of the faithful, they do not promote a deeper and more sustentative basis for guiding one’s actions along a righteous path. Without attempting to understanding the faith that you follow beyond rules and precepts, you subject yourself to relying on the interpretation of individuals in authority, you place trust in positions of power rather than in comprehending what is required independently from position, and you replace another’s judgment above your own. And in matters of faith you must of necessity be the sole and only person who has to determine the righteousness of your actions. You can seek information from others, but when it comes to being faithful, you have to act according to your understanding of our faith and its principles. In this context, where did the Church leadership fail? Did they fail in understanding what their faith required them to do, or did they fail to comprehend why their actions were not in adherence with their faith and with the fundamental justifying principles of their faith?
The conflict that will continue within the Church and from outside the Church will not be waged on the basis of faith; rather it will be conducted on legal fronts, for tangential objectives, and for emotional and psychological needs. These will be test of law, culture and power. But faith will be left in the background, mostly unrecognized or acknowledged as a factor in the conflict. At some point people will move beyond this particular conflict, but will not likely have dealt this the last concept of having ‘tested their faith’. The will not have learned more about their faith, and in many cases they will have lost what understanding of the faith that they had.
So that other religious or non-religious communities do not feel left out, I doubt that the scandal for the Catholic Church is that unique to their system. Sex scandals are not uncommon to other groups, why the Church of Scientology is dealing with its own versions of sexual abuse claims now also. Of course, no one should be concerned since they deal with such incidents within the Church hierarchy and thus everyone can rest assured that it is dealt with justly, effectively and without any possibility of abuse of power. And if you dig very hard and work untold hours at it, you will probably find sex scandals with whatever group you look into. With the internet, it probably will take less than a minute and require only that you can spell ‘sex’, ‘scandal’, and ‘religious group of your choice’; and then only have to read through the volume of sources that turn up.
I suspect that in many cases, the ‘test of faith’ concept relates to fulfilling precepts of their faith. Thus the Catholic clergy have voiced the need for all parties involved to do their proper penance for their actions/inactions, to admit to their sins or mistakes (of omission or commission); to seek forgiveness from God and from those they have harmed/failed; and to try to go forth and improve themselves (and sin no more) in the future. There is nothing wrong with this in actually. First, it is a ‘practice what you preach’ principle being followed; and second, as the leadership of the Church they are responsible for guiding the Church through every circumstance that they and their congregations encounter.
Beyond this sense of a ‘test of faith’ is another; the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, and the faithful are challenged to find the strength and courage to forgive. This is far harder actually than the admitting, or repenting, or the improving efforts; and certainly more difficult even than the ‘not doing it again’ directive. This forgiveness article of faith requires a depth of belief in the power of redemption.
Is it strange then that we see little so little of these very principles of faith coming forth from all sides in the controversy? I don’t think so, because there is a wide divide between knowing and advocating the tenets of one’s faith and of actually being able to adhering to and applying them to your actions. This is the very nature of the conflict between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, of following the path of faith or of falling by the wayside.
But there is another meaning to the ‘test of faith’ occasioned by this crisis. This concept of ‘testing one’s faith’ does not revolve around knowing the rules or whether you follow those rules in practice; but it concerns whether you understand what justifies the rules, precepts, tenets and beliefs as being the right principles by which you should live. And here is where the Catholic Church and other religions do poorly. By not achieving a better understanding of the justifying principles that support the religion’s teaching; and not incorporating that understanding into their teaching of the faithful, they do not promote a deeper and more sustentative basis for guiding one’s actions along a righteous path. Without attempting to understanding the faith that you follow beyond rules and precepts, you subject yourself to relying on the interpretation of individuals in authority, you place trust in positions of power rather than in comprehending what is required independently from position, and you replace another’s judgment above your own. And in matters of faith you must of necessity be the sole and only person who has to determine the righteousness of your actions. You can seek information from others, but when it comes to being faithful, you have to act according to your understanding of our faith and its principles. In this context, where did the Church leadership fail? Did they fail in understanding what their faith required them to do, or did they fail to comprehend why their actions were not in adherence with their faith and with the fundamental justifying principles of their faith?
The conflict that will continue within the Church and from outside the Church will not be waged on the basis of faith; rather it will be conducted on legal fronts, for tangential objectives, and for emotional and psychological needs. These will be test of law, culture and power. But faith will be left in the background, mostly unrecognized or acknowledged as a factor in the conflict. At some point people will move beyond this particular conflict, but will not likely have dealt this the last concept of having ‘tested their faith’. The will not have learned more about their faith, and in many cases they will have lost what understanding of the faith that they had.
So that other religious or non-religious communities do not feel left out, I doubt that the scandal for the Catholic Church is that unique to their system. Sex scandals are not uncommon to other groups, why the Church of Scientology is dealing with its own versions of sexual abuse claims now also. Of course, no one should be concerned since they deal with such incidents within the Church hierarchy and thus everyone can rest assured that it is dealt with justly, effectively and without any possibility of abuse of power. And if you dig very hard and work untold hours at it, you will probably find sex scandals with whatever group you look into. With the internet, it probably will take less than a minute and require only that you can spell ‘sex’, ‘scandal’, and ‘religious group of your choice’; and then only have to read through the volume of sources that turn up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)