Posted by Helen on: 07.21.2006 /
In comment #13 of Newspaper Responses to my Article, JG wrote:
I can see the genuine desire to “make the world a better place” and to “care about other people” and take nothing away from that at all.
But merely as a thought to think about. What if your belief about what makes the world a better place conflicts with what some else believes? Some people believe the world would be a better place if there was no religion eg John Lennon. Marx believed his theories, if practiced would make the world a better place. Terrorists believe the world will be a better place if they pursue their campaign of terror.
Some believe that happiness comes through having multiple sexual partners and see exclusive relationships and marriage as “the enemy” to be opposed. Others have been left broken by being loved then abandoned.
Even if we leave God out of the picture altogether and all seek to make the world a better place, we will still have just as many conflicts. And many of the arguments that arise in relation to religion will continue to apply eg why should you seek to impose your views on what will make the world a better place upon others? What if what someone else is doing does not accord with your ideas of what will make the world a better place?
The difference is that if God is left out of the equation, it is purely your view against someone else’s with no way to evaluate relative merits. Whereas with God, it is not my views or the other person’s views that ultimately count but God’s view which we are both seeking to understand.
(MTWABP = make the world a better place)
Comment by: NCxian
1 07/21/06 12:32 PM | Comment Link |I think there is something to be said for appealing to a standard that is outside of ourselves. And I have had some very good experiences in groups of like-minded Christians where we stopped to say, “let’s set aside our own preferences here, and seek to understand God’s point of view on this matter”. It results in something that I have heard called a “sweet spirit”–a spirit of selflessness and graciousness toward people who we are attempting to collaborate with. Perhaps, it provides a basis of common understanding of an over-arching mission.
Nonetheless, I think it is rather overly simplified to say that if only God’s view counted we would all be in agreement. Mostly because we don’t experience God in the same way we would, say, a body of law, like the U.S. Constitution and everything that has been spun out from that over 200 years. God doesn’t tell us his point of view in the way Fidel Castro tells his people his point of view.
The good experiences I have described have been among folks who already share my view of what God wants. What about other Christians who think the exact opposite of what I think? (Give me about any example, and I can give you the competing, but nonetheless Christian, point of view) What about other theist who are listening for God in a way that is not within the Christian tradition at all?
Turning Helen’s question around, I would say that it is perhaps easier for folks who agree on how to MTWABP to agree on what God’s point of view is. People who disagree on how to MTWABP likely disagree on what is God’s point of view!
Comment by: Lisa W.
2 07/21/06 10:55 PM | Comment Link |I think JG makes some valid points. I also know that the concept “MTWABP” means to find common ground between people where caring and listening are the modes of being with each other.
Comment by: JG
3 07/22/06 1:31 AM | Comment Link |This is a good question. My original point was that although most people would agree with the desire to MTWABP, the scope for disagreement and conflict over what this means in practice is just as great as conflict over faith. Given that there are a whole range of different beliefs “in God” I would not attempt to say there is more or less scope for conflict between people of faith and people with no faith when it comes to discussing how to MTWABP.
There are very important values such as caring and listening to each other which, if practiced, would indeed MTWABP and which people from diverse backgrounds, faiths, and no faiths could agree on and support. But here I think we all have different personalties, different gifts, different strengths and weaknesses. Some people are very good at giving practical help but not at spending time simply listening to someone. Others are good at listening but not at giving practical help. And others are good at “leading” and organising but not at helping on a one to one basis. We are all different and need to accept one another. Christians talk of the body being made up of different parts and of how each part is needed and valued.
I’m not sure we should place too much emphasis on the importance of agreement though it certainly helps! Many of those who have sought to change things eg end slavery have started out as a voice in the wilderness and endured great opposition. I would also mention those who speak up for minorities. Such people are particularly vulnerable to criticism and allegations of imposing their views on others. It is much easier to go with the flow than to stand against it. Today we benefit from the actions of those who have dared to go against the flow in the past.
Comment by: Helen M.
4 07/22/06 3:31 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your thoughtful response, JG.
I think I must have misconstrued your original comments somewhat.
I thought you were implying that much/all of the conflict over what MTWABP is would go away if we all believed in God
The thought I had was “surely it’s not that simple, because believers strongly disagree with each other over how to MTWABP”.
But evidently that’s not what you were saying.
In some Christian circles, true faith does greatly reduce disagreement over MTWABP. Why? Because they use the circular reasoning that anyone who disagrees with them on MTWABP does not have ‘true faith’. How convenient ;)
I think that’s true but I also think there are many things people can be trained to do better. And I wish Christians would do a way better job of training their pastors to have better people skills. Or, if that’s impossible, don’t make them pastors because they are going to hurt people who expect them to be able to listen and empathetic. In my experience, the church sets people up as public speakers who can talk eloquently about being like Jesus but who can’t have a normal conversation one on one. It’s not good enough to say “he preaches; go to this other person for counseling” - because if you like what’s preached, you want to talk to the person who said it, about it. Not some other guy.
I suspect countless people have been hurt by pastors who sound nice and caring in the pulpit but lack the skills to enact that in one-on-one interaction.
People love their pastors and defend those who are in fact unable to have a normal conversation.
This is kind of people but I’m not sure it’s good for the church.
Like…Jesus? ;)
Yes, I agree. Even though your point was not to over-emphasize the need to agree! :)
Comment by: Julie Marie
5 07/22/06 3:57 AM | Comment Link |I would never have thought to say this, Helen, much less write it, but you hit on a big truth here. Thanks.
Comment by: JG
6 07/22/06 4:35 AM | Comment Link |Many thanks for your comments. It may have been my statement that:
“The difference is that if God is left out of the equation, it is purely your view against someone else’s with no way to evaluate relative merits. Whereas with God, it is not my views or the other person’s views that ultimately count but God’s view which we are both seeking to understand.”
that caused the confusion. I don’t claim that bringing God into the equation reduces scope for conflict and if in reality there is no God then I accept it is profoundly unhelpful to talk of God. But if there is a loving creator God who wants to relate to us and wants to guide us then it is a mistake to leave him out of the discussion.
I really empathise with you in relation to your comments about care in the church. I don’t know what your personal experience has been but so far as I am able to do so as a member of the church I am really sorry if you have been let down and I suspect you have. I’m not a Pastor, I hasten to add!
I have had both very good and very bad experiences of care in the church both in relation to myself and others. But my belief and experience is that God does care and does not let us down even though “the church” can and does let us down.
Comment by: Helen M.
7 07/22/06 6:01 AM | Comment Link |JG wrote:
Yes, that was the paragraph in which I - mistakenly - thought you were implying that disagreement over MTWABP is greatly reduced/eliminated if we believe God has a view.
I’m all for including the view of every person a) who wants theirs included b) whose motive is to MTWABP and c) who states it in a way I can understand. Iagree that, assuming God exists, God meets criteria a) and b). It’s c) I have trouble with. The extent of disagreement among Christians over what God says/wants implies to me that somewhere in the process the communication between God and humans is breaking down.
The Christian response is generally: it’s at the human end. Ok, I can go with that. What I don’t understand is how, having said that, the particular Christian who said it then assumes he/she is exempt from this evidently widespread human tendency to mis-hear God.
Isn’t it a little arrogant of them to say that on the one hand, lots of other people aren’t hearing God correctly, yet, on the other, they are?
Have I had difficult experiences in the church/with church people? Suffice it to say, yes. And yes, I probably used to have higher expectations of Christians than other people so it hurt more. But - I don’t have higher expectations anymore. And I expect human relationships to be disappointing sometimes because - well, because humans are involved!
For what it’s worth, my intellectual problems with Christianity are also significant. If I were to find a church in which every member was wonderfully kind and safe then I would love to get to know the individuals better outside church.
I would probably choose against attending any meetings which involved:
1) singing songs which I would be lying if I sung because I don’t currently have those convictions;
2) listening to sermons during which I was continually being distracted by disagreeing with what was being said; and then also feeling frustrated that it was unlikely I’d ever be able to have a meaningful discussion with the speaker about the substance of my disagreements;
3) listening to prayers or praying since I don’t like talking to God in that way.
Oh and, I don’t take the position that God has let me down.
Comment by: JG
8 07/22/06 7:52 AM | Comment Link |Helen, many thanks for your comments which I take on board. I hear you when you say:
“For what it’s worth, my intellectual problems with Christianity are also significant.”
I don’t begin to claim there are easy answers and I share your frustration with “the particular Christian who said it then assumes he/she is exempt from this evidently widespread human tendency to mis-hear God.”
This thought came to me after reading your response. It is an analogy and all analogies break down if you push them too far but I hope it will be helpful - if not please disregard.
Prior to marriage, many questions arise. Is he/she the right person for me? Will he/she be faithful? Do I love him/her enough to be faithful to him/her? etc etc etc These are important questions which need to be thought through and addressed and not pushed under the carpet. Hopefully most people come to a position of peace on these issues before they do get married. But I doubt if many if any get concrete answers which will satisfy their intellect as opposed to their heart. How can you be sure, intellectually, that someone is the right person for you? People who get married, are not abandoning their intellect but intellect alone will not guide them into making the right decision. It goes beyond intellect.
If, having married, difficulties begin to arise, the relationship can begin to break down. Things that previously didn’t trouble you, start to do so. But I would argue that such issues are not the cause of the breakdown but rather a symptom that a breakdown has ocurred. Once you have fallen out with someone, there is a tendency to find everything about that person gets on your nerves.
As I say, if this analogy is not revelant or helpful, please disregard. Faith is different to marriage because marriage partners can let us down and marriages do fail but as stated previously, although church can and does let us down, I don’t believe God does. And I do hear you when you say you don’t take the position that he has. The problem is that it is hard to disassociate God from church and I’m not sure that you can or should though often what is perceived to be church is a very poor “ambassador” for God.
[I think we have moved on to a different theme to the original post so please feel free to edit or relocate part or all of this post and previous posts to a different thread]
Comment by: Helen M.
9 07/22/06 8:19 AM | Comment Link |Hi again JG,
I agree we’ve got off the topic of this thread.
If you have time, how about you read my newspaper article whose link is in the blog entry Why I Don’t to to Church Anymore and let me know, after reading it, with a response on there, whether you think the marriage analogy applies to me.
I think it’s reasonable to suppose it is a factor in some situations where Christians move away from the faith they once held strongly. I’d like to know how much of a factor you think it was in mine, after reading the article.
Comment by: JG
10 07/22/06 9:35 AM | Comment Link |Thanks, comments noted. I had already read the article and was struck by it. I feel the church needs to listen very carefully to what you and others like you are saying. I stress the word listen rather than seek to “fix the problem” as you put it which is the mistake so many people fall into myself included.
I wouldn’t begin to seek to comment on what has happened in your situation as I would be talking without any knowledge. I can only pick up themes you mention like lack of care and say I think I can relate to what you are saying.
My “marriage analogy” wasn’t an attempt to explain why you or anyone else might lose faith or stop going to church etc, rather it was a comment on the intellectual problems that arise in relation to faith. I’m in no way dismissing the intellectual problems or trying to state what has caused you to come to your current position but rather, I suppose, to simply raise the question, do you feel it is the intellectual issues that have caused you to question your faith or are they a symptom of some other catalyst?
I’m not trying to offer answers, merely raise thoughts and questions that may be helpful.
Comment by: Helen M.
11 07/22/06 11:56 AM | Comment Link |I appreciate that you’re trying to be helpful.
If this is only for my benefit then let’s stop this particular line of discussion because I don’t anticipate it being helpful.
Feel free to continue commenting on the general issues you raised in your comments I began this blog entry with. Or on any other topics. I’m very happy to have you here and am enjoying your thoughtful comments. I just don’t want to have conversations here whose only goal is to ‘help’ me.
Comment by: JG
12 07/22/06 12:35 PM | Comment Link |If it was “only” for your “benefit” then I would have emailed you not posted an entry on a public blog. But the motive is not to “help” you of “fix the problem” - in my last post I said:
“I feel the church needs to listen very carefully to what you and others like you are saying. I stress the word listen rather than seek to “fix the problem” as you put it which is the mistake so many people fall into myself included.”
My understanding of blogs is that they are intended to provide a forum for dialogue and listening to each other. This is a mutal exercise, a two way street. The issues raised are issues that concern many people. Your comments are helpful to me but if mine are unhelpful to you then I agree we need to stop the dialogue. I am very sorry.
Comment by: Helen M.
13 07/22/06 1:42 PM | Comment Link |No need to apologize.
Part of the problem is I’m not sure where you’re going with your questions. How about this: send me an e-mail and tell me what important issues are raised that concern many people. Then I can post them in a new blog entry.
As for this question: “do you feel it is the intellectual issues that have caused you to question your faith or are they a symptom of some other catalyst?” you could read this epic:
My story: the questions which didn’t have the right answers
If the answer to your question isn’t in there I probably haven’t figured it out yet!
Comment by: Eliza
14 07/22/06 2:50 PM | Comment Link |Regarding the original question in the post, I thought NCxian’s comment in #1 was right on the mark:
I was also amused to come across “MTWABP” (in full-word phrase, not the acronym) twice in 6 poems in an appendix at the end of a book my son and I were reading together last night. The book is Humanism, What’s That? A Book for Curious Kids by Helen Bennett. The first poem is called “I Believe”; its first 3 lines are:
The other poem is “What Humanism Means to Me”, and the last 4 lines are:
Another poem includes the same idea of MTWABP without using those exact words. It’s called “The Humanist Hymn” and includes these lines:
Other than the ideas of “us alone” and that people can make the world “ring with rapture” (an odd and somewhat poke-in-your-side phrase to be used in a Humanist poem), this doesn’t seem that far off from what I’ve heard people of other beliefs expressing about MTWABP…
Comment by: Helen M.
15 07/22/06 2:55 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for getting us back on topic, Eliza!
Comment by: Eliza
16 07/22/06 3:06 PM | Comment Link |JG raises the excellent questions of: (1) what exactly does it mean to MTWABP, and (2) who decides? This might be a good discussion topic all on its own. I’ll take a stab and say that, given the world in its imperfect state today, it means meeting people’s basic needs - or, perhaps preferably, helping people meet their own basic needs - without impinging on basic human rights of those people or anyone else. (We can argue about what those basic human rights are, I guess!)
Comment by: Helen M.
17 07/22/06 3:23 PM | Comment Link |I like that definition, Eliza. I suggest this clarification: long-term, it’s ‘helping people/communities help themselves meet their basic needs’ - so they can be independent. (Or, is that what you said?)
Comment by: Bob
18 07/22/06 8:11 PM | Comment Link |This is a most interesting topic. If MTWABP is (or should be) everyone’s common goal, who decides what “better is”.
Eliza takes a stab with a pretty good statement but it contains the loaded phrase “their own basic needs”. What are those? I got a book of photography for Christmas called Material World: A Global Family Portrait. They went to something like 100 countries from all over the world and took a picture of a statistically average family in that country. Makes you wonder what “basic human needs” are. What are acceptable living conditions.
Regardless, the search for a utopian society has been sought after by man for ages, yet it continues to elude us. Why?
Comment by: Bob
19 07/22/06 8:38 PM | Comment Link |Then Helen refines Eliza’s thought with that “a better place” is one in which every man, woman, and child has reached the pinnacle of Western capitalism: financial and personal independence. Would the world really be a lot better off if everyone didn’t need anyone else? Unless you count needing people as a market for your goods/services.
How much of your idea of “a better place” is influenced by the dominant world culture.
So what is “a better place”? Can it only be thought of in terms of physical needs? Is being fed, housed, clothed, and of sound mind all we need? And if we all had that, would the current “imperfect state” become “perfect”?
Comment by: Helen M.
20 07/23/06 3:53 AM | Comment Link |Great question, Bob. I think America places too much value and importance on individuals not needing others and our lives are worse as a result.
I think independence was the wrong way to put it. What I meant was, increasingly widening circles in which the inside and outside trade back and forth, rather than any circle requiring input from the outside and not being able to give anything back.
So it’s not independence but dependence that is mutual and voluntarily entered into rather than one group having to support another. I think this is the ideal to aim for long-term. In the short-term those who have more can help those who have less by sharing what they have. Longer term it is better for those who have less if we can help them get to where they have something to give back, so the dependence can be more mutual.
Also, I was thinking in terms of communities not individuals, because in any human group some people are necessarily more dependent - babies, children, people whose age/state of health makes them unable to contribute to the group as much as others. A compassionate group will be generous to those who need to be dependent. They will vary their expectations of each member according to what is possible for each member.
What do you think, Bob? Am I making any sense?
I would say, we are responsible to help meet basic human needs if we reasonably can. I would say having basic human needs met is necessary but not sufficient for having good ‘quality of life’ or however you want to describe it.
Since having those needs met clearly doesn’t stop people being cruel, inappropriately using power, etc. And a person can have their basic neesd met and, say, be terribly lonely or feel very inadequate because they aren’t a contributing member of society. So, I would say, moral and emotional considerations come into play if we seeking to define what a ‘better’ place is.
And as JG brought up, moving forward is complicated since we don’t all agree on what MTWABP means.
You asked great questions Bob - thanks!
Comment by: Bob
21 07/23/06 7:45 AM | Comment Link |I understand the clarification here. It makes sense but even with the addition of details, I’m not sure it differs conceptually from the initial statement. Either way, the basis of ‘better’ is based upon commerce between groups and individuals.
I think you’re getting closer with this:
because it introduces the idea that it isn’t only how we treat each other but what type of people we must become to truly MTWABP. Now the question becomes how do we become this type of person? If I give what I have, deny myself, express (and act upon) concern for others, will I become the kind of person that is free from the danger of exploitation and cruelty or loneliness and feelings of inadequacy?
How much must I give? How little to I keep for myself? How do I keep myself from feeling like I am exploited or exploiting? What–inside myself–fights for mutual dependence as you define it?
Comment by: JG
22 07/23/06 7:58 AM | Comment Link |Perhaps we need to ask, what stops the world from being a better place? I think, on top of my list would be conflict. So my answer would be reconciliation.
If we want to MTWABP, we need to engage in reconciliation. We need to experience reconciliation ourselves and we need to help others engage in and experience reconciliation. For me, everything else follows as a consequence of reconciliation. So I strongly agree with Helen’s comment:
“And a person can have their basic needs met and, say, be terribly lonely or feel very inadequate because they aren’t a contributing member of society. So, I would say, moral and emotional considerations come into play if we seeking to define what a “better’ place is.”
For people without faith, it is reconciliation between people. What I understand to be the true Christian faith is about 1) reconciliation between people and God AND 2) between people.
I was also add that some people have very little and can go through terrible circumstances and yet be very content. Others have it really easy and have all they need and more beside and yet are very unhappy. This supports Helen’s point and indicates to me that emotional needs are more important than material needs.
I think Helen sums it up well in her reference to the need for mutual dependence. I like the way 1 Corinthians 12 talks of how every part of the body is important.
We can’t change the world on our own or impose our views on others. But if we can engage in and promote reconciliation then we are pushing things in the right direction.
Comment by: NCxian
23 07/23/06 9:21 AM | Comment Link |I agree that reconciliation is the key. I think that is a great starting point, JG. And, being a Christian, I think that reconciliation between people is related to reconciliation with God.
My question is this–where there is great wealth available but, despite that fact, some people go without having their basic physical needs met, isn’t that the antithesis of reconciliation? Doesn’t that simple fact–that there is enough to go around but some folks go without–preclude reconciliation between people?
For Christians (and any other theists out there), do you think the fact that some people have plenty and others suffer from want (and that we allow this to be the case) come between us and God?
Comment by: Helen M.
24 07/23/06 1:31 PM | Comment Link |JG wrote:
Excellent point, JG - thanks! Yes, resolving conflict is a crucial step in MTWABP.
Comment by: Eliza
25 07/23/06 8:58 PM | Comment Link |JG said:
I think the people being helped need to have a big voice in determining what help they need, want, or will accept, and how. I see this as “helping people meet their own basic needs - without impinging on basic human rights of those people or anyone else” - since those basic rights include, imo, self-determination (within reasonable limits - I’m not talking about helping a poor Andean farmer become a Wall Street tycoon), self-esteem, sense of self-worth and pride. No sense imposing a “solution” on people who don’t want it, or for whom it doesn’t work…imo.