Columns

I was prompted by a conversation with a dear friend of mine (while putting down mulch and piling up ideas about God, faith, culture, life, the whole gamut) toward some ponderings on the differences between "modern" thinkers and "postmodern" thinkers. My friend falls significantly into one category and I in the other, there's no denying it, but I am trying to open up to an approach to these two approaches that doesn't make one or the other out to be the villain.

First off let me withdraw from the words "modern" and "postmodern", not wanting to get trapped in the act of misnomer-ing and out of respect for those who have done much more in the way of research on these terms/philosophies/phenomena. "Post/modern" were the two words that sparked the columns below, but any deviation is my own, and I'd like to be welcome to go wherever I may.



Left Column -------------------- Right Column

Idea---------------------------------Drama
Belief--------------------------------Experience
Quantitative-------------------------Qualitative
Methods-----------------------------Metaphors
Statements---------------------------Stories
Define--------------------------------Describe
A to B (destination)------------------a TO b (journey)



I want to be careful not to portray this as a conservative vs liberal thing, or a close minded vs open minded thing, or an anything vs anything else. I'm trying to point out that this is, and that the one is as valid a way to be wired (or conditioned) as the other.



A couple of elucidations.

*Quantitative says, "We tend to be real crystal clear about who we are. We say, 'I am such and such,' whether it be a Democrat or a Christian or the Tooth Fairy. We quantify things with labels of affirmation. 'He is a Democrat/Republican.' 'She is a Christian/Atheist.' 'They are the Tooth Fairy.' 'I am...' Qualitative usually thinks we're stuck in our ways."
Qualitative says, "We tend to be elusive when it comes to titles and labels. We say, 'I am not that sort of Democrat, not that sort of Christian, not that sort of Tooth Fairy.' We qualify labels by way of negation. Quantitative usually thinks we're dodging the question."

*A-to-B and a-TO-b go on a backpacking trip together, say to the Paria River in Arizona/Utah. They take a shuttle (with Betty of course) to Wire Pass (A/a) and hike for five days to/TO their rental car at Lee's Ferry (B/b).
By being too focused on the destination A-to-B can miss out on the beauty of the journey and the formative elements therein. A-to-B might fail to enjoy the trek. a-TO-b, however, can miss out on the sense of accomplishment upon completion of the trip. a-TO-b might feel discouraged rather than rejuvenated upon "arrival".
(To put arrival in "..." is something an a-TO-b would feel compelled to do.)



I encourage my reader to try not to be intimidated by either column. What the left column and the right column have in common is that they are both approaches to life, both attempts at understanding truth. And if we're honest most of us will acknowledge some of each column in us, though we probably have a definite leaning, which is totally okay.

What isn't okay is when we become insistent that one approach ought to be able to encompass and satisfy us all. It's not okay to suggest that our favored approach is absolute. That doesn't benefit ourselves or anyone else. It only betrays our fear of being wrong, of being on the losing side. We don't need to fret about that. We're in this together.



One of the most important things might be to recognize the destructive manifestations of either column at work in a person who has an unhealthy heart and a lot of influence. (Heart = where the parts of a person, body/spirit/intellect/imagination/emotions, intersect.)

It is dangerous, for instance, when a dogmatic and dictatorial person is addicted to the left column. Certain things will turn up in such a coupling: exclusivism, judgementalism, narrow-mindedness, abrasive indoctrinating -- and these all disguised in cloaks of martyrdom, and freedom-fighting.

Equally dangerous is the convincing fatalist and pessimist who is entrenched in the right column. This combination leads to relativism, relentlessness, despairing and uncaring -- disguised as realism, honesty, and truth telling.

Most people you come across aren't either of these two people. These two are exceptional. Most people, like Wiggs Dannyboy says in Jitterbug Perfume, "[just] want somebody to tell 'em they have a chance at the i-n-g of life and not just the e-d." Most of us want to make a living, one that has nothing to do with currency or bank accounts, we want life in the fullest possible sense. If it's life we want, let's make sure we're listening to people with healthy hearts, helping people with unhealthy hearts, and considering the value and validity of our own heart, whether it leans to the left or the right.

philippians 4.7

My wife is asleep in bed right now and I am up, awake, later than I should be because I can't shake a feeling.

I sense that some people in my life think I have given up on God and that I have devoted my thoughts and efforts to things less than worthy of a life's devotion. And that sense troubles me, it has be scrambling for an explanation -- an explanation of my own or one from one of them, except that none of them have accused me of any such thing, it's just a sense, a feeling I can't shake.
So I'm left to explain on my own.

I know there are a couple things I believe in, a couple things that make me a believer and they aren't exclusively Christian or religious.

I believe, somewhat naively, in the potential for redemption, that redemption is possible for any individual and that it's possible in any social situation. Love is more powerful than anything else, and it's confusing and complex and sometimes contradictory. Forgiveness goes out of its way to break ground for redemption -- I've witnessed all of that from beginning to end, for example, in my parents' story. And I continue to keep my eyes peeled for it elsewhere in life.

I believe in the natural rhythm of things, sometimes even mystically. The slow steady fidelity of tides and seasons and growth and reproduction, for instance. To call anything supernatural is redundant. The natural is extraordinary, and confusing and complex and sometimes contradictory -- containing struggle and regeneration, heartache and elation, death and life.

In regards to those two things, call the first "Love" and the second "Life" both with capital "L's", I am a believer. And when I write this, when I claim it, it makes me feel like I have a bold and strong faith in God. Even though I don't use the word "God" as much as I once did, or credit things to "God" as readily, I haven't turned my back on God. Consider it all an attempt to not take the Lord's name in vain, to not take "God" for granted.

By not identifying as a Christian I am not trying to distance myself from anyone. With these attempts at explanation that I continually make -- in my head, on paper, out loud, here on my blog -- I am trying to benefit (not condemn) anyone who might be interested in knowing me, it's in order to enhance (not dishevel) the potential for our relationship.

By not saying, "I am a Christian" or "I believe 'such and such' about God" I am not trying to judge those who do. The thing is I'm proud of me, and chances are I'm proud of you too. Give me the benefit of the doubt and you'll see that what you believe about God and the good life is alive and well in me. Just as I see it in you.

Nor do I desire to distance myself from my heritage. Everyone of my days as a child was tempered in the furnace of Christianity and strong family ties. Any time I bask in the memory pools of my upbringing it's a balm to my soul's skin and I get to feeling smooth, fragrant, and fresh. I like most of the influences and experiences that have helped shape who I am and am becoming. The handful that I don't like I at least appreciate and don't resent. I consider myself well crafted, and the smiths' hands are many.

Suffice it to say? I am not an atheist, not even an agnostic, though I know, love, and appreciate several of each sort. I am a believer through and through. And even if I'm not that kind of a believer, I am one nonetheless.

I'm conservative too. It just has more to do with the way I refrain from kicking around the word "God" and other religious lingo. A rose by any other name...
Which is to say that God has a distinct scent and I'm trying more and more to trust my sense of smell, even at the expense of some of my past convictions and especially at the expense of my prejudices.

Does this make sense? I feel like it should but fear it doesn't but it's important to me that it does. What I want more than anything in life is peace that involves everything, including everyone, including you and me. That doesn't imply a need for sameness between us, but does depend, to some extent I think, on understanding. So let's not hide our questions from one another, nor be eager to change each other.
I want you to be honestly you. And me to be honestly me. And trust "God" to take care of the rest.