Songs of Zion

We have the start of a major theological shift recorded in one of the ancient Hebrew tehillim. A translation of this post-exilic Psalm reads in part:

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.

There on the poplars
we hung our harps,

for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"

How can we sing the songs of Adonai
while in a foreign land?
...

During their nomadic existence the ancient Hebrews conceived of a God who lived in an elaborate tent that was pitched for him. After their multi-tribal coalition had been formed into a kingdom, the same concept applied to the temple—a permanent house built for their God in the capital city. Now that the city had been sacked and the temple was in ruins, now that God's 'house' had been destroyed, where was God? The songs they sang about God dwelling in his house on the holy mountain of Zion made no sense because the circumstances had completely changed. They could and would make a major shift in theology to conceptualize a God who was everywhere at once, who came to dwell whenever and wherever there was a 'together-bringing' (a syn-agogue) happening. This same concept was and is applied to the Christian ekklesia. The theological shift goes hand-in-hand with shifts in cognitive function and social identification—from concrete-operational to formal-operational thought (Piaget), from categorical to cross-categorical cognition (Keagan), from nationalistic land-based to diasporic ethnicity-based social identification, from concrete to abstract.

Of course, the older ways of thinking still exist. There are Jewish, Christian and Muslim fundamentalists who maintain what in the modern world amounts to a grossly underdeveloped combination of theology, cognition and social identity. But what about the rest of us? Isn't another major shift in theology long overdue? What new shifts would be appropriate for people who are cognitively and socially developed beyond the very minimum for adulthood? Can we, with subtle reasoning and global social identity stand apart from and look back on the conscious choice to engage in that quintessentially human practice of belief irrespective of evidence (faith), and conceive of God as metaphor for what in our consciousness cannot be named? Here we are again with religious institutions that are at best largely useless and at worst violently dysfunctional. Are thinking people who value spiritual practice not just as much in exile as those ancients?

With 'props' to John Shelby Spong

To blog...

It occurred to me that with Summer on, and a sabbatical plus another Summer to follow, I won't have a daily commute during which to 'chew'. I realized I was 'chewing' over morning coffee yesterday, so I still have things to blog (above).

Libertarians

It strikes me that Libertarianism can be associated with a level of human cognitive and social development that is rather adolescent in character, in that it focuses on individual initiative, responsibility, gain and loss, without regard for, or even cognizance of, a human collective supporting such individual functions, toward which the individual has material and social obligations. As long as individual human beings have to develop from square one, there will always be adults in human societies who are parked at this level of development. How do we honor who and where they are, and integrate them into our societies, while still maintaining collective levels of social, cultural, material and spiritual development that are in keeping with the broad individual range and overall collective potential for human development?

And later this same day, what should appear but an an op-ed in the NYT about Libertarians in general and Rand Paul in particular:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24douthat.html?hp

Diffferent Worlds

The cold-war divisions of 'first', 'second' and 'third' worlds made some sense on geopolitical grounds, however ethnocentric the order might have been. No question the world can still be roughly divided according to levels of industrial and economic development. There are certainly correlations between levels of income and economic, industrial, and human development. But, I have a problem with uncritical use of the term 'developing' world where it assumes a common trajectory for all nations toward fully industrialized, high-income, advanced economies. The underlying presupposition is that wealth and the capacity to generate it are infinite. Ultimately, all wealth is based in the material world, which for our purposes is most certainly finite. Overall wealth can increase greatly—to a point, and certainly has, human and ecological costs notwithstanding, but it is still finite. Up to now the flow of wealth has been away from those who already have less toward those who already have more. At some point, with more economies 'developing', that flow will have to reverse. Such equalization of wealth should be understood as just as much a part of human social evolution as the increasing of wealth. Can the term 'developing' be used with critical awareness of this big picture?

Everything is on fire

We watched The Buddha last night. I was reminded of his third discourse where he explained how the senses, the mind, and all the objects they observe, are 'on fire' with desire, hatred and ignorance. Our mindfulness of and equanimity toward all the longing, loathing and ditziness that arise and pass in our moment-to-moment experiences are the 'base camp' on the way to the 'summit' of enlightenment.

To blog...

Here goes. If I'm going to blog what I've been thinking about, I'll have to remember it long enough to write it. Strikes me as a little like remembering dreams long enough to journalize them. I think out loud on my 40-minute commute, so a good time to write might be right when I get to work or right when I get home.