Worldviews: Exibit A

So last week, I mentioned that I made a list of questions that I hoped would help with the documentation of various Christian worldviews. In the interest of better understanding I sent this list to various friends of mine who hale from diverse Christian traditions asking if they would be able to formulate responses to the best of their understanding and ability on behalf of their faith tradition. So far, the response has been somewhat underwhelming, but then again, it takes a lot of thought to answer questions like "What is?" or "How did we get here?" and the like, so I suppose that's alright.

In the interest of being unbiased, I shall present the responses that I receive in the order that I receive them. I am very excited to see what various people have to say, and the responses that I've received already have been insightful and thought provoking... but don't take my word for it... please take the time to read and understand and engage for yourself. 

Okay, so here goes... The first worldview I would like to submit for your appreciation comes to you courtesy of my priest Fr. Lawrence Farley (he didn't feel anonymity to be necessary). The questions are italicised.

 I Ontology: (model of being);

What is the purpose of life?

Like the Westminster Confession says, the purpose of life/ existence is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. As CS Lewis points out, the two are the same thing, since to glorify God is to enjoy Him. In classic Orthodox terms, it means that the purpose of life is to focus our hearts upon God so that we enjoy a continual flow of His life, joy, and Presence into us, and allow that life, joy, and Presence to flow through us out into all the world.

Thus, the most important things in the world are those things which reflect His Presence--which includes our neighbour, and especially our poor neighbour. It is our neighbour that we can preeminently find the presence of the Lord in the world.

The question "What is the centre of the universe? and Where is it?" can only be answered by us in moral and spiritual terms, not physical or astronomical ones. (For in outer space, where is "up"?) For us the center is the human heart, for it is in the heart that one finds God and where God comes to dwell. It is difficult to answer the questions "What is time? What is space? and How do they intersect?" because as finite human beings we have never known anything else. The angels who are less confined by these created realities might hazard a better guess, and as might the saints who have been to some degree liberated from them and who now dwell in the Kingdom. But asking us about this is like asking a fish, "How does it feel to be wet?" The fish cannot answer; it has never known anything else to compare it to.

 

II Futurology: (model of the future);

Where are we going? In life? After life?

Here the destination depends upon the one travelling, for each one chooses his or her own destination. If we are oriented towards the light and to God, we are going towards Him and His Kingdom. If in our secret heart we reject Him, we are travelling away from Him, into the darkness, into non-being, into hell. The destination depends upon our choice, for God's judgment sets the seal upon what we ourselves choose.

 

III Axiology: (theory of values);

What is good and what is evil? The Good is what is real--i.e. God, and evil is the nothingness that comes when we refuse to choose God and goodness, the deprivation of goodness and of life. Evil is essentially parasitic, for it has no life of its own, and draws its horrible phantom reality from goodness. Thus, as some have said, evil is spoiled goodness. We should there approach life by constantly choosing goodness and kindness, and choosing our earthly goals as ones that are consistent with this. The values and ethical responsibility we bear cannot be systematically catalogued, nor did Christ offer us such a system. He simply told us to love, by doing to others what we would have them do to us.

 

IV Praxeology: (theory of actions);

How should we act? Following from this, we should act consistently with love and goodness in our approach to the world--that is, to the concrete and specific person and opportunity that each day bestows upon us. It is no use saying we love the world in general, for the world is not experienced in general, but as a series of individual encounters, and it is in these encounters that we must be kind and loving. Approaching the Divineis something else: here we approach with trembling, trusting that our humble and loving approach to God will find a welcome in God through Christ. Any approach to God which does not involve trembling is vain and illusory. Isaiah and John point the way: Isaiah saw the Lord and said that he was undone; John saw the glorified Christ and fell at His feet as one dead.

 

V Epistemology: (theory of knowledge);

What is Truth? What is knowledge? What is wisdom? One could approach these questions as a philosopher (as Pilate did) and ultimately embrace cynical nihilism, or as a worshipper, and embrace Christ. It is in Him alone that all the divine treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found. Ultimately such epistemological knowledge is transcended in the Holy Spirit: we know because we have an anointing from Him, and He witnesses with our spirit that we are the children of God. Philosophers who trust in the power of discursive reasoning remain earth-bound, and cannot attain by themselves to such heights. This knowledge and anointing is gained through humble repentance and faith.

 

VI Etiology: (model of causation and origination);

Where do we come from? Ultimately, from God, that is, from mystery. Our own personal history represents our partial knowledge of how God brought us to Himself, and because our knowledge is partial, we can scarcely know How did we get to this place. What we can know is What is most important in life--namely, to know God and to continually walk in humility with love before His face. This is the one thing needful, the one indispensable thing as we strive to live in this world.

On Worldviews Part 2

I finished last week by hinting at three predominant worldview categories that I have observed within the range of Christian experience. This doesn’t mean there aren’t more. It’s just that three is a good number and also feasible for this discussion... Since, I could very quickly get myself in trouble by defining these categories point blank, I shall use the “relative” neutrality of metaphors in order to keep my language bias free. Thus, I shall turn to the world of Sacred Choral Music to help me illustrate some differences. Please keep in mind that there is no such thing as a “perfect metaphor” and since I likely don’t understand certain worldviews as well as I should like, there may be some misrepresentation.

If you are not very familiar with the ridiculously diverse world of what is generally termed “Classical” music, I shall try to keep my explanations short, uncluttered and relevant to the discussion. Generally, music history since around 1600 is divided into 4 categories: Baroque (approximately 1600-1750), Classical (approx. 1750-1840), Romantic (approx. 1825-1900), Modern/20th Century (approx. 1900-present). Each of these divisions is more of a guideline and they are roughly assigned according to the general cohesion of writing styles that were utilized at the time. Now I would like to propose that we use these first three “periods” as our three categories. Thus, our three worldviews are as follows: Baroque, Classical, and Romantic. I shall illustrate each period with a musical example that exemplifies the characteristics that I feel are important. They are all settings of a very ancient Greek Hymn whose translation is: Lord Have Mercy, Christ Have Mercy, Lord Have Mercy. Please do listen to the excerpts, if nothing else, they can provide some background accompaniment to your reading...

The Baroque Worldview

The Baroque movement, is all about symmetry and affects, symbolism and beauty.

This example is by J.S. Bach, who was about as Baroque as you can get... (that pun was sort of intended). He was a very devout Lutheran man who spent his life writing music for God. Though most of his music was written to be played in Church, Bach felt that there was no separation between the Secular and the Spiritual and often inscribed “to God alone be the Glory” on his finished manuscripts. This particular piece is constructed in a form called a fugue which is a piece constructed out of a single melody that is duplicated several times (with some alterations), then the strands of music are placed over top of each other and woven together to form a beautiful tapestry. This particular fugue has a short introduction before the base melody is heard, however, you can quickly begin to pick out the melody being woven together. This form is born out of very old musical traditions that go back several hundred years before Bach’s lifetime. In this piece, everything contributes to the whole equally though not every voice is heard at all times.

The Classical Worldview

Above all else, the Classical worldview loves order, clarity, and refinement

This example was written by F. J. Haydn, one of the two most famous composers from this period. He was a devout Catholic and was a life time servant of the Emperor of Austria-Hungry. This particular setting of the Kyrie is constructed in a very refined and clear form called “Sonata-Allegro Form.” There are three distinct sections in this form: the Exposition where the main themes are clearly spelled out, the Development where the themes are fleshed out and played with, and finally the Recapitulation where the themes are originally stated once more almost exactly as they were stated in the exposition (note the decidedly rhetorical names and functions). This form is about the clear victory of a specific key (usually the original key of the piece, i.e. A major, d minor, etc.) the Exposition usually ends in a different key than the one it started in setting up a kind of power struggle between the two. However, when the themes are restated in the Recapitulation they are all in the original key, thus the dominance. Another thing to notice is the clear elevation of the soprano soloist above the rest of the orchestra and choir, this provides for clarity of text and (theoretically) should aid in the ease of understanding what’s being said.

The Romantic Worldview

This worldview especially prises individuality and emotion, as well as both intrinsic and extrinsic meaning. (This is where we get the idea that “music is a universal language.” )

This piece was written by F. Mendelssohn, who is my personal favourite composer. He was a German Lutheran of Jewish descent who took his faith seriously in a time when many of his colleagues in the art community did not. This piece is constructed in a manner somewhat different from the other two. While, each of the other pieces had a specific form and “map” if you will, this piece seems to follow “wherever the music takes it.” It is held together more through common idiomatic expression and textural colour. This is the kind of music that was designed to tell a story (while you can tell a story to the other two selections) this one was written almost cinematically. It also assumes some kind of deep meaning that can only be expressed through the experience of the music, and is likely reflection of the composer’s own emotions at the time of writing (though this is not necessarily the case with this specific piece). Nevertheless, it uses a great deal more colourful chord progressions than the two other examples which can produce a heightened emotional state. Also, this piece is a stand alone, it is not part of a larger work like the other two examples I have given. I apologize for defining this worldview over and against the other two, however, it is in many ways very similar, but in other ways so completely different that it is difficult to summarize without capitalizing on the differences.

There, now that wasn’t so bad, was it? Now for the big reveal: You may already have some ideas of who fits where. While this is not a hard and fast rule (see the denominations of each of the composers for a very clear indication of this) I have observed that those of High Sacramental Traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, some High Anglicans) tend to fall mostly within a Baroque worldview. The Classical worldview would fit best with High Lutherans and Reform Traditions and the Evangelical, Pentacostal, and Charismatic groups would then fall into the Romantic worldview. I suppose I could add a fourth worldview called the Modern/20th Century worldview to include the United Church and Low Church Anglicans and Lutherans, but I don’t think there’s a way of doing that concisely and un-pejoratively... =/

Really, the purpose of this discussion is to better understand where people are coming from. I don’t think it’s as necessary to insist on everyone starting from the same place (ie. Constructing or conforming to a single Christian worldview) as it is to insist on understanding each other. As I was contemplating what to say over the past week, it occurred to me that it might be beneficial to have some input from various people that I know on the subject since I am naturally limited in my understanding of the worldviews that I do not hold. Naturally, the process of defining ones own worldview can be quite a daunting process full of questions like “what is?” (a rather broad and open ended question that really isn’t that particularly helpful if you ask me...) Thus, with the aid of Leo Apostel’s model that I discussed last week, I came up with a list of questions to aid in this process and will be endeavouring to send them to various friends, interlocutors, and professionals in this area. As I have said before, I don't think there can be any real dialogue until we are able to accept that others see things from different perspectives and are able to address the concerns of the other. I shall thus endeavour to post their responses here in the hopes that this may possibly open up dialogue and be a small step toward understanding.

On Worldviews: Part I

This week and for a few weeks to come, I’d like to spend some time considering the concept of worldview and how it relates to Ecumenical Dialogue. Spurred on by various comments I received from some highly esteemed interlocutors on my facebook wall, I felt it would be helpful to discussion to first define and discuss worldview in more general terms, apply it in more specific terms to dialogue, and finally note some of the areas where the concerned worldviews really don’t see eye to eye. From the beginning, I must apologize for any misrepresentations or “unacademicness” in this post... as this is simply a weekly contemplation, I don’t have a whole lot of time to do a great deal of research. I welcome comments and would appreciate if they were made on the actual post for the benefit of all (not simply on my facebook wall... I know it’s convenient, but still...)

Very broadly defined, worldview denotes the manner in which a person (or society) “thinks about the world.” Naturally, this has many implications for both how one answers basic existential questions as well as how one interacts with those of different backgrounds. Applied to societies as a whole, this concept of cognitive philosophy often coalesces along basic linguistic boundaries and gives rise to the Folk-epic (or cultural story) that by and large defines a given society (eg: The Illiad for the Ancient Greeks, Beowulf for Anglo-Saxons, the Kalevala for the Finns, The Gilgamesh epic for the Sumerans, etc)

Philosophically speaking, the discussion of worldview is relatively new and especially essential to Germanic epistemological discourse (aka Weltanschauung). While the philosophy of worldview has been applied to many different fields as a model for explaining various social phenomena, there are two basic views regarding the development of a given worldview: 1) that worldviews can be constructed by the individual (as per Leo Apostel et. al.), and 2) that worldviews are constructed on a community level and are based out of unconscious reactions to environment and learned behaviours passed down through the generations.

The Dutch philosopher Leo Apostel equates worldview with ontology or the study of being and becoming. Thus a worldview is a descriptive model of the world. Apostel’s work provides us with the idea that any worldview should comprise 6 fundamental elements: 1) an explanation of the world, 2) answer the question “where are we going?” 3) include values and ethics i.e. “what should we do?” 4) a theory of action i.e. “How should we attain our goals?” 5) a theory of knowledge i.e. “What is True and false?” and finally 6) an account of its building blocks. If your head is hurting by now, it’s okay, you could probably answer most of those questions if you really thought about it, and thus, at least as far as Apostel is concerned, you should be able to change your worldview.

On the other hand, many philosophers believe that worldview exists on a much larger scale than the single individual (and to a certain extent this is true because even if you can change your own worldview, this really changes nothing about worldviews of those around you aside from challenging them to consider their own worldviews... but I’ll come back to that...). For example, there is a certain line of thought that considers worldview to be fixed by language, therefore, the only way to change your worldview is to either 1) learn a new language, or 2) invent your own... (!!!) Personally, I think I find myself on the side of Apostel on this one, simply because I think that his ideas hold up much better in a pluralistic society where there are many competing worldviews in collision with each other (though I’m not so sure our society is as pluralistic as we’d like to believe... or maybe pluralism is the predominant worldview???)

Now for some application... (don’t worry, we’re not even close to out of the woods on this one...) At the Christian Liberal Arts University that I recently attended, “Christian Worldview” were major buzzwords. I even had  to take a series of classes and read several books that examined what it was to have a Christian Worldview (and I thoroughly enjoyed them). Part of the goal of these classes was to challenge students to think about how they see the world and how it lines up with how we should see the world as followers of Christ. This was a controversial class because (as one of my compatriots stated in his comments to a previous post) “People... [are] always... subconsciously very scared to truly and fully understand the worldview of an opponent. For once one does, [that worldview’s] inner logic and attractive force make it much harder than before to disagree on self-same surface issues.”

Now, a large majority of the participants in these classes were Christians, thus the question remains; If the way in which a Christian should view the world was being presented, what should any God-fearing follower of Christ have to worry about? Precisely the fact that the manner in which a Christian should view the world was being presented. What if, it doesn’t line up with what you believe to be the proper way that a Christian should view the world? I recall a certain friend of mine who is a practicing Lutheran who entered into the class with much trepidation simply because he was convinced that he was going to disagree with everything that was said...

But this only serves to illustrate my point more poignantly. If we were to attempt to use Apostel’s six elements in order to come up with a homogenous “Christian Worldview” there would be many points of contention because various Christian groups have vastly different answers to the questions inherent within his system. From what I have seen, these multiplicities of views fall in to three general categories which I shall seek to describe next week (otherwise this post will get rather long winded...) So make sure to check back for Part II next week =)

For Want of a Nail...

This week I found myself in conversation with a dear friend on questions of what “Church” should be. Naturally the conversation turned to discussion of various beliefs and practices and how they relate to our respective traditions. While this discussion was a wonderful time of fellowship, understanding, and brotherly love, I couldn't help but notice a few trends beginning to form across various interactions that I've had, especially in dialogue with Evangelical Christians. These trends can be typified by a question and two statements that I have heard many times: 1) Okay, I don’t have a problem with that, but why is it necessary? (Usually referring to specific requests for the intersession of the Saints) 2) If I can’t have it, I don’t want it. (In reference to closed communion) 3) But what really matters is that we are all part of the spiritual body of Christ and the temporal things that divide us are inconsequential because we are united by a higher spiritual connection. While I don’t wish to pick fights or point fingers, I simply find such statements to be unhelpful. I don’t deny that you can think such things, however, what bugs me is that usually these are usually rather final statements because I usually have no idea how to respond to such statements and questions in the moment.

The reason I find these statements so difficult to deal with is that I don’t think they really are individual problems in their own right. Sure, each of these statements engage specific surface issues, but ultimately they are not the root of the problem. We can dicker all we want over the symptoms, but it will never bring us anywhere near to fixing or resolving or even truly understanding the deeper issues they represent. Don’t get me wrong, the symptoms are important, but they cannot be truthfully and fully tackled without addressing the disconnect that is causing the more obvious disagreement.

Theological dialogue is fraught with such issues but the thing that worries me the most is that such discussions very rarely move beyond the surface issues, and often there really is very little thought given to what are the concerns of each side. For example, I once heard a discussion between a Catholic and Protestant theologian regarding the place of Holy Scripture. The Catholic theologian said from the beginning: “this is about Tradition” While the Protestant theologian stated very clearly: “For us, this is about Authority” Here we have two completely different discussions going on, however, because there is the common language of “Scripture” this disconnect is not necessarily noticed. While I don’t necessarily hold these two men responsible for or guilty of such an oversight, the fact remains that the oversight exists and the individual concerns of each side need to be addressed individually before any real progress can be made. In short the problem is not a “high” or “low” view of Holy Scripture, but rather reasons behind such views.

In a recent conflict management training session that I was required to attend for my summer job, the presenter introduced a concept that he referred to as the “5 Why’s.” In short this refers to the idea that in order to find the root of the problem, one must ask “Why” at least five times. To illustrate this concept he used the anonymous poem “For Want of a Nail”

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

This poem wonderfully illustrates how small things have big consequences. I think it can also illustrate how complex and deeply rooted surface issues can be. I really don’t think that the statements I referred to at the beginning of this post are even close to the root issues at hand and while they can serve to point towards deeper issues, conflicts, misunderstandings, and dysfunctions, they also serve to shut down further discussion. I have found that such statements have a tendency to signal that the discussion is over and often emphasize the opinion that the issues and concerns that the other side may have are null and are really not issues at all.

I must be quick to emphasize that I DO NOT blame people who say such things. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are sincere in their engagement. I often wish that things could be as simple as they are to some interlocutors with whom I have the privilege of interacting. However, I am struck by how baffled I am by their questions and statements at times. I simply have a hard time understanding where such statements come from, and this leads me to wonder if the issues really are the necessity of Holy Tradition, the Divine Eucharist, and One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Or, is the issue something much more simple: A conflict of worldview. At least for me, this is something helpful. With this understanding, I can begin to make headway, not by simply addressing issues and answering questions to the best of my ability, but rather by seeking to paint a picture of how I see the world so that maybe someone else can understand where I come from. Of course, this also requires that I be willing and able to encourage the other to do the same and have an open mind to hear and understand. Until we understand each other’s world views, there is no way that we can begin to understand each other on the more complex levels of theology and practice.