A little Tuesday theology
Not my theology today. I'm having real issues forcing myself to write down my ideas lately, and moreso in getting them readable for others.
But this is a little good thinking from a few Christian theologians.
Willis Elliott hits a bunch of stuff. I've ranted a lot of this myself, and he hits several points dear to my heart quickly and eloquently ( Read more... )
But this is a little good thinking from a few Christian theologians.
Willis Elliott hits a bunch of stuff. I've ranted a lot of this myself, and he hits several points dear to my heart quickly and eloquently ( Read more... )
Anyway, conflict is conventionally necessary for narrative, but not for entertainment. Many forms of entertainment have no (necessary) 'conflict' to speak of... for instance, people drumming and dancing and singing all night, or creating some art together. Sure, sometimes conflict enters in, but that's not wickedness; that's nature. What is wicked is when conflict is treated as divine, as insoluble, as absolute. Disharmony happens, that's the nature of the universe. Things disrupt one another, then find a new equilibrium. If that's sinfulness and depravity, all of creation is sinful and depraved. The problem with humanity (as observed and interpreted by Christian theology) is that it has lost connection with landbase, community, and the ritual and spirit powers that draw the shortest line between conflict/disharmony and harmony. We disagree because we all necessarily (and thank God!) have different perspectives and experience, and conflict enters when either one of us tries to force perspectives on another, or we must combine resources to cooperate on a project where our differing perspectives prove an obstacle. Harmony is restored when perspective is regained and we realize that relative smallness of our own egos and perspectives and find new ways of approaching novel solutions.
And the question is about violence, not conflict. They are entirely different but related things. Conflict is inevitable, but the salient critique is the failure of either party to learn or grow, the conflict is never resolved, and our entire culture is rife with stories and images with no moral sophistication. Popeye is good, Bluto is bad, Bluto fucks shit up, Popeye fucks Bluto up, and then open hostility briefly ends. The Devil is bad, God is good, the Devil fucks shit up, God fucks up the Devil, etc. A friend pointed out to me once that one nice thing about a lot of Japanese animation is that often villains have REASONS for being villains (rather than just mysterious incurable evil), and sometimes get their shit worked out and are able to rejoin 'well behaved' community, or destroy themselves. The narrative discussed on Ekklesia is the same bad thinking that enables many to believe that there are just these Bad People out there and that they just mysteriously hate us and want to destroy things--there is no need to question why people would become that hateful, rageful and angry, that frustrated and violent. We just take it for granted that some people are like that because they're bad, and we're good, and our only solution is to kill them before they kill us. Unfortunately, for the most part, they've been trained into that same stupid thinking, so there is only a remote likelihood of meaningful growth and resolution.
--And this is why 'the innate sinfulness of the human being' makes me batty. It makes it functionally impossible to examine the real roots of human depravity when it actually exists, since it's assumed to be unavoidable. It also distracts people with 'moral' concerns about teenagers fucking (which is what God designed teenagers to do) and queers being respected and embraced members of society instead of with real suffering, violence, poverty, and war.
Reply
Leave a comment