Every New Years day I look forward to watching some of the Twilight Zone Marathon that plays on the Sci Fi channel, and there will inevitably be some shows that I haven’t seen before. This year I was intrigued by one show titled ‘A Penny for your Thoughts.’

A bank clerk named Mr. Poole gains telepathic powers after tossing a coin that miraculously stands on its edge. He discovers that he is able to ‘listen’ to other people’s thoughts. This turns out to be a curse for Mr. Poole… why?

because he discovers the ugliness that is inside humanity.

“it’s like seeing people with their clothes off. I never imagined people were like that” – Mr. Poole

Imagine if you had the ability to hear what people are really thinking as they go about their business during the day. I know that in my own mind, I am constantly needing to correct my thoughts, It’s a struggle to think morally upright. And that’s the problem right? as much as we like to think we are morally good… when we look deep inside, there’s a sickness inside us.

The way out is to rationalize that even if these thoughts do creep in, since we are not acting on them, then we must be morally good. Of course there is a decency to virtues; to developing good character; to not allowing bad intentions to empower us. But what Mr. Poole discovers, and what seems very real to me.. is that we are trying to correct what is inherently natural in us. A conflict that is part of our natural self. Not meant to be there, but nevertheless finds its way like a cancer.

I think that for me, what made most sense of the Christian worldview at first, was this idea of human depravity. Not something that is out there somewhere, but a sickness in our souls.

Our Cultural Stories: Part 1

Individualism is the idea that individual happiness, liberty, and pleasure is the highest pursuit above all else. The purpose of life is that each of us attain our personal goals as the primary concern. While this may seem self-centered to us, it is a story that saturates our western culture.

You hear it in statements like “I need to be free to be me” or “it’s my life, it’s now or never (Bon Jovi).” I am convinced that the reason why divorce rates are so high today, is because someone in the marriage decided that their personal happiness or liberty was threatened and so bailed out. of course It makes sense if individual pursuit stands above family interests. Most abortions are decided because of inconvenience towards a sense of liberty.

However, as individuals, some of our concerns are valid. History has shown that institutions like financial corporations, governments, and churches are subject to deep corruption. Our desire for self interests can also be fueled by the need to protect ourselves from social and religious institutions.

If you ask most people to provide one word that defines the highest ideal in life, it will probably be the word freedom. Our sense of freedom centered around individualism comes from the modern era; the very driving factor of the enlightenment. But defining the word freedom in our individualistic culture is not always easy. Does individual freedom surpass the greater good of society?

“While most worldviews acknowledge the right of individuals to act freely to some degree, it is interesting to note what happens to values when freedom fights its way to the top of the virtue hierarchy. In classical thought, the four cardinal (or basic) virtues were identified as prudence, courage, moderation and justice. The idea was that a person became free when she lived according to such virtues. In other words, the limitations to our freedom were viewed as internal, moral obstacles that could be overcome by developing and internalizing these virtuous characteristics.”
— Hidden Worldviews – Steve Wilkens, Mark L. Sanford.

As I find myself critiquing this cultural story of individualism, I can’t help but realize how much I am ingrained in this mindset. I am totally wrapped up in the individual pursuit… it is a story I’ve known all my life, and it takes a lot of effort for me to de-centralize myself. I don’t really know what the proper balance is between individualism and corporatism but I do believe that in today’s western culture… we are radically shifted in one direction.

I can’t help but wonder if this is what Jesus meant when he talked about ‘dying to self.’ How much more so today, when our modern culture is far more self-centered.

Introduction
I haven’t written a blog series in a while, and I had this idea on writing about worldviews in a practical way. Most books and courses that teach worldviews do so on a philosophical level, with topics such as Rationalism; Marxism; Platonism; etc… and while this is very important, because ideas do begin in academia and filter down in various forms, most people don’t often think about ‘isms’ on this level. Or rather, they don’t see the connection between these ‘isms’ and how they play out in the real world.

It is in our cultural stories where ideas become practical, such as in movies, books, news media, and music. These often subtle ideas shape our thoughts and how we see reality. They are most powerful in narrative form which is why I’ve always felt that movies were the most influential form of media.

As I was thinking about this… I discovered a book that does this very thing. It is titled “Hidden Worldviews: Eight Cultural Stories that Shape our Lives” by Steve Wilkens and Mark Sanford.

So as I am reading this book, it has inspired my own ideas in presenting some of these thoughts. I like the layout of this book… and the eight discussed views are individualism, consumerism, nationalism, moral relativism, scientific naturalism, New Age thinking, postmodern tribalism and salvation. I would include some of these in my own list but not all of them. For example… Not sure that ‘New Age’ is a current story today… but something like ‘environmental spirit-ism’ would be. So.. I’m finding that I would fine-tune some of these and also include some others not mentioned.

Also, many of our cultural stories are not black and white ideologies. The point is not to simply address the negative aspects of the stories, but also the positive ones (as the authors of this book do as well). I hope to show examples of how these play out in our culture, and help us to recognize these stories behind the stories.

In my mind, there is nothing more important then understanding our cultural worldviews and the impact they have on our lives. In the next couple of months, I look to discover and clarify these narratives and hope these thoughts are useful for you as well.

I grew up in Astoria, Queens NY.
I recall at some point while I was growing up, how much I wanted to move out of there… it was crowded, too much traffic, too expensive, etc… Now that I don’t live there anymore, I really appreciate the qualities about Astoria… the uniqueness, the cultural diversity, the charm. These are all things that I didn’t notice when I was living there… from the inside.

It reminds me of the cultural story we are told that truth lies within us. If we look inside ourselves, our desires, our feelings, it is there that we define what matters. We shape our reality from the inside out.

However, it seems to me that reality is best defined when it is observed from the outside. Of course I don’t mean we have to step outside of ourselves, rather that we discover truth by looking out – the truth of the human condition; the meaning of life; what our purpose in life is.

One obvious example is that of morality. It would be a mistake for me to look inside myself to define what is morally right or wrong…. I know I would really make a mess of things. Rather, morality is a standard that I objectively observe in the world; a law of sorts. Morality is to be discovered, not imagined.

Like the physical realm, mathematics is not something I define, it is something I discover.

Truth in purpose, beauty, meaning, reality… I am convinced that you seek it outside of yourself, and let it define who you are. From the outside in.

Do politics and religion blend?

While I hate the idea of a Christian coalition; a religious right movement; and the idea of pushing a so-called ‘Christian’ agenda in politics, I think it is a mistake to divorce government policy from a faith-centered worldview. The notion of compartmentalizing life disciplines such as politics, religion, ethics, etc… is a modern idea. The ancients understood that all aspects of life form a coherent reality.

Of course I am not advocating pushing a specific religious viewpoint as law; I am not suggesting that America be a Christian nation. I think religious freedom is necessary, as are other freedoms, which was well understood by our founding fathers. However, it is odd to suggest that a person keep his religious convictions as a private matter and somehow appeal to government policy as something different.

All ideas… be it politics, philosophy, science, religion, ethics… form a worldview; a way in which each of us view reality. The problem is when we make distinctions as separate categories, we often create fragmented solutions. For example, are human rights issues simply a political matter?

It is a mistake to call Jesus a non-political figure. Of course he was careful in how he dealt with political authority as in those days it was easy to get oneself killed. But, to say that you are bringing forth a New Kingdom was anything but non-intrusive. The kingdom of God is not a private matter… it embodies all of society… it is a new authority, an allegiance to a new king.

Of course Kingdom politics is not what we would expect. Jesus wasn’t advocating a military revolution. Kingdom politics is a radical view towards the poor; the outcast; the sick; the lost. It is a movement that begins with redemption and continues with shalom for all the earth. Kingdom people are to fight for the oppressed, whether we call it politics or ethics, human rights is a kingdom-centered concern.

Since I am a Christian, I am therefore not neutral when it comes to the big questions in life, like who are we? where we came from? Or what the meaning of life is?

However, it is my humble observation that there is in fact, no neutral ground on these issues.

For example, if you are an atheist, then you have some assumptions about life, such as the non-existence of an ultimate divine being; you may believe that perhaps the universe has always existed or came into being from nothing at all; or that everything in life is based on physical matter. Therefore an atheist has beliefs about the world; a philosophy of life; a worldview.

What about agnosticism? By stating that the big questions are not knowable is in fact saying something about the world. The agnostic believes that the world operates a certain way – in a state of unknowing, which is also a point of view about how the world functions.

I suppose many people might not spend their time thinking about the certainty of big questions in life, but they too, operate with assumptions about the world. For example if ‘business’ is a person’s driving objective in life, they may think that economics is the answer to the world’s problems.

There are plenty of ‘isms’ that people embrace that appear to be tolerant and inclusive, such as pluralism, pantheism, panentheism, etc.. but all ‘isms’ say something about God. They define God and life in some way, therefore they exclude other ‘isms’ and are not neutral. I think we all need to be aware that each of us has a worldview, beliefs about the world, and we all come to the table with assumptions.

We are all faith-based people… it’s just a matter of where our faith rests.

When someone asks the question “do you believe in evolution?” the premise behind the question usually means that if you do, then you must not believe in God. The problem with the question is that it doesn’t address the real issue of origins.

The creation/evolution debate tends to be surface-based discussions about method. Such as… At what level does evolution happen? where is the distinction of species? how does evolution relate to the Biblical creation story? while all of these are good discussions, the challenge from the God-believer against evolutionary scientific claims should not be about the method of evolution, but about the purpose of evolution.

The pro-darwinist will often state that evolution is not just about random mutation, but is a purposeless process; it is evolution by chance or by accident. This I believe, is outside the bounds of science. There is no experiment or objective evidence in science that shows purposelessness. There is no scientific data that describes the reason why one organism evolves into another organism.

The real question about origins is to ask ‘what is responsible for life?’

Is life a result of a purposeless beginning or process, or does life result from something purposeful? The answer comes from a place of faith, by both the theist and the atheist. Not from science. Therefore, the atheist cannot, nor shouldn’t appeal to science for a blind-evolutionary claim.

A worldview is basically how one perceives reality. Everybody has a worldview whether they think about it or not. How one interacts in life is a result of their worldview, even if it functions subconsciously for them.

Today, we like to compartmentalize aspects of life.. so we have this thing called religion, and then politics, and then finance, etc… and we may have differing viewpoints in how these categories function.

However, this oddity of fragmented worlds is new in the history of the world. The pre-modern world (before 1600′s) did not seem to make these distinctions. Politics, piety, spirituality, and ethics were one and the same. One’s spiritual world cohered with how they thought about morality, about economics, about govt, etc…

I’m pretty sure that when Jesus announced that the kingdom of God was at hand, he wasn’t referring to a private spiritual experience for people. It was something that would affect every aspect of their lives. When the apostle Paul traveled around the Mediterranean claiming that Jesus was Lord, people understood that this was a threat to Caesar. It wasn’t about a private religious observance.

What our thoughts are about God, who we are as people, where we came from, and how we perceive the world, are the foundation of our worldview. Then… our economics, politics, mission, ethics, family-life, etc… should cohere with that foundation. Instead, we often compartmentalize stuff because it is less risky to do so.

It is interesting that those who do try to unify their worldview are often considered radical. If you try to unify your thoughts about religion with politics, religion with science, politics with academia, economics with ethics, etc… society will regard you as radical.

However, it seems perfect sense to do so.

I was reading this excellent article in Prospect magazine by Edward Doxc titled ‘Postmodernism is Dead” and wanted to share some thoughts on it. If Postmodernism is truly dead, then what comes next? and Docx defines the initial characteristics of an emerging era to be at least three ideas – specificity, values, and authenticity. All of which stand in contrast to postmodern thought.

Of course Postmodernism is not really dead, nor is modernism or pre-modernism. Aspects of each of these movements live-on and continue to be evident in our culture. However, there are definitely broad viewpoints that define historical eras, and these sweeping collective thoughts shape our society in huge ways , such as trends, ideologies, politics, etc…

Much of what I’ve read about Postmodernism seems to indicate that we are now on the brink of a new paradigm. I agree with Docx on these initial ideas, and here are some areas where I’m starting to see those ideas play out.

The post-postmodernist realizes that…

There is an authenticity about the local farmer, as opposed to the mass production of processed foods (modernism) or the superstore variety of the branded products (postmodernism)

There is an authenticity about the uniqueness of a musical artist, as opposed to the mass saturation of one particular music style (modernism) or the re-branding of the artist to fit different trends and styles – via Madonna and Lady GaGa (postmodernism)

There is an authenticity about the specifics of a particular narrative, rather then the imposing of a top-down narrative (modernism) or the flattening of all narratives to be equally valid (postmodernism).

I do believe that the youth will be (if not already) thirsty for authenticity; not something that is simply true for them or what their emotions happen to be in a given day, but something very real. The crumbling economic and political structures in the West will force them to make a stand for something, and call it ‘true.’

Even the advancement of technology in the social virtual world will be a wake-up call to see the value of something more authentic. As Edward Doxc states:

“Certainly, the internet is the most postmodern thing on the planet. The immediate consequence in the west seems to have been to breed a generation more interested in social networking than social revolution. But, if we look behind that, we find a secondary reverse effect—a universal yearning for some kind of offline authenticity. We desire to be redeemed from the grossness of our consumption, the sham of our attitudinising, the teeming insecurities on which social networking sites were founded and now feed. We want to become reacquainted with the spellbinding narrative of expertise. If the problem for the postmodernists was that the modernists had been telling them what to do, then the problem for the present generation is the opposite: nobody has been telling us what to do.”

It will be interesting to see how these new movement of ideas eventually replace the ideologies of postmodernism. Will authenticity be the main thrust of the movement? or one idea among others? How will this change our perception on how we view religion, politics, academia, etc…

The World is ready for change, and I for one would welcome the age of authenticism.

The human mind is an incredible processing machine, and like any good storage software, it structures and categorizes information.

We naturally love to label and define stuff. It’s a way to make sense of things. Whatever we read, think, and experience, we subconsciously categorize in our brains. The stuff on the foundational level of our thinking is what makes up our worldview, but all the other stuff finds it’s way somewhere in our internal taxonomy.

So, using our minds we label stuff… and yes, we even label people.

The problem however, is when we allow our pre-defined labels to filter the information we take in. So, a typical example is when we listen to somebody who has an opposing viewpoint (political party, group, etc..) and we don’t give them the time of day because we have already defined them as wrong. They must be wrong because they fall into this label – Liberal, Conservative, Marxist, Capitalist, environmentalist, etc…

A good example is the current handling of the Norway shooter as played out in the news media. As soon as this tragedy happened, the media’s reaction was to label the person… why? to try to make sense of him (psychoanalyze him). So, first he was a Muslim terrorist, and then he was labeled as a Christian fundamentalist. The problem is, if you read the info on him, he doesn’t fit in any of our normal categories, because he isn’t normal.

The Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, the Virginia Tech shooter, these are people that find ideas to feed their hatred and delusional desires. They don’t fit in the cultural boxes we define ‘people groups’ in.

How much of life are we missing, because we wrongfully label people and therefore disregard or ignore them? Do we stay away from authors because we have already labeled them as heretical to our worldviews? filmmakers, artists, celebrities? How often have we labeled somebody as odd or weird, and then after getting to know them, discovered how beautiful they are as people.

Labeling people is sometimes a way of defining them as ‘the other.’ distancing ourselves from them. It is the root of where racism begins.

Our mind needs to structure information, it’s natural. But true open-mindedness is allowing our labels to be questioned. People are far too complex to label.