evolutionary love

    Racism, Samaritans, and Saints

    As I've read news about recent protests on campuses across the country I've often wondered how I could respond helpfully if I were an administrator at one of those campuses. And I have not found it easy to answer my own question.

    The closest I've come is this: when my kids were little, I taught them that despite what others may say, there are no bad words; but there are bad uses of good words. When we use our words to hurt others or to deprive them of what they need to grow and flourish, we are using our words badly.

    Plainly there are acts, institutions, rituals and monuments that foster an undeserved poor view of some of our neighbors. Those should be changed or abolished.

    But I don't think that's enough, and those might be more like symptoms than the illness itself.

    I think we need to work to make sure we use our words in ways that help and heal, nurture and teach. I think we need leaders (at all levels) who will take positions of leadership as opportunities to edify and promote those who have not had such opportunities yet.

    To put it in simpler terms, I think we need to work harder at loving our neighbors. Jesus told a story about this once, focusing on established ethnic hatred with deep political roots. I refer to the parable of the "Good Samaritan." This parable is the best answer I've got so far to the question I have posed for myself. If you've got the power to help others, and you see others needing help, then help them without regard for what it costs you. This is not easy, but it's what I want to strive for. 

    *****

    What do you think? What am I forgetting? Am I too naive and optimistic? I welcome thoughtful replies that show kindness towards a wide range of readers. (If you want to simply cuss me out or insult my ignorance, please save that for a direct message, or let me take you out for a beer or coffee so you've got more of my attention. Thanks.)

    Pornography and Prayer

    A recent Wall Street Journal article talks about the way online pornography quickly develops new neural pathways that are difficult to undo. As the author puts it,
    "Repetitive viewing of pornography resets neural pathways, creating the need for a type and level of stimulation not satiable in real life. The user is thrilled, then doomed."
    Thankfully, "doomed" may be an overstatement.  As William James and so many others remind us, our habits make us who we are, so we may be able to form new habits to supplant or redirect old ones.  I'm no psychologist, but it seems obvious to me that what we hold in front of our consciousness will synechistically affect everything else we think about and do.   So it is no surprise that the author of this WSJ article reports that viewing porn may lead to viewing women as things rather than as people.

    To put it differently, everyone worships something, and what we worship changes us.  This is one of the good reasons to engage in prayer and worship that are intentional. (On a related note, it's a good reason to forgive, too: forgiveness keeps us from internalizing the pain others have caused us, where it can fester and devour us from within.)

    (If you read my writing with any regularity you will recognize these as themes I frequently return to.  If you're interested, I've written more here and here.) 

    One of the problems of philosophy of religion has been to try to identify that which certainly deserves our worship.  This quest for certainty has often (in my view) distracted us from the more important work of liturgy, wherein we acknowledge our limitations, including our uncertainty.  A good liturgy involves worshiping what we believe to be worth worshiping, while acknowledging our own limitations.  After all, if worship doesn't include humility on the part of the worshiper, it is probably self-worship. 

    Another way of putting this is in terms of love.  Charles Peirce wrote about this more than a century ago.  There are many forms of worship, many kinds of prayer.  Without intending to demean the prayer and worship of others, Peirce nevertheless offers what seems to him to be worth our attention: agape love, the love that seeks to nurture others:
    "Man's highest developments are social; and religion, though it begins in a seminal individual inspiration, only comes to full flower in a great church coextensive with a civilization. This is true of every religion, but supereminently so of the religion of love. Its ideal is that the whole world shall be united in the bond of a common love of God accomplished by each man's loving his neighbour. Without a church, the religion of love can have but a rudimentary existence; and a narrow, little exclusive church is almost worse than none. A great catholic church is wanted." (Peirce, Collected Papers, 6.442-443)
    Notice that Peirce uses a small "c" in "catholic."  He wasn't trying to proselytize for one sect; quite the opposite.  He was trying to proclaim the importance of a church - that is, of a community that shares a commitment to communal worship - of nurturing love.

    I am not trying to moralize about pornography.  In fact, I see some good in pornography, just as I recognize goodness in the aromas coming from a kitchen where good cooking happens.  Pornography probably speaks to some of our most basic desires and needs, for intimacy, affection, attention, and love, as well as our simple, animal longings.

    Still, like aromas from a fine kitchen, porn stimulates us without nourishing us.  And by giving it too much attention we may be training ourselves to scorn good nutrition.  The WSJ article suggests giving up the stimulation as a means of getting over it.  I think this is incomplete without a redirection of the attention to what does in fact nourish us.  Prayer and worship that refocus our conscious minds on what really merits our attention can prepare us to receive - and to give - good nutrition.  That is, by shifting some of our attention from cherishing need-love to cherishing gift-love - from the love that uses others to the love that seeks their flourishing - we might make ourselves into the kind of great lovers our world most needs.

    The Idolatry of Fear

    Let me start with some rough definitions: by worship I mean ascribing worth to something, to the point of making it a guide for one's actions.  By an idol I mean something that does not merit the worship it is given.

    Now: when fear becomes the guide for our actions, we should ask whether that fear deserves to be at the center of our attention.

    Because what resides at the center of our attention starts to shape us.  I don't mean it remakes us completely.  I mean that what we mentally caress and cherish will affect our ethical decisions.  The inward life has outward consequences.

    Some fear is prudent.  It is prudent not to stand on mountain ridges or under trees during thunderstorms.  But if we live in constant fear of lightning, something has gone wrong.  Either we live in the wrong place, or lightning has taken too central a role in our minds.  Lightning becomes a monster, a demigod, a perpetual danger that stunts our growth and keeps our heads down.

    The same could be said when we fear our neighbors: either we live in the wrong place, or we give too much credence to potential dangers and crowd out from our consciousness the potential joys of human fellowship.  So our neighbors become monsters and we become their victims, and we worship them as fearful gods whom we come to despise.

    What is the antidote to the idolatry of fear?  Someone once said "perfect love drives out all fear."  If I can conceive of my neighbor not as a monster but as someone worth loving--even to a small degree--then I have begun to let love -- philia, agape* -- dwell at the center of my consciousness.  And I can begin to lift my head, just a little.



    ****
    * Philia can mean "love," or "friendship."  The latter books of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics give a thoughtful treatment of philia.  Among his insights there, Aristotle says that where there is philia, there is no need for laws.  Like philia, the word agape can be translated as "love."  Charles Peirce used this word to describe the kind of love that seeks the good of the beloved (you can see more here and also in the Gospel of John) and distinguishes this from eros, the love that seeks the good of the lover.