Today's sermon concerned how culture and social influence contribute to the content of our character. I'm the product of a white, middle class, suburban, midwest upbringing. I think of how much of my own character was minted early in life by my family. My own profession I suppose in many ways was inspired by life as the son of a Pastor (though I never thought I'd be doing what he did). This discussion about character has especially caused me to consider what kind of culture I am creating in my own family life - what values I seek to transmit to our son, Will; what values we seek to consciously live out together as a family.
Culture matters. That was really the main point of today's sermon - our family's culture, our work culture, our national culture; it has a great deal of influence upon our own individual character. But it goes both ways: it forms us, and obviously, we form it. We're all in some sense responsible for the collective character, if you will, of each.
Is it fruitful to step back and observe what kinds of cultures we operate in, and their character? To what extent are we operating in cultures of integrity, or excellence--or, on the other hand, dysfunctionality? And is it then fruitful to ask ourselves the question, What can I do to help create a culture that values right action?
But a final word about character. I ended this sermon series with a critique of character...of any collective, social attempt to "teach character." Perhaps one could say that the dark underbelly of any such attempt is the extent to which teaching virtue is simply the attempt to acculturate individuals to a social norm. What if that norm itself is unjust? After all, Adolf Eichmann loved Beethoven, and was kind to his colleagues, and was a terrific father, apparently.
In the final analysis, as Christians we can't escape the anthropology of the cross: despite our muscular attempts at virtue, we can never attain a character of life that will insulate us from human sin. We will never be a perfect human being, nor shall we ever build a perfect society. We look at the cross and see our own guilt and failure writ large: we killed God. And at the same time, we see the ultimate symbol of divine love: God gave not just any life, but the divine life as a gift to every human being.
Christian understanding of character begins at the foot of the cross, when we know ourselves to be forgiven for our failures, and redeemed from our perfectionism. That turns out to be the most solid foundation upon which to build a virtuous life. When we know this power, we become, in the words of D. T. Niles, "One beggar telling another beggar where to find bread."
Be interested in anyone's further reflection out there. Some very specific questions:
* What are folks' experience in wrestling with "The Man"? Is it naive to say that an individual can have an effect upon a whole corporate or work culture? Can an individual function with integrity in a dysfunctional culture?
* What do you make of the theology of the cross? Is it possible that we really begin to form a character of virtue when we realize our failure at virtue?
* What important questions have not been asked in this discussion about character?
Welcome any comments.
Posts
8 comments:
I'm patient.
ON the theology of the cross:
I don't have your sermon text in front of me, but I remember thinking at the end of the sermon yesterday "Gee. Can't we ever end on a good note?" I think the incredible silence as Mary Alice walked to the pulpit shows that I wasn't alone.
I did some thinking yesterday afternoon wondering if we as Presbyterians are too pessimistic. Are we preaching the Gospel, or the Bad-spel? Is it all about the darkness of our sin or about the redemption through Christ?
When it comes to character I think we should celebrate forward progress and try to backstop backward progress.
It's a question of emphasis. I've been feeling that too often we emphasize the fallen nature of man over the promise of a new life in Christ. Are we "half empty" or "half full" people?
This get echoed very strongly in social justice preaching, which often takes the form of "we're doing good, but we're not doing good enough". There's a place for discomforting someone out of the status quo but when it becomes the recurring theme the message just becomes bad news.
Of course I'm a pessimist by nature and I'm sure that the color of the glasses that I view the world through affects my perception of the message.
I love this new medium (well, new to me). It's terrific to be able to have this conversation. The real sermon is always the sermon people hear, not the one that was spoken from the pulpit. But this allows us to continue a conversation.
I very much appreciate your comment, Mark, and am glad to know that that's how the sermon's ending struck you. As a preacher, I'm always intensely curious about such reactions. But let me share how your reflections have spurred some of my own further reflections.
I think you're absolutely right that at times, we Presbyterians are "joy-challenged." We need to be able to express the depth and heart of that kind of joy that comes from knowing the grace and love of Christ. The Good News. Amen!
However (I can't help it!) here's the Reformed part of my soul that no one, apparently, can quite beat out of me. We believe that we can only get there ("there" being joyfulness) by one route--by dealing honestly with the pain, suffering, failure, cruelty and crud of life. For us, that is symbolized by the cross. If we short-cut this part of the story, we are at risk of offering people "cheap grace." (I always think of the song on the cross at the end of "Life of Brian" - "Always look on the sunny side of life......")
But the cross is a double-symbol (and this is what I was trying to get at in the sermon): it both shows the failure and weakness we are always prone to (traditionally called, of course, sin). The cross is a symbol of our propensity as humans to be cruel, inhuman, weak, lacking in faithfulness (as were all the disciples)...in short, rather imperfect.
But the other aspect of that symbol is the aspect of God's love. God was up there, and took all of that crud on as a human being, as one who came to be one of us in all our struggle - warts and all. We are connected to God, because there is nothing we can experience that God has not felt.
During this season of Lent, we emphasize that aspect of the story - the cross. The bad news. We take time to take stock of our lives - how it is that we participate in this whole mechanism that continues to crucify human beings. So, the "bad news" you may have experienced might also have been a function of that.
But, mark me here, Mark...the only reason to express this is to experience the joy that's beyond the cross - the resurrection. That's when we know the ultimate hope that claims each person. And so, if somehow we don't pull out all the stops there - at Easter - then call the preacher on it; call your Brothers and Sister on it!
Last...someone mentioned (I don't remember who) that we need to hear more about Joy. I think that's an excellent suggestion for a future sermon (certainly appropriate for Eastertide!)
We need to work on the "Joy-challenged" people of God!
More later....
Jeff
Let me first say that I'm sorry that I missed this sermon on Sunday. I was home with a sick husband. I did, however, hear some ladies at the gym talking about the message, which inspired me to come to the blog and check out what all the (positive) fuss was about. Mike and I read the post and had a really good discussion about character. I kept thinking about (bless her heart) Britney Spears as I read the post. The poor woman has had nothing but messed-up circumstances since she was a pre-teen. No wonder she's such a disaster now! But what does it say about our character, as a society, that we watch her with bated breath hoping for drama? I think such a society could benefit from a realistic examination of character. Do I think we should have character "education"? Definitely not. Do I think it's up to parents to convey character to their children? Yes, but I know that's not realistic in some circumstances. I think it's something that individuals must embrace and exhibit on a case-by-case basis; that is how one teaches character. When you have an encounter with a person with impeccable character, you know it, and hopefully, try to emulate it.
The other thought we had was this, with respect to you question, "Is it naive to say that an individual can have an effect upon a whole corporate or work culture?": It's important to think of what kind of effect you want. Do you want a negative effect? Do you want a positive effect? So many times I think people in the work-world get tied up in the negativity of their co-workers. What if "you" tried to be that positive person? Don't dis the boss, don't bad-mouth the receptionist, etc? How much of an impact could that have? I'm no Pollyanna, for sure, but I think there is something to be said for not being sucked into that negativity and pettiness (or, as I say, "that is SO sixth grade!!).
BTW, the husband is still ailing, but I will for sure be there on Sunday; here's hoping to meet you (Mark Smith) and anyone else who I might encounter.
Cheers.
I'm not THAT patient.
Can you give me until after Easter? I think a Post Resurrection Mission Statement might be a different beast than if I were to write it in the throes of Holy Week and what precedes it for clergy....
I am feeling guilty (Physician, heal thyself!) for being a bad blogger. As is obvious, I need a blog-mentor.
(Bowing and prostrating).
; )
Jeff V
OK - a reprieve. I'll even give you two weeks OR until you write your next blog post.
OK?
So .... those two weeks are up today.
Post a Comment