In chapter 22, McLaren argues that we can overcome our violent and warring ways by acknowledging our predisposition to be "fighters" and directing this tendency toward justice. Do you think this is a reasonable argument? Why or why not? (300-500 words)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You could argue that we are “predisposed” to just about anything; there are people whose temperaments are naturally angrier, more energetic, and then there are those who are calm, and those who get distraught by confrontation. So predisposition doesn't really play a part in the bigger picture of justice. It doesn't make sense, because even people who have the natural tendency to be angry or harmful can grow up in a peaceful environment and be taught that that kind of behavior is wrong. Then, when they're older it will never have been an issue of predisposition. It's like the debate between nature versus nurture in the outcome of a person's personality and temperament, but the truth is that it will always be a mix; I think that my opinion will always be that nurture is the most important element, however, because no matter what nature endows on us, through socialization it can be made to adapt to something else. Except for in the case of mental illness, I think that that is the case.
ReplyDeleteThat's not to say that perhaps humanity as a whole isn't violent. But you have to go beyond just looking at the fact that it's violent, and think of why. Limited resources, diversity, fear, terrorists, poverty, the list can go on and on. People who are raised and instilled with values of peace and love can get caught up in the media frenzy, showing us violence and death at all hours of the day and night, talking about disagreements and broken promises forever. Anyone could find it in themselves to go to war when they think they have a cause that's worthwhile; to get caught up in the idea of 'my fellow countryman,' instead of being united globally. So while I'm not sure about the term “predisposition” that's being used, I do think that the energy spent convincing people to go to war for their country should instead be put towards convincing people to reach out to others and look for compromise and cooperation instead of accepting war as the answer.
In chapter 22, McLaren writes that he thinks Jesus would say, "You need to choose another type of fighting: instead of fighting against each other, you must fight with each other against injustice, for the good of each other."
ReplyDeleteThis idea is a novel one, and an idea that you might see as the turning point of some epic movie. The truth is, this idea is the one of the best examples I can think of as being "easier said than done." The notion that we could all tap into a sense of greater good and work together for the common good all sounds great, but it has sounded great for a long time. I guess I do not have a lot of faith that people are that concerned with everyone else and the worlds problems.
McLaren's idea of using our fighting nature to equip us for ending injustice is a novel idea, but I'm worried that it may not be able to make the transfer from good idea to reality. What makes us naturally fighters? Why is it that we fight each other? How can we get past our impulses to fight each other and instead help each other?
His argument is reasonable, and sounds good. It may be a step in the right direction as far as inspiring for some to help others, but in the end I just don't know if the high-jacking or use of a "fighting nature" to address injustice is the way in which real multi-faith / cross-culture / worldwide change is going to happen.
In my criticism, I want to make it clear that I enjoy the ideas McLaren has argued. I happen to often agree with and can see the benefit that could come from many of his ideas. I just am not sure that I think he is providing the real answers to the problems that are most pressing to the world. All my criticisms and disagreements considered he may very well be inspiring some people to make a difference (and that is great).
I find McLaren’s argument to be extremely valid. I think that individuals and communities have a deep desire to feel a sense of purpose and connectedness to those around them. This sense of purpose can be full-filled by having something to fight for. I think that it is very possible that society has directed their fighting in the wrong direction which has generated many situations of us vs. them/ good vs. evil. When we create these situations an overall communal sense of purpose is achieved. I agree with McLaren that we need another craving for security and that there needs to be a replacement for the potential boredom of peace. If the “fighter” inside each person could be redirected into something more positive and sustainable then profound changes could be accomplished. There are innumerable injustices that exist in our world. These injustices could become the rock on which society stands, the one thing we all have in common, and the one thing we could all work to resolve together. If working to resolve injustices were the universal goal then monotony could not exist. Conflicts will always exist; a world without them is unrealistic however the way in which we deal these conflicts can change. By no means would this be an easy task but it would be a step in the right direction. To fight against humanity is an endless and perpetuating cycle of violence and hate. Conversely to work with humanity creates understanding, love, and unity with a sense of purpose to help one another. This untrammeled battle against inequality could fill the void experienced by many to be involved in a communal struggle with a shared foundation. This type of fighting could create a more positive and prosperous world for not just the selected few. I hope society can one day move in this direction however I feel that there is much progress to be made. I want to have faith in humanity that they will ultimately realize that we all must fight with each other against injustice to help save each other. I am glad that McLaren is shedding some light on this pressing issue that our world needs to overcome before we all destroy each other.
ReplyDeleteThis idea is a nice one. I mean, I really do like it. But we are discussing whether or not it is reasonable… Unfortunately, I would have to say it is not. First of all, the only motivation McLaren mentions for us to unite together is Jesus. (Also, I guess a collective effort to stop harm to one’s own people.) But when the divisions between everyone in the world have been deepened and stretched for so long, it is going to take something more, or something different to bridge the gap. Jesus, or rather Christianity, is often at the root cause of tension between the world’s peoples. Even if we could redefine Jesus and accept everything McLaren’s version of Jesus would say (which is a leap), what makes it relevant to non-believers? That is the overriding question at this point. What would motivate us to join together, looking past years of strife and resentment?
ReplyDeleteAs McLaren pointed out when he used the example of unification after Hurricane Katrina to illustrate a new role for our military, natural disaster brings people together. But what a morbid thought. And if we sit here waiting for some huge natural disaster to mobilize ourselves to help others, we could be waiting a while… because we have no control over it. So that idea is out.
I have another big problem with McLaren’s argument. If you study cultures around the world, you cannot help but notice that there is not one absolute definition of justice. Different peoples handle situations differently. So when McLaren paints a romantic picture of us all “fight(ing) with each other against injustice,” (178) he makes a rudimentary mistake. He assumes that every person in the world would agree on what is just and unjust. And if he wishes to define justice by the Bible’s standards, or from Jesus’ teachings… well that is another problem entirely.
I am skeptical of any mass movement that cross-culturally unites us. There is just too much baggage. But wouldn’t it be lovely? I think McLaren is on the right track, but maybe should scale things down a bit. He talks in the preceding chapter about us as Americans and Christians redefining our actions and taking a proactive role, hoping others will follow. I think that is more practical and has more chances of success in the long run. Even though that even is uncertain, but it is a good starting point.