Shame and Guilt, Honor and...Glory

As some of you who have read this blog for a while might know, I tend to make posts concerning the topic of heroes from time to time. There is one aspect of this subject which I have treated often in personal conversations, but I've never managed to write it down here before. It connects well with a couple of my early posts about heroes (http://dannwigner.xanga.com/583275351/heroes/ and http://dannwigner.xanga.com/587807034/emerging-perspectives-individualism-vs-the-community/).

You've probably heard something before about how Eastern cultures tend to be "honor and shame" cultures, and this type of culture is generally contrasted with the West as a "guilt" culture. It has always bothered me that Western cultures are quantified as "guilt" cultures -- that's leaving out the positive side of things. Western cultures are "GLORY and guilt" cultures, which is a very important contrast to "honor and shame," and these differences play out significantly in both the concepts of heroes and the place of the individual vs. the community.

Now, before I go any further, I freely admit that I'm generalizing, and if you think that I'm generalizing too much or inaccurately -- well, that's why there are comments : )

Specifically, the West has historically set a high value on individual accomplishment. As a result, praise for a job well done is philosophically embedded in our culture in order to promote this end. So, it is hard-wired into the Western mind that one should strive to do great things, and he or she will be rewarded for those things (or at least praise those who accomplish great things). Now, the flipside of the glory of individual accomplishment is that each person is solely responsible for his or her mistakes. The focus within Western Christianity on one's personal sin is in part a result of this mindset.

Now, this way of thinking is in many ways entirely opposite from the East -- in the Western mind, you want to stand out and do great things -- so that your family, friends, country, etc. may be enhanced in reputation as a result, while in the Eastern mind, you do not want to stand out in any way that would dishonor your family, etc.

The West's focus on glory is very evident in how we portray our heroes. Our heroes are not always entirely virtuous or saintly -- but they always accomplish great things. In many ways, biblical heroes mirror this Western trait (as the Near East straddles the two broad viewpoints) -- Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, etc. -- they commit grievous sins, but they also accomplish astounding feats.

If you made it thus far, you're probably saying..."Okay, but so what?" Well, it is my contention that we are losing the Western perspective -- we're cheapening it in these postmodern times. "How?", you may ask. Well, it actually begins with Christianity.

When Christianity enters the West, we figured out that maybe the best thing in the world was not our own glory, but the glory of God. Now, that's the right perspective, but it caused a problem for us. Many interpreted this move to mean that glory was somehow "bad." Rightly interpreted, the "glory" for our accomplishments does not go to us, it goes to God, but this concept has been subtly misunderstood that glory was something to avoid -- something that only vain people seek. So, when glory ceases to be a motivating factor, the next move is to saying, "Well, why do I need to accomplish anything anyway?" This subtle trend has begun to move the West away from being a "glory and guilt" culture to what I like to call a "fame and apathy" culture. The unequivocal good in the West today is to be "known," but it doesn't matter what you are known for -- in fact, we idolize celebrities that often make very paltry contributions to larger society. We've become a society that entertains itself, concerning itself, and then idolizes the people who entertain and idolize themselves the best. In a way, we've become much more vain than those who were worried about glory being a sin. As a result of the devaluing of achievement, we become apathetic -- we simply don't care anymore.

So, how does this all relate to heroes? It's pretty hard to be a hero when you're too self-involved to care about anyone or anything else.

What do you think?  Where do we go from here?

Why Superman is better

'nuff said http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1884973

Currently Understanding Pietism By Dale W. Brown see related

No Mystic Monday (Tuesday, etc.)

Sorry, folks (I'm being optimistic that more than one of you read this blog), but I'm too busy this week to write a "Mystic Mondays" post. On Thursday, I'm meeting with my supervising professor, so I'm currently gearing up for that appointment.

In the meanwhile, I thought that I would enlighten you concerning one of the great wonders of the world -- if you're a guy who shaves at least part of his face (sorry, Kenneth). I'd like to give a "shout out" to the lowly styptic pencil (http://www.drugsdepot.com/viewitem.php/drugsdepot/pd214716/CLUBMAN_STYPTIC_PENCIL_.25OZ)

Easier to use than toilet paper, completely painless, and usually under a dollar -- how could you go wrong?

You may now return to your regularly scheduled program...

Mystic Mondays (on Tuesday) -- Senses of Scripture

At this point, I should perhaps give in to my fate and entitle this weekly segment, "Mystic Tuesdays," since I usually don't have time until Tuesday evenings to post. However, I think that I will doggedly adhere to my alliteration for another week or two.

Following the definition of last week, I wanted to treat a subject that is more practical, and, probably, quite common -- reading the Bible. I know, I know -- you're going to say -- only mystics read the Bible! Normal people should never be allowed to try and read it for themselves : )

Well, with all kidding aside, the reading of Scripture is at the heart of many mystical practices, and the evangelical stress on a "quiet time" of Bible reading is one of the vestiges of mystical practices that made it across the divide of the Protestant Reformation. However, in the Christian mystical tradition, reading the Bible is a more circumspect process than is generally practiced today. In fact, there are four senses in which Scripture should be read.

1. The Literal Sense -- If you read a good commentary or are familiar with the "historical-critical" method, then you have some familarity with the literal sense of Scripture. In short, it is reading a passage(s) in the Bible with the intent to understand what it meant to the original audience that read/experienced it. Now, this sense can be more involved than some think. The literal sense is not what one thinks the Bible means when it is just read plainly; rather, it is what a passage or story actually means -- which entails taking into account historical context, authorial intent, linguistic criteria, etc. Understanding what the Bible "literally" means is not always easy; otherwise, biblical commentaries would not be so big!

2. The Allegorical Sense -- I won't define allegory for you, but, if you are unsure of what it means, then follow this link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory). Let's suffice it to say that the allegorical sense of Scripture involves reading a passage, discerning the principles present within it, then applying those principles to your present circumstances or the larger circumstances of history. Now, as a word of caution, some interpreters can take this sense too far. In fact, some mystics interpreted minute facts of a biblical passage to apply to a very, very specific instance that they themselves were experiencing at the time.While this sense of Scripture is generally still present, it is often referred to as "application" these days. Pastors practice allegorical interpretation all the time. When they offer an interesting anecdote which fits into their sermon in order to engage the interest of a congregation, they are allegorizing. This sense is very useful in many ways, because it forces one to see the abstract principles behind actions and then translating those principles into a different actions, narratives, or personal experiences. As such, the allegorical sense can assist the moral sense which we will consider in a bit.

3. The Spiritual (Anagogic) Sense -- In this sense of Scripture, one takes seriously that God can speak through the Bible straight to you. The Bible is a means to meet God. This sense is different from all the others, because a person does not have any control of it. For lack of a better way of saying it, God hits you with this sense whenever he wants! Sometimes, this "contemplative moment" may be manifest simply as a passage making sense to you in a way that it hasn't before -- it stands out -- it "shimmers" now where you just read over it before. Sometimes, this moment could be more intense, and mystical texts are replete with experiences that go beyond our normal everyday experience to visions and dreams. Suffice it to say, this sense occurs during those times when the Bible ceases to be a book and becomes a means by which the Word of God speaks to you. While this may seem to be the "highest" sense of Scripture, the "contemplative moment" is useless if one only remains in the moment.

4. The Moral Sense -- I should note at this point is where I differ with other scholars and mystics in this area. I tend to place the moral sense as the highest sense (most place it as second) -- not because it is the most difficult to understand but it is the sense which goes beyond understanding to action. It also should be the end result of what is gained through the other three senses. With that said, the moral sense is simple and abominably difficult at the same time. To read Scripture morally, one should pray, "God, what should I do in response to what you have done." Now, the hard part is actually doing what God shows you. The mystic who doesn't care for his/her fellow man has missed a vital revelation of the nature of God. 

Application: So, what?

Well, I'd like to challenge you to try and read Scripture in its different senses this week. Pick a passage of Scripture (and it doesn't need to be a long one), and read it through four times, according to each sense. For the literal sense, read a passage, and maybe pick up a commentary that deals with the historical background. For the allegorical sense, read a passage, write down what you think its basic "principles" are, then try and apply these principles to your own experience (or for a bigger challenge -- apply them to the larger situation of your church, city, state, or country). For the spiritual sense, well, you can't just "activate" this sense on a whim; however, try to read a passage and listen rather than think - this practice doesn't guarantee a "contemplative moment," but it "greases the wheels" so to speak. It helps you to get used to expecting God to speak. For the moral sense, read a passage while you pray the prayer written above -- then live ethically.

Currently On Heroes And Hero Worship and The Heroic in History By Thomas Carlyle see related

Heroes and History

A couple of years ago, I wrote a series of posts on Xanga concerning heroes (see http://dannwigner.xanga.com/583275351/heroes/ for an example). It amazes me when I check my "footprints" that those posts get read (or at least visited) again and again by people doing random searches on heroes. So, I thought that it might be worthwhile to return to the subject for a couple of posts -- especially when the concept of a "hero" seems to be ambiguous.

For this post, I wanted to turn to how heroes interact with history. To do so, I wanted to quote Thomas Carlyle, the great English man of letters, who wrote what is still a very authoritative source on the subject, "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History" (which is really a compilation of lectures he gave on the subject in 1840). His work begins in this fashion:

"We have undertaken to discourse here for a little on Great Men [I would say 'and women,' but I doubt that Carlyle would share this view], their manner of appearance in our world's business, how they have shaped themselves in the world's history, what ideas men formed of them, what work they did; -- on Heroes, namely, and on their reception and performance; what I call Hero-worship and the Heroic in human affairs. Too evidently this is a large topic; deserving quite other treatment than we can expect to give it at present. A large topic; indeed, an illimitable one; wide as Universal History itself. For, as I take it, Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realisation and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it may be justly considered, were the history of these."

Now, this preamble to Carlyle's lecture demonstrates a very particular view of how heroes operate in history, but it is more illustrative of a particular view of history. Specifically, Carlyle, like those of his generation, view history as primarily the story of the great ones and what they accomplished. This view of history dominated the thinking of Western people in, at least, the nineteenth century and for most of the twentieth century. However, this view of history has been challenged by histories of the common man, just look at Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" ( http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244738129&sr=8-1) for an example.

So, my question is which view do you prefer? Is history the stories of those with great ambition and accomplishment, or should history be the record of the rest of us?