Steve,
I read your reply to At's posting regarding this same topic (LO19656) and
your invitation to At to join in a dialogue with you over this topic. I
hope that you are open to having me join the dialogue, becuase I'm diving
in.
[Host's Note: Welcome Jon... Our discussion threads on learning-org are
open to all. ...Rick]
You raised the question of the distinction that At drew between belief and
judgement, and I thought that I might be able to shed some light on this
distinction. In Christianity (and, I should make it known up front, I
count myself as a Christian), there is a clear distinction made, and it
has a great deal to do with how I live my life and interact with others
who have not made this choice for themselves. We (Christians) are called
to live our lives in a manner glorifying and pleasing to God, and to comp
are all that we say, hear and do with the standard provided for us (the
Bible). This is based on our *belief* that God is Lord of all, the Bible
is his inerrant and infallible Word, and our acceptance of the sacrifice
of Jesus in our place as our only source of redemption (the restoration of
our relationship with God). This is a choice that can be only made on an
individual basis, and the standard towards which we strive is also
accepted individually.
Obviously, anyone who has not made this choice has also most likely not
accepted the teachings of the Bible as a standard for determining the
appropriateness of their actions (This comparison is a judgement, and it
is not unlike criterion related validity as a means for determining
competence, to borrow from another thread). Simultaneously, as At shared,
Christians are clearly taught in the Bible that we are not to judge others
against the criteria that we have accepted for ourselves.
>But the Bible tells something different. It tells that many people
>will pose as "people of God" while they actually are not "people of
>God". It also tells that "people of God" should not make judgements on
>this issue because only God can be the Judge to that. It even tells
>that God will not judge until the last day of this dispensation has
>arrived, known as Judgement Day. Lastly, it tells that God who is
>Love, is also patient and do not want any human to perish. Yet, humans
>persist judging left, right and centre, below and above, including
>God.
Clearly, then, judgement is separate from belief. It is the attempt to
determine another's competence according to our own criteria and beliefs.
This obviously creates a multitude of problems, especially if those on the
receiving end of the judgement have not agreed on the criteria (this
happens often in organizational contexts - for example, the performance
appraisal - although it usually does not end in physical slaughter). The
travesties (bombings at abortion clinics, the Crusades and the
Inquisition) that have been committed by those calling themselves
Christians that you have mentioned are not distinguishable from other
travesties, and they are not justified by the fact that they are done in
the name of God. These judgements of others, even when the Bible clearly
teaches that the actions being taken by those others are wrong, and the
following actions taken as a result of judgements made, are in direct
conflict with the teachings in the Bible outlined by At above. And they
have resulted in a perspective of Christians that is largely not positive,
and certainly does not reflect that love that we are called to show. In
my understanding, this is part of the reason why the Bible teaches that we
are not to evaluate others according to the criteria which we have
accepted.
To move away from this religious example and return to a more generic
discussion of belief, you raised the following questions:
Is violence endemic to "belief"?
Is there a road that leads from passionate belief to Holocaust?
I think that the answer to the first question is no. There are many
beliefs that you and I hold that, even if challenged directly, would not
evoke a violent response. Your second question becomes a little bit more
sticky. I think that there is a road that leads from *passionate* belief
to Holocaust, although it is certainly not the only road. An extreme
emotional (passionate) response may be evoked when certain beliefs are
challenged (for example, beliefs related to life, "inalienable" rights, or
related to perception of identity).
Your example (beliefs such as those held on both sides of the abortion
issue) is an excellent example of an area where challenging of beliefs
tends to evoke passionate responses. This response may even be violent.
However, these responses are definitely not unique to religious beliefs as
evidenced by racial tensions and the political tensions that exist in many
areas of the world (e.g., China, and in combination in S. Africa as At has
shared).
I agree that systems thinking and dialogue, such as this, around a variety
of topics do provide the opportunity to consider both our thinking and our
beliefs in an epistemological sense - we are forced to ask ourselves how
we know what we know. Beliefs may be formed based on very little
thinking, or based on a great deal of thought. And we can't know what
another person believes, except through their actions (unless one is
clairvoyant - I, for one, am not).
This is why dialogue and observation are both critical. It allows us to
understand some of what another person believes and that with which they
are wrestling, and provides a context for us to examine our own thoughts
and beliefs. It does not, however, necessitate that all of the parties
involved in the dialogue arrive at the same understanding of the topic.
This may occur, but it is not a foregone conclusion. We may, and probably
will, be informed or influenced in the exchange. For example, the views
that you have shared regarding Christianity have been expressed to me by
others. They have profoundly influenced the way in which I behave.
Based on observation alone, the conclusion that Christians are violent,
hot, and always in a "state of declared war" may not be unreasonable.
Through our dialogue, I would hope to at least demonstrate that this is
not necessarily the case.
At any rate, we are engaging in a very difficult form of dialogue here -
one in which the passion felt on both sides regarding their beliefs is
likely strong. If we are able to do it without "passing judgement" on
each other, but rather seeking to understand the respective systems of
thought, we will provide a powerful testimony to our "belief" that the
systems thinking disciplines are beneficial.
Sincerely,
Jon Krispin
<jkrispin@prestolitewire.com>
--"Jon Krispin" <jkrispin@prestolitewire.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>