I wonder if there is a way to balance idealism and realism while at the
same time retaining our optimism? Can we avoid both a pollyannish idealism
and a cynical realism?

Interestingly enough, it seems to me that one of the biggest dangers of an
overidealized, Waltonesque, Leave It to Beaver-ish, Donna Reedy view of the
world is not, as one might first suspect, naive optimism, but rather is a
jaded pessimism. Let me illustrate.

For some of us, sooner, others of us, later, our idealism will be
confronted by reality. The parents, siblings, relatives, children,
neighbors, co-workers, churches, schools, governments and civic
organizations that inhabit Pleasantville will reveal their true imperfect
natures. Some of these revelations come to us along with some degree of
wounding and, admittedly, some interrelational injuries are quite severe
and so deformative as to debilitate us. For the most part, though, people
are pretty resilient and overcome pretty good odds however at-risk they may
be. Most of the time we "get over it".

Here's the deal. The term "imperfect people" is almost a redundancy. In
fact, it is extremely close to a redundancy. Only one perfect human walked
the Earth and, most likely, He was only perfect morally for, as the
Scriptures say, He grew in age and grace. Jesus likely spilled His milk and
very likely would have occasionally hit His thumb with a hammer in his
step-dad's shop (although one wonders what name He could have used in
vain). The important point here is that everyone else is by definition
imperfect (although some apparently deem equality with God something to be
grasped at). That we are all sinners, have all fallen short, is not even
yesterday's newspaper; it is in the design manual from the get-go.

One has to believe that while "all" of our mistakes and "most" of our
sinfulness will, ultimately, not matter one whit as regarding our
salvation, certainly some of them will detract from the amount of
compassion the world experiences and will affect how much pain and
suffering is to be prevented or alleviated. Sure, pain and suffering and
consequences are tools to help us learn and grow, but who said suffering
was the only pedagogical tool handy?

At any rate, it is vitally important that we recognize reality and come to
terms with the "human condition". It is especially useful if we recall that
the Kingdom is like salt, giving the world flavor. We are to be a yeast, a
leaven. Those times we can serve as a light in darkness, a city on a hill,
the salt of the earth, when we can be a leaven, are very special and
blessed times. Few of us perdure in such states. Most of us keep falling
and getting back up. The world thus remains inhabited, and our Pilgrim
Churches, too, by imperfect people. Duh!

When our idealism is confronted by reality, we should recall both the truth
about human nature and its inherently imperfect state and the truth about
redemption and the Kingdom which is unfolding as it should, in each of us,
individually, and in Pleasantville, as a whole. Otherwise, a jaded
pessimism and an endless hand-wringing can ensue where we will see beauty
in no one and be hypercritical about everyone, mad as hell that they aren't
the cast of Mayberry RFD.

Ironically, our dreaming with Capra might cause us to form our attitudes
with Kafka!

Jesus would have us be idealistic and realistic and optimistic and would
have us be citizens of the Kingdom and not denizens of some elusive TVLand.
Our realism is rooted in the Kingdom as it is now, our idealism in the
Kingdom which is to come, and our optimism in our personal relationship
with One, who for the joy that was set before Him, endured the Cross and
bids us do the same.

hitting the dusty trail, may your trail dust be stardust
johnboy

nterestingly enough, it seems to me that one of the biggest dangers of an overidealized, Waltonesque, Leave It to Beaver-ish, Donna Reedy view of the world is not, as one might first suspect, naive optimism, but rather is a jaded pessimism.

The classic liberal, cynical view of the above is that this idealized world glosses over and denies the real world problems that exist (spousal abuse, alcoholism, etc. etc.) To me, though, this may not be pessimism but it certainly shows an aversion to optimism.

What is religion if not an ideal to show us the way to live? What could possibly be wrong with the ideals of TV families; families that love each other, get along, and have a prosperous life? It's tempting to think "things just ain't so" but what is the alternative - showing the worst of human beings? As entertainment? That just seems perverse and soul destroying.

Documentaries and news stories to expose and help solve some of our problems are worthy and necessary. But without ideals on how to live life we are dragging people down in the guise of "social consciousness." Even the poorest of the poor and the most downtrodden need people to look up to.

What is religion if not an ideal to show us the way to live? What could possibly be wrong with the ideals of TV families; families that love each other, get along, and have a prosperous life? It's tempting to think "things just ain't so" but what is the alternative - showing the worst of human beings? As entertainment? That just seems perverse and soul destroying.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Brad, I am in basic agreement with the overall thrust of your points. I see no problem with those shows and those types of shows. They are part of the staple tv diet in my own home. My admonition is directed at those folks who hang onto their woundedness and disillusionment when the real world doesn't conform to the version of reality they have nurtured in their mind as a form of idolatry. The phenomenon I am talking about is analogous to the psychological dynamism of infatuation and limerance. It is related to Martin Buber's I-Thou and I-It. Someone falls in love with the idealized version of a person, finds out that person can't live up to same and then ends up hating the person. Same thing with the idealized version of life. Religion, especially Christianity with The Cross, is definitely an ideal showing us how to live but precisely because of The Cross should not be trivialized by comparison to sit-coms. Christianity is more about a personal relationship with the answer to life's major riddles and less about a system of doctrines and codes and rituals. There ain't nothing pollyannish about it either.

As far as the alternative to such shows being showing the worst, that is a false dillemma type argument. There is a middle ground and we could both think of many fine examples from world literature and modern cinema which well depict the tragic and the comedic and well inspire us all, I think.

cordially,
johnboy

who will be on the road birding this week -but i hope others enjoy and contribute to the thread!

oh, i almost forgot - the title is Capra to Kafka and BACK AGAIN

it's an invitation to recover idealism, not lose it

Just some houghts:

The problem with idealism is that everyone's idea of the perfect life differs. For example, I know a lot of women who would be miserable in the world of Donna Reed and Mayberry... myself included. What is the perfect world?

If what we do or don't do as an individual will not matter one whit as you say, then what others do or don't do will also not matter one whit. If we embrace our own brokenness and forgiveness, we also must embrace the brokenness and forgiveness of others. If we forgive our own sin, we also must forgive the sin of others.

We must forget/forgive the past, live in the present, and have hope in the future.

Like the leaves on a tree, people are basically the same and yet different. Each has its own beauty. The world was not created in one dimensional conformity but in difference/ in variety and this variety, this wanton extravagence is what gives the world its beauty. It is the same with people.

A world of people who were all the same - of clones - would be infinitely easier, but incredibly boring. What would we laugh at? What would we cry for? What would make us grow?

I'm not sure how people with no religious faith get by in this world without becoming pessimistic and cynical. OK, addictions. But that in itself is an exercise in cynicism, is it not?

As one of my favorite slogans puts it, "Life is hard, and then you die!"

But religion cannot be an optimistic idealism which seeks to avoid authentic engagement in the real world. When Jesus says, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven," he's stating the proper attitude for Christians. There is heaven, yes; it's your future, yes; you can know something of it now in your heart, yes; now bring this reality to your family, your culture, your planet.

OTOH, I suppose it might be possible for an atheist/agnostic to say: "Well, we live until we die and then who knows what? One can be depressed about things, and there's plenty of reason for that; or one can choose to be as happy as possible, and at least enjoy life more." Actually, I've quite a bit of sympathy for such an attitude, but is it really sustainable without faith in the ultimate conquest of goodness and love?

Phil

Religion, especially Christianity with The Cross, is definitely an ideal showing us how to live but precisely because of The Cross should not be trivialized by comparison to sit-coms.

QuiEst: Of course you know I had in mind "Touched by an Angel."

Someone falls in love with the idealized version of a person, finds out that person can't live up to same and then ends up hating the person. Same thing with the idealized version of life.

Yes, I think that's it. Well said.

OTOH, I suppose it might be possible for an atheist/agnostic to say: "Well, we live until we die and then who knows what?

Phil, I think most would agree that for a reasonably happy life one needs purpose (and/or hope). Whether you believe in an afterlife or not it's clear that we all have to deal with the life we're living in. A Christian may find hope and purpose through God and an aetheist may find at least purpose in the shear wonder of life, even if they believe this is all there is. In dealing with the day to day distractions and problems (and joys!) that fill our days one might be hard pressed to discern the difference between a person of faith and an aetheist - at least from outward appearances.

Who is living a richer life now, an aetheist with a positive attitude or a devout Christian who is a pessimist? I hope you don't ban me for playing devil's advocate, particularly on these boards. Considering that there are and were people living without knowledge of the Bible one could suppose that God is truly understanding of all of us - even the aetheist.

Who is living a richer life now, an aetheist with a positive attitude or a devout Christian who is a pessimist? I hope you don't ban me for playing devil's advocate, particularly on these boards. Considering that there are and were people living without knowledge of the Bible one could suppose that God is truly understanding of all of us - even the aetheist.

Ha, ban you? I suppose that's kind of a sad commentary, in a way, of the intolerance that Christianity has portrayed in so many places. Of course you won't be banned. You raise a good issue, and Christians shouldn't be defensive about any questions asked about their religion.

Your point alludes to what I'd term a fallacious understanding of the meaning of belief in Scripture. It goes like this: God wants us to believe in Him to be saved; atheists don't believe in God; atheists can't be saved.

But as the author of the New Testament book of James points out (James 2: 19), even the Devil believes in God, so what's the point of belief, then?

The only real value of religious belief, imho, is to orient the mind and will unto an ethical stance toward life and a trusting surrender to the Spirit of God. Obviously, that means religious belief is of great value.

There are theologies in Christianity which maintain that the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, along with the new gift of the Spirit which followed, has brought the human race into a new, ontological (foundational--"root level"--ha!) relationship with God in and through the person of Christ. In this view, whether or not one believes or accepts this is irrelevant; it's simply the way things are now, with the Spirit ever working to transform or "upgrade" the human race to a likeness of Christ. Whenever anyone cooperates with the Spirit through acts of love, truth, and other ethical behavior, that person can be considered to be exercising faith--even though they might not believe in the Christian mysteries.

Hence, two kinds of faith can be recognized: implicit faith, which even an atheist might have, and which might be defined understood as an "unwitting cooperation with the Spirit." And there is conscious or explicit faith, which supposedly characterizes Christians, and which is a conscious, voluntary openness and consent to the presence and action of the Spirit of Christ in one's life.

Most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians would not go along with what I've written above, as they would maintain that only conscious or explicit faith saves. Those of us in the Catholic and in most mainline Protestand traditions would go along with the idea of implicit faith, and could point to numerous Gospel passages and Church teachings to affirm it.

Hope this responds to the good point you made. As usual, I've gone about 500 words longer than I probably should have.

Phil

Wanda, Brad and Phil et all ---great thoughts and yes, Wanda, there are as many metaphors for people's idealized life versions as there are people perhaps! Brad, your points about atheists were well made and reminded me of something I read very recently but I can't remember where. It had something to do with how an atheist who sincerely considers life's most important matters and most urgent concerns can be more *religious* than a believer who is just going throught the motions. Amen on every one of your points. Phil, some of my personal encounters and reading have very much alerted me to the fact that many atheists live very meaningful and purposeful and awe-filled lives. Heck, when you think about it, to me, creation would be MORE remarkable (in certain ways) if there were no God. But I'm with Aquinas et al who'd propose that everything is a lot more rational (transrational, at least) for one who believes in God. Glorious contingency they call this Godless world. I see it as a not so hidden Hidden Presence

Well, of course, my essay would have incorporated all of your excellents points and counterpoints and devils advocacies! but it would have been way too long and used too many big words

peace my friends and thanks,
johnboy
qui est

What a pleasure to be in the company of such thoughtful people. I read. I learn. Great posts, all.

...(foundational--"root level"--ha!) relationship with God...

LMBO. "Root level." Is there no refuge from talk about OS X?

------
Apple's OS X is their next generation operating system that combines the power of Unix with the elegance of the Macintosh. It's simply divine!

LMBO. "Root level." Is there no refuge from talk about OS X?

Hey, watch your language, young man!

But if you really want some jive on this, go to http://shalomplace.com/christos and see what you think of that stuff. Qui Est (johnboy) and I had a bit of fun for awhile, and our favorite OS figures significantly as a theological metaphor.

(BTW, all, Brad Nelson does NOT really like Mac OS X! I've read many posts of his on this to prove my point. We've had many disagreements on this in another forum, so our "bantering" here is something of a continuance, and Brad's graciousness is true to his usual form.)

Phil

(BTW, all, Brad Nelson does NOT really like Mac OS X!

My burden's now easier, my yoke, lighter

jboy

I followed that link, Phil. A very creative and fun discussion - and quite over my head in places.

LOL, QuiEst. No, I'm not a big believer in the Book of Jobs (that is, if there even WAS a printed manual).