In Relationship (Part Two)

www.cartoonstock.com-cartoonview.asp?catref=tcrn148Covenant Vs. Contract

“Here beyond men’s judgments all covenants were brittle.”

~Cormac McCarthy

Here’s Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy’s take on covenants and contracts:

“In a sale the two partners to the contract think of their own advantage. The whole content of a real marriage might be summed up in the statement that the two who are partners are each expected to care more for the other partner’s happiness than their own! No marriage could survive twenty-four hours if the couple should apply the rule of the law of contracts to their common life. While in business everybody minds his own business, in any dual [relationship] one partner minds the other partner’s business. A wife shall care for her man’s health more than for her own, and her husband shall care more for her comfort than for his own. To judge a marriage on the basis of the law of contract is an aberration from logical thinking.

“There is another side to the question. The duties derived from a contract are fixed in the beginning. The duties in any true [covenant] partnership are in permanent flux; they are the result not of the words spoken at the beginning but of the acts of the partners to the relationship while it lasts. These actions have a polarizing effect upon the two. The more you become my friend, the more I shall become yours. The mutual dependance is graded, and in the normal evolution of dual relations the two individuals are more and more encircled and transformed into the foci of one eclipse. Consequently, the action of each partner is shaping the form of the dual [relationship]. The polarity is established more definitely each time.

“Finally, the two are agents of a corporate body for which they stand, for from it they derive their activities. This becomes very clear in cases of absence or death of one partner. Then not only does one try to represent the other but also the general reaction of the partner who is left behind is that of stressing the point of view, the line of action, and the interest of the partner who has passed away. In a contract, however, I am free when the other party ceases to exist. It is a pluralistic or individualistic arrangement. Under the dual [arrangement] I am spell bound by the law of polarization. I remain the other half the more my second self is in decline or is prevented from taking his place.

“So we can say that a contract by which one party surrenders to the other would be void. Contracts are and must remain temporary arrangements for the individual forms of our existence, fleeting conglomerations for work and against nature outside. But in matrimony a wife surrenders her beauty and health to her husband for better, for worse. And the man surrenders his adventures, his infinite chances. How can such a perilous exposure of the whole being be treated as the result of a willful arrangement between two individuals? In a contract I try to get as much as possible, and to remain as unchanged as possible. In any partnership [covenant] I throw in my lot today without knowing where I shall be tomorrow.

~The Multiformity of Man (Norwich, VT: Argo Books [1936] 1973), pp. 54-55 (emphasis mine).

In my last post, I focused on loyalty mainly in the context of a contract. In a contract one will stay loyal so long as the other party is living up to their end of the deal. In a covenant, however, one will stay loyal so long as the other party is still alive, and perhaps even beyond that as Rosenstock-Huessy suggests above.

There are three main differences between covenants and contracts as Rosenstock-Huesy lists in the quote…

  1. A contract will have the duties listed for both parties at the beginning of the arrangement. Once those duties are fulfilled, the contract is over. The duties of a covenant are ever changing as the covenant is an unending agreement. What the parties agree to at the start of the covenant is to stay loyal to the covenant.
  2. Contracts must be temporary. Covenants must be permanent.
  3. In a contract my motives are purely selfish as I try to get as much as possible out of the deal, and I try to change as little as possible while satisfying my duties in the deal. In a covenant, I give up my selfish ambitions for the sake of the other party. I do change in the present and over time in order to meet the needs of my partner.

To stay loyal in a covenant is entirely up to me. I commit myself to my partner even if he/she cannot fulfill his/her duties.

Not all covenants are created equal. Not all relationships must be covenants. That isn’t even realistic. Sometimes a contract makes more sense. Don’t enter into a contract and then hold the other party to the conditions of a covenant. If you’re expected to fulfill certain duties in exchange for the resources of the other party, don’t get angry when, as you neglect your duties, you don’t receive their resources. Don’t enter into a covenant and treat it as a contract. If your wife breaks her leg and can’t cook for six weeks, that doesn’t mean you don’t have to fulfill your husbandly duties for those weeks.

I’ve noticed that when politics get ugly within an organization sometimes it is because there is not a clear definition of the relationship. One party thinks they’re in a covenant, while the other thinks they’re in a contract. Or, they both agree what kind of relationship they’re in, but the definitions of contract and covenant are not clearly known by one or both parties.

I’ve heard before that the difference between a contract and covenant is that a contract is 50/50, while a covenant is 100/100. But actually, a contract is 100/100 too. The difference is what the 100 refers to and for how long.

Enter a contract when…

  • …you want to pursue your own agenda and you need someone else’s resources to do so.
  • …you don’t want to be attached to the other party indefinitely.
  • …you want to be free from your obligation if the other party does not fulfill theirs.

Enter a covenant when…

  • …you want the other party to prosper over and above yourself.
  • …you want a life long relationship, for better or for worse.
  • …you’re willing to uphold the covenant, and its purpose, even when your partner cannot do the same.

Obviously, contracts and covenants are quite different, and you don’t want to enter into one when you should be entering into the other. Know what you want first and choose wisely.

In Relationship ~ Part One

In Relationship ~ Part Three

In Relationship (Part One)

www.cartoonstock.com-cartoonview.asp?catref=llan448Staying Loyal

“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop” ~Herbert Stein’s law

If you’re going to stay loyal to an organization you really have to love that organization. You have to love its philosophy, its theology, vision, structure of government, mandate, etc… If you don’t love it, you can not last.

John Boyd wrote that, as individuals, our basic goal is “to improve our capacity for independent action”*. In order to fulfill this goal we can not work alone. We have to cooperate with others. Boyd continues…

“The degree to which we cooperate, or compete, with others is driven by the need to satisfy this basic goal. If we believe that it is not possible to satisfy it alone, without help from others, history shows us that we will agree to constraints upon our independent action—in order to collectively pool skills and talents in the form of nations, corporations, labor unions, mafias, etc.—so that obstacles standing in the way of the basic goal can either be removed or overcome. On the otherhand, if the group cannot or does not attempt to overcome obstacles deemed important to many (or possibly any) of its individual members, the group must risk losing these alienated members. Under these circumstances, the alienated members may dissolve their relationship and remain independent, form a group of their own, or join another collective body in order to improve their capacity for independent action.”

Taking that into account, we can also say that if one is going to stay loyal, one has to feel as though he is able to pursue his own individual goals while belonging to the organization. If he feels he cannot do that, he will either leave or stay as an unhappy member of the group.

Being loyal does not just mean staying with the group. Being loyal means contending for the group in its mission and mandate. If one does not love, or fit in with, the mission or the mandate, then one cannot contend for the organization.

Sometimes, if the leadership has forgotten the original mission, a disgruntled member of the group (perhaps a “Man of Words“) may speak out to remind them. That person may seem like a rebel, but really he is contending for the organization. An organization, once it has initially fulfilled its mission, may turn to other ventures in order to survive. The original, fanatical, leadership may consider the survival (the continued existence) of the organization to be more important than its original mission.** This change in venue may restrict the individual members from achieving their independent goals which, up till that point, lined up with the organization’s original mission.

Other times, however, the members of the group, in their foolhardy zeal to just do something, may have misread the intentions of the organization right from the start. Sometimes the leadership does not make its intentions clear at the beginning because, they too, are looking to pursue an individual goal. If an organization’s leaders can use the members to achieve what they as leaders want, once that achievement is accomplished, they may have no more use for those members, and the members will find that their opportunity for accomplishing their own independent goals has evaporated.

The ideal situation then is when “skills and talents are pooled, (and) the removal or overcoming of obstacles represents an improved capacity for independent action for all.”

Loyalty happens…

  • …when the intentions (re: mission, mandate, theology, system of government, etc…) of both the leadership and the members are clearly stated and understood right from the beginning.
  • …when both the leaders and the members feel that they can successfully pursue their own independent goals.
  • …when, as things change over time, a clear and honest line of communication is kept between the leadership and its members.
  • …when the survival of the organization does not outweigh the mission and the mandate of the organization.

*Destruction and Creation by John R. Boyd

**You know this is happening when the leadership starts to lie about how successful the organization is.

In Relationship ~ Part Two

In Relationship ~ Part Three

 

Blue

movie-logo

Blue (Blue Beats Green) Movie

For anyone interested in listening to a different perspective on the environmental issues we face today, watch the film.

 

  • Update December 11, 2015…

I guess no one was interested in listening to a different perspective.

blue shutdown

But, you can still watch it on Vimeo…

Use a Transformer

electricity-transformer-300x235If you live in the west and travel to the east, you have to be careful with the electrical devices you bring.

In the west, the voltage at an outlet is 120 volts, whereas in the east it will be 220 volts. If you plug your western electric razor in without an adaptor, you will fry your razor.

I like to use this illustration when teaching hermeneutics. You have to be careful when taking texts written thousands of years ago and applying them to today’s world.

All the so called “end-times” texts come to mind. When someone writes “the end of all things is at hand” two thousand years ago (1 Peter 4:7*), you don’t read that in 2015 and go out into the streets shouting the end is near.

You have to figure out what the original author meant by his words. What was coming to an end for him two thousand years ago? Then, once you’ve figured out his meaning, you can then apply the principles of what he was saying to your own time.

Sometimes you can take texts and plug them right in without the transformer (like with the wisdom literature), but the bible itself will teach you when and when not to do that.

And… just plain common sense.

*Also see: 1 Corinthians 10:11; James 5:7-9; 1 John 2:18; Hebrews 10:25; Jude 17-18.

Church and Politics

sign

The German Christian philosopher, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, taught that societies can be classified into three different stages: tribes, kingdoms, and empires.

The simplest form of society is the tribe. A tribe is a small group of people held together by a common attribute, like family. Tribes are suspicious of outsiders and tend to stay within their own boundaries. Tribes resist change. Tribes also look into the past and tend to worship their ancestors.

As a society matures, the different tribes bind together to form a kingdom. Because there are now many different people with different viewpoints, a higher culture can develop. Kingdoms tend to worship through temples and looking to the heavens.

Nations can fall into either kingdoms or empires. Whereas a nation refers to a people with common descent and culture, a kingdom will consist of one nation, and an empire will consist of many nations. Cambodia is a kingdom with one nation: the Khmer people. There are some minority groups of Vietnamese, Chinese, and Barang (white people), but the overwhelming majority is Khmer. Canada, however, is a multi-national country. Looking at things this way, Cambodia is a kingdom and Canada is an empire.

As a society matures beyond the kingdom stage, the nations join to form an empire. The empire, though consisting of many nations, must have a common religion or worldview in order to stay cohesive. Without a common “worship” center, the empire becomes multicultural, which doesn’t work. Worship is still through the temple, but despite all the different kinds of peoples and languages, the temple must be the same for all. Rome didn’t care which religion you held to as long as Caesar was the common god for all and over all.

Multiculturalism does not work because you can not have a whole bunch of people living together believing all sorts of different things. It sounds good, but it does not work in real life. People who would disagree and defend multiculturalism are people who don’t really believe in anything, or are at least blind to the fact that they have themselves elevated their particular worldview above all others.

The story of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind. Each man is in touch with one part of the elephant and believes his part is the whole, but of course it is not. Multiculturalists point out that each religion or worldview is like each blind man, each with a part of the truth but not the whole. Therefore, we can all live in peace if we accept the fact that none of us knows the whole truth. The problem with that idea is that the multiculturalist, in order to know each religion/worldview only sees a part of the whole, has to himself see the whole elephant, which is just what he claims is impossible.

It’s easy to put a “coexist” bumper sticker on your car and then only associate with people who believe the same as you believe. Enter tribalism. If multiple belief systems are allowed to pervade the empire, people will form small groups where they feel they can belong, and the empire breaks down to the most primitive form of society again.

Canada would actually be better off (in the short run) to become completely atheist. Rather than trying to force several different belief systems into a doomed syncretistic society, it would be healthier to unify under one banner… in the short run.

And this is the cause of all the political conflict in the west today. Each worldview is fighting to be on top. Christians, Muslims, atheists, multiculturalists, etc… all want everyone else to believe what they believe. That, in itself, is perfectly normal. But it’s only right for the one group who actually has the truth to be on top.

I, as a Christian, believe that one truth to be Christianity. I want everyone to believe as I believe. Is this bad? No, it’s normal. I don’t want tribalism — I don’t want to just hang out with people who are just like me. I don’t want a mono-national kingdom — I don’t want to just be surrounded by people who dress the same, talk the same, and sing the same. I want an empire — a multi-national society with many different variations unified under a common religion. A true Christian empire can only form by the bond of the Holy Spirit who creates a single (yet complex) culture.

But, this kind of empire does not (yet) exist in any part of the world. For better or for worse, western christendom took a run at it, but that attempt is fizzling out now. Tribalism seems to be on the rise in the west. The nationstate has failed our expectations and people are turning inward and into smaller groups to solve their problems.

Western Christians lament at the “fall” of Christianity. Some complain of persecution. (Western Christians have never experienced persecution.) A lot believe the end is near. There isn’t a whole lot of positive feeling for the future.

Many are turning to politics for salvation. “If we could just get the right people in office, that would solve these problems. We need someone tough, who won’t listen to the opposition’s ideas.” While certain levels of tribalism is often a welcome thing in a church (we all need a family), it becomes destructive when combined with us-versus-them secular politics.

Jesus is calling everyone into His kingdom. That kingdom is not of this world (although it is invading this world). No one should be turned away from the Church just because his political views differ from those of the majority of the current members. The politics of Jesus are above ours. Only Jesus is qualified to be the emperor, the king, and the tribal leader all at once.

In the western multicultural neo-tribal society, Christians are called to work beyond the confines of right-wing/left-wing politics — challenging culture where it opposes God’s plan and promoting culture where it conforms to God’s plan. Those who don’t believe in Jesus should be happy when Christians are at work in a society, because they know there will be change for the better. When one does oppose Christianity, let it be because he hates the truth of it, rather than because he hates those who promote it.

Tim Keller is one of the most successful pastors in North America. His church is in New York city, one of the most difficult places to start up a new church. Here is his take on church and politics…