Sincerely Walking with Christ

Mike's sermon on the 15th was great. I'm sure people who heard it had a different takeaway. For me what had me thinking, and still has, was the point about a sincere walk with Christ, and part and parcel of that walk is the question of good works. Sometimes I get this haunting feeling that our focus on good works misses the mark, and particularly as it has to do with our walking with Christ. Now in no sense am I suggesting good works are not exactly that – good works. People are being helped and all such wonderful things – and hopefully the good works display His light – and I'm not suggesting good works should not be on our radars. But what if we saw good works as merely events along the journey? What if we understood the good works were not the measuring stick of the sincerity of our walking? Is it possible the measure of good works won't really count for much, if anything, when it comes to that time?
What if we understood our walk as becoming more Christlike? In 1 Peter 4:1-2, we are urged, "therefore since Christ suffered in His body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in the body is done with sin. As a result he does not live out the rest of his earthly life for human desires but rather for the will of God." What is that attitude we are to arm ourselves with? We see that attitude in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Matthew 26:39b Jesus reveals that attitude as the ultimate reason for his coming, "Not as I will, but as you will."
Frankly good works are all over both by believers and non- believers, and telling the difference is very hard for us, though for Jesus He sees through all the facades and rationalizing we do, in Matthew 7:21-23 (the Message), "knowing the correct password – saying 'Master, Master' for instance – isn't going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience – doing what my Father wills. I can see it now – at the final judgment thousands strutting up to me and saying 'Master, we bashed the demons, our God-sponsored projects had everyone talking' and do you know what I am going to say? You missed the boat. All you did was use me to make yourselves important."
Next up I will do some thinking about that attitude and what it means for doing good works and bearing fruit down the road.

Marriage

Has anyone seen the new statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control? According to that report 40% of births were to unmarried women and only 23% of those were to unmarried teens. Wow, does this seem to suggest that as its the older women and no marriage - at least at the time of the pregnancy (guess the idea that a later marriage followed would be something of significance) - the sexual relationship has become paramount and the aspects of marriage that were of significance such as personal relationship (looking back at Hauerwas and intimacy), community (looking back at Grenz and the symbol of the marriage relationship), etc, no longer have a role in marriage and indeed culture. Remember Matzko-McCarthy from the earlier post - is this a sign of confusing romance and love? Is this a sign that consumerist beliefs have entered even this part of life - that is personal fulfillment rules?

Covenant Marriage as Ascriptural Event (Part Four)

Is it possible a significant question to be asked during the wedding ceremony, at the time of the exchange of vows, is do you pledge to always consider what is best for the other regardless of the cost to yourself? As a follower of Christ, can there be any other question? Maybe the ceremony is simply a beginning to a lifetime adventure to discover the depths of the vows that were exchanged. Marriage is an adventure that will entail learning how to be intimate - physically, emotionally and spiritually.

Is it possible marriage may be sustained by coming to a new understanding of commitment and faith? That is, the vow remains a promise that does not depend on the other person fulfilling certain conditions (as is the case in contractual relationships), and a relationship that looks to the sustaining of hope within the marriage by acknowledging God is sovereign.

One way to achieve these virtues may be by telling stories and by being formed by those stories – all in the context of a faithful community who accepts those stories as foundational and a community that, with the hope and promise of God, continues the conversations begun by those stories. We will presumably be trained to embody those stories in the concrete mundane of the every day. We can tell the story of Ruth and Naomi, for coming to an understanding of commitment. We can tell the story of Hannah, as recounted in the first two chapters of Samuel for both an understanding of commitment and vows. As well we may gain a sense of commitment from the story of Simeon and Anna at the time of the circumcism of Jesus in Luke 2:21-40. The narrative we know as Scripture is full of such stories all of which are the story of the life of the church founded by Jesus the Christ.

That such a community came to be shortly after the Cross may be seen in the So-Called Letter to Diognetus, dated from the 2nd Century or earlier, as translated in the Early Church Fathers at 216-17, “for Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of the human race by country or language or customs.... Yet although they live in Greek and barbarian cities alike, as each man’s lot has been cast, and follow the customs of the country in clothing and food and other matters of daily living, at the same time they give proof of the remarkable and admittedly extraordinary constitution of their own commonwealth. They live in their own countries but as aliens.... They marry, like everyone else and they begat children, but they do not cast out their offspring [note that infanticide, particularly as to female infants was supposedly practiced]. They share their board with each other, but not their marriage bed. it is true that they are in the flesh, but they do not live according to the flesh.”

That such communities exist and can exist within our secular system may be seen in a number of examples. Of course, no community has it down pat and I suspect there are difficulties from time to time but the effort, if anything I have said has any merit to it, must be continued. One such community may be seen in the work of Donald B. Kraybill and others in Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy, and in this observation by Fumitaka Matsuoka (reflecting on the heroic stance of a Japanese-American community in California following the devastation to life and property and indeed the atrocity of the internment camps in this country during World War II) in his essay “Creating Community Amidst the Memories of Historic Injustices” in Realizing the America of Our Hearts at 39, “the incarnation of Christian faith is both deeply personal and deeply public at the same time. Japanese-American Christians remind us of a key that does bind the people of the Rashomon effect together. What manner of people are they? Refusing to flinch in the face of the painful and unjust experiences of incarceration, attacking the unjust system that had bound them, they reach out to those who betrayed their trust and inflicted injustice to them, offering to build together a new society.”

Marriage is more than contract or covenant. Marriage is not merely the proper context for sexual activity by faithful couples. Marriage is not simply the telos for those feelings of passion and romance (Matzko-McCarthy puts it well when he says, at 62, “marriage is untamed passion made safe”). Marriage may contain elements of all of these things but it is not and should not be held captive by any of them.

Covenant Marriage as Ascriptural Event (Part Three)

Romance is fleeting.  David Matzko-McCarthy observes love remains the key ingredient leading to marriage, in his Sex and Love in the Home at 153, “two people meet, and they fall in love.  Their love sticks so that they see marriage as the logical and inevitable next step.  This story continues to be the predominant narrative of marital connection.”  Matzko-McCarthy goes on to note the danger of relying on romance and love as the sustaining force of marriage, at 163, “when romance is the linchpin of a relationship or marriage, then the couple, after the first wave of passion is gone, will have to work a great deal in order to conjure up passion or spontaneity.  The romance is likely to die because one or both partners will become tired of working to restore what is supposed to be spontaneous passion.”

This project does not suggest a marriage without romance and love should therefore be successful – clearly such a proposal is inane.  Rather, elevating romance and that vague and misunderstood term love to center stage is not an adequate safeguard against marital difficulties (as well, elevating those emotions, as I suggest we have done, undermines any perceived boost to the longevity of marriage by merely relabeling it to that of covenant marriage).

Is it possible that the intended foundation of marriage is holiness in relationship, as well as procreation?  Now nothing here suggests pleasure is not a part of the equation, but surely not the most significant reason for marriage.  If we understand Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, albeit a shadow of that image, is it not possible that the relationship to be formed by marriage reflects as well the Trinity - the most holy of relationships?  Stanley Grenz in his Sexual Ethics at 55 suggests “marriage forms a picture of  the community which is present in a prior way within the triune God - the community of Father, Son and Spirit. Just as the Trinity is a community of love so also the marital relationship is to be characterized by love.”  Recognizing a tension in the use of the vague term love, as a reflection of the Triune relationship, the view proposed by Hauerwas, see below, as to intimacy fits well as a focus of what we may understand is love expressed within the human relationship.

Is it possible marriage is not simply a vehicle for the expression of feelings of mutual joy (a problematic definition in a competitive economic structure where people are seen as means to an end) where joy is in reality simply a shared selfishness.  If we understand that marriage is the most intimate relationship among human relationships, how we reckon intimacy seems particularly critical.  Hauerwas in his essay “Sex in Public” from A Community of Character:  Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic at 181 suggests “intimacy depends on the willingness to give of the self, to place oneself in the hands of another, to be vulnerable, even if that means we may be hurt.”

Is it possible that, like singleness which is enhanced in community, marriage as well may be enhanced through community - and in particular the community that is the body of Christ, the Church?  Lauren Winner in Real Sex:  The Naked Truth About Chastity at 133-35 relates a most powerful story about a trip with college students to a convent.  During the discussion, the question finally emerged as to how the nuns handled no sex.  The response by the sister is most revealing.  She responded “...giving up sex is a very particular renunciation.  But I think we have an easier time of it here together in our community than you unmarried young people do out there, alone, in the world.”  How much more strongly can the single life, and the married life, be practiced when in relational community.  How much more can, say fidelity, be practiced in a relational community of confession, forgiveness, repentance and encouragement

Is it possible a significant question to be asked during the wedding ceremony, at the time of the exchange of vows, is do you pledge to always consider what is best for the other regardless of the cost to yourself?  As a follower of Christ, can there be any other question?  Maybe the ceremony is simply a beginning to a lifetime adventure to discover the depths of the vows that were exchanged.  Marriage is an adventure that will entail learning how to be intimate - physically, emotionally and spiritually.

Covenant Marriage as Ascriptural Event (Part Two)

Marriage today in the United States is a decidedly secular event. In line with the analysis of Berkhof, marriage as covenant, even within a Scriptural context, is a mutual voluntary agreement between two people, and in keeping with social, moral and legal understandings current today, when one party breaks that mutual voluntary agreement, the other party feels free to terminate that agreement. By transforming contract into a sacred covenant, or so the thinking goes, we have now raised the standard and how we view the sanctity of marriage. C.S. Lewis reminds us, in his classic Mere Christianity, the difficulty with understanding and communication when we engage in language-games. Lewis considers the word “gentleman” which began as a term that identified a person as holding a coat of arms and owning land. The term has come to mean a person who has manners, and therefore no longer acts as a description of a person but reflected simply the opinion of the speaker.

That marriage is now secular may be seen as well in the resistance offered up toward entry into covenant marriage in the three states where it has been enacted. Current numbers indicate that approximately two percent of couples in those states have opted for the covenant marriage, as reported in the column by Cheryl Wetzstein in the September 7, 2008 edition of the Washington Times. As well, in examination of the Arizona version of covenant marriage, you will find the traditional grounds for divorce remain available to covenant marriage couples effectively divorcing the legislation from its intent (pun intended). We Americans simply are not willing to shift away from our contractual thinking and right to be free.

Hence, as cautioned by Hauerwas and MacIntyre, there is great danger with efforts to translate Christian terms into language generally assumed to be available, and understood, by the secular world. One difficulty may be, for secular thinkers as well as most Protestants, we resist the view marriage is sacramental as that sounds much too Roman Catholic for our tastes. Yet coming to a fuller understanding of marriage within the context of Scripture, as opposed to clothing the relationship with Christian-sounding language and symbols, through legislation and for that matter recitation of vows more often than not performed as ritual, may be the better method to strengthen marriage and decrease the number of divorces. Learning to speak the language of Scripture may be the remedy for the marriage crisis and take us beyond the idea of contract - and covenant - as the foundation of marriage.

Is it possible we have confused romance with love? Is it possible we are confused as well as to that term “love?” Stanley Hauerwas in his essay “On Marriage and Homosexuality” in Better Hope: Resources for a Church Confronting Capitalism, Democracy and Postmodernity at 49, believes this is precisely the situation when he suggests “love is far too vague a term to do any work in helping us to discover the disciplines necessary to sustain a marriage, particularly in our cultural context (recall the C.S. Lewis observation about the term gentleman). If this is in fact the situation, relying on romance and love to sustain a marriage is just as likely to succeed as fail – then again is that part of the reason why approximately half of all marriages fail?

Covenant Marriage as Ascriptural Event (Part One)

In this reflection, I hope to demonstrate some of the more practical aspects of language and its formative power.

Shortly before the turn from the 20th Century, a wave of efforts emerged, beginning in Louisiana to be followed by Arkansas and Arizona, which created a new legal category of marriage - the covenant marriage. While to date it appears the movement is stalling, a boost to the potential occurred in 2005 when Governor Mike Huckabee converted his marriage, in front of a stadium audience, to a covenant marriage under the new legislation in his state of Arkansas.

This inquiry examines the idea of covenant marriage and proposes it lacks a clear basis in Scripture despite its being surrounded with Christian language and symbol. Indeed, it is aScriptural and seeks to transform what is now a secular event into a Christian event - an effort doomed to failure due to a faulty underpinning.

Theologically, since the publication of the classic Christ & Culture by H. Richard Neibuhr in 1951 an entire generation of theologians and clergy has sought to transform or translate what is decidedly secular in culture into a Christian event. John Howard Yoder in his critique of this classic, Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture, at 42, notes that Neibuhr clearly preferred his fifth typology, Christ transforming culture, and that thinkers in social ethics have come out in favor of that typology regardless of their particular theological heritage.

The covenant marriage effort apparently seeks to infuse a Gospel core into the current sad state of disintegrating marriages. Yet such infusion or translation if you will may also be seen as dilution. Stanley Hauerwas observes, in Wilderness Wanderings, at 3, “for me the question is not how can theologians make Christianity intelligible to the modern world but how can theologians make sense of the world.... I therefore have little sympathy with attempts to translate Christian speech into terms that are assumed to be generally available.” Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, in his essay "The Fate of Thomas" in The Religious Significance of Atheism at 25, argues more directly “any presentation of theism which is able to secure a hearing from a secular audience has undergone a transformation that has evacuated it entirely of its theistic content.”

The actual specific identification of covenant and marriage occurs only one time in Scripture, in Malachi 2:14, “You ask, “Why?” It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.” (NIV) All other references to marriage as a covenant are, at best, implied, and at worse, forced as in its essence covenant is an agreement. Covenant in terms of Scripture, while having a connotation of holiness nevertheless remains in essence a mutual exchange or agreement. And if we are to be faithful and honest to the story given to us in Scripture, we must acknowledge that humanity has never considered any agreement, let alone a covenant, as continuously binding. In Jeremiah 31:32 we see that humanity has broken its covenant with God, in a passage that has impulses of a marriage covenant, “it will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, declares the LORD.” (NIV)

Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology, at 262, observes that the term rendered covenant “does not depend on the etymology of the word, nor on the historical development of the concept, but simply on the parties concerned.” In other words, when a covenant is from God, it has the character of a disposition or one sided arrangement imposed by one party to another, but otherwise the covenant, when between equal parties becomes a mutual voluntary agreement.

Our Language - A Turning Point

So far a couple of things to keep in mind.  First, in some way there is something about Christianity and relationships that needs to be examined.  Second, the language we speak has a power and authority well beyond its obvious use as our means of communicating with each other.  Our language not only is the means and method of communicating with others and interacting with our world, it also, most critically, has a formative power that we fail to realize, as it shapes what we see and how we relate to people (that relationship thing again).

So now our language.  It seems to me we use a lot of economic speak in our current use of everyday words.  As our world is driven by economics and is, or was?, a great example of the viability of capitalism, it seems pretty natural that we begin to see, think and relate to the other in economic metaphor.  That leads, I argued, to use of the contractual paradigm, or way of understanding our world and how we interpret our relationships, both professionally and personally.

Finally we have seen what it is that we hold near and dear - that is, our individualism and the freedom to be.  Field’s opinion is, I think, pretty amazing at how he captures and defines that freedom.  Recall, Field spoke about certain principles of morality that characterize the American experiment in democracy, and which binds us together as a society, but those inalienable rights really come down to economic freedom that give men “their highest happiness.”

So we are left with a system of language based on economic metaphor and contractual worldview if you will, with a end toward exercising and enhancing our individual freedoms, or rights.  But what is a key is that those rights are really undefined.  As such despite the lofty sounding words about inalienable rights from our Creator, on a practical basis its that pursuit of happiness or economic freedom with individual liberty that really comprises those shared principles of morality.

We are back to that great social contract formed to allow American society to exist and function (however well or poorly it may be).  Touching base with Hayakawa, I suggest those rights are really derived from the mutual agreements and the will of the majority of the people and not from a shared set of values or moral - particularly not a set of values and morals derived from the story we call our Scriptures.

The posts will now focus in on a hot button issue for many Christians - that of abortion in America.  I believe we Christians have lost our voice, at least in the public square, when it comes to the legality of abortion.  I believe that loss may be attributed to the language we speak or the language we fail to speak.  Stanley Hauerwas, a powerful thinker in the area of Christian ethics, suggests “it is assumed that the moral disagreement between these two sides [pro- and anti-abortion advocates] must involve a basic moral principle such as ‘all life is sacred’ or be a matter of fact such as whether the fetus is considered human life.  But this kind of analysis fails to see that the issue is not one of principle or fact but one of perception determined by a history of interpretation,” written with David Burrell in “From System to Story:  An Alternative Pattern for Rationality in Ethics” from Why Narrative? at 169.  And that perception is not and can not be formed from the mutual agreements and will of the majority of the people as constituted today in America.

Locating Our Language - Rights (Part Two)

That second point concerns the individualism of Americans.  To get an understanding I think we have to go back, as in Part One, to the formation of this country.  As noted earlier in these posts we the people have defined what we believe are essential rights or at least we have set out the broad outlines of what we believe are essential in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson was, of course, a major force in the drafting of those documents.  Paul Johnson in his A History of the American People, at 145, says “Jefferson relied heavily on chapter five of John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, which set out the virtues of a meritocracy [which generally defined means a governmental system whereby responsibility is based on talent and merit versus wealth, family, etc.], in which men rise by virtue, talent and industry.  Locke argued that the acquisition of wealth, even on a large scale, was neither unjust or morally wrong, provided it was fairly acquired.”  

By the way, here’s a statement from John Locke to ponder in his Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration, at 101, “... we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of nature; without asking leave or depending on the will of any other man.”

Jefferson thought it critical to tie together this individualism and freedom to a central arbitrating authority in order to be ultimately workable.  Johnson observes, at 146, “Jefferson’s achievement, in his tract, was to graft onto Locke’s meritocratic structure two themes which became the dominant leitmotifs [leitmotif means dominant or recurring theme] of the revolutionary struggle.  The first was primacy of individual rights...  Equally important was the placing of those rights within the context of Jefferson’s deep and in a sense more fundamental commitment to popular sovereignty.”

What I am getting from this little snapshot is that America was founded by a group of rugged individuals, who were deeply concerned about free exercise of rights.  While we have defined rights, rather broadly, we have little in the way of constraints placed on us in the determination of what rights and to what extent we may freely exercise whatever rights we elect to claim.  While that seems like a broad sweeping statement, in light of the ideals, as illustrated by Jefferson, I suspect we will bristle pretty fiercely if we feel we have a right to act in such and such a way and someone comes down on our exercise of that right - presuming that exercise is within the bounds of nature (Locke) or within the limits placed on us by that popular sovereignty (Jefferson).

That indeed seems to be the current running through our nation today as well. I will admit I was a child of the 60s and 70s (it was a little freaky when my daughter asked me for help when she was studying the Vietnam War in her American history class and she asked me who were people named Nixon, Kissinger, Ho Chi Minh).  But what I recall a lot about those days were we were all in rebellion from the 50s of our parents and how uptight and so conformist they, in their generation, seemed. I remember going to church dressed up in my sweater vest, clip on tie, with my very short hair neatly combed.  But what we felt was of more importance was finding out who we were, being able to express ourselves as individuals  and admiring, at times somewhat outrageous, expressions in art, literature, the movies, and such things.  The amount of dope flowing everywhere (I attended Southern Illinois University at Carbondale - the stop between Mexico to Chicago and points east some said), free love, and such activities were pretty amazing.  But what was going on wasn’t simply breaking away from our parents and rules and such things, in my humble opinion, but a belief that the conformity of the prior generations had failed to make America a better place - culturally and politically (after all it was those generations that had both World Wars, the atomic bomb and of course for us that horror in Vietnam).

In any event, maybe my generation didn’t see all that clearly either.  Unchecked individualism has its own problems and maybe finding identity in community isn’t all that bad in and of itself.  Maybe its more a question of the community ethos that should have been examined.  Then again, maybe that wouldn’t have led to any better answers either.  What we do have, it seems, is a system based on individualism and freedom, with a check on that freedom by a central authority, that itself is established by popular consent, but with an underlying current of economic concerns characterized by contractual arrangements.

Hayakawa says it well, in his Language in Thought and Action, at 68, “society is a vast network of mutual agreements...  This complicated network of agreements into which almost every detail of our lives is woven and upon which most of our expectations are based, consist essentially of statements about future events which we are supposed, with our own efforts, to bring about. With such agreements and a will on the part of the vast majority of people to live by them, behavior begins to fall into relatively predictable patterns, cooperation becomes possible, peace and freedom are established.”

Locating our Language - Rights (Part One)

There is a third aspect to our language to be considered.  Recall in the discussion of contracts, the idea of social contract.  That is, we give up our rights, or some of them, for the purpose of allowing a central authority control to enable us to form a society.  A couple of thoughts are important here.  First, we do not necessarily give up rights qua rights so much as grant that central authority the power to arbitrate or mediate exercise of whatever rights we deem necessary.  Second, this concession is based on an underlying assumption that we are individuals first and foremost with the ability to exercise our free wills as we deem appropriate as opposed to obtaining our identities from our membership in community.

Let’s start with the role of that central authority, which of course for us here in the US is our democratic system.  The government does not determine what rights are valid, rather the government acts as the final authority on the limits of their exercise, at least that is how it works for a democratic system.  We the people, if you will, have determined in advance what rights we deem essential for a free society via our founding documents - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and amendments to that Constitution (the Bill of Rights).  As well, for better or worse, the Supreme Court, nationally, and the local state courts have been given the power to settle disputes, which are really all about rights and the exercise of those rights.  From time to time the dispute will involve more directly the founding Constitutional rights requiring the Courts to interpret and apply its interpretation to the specific situation - often times situations that are not directly addressed within those founding documents (now a tangent for a moment but doesn’t that sound familiar to us believers?  Maybe should look at that question some day).  The Supreme Court put together a little booklet, The Court and Constitutional Interpretation, that says “As the final arbiter of the law, the [Supreme] Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”  The Court understands this to mean “this power of judicial review has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a living Constitution whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.”

So my point here, sorry if it seems like a long journey to get to the point, is that the government is not the entity that defines the rights we seek to claim.  At the bottom line that power was formed from the will of the people - remember the line, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (as well this is a slight revision to a phrase from the writings of a philosopher named John Locke - life, liberty and estate - in Two Treatises of Government). Now here in America that refining authority is not direct.  Rather we appoint persons to speak for us - our politicians - who are supposed to speak the will of the people who elected them.  Now I get the idea we may disagree with them on many many topics but at the end of the day that is the system we have, that is the system in which we are embedded, and we do have the ability to exercise our voices at the ballot boxes.

As I am a lawyer sometimes I read Court opinions.  Here is a great one, from Justice Stephen Johnson Fields, in the decision of BUTCHERS' UNION CO. V. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884).  “As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'-that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement-'that all men are endowed'-not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'-that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime-'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these'-not grant them, but secure them- 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

Fields captures this essence well I think - okay maybe a little wordy at times but remember that this was written in 1884.  But notice a couple of things:  first, the role of government is to secure these rights and not grant them, second, that freedom has been defined within an economic context, and third, that despite the language of shared “principles of morality” what he is really saying is not so much that we have common moral values but that we have a great social contract that there are certain rights we all possess and are generally free to exercise - that of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - with the government present simply to resolve conflicting desires to exercise those rights.

Locating Our Language - Contracts

By thinking and speaking in economic metaphors, we, by the very force of our use of those terms, begin to see our world as contractural. If we think about it we are surrounded by contractual relationships - our homes, our cars, our jobs, etc. We buy products on the basis of contracts. A key component of capitalism is the formation of value-laden contractual relationships (labor, materials, shipping, retail, service) - hopefully by now we see that as the reigning perspective of the US. In general businesses work through contracts to provide goods, that is in a way that matches up the demand (and that is the valid demand or those consumers with the money to buy) with a particular product. That purchase is based on both an express and an implied contract as we are exchanging value for value. (at some point I believe there is a rant to be posted about corporations and business and capitalism but need to think about it more)

There were some Enlightenment thinkers, Hobbes and Locke and others who worked up a theory - that society was built on a social contract. The idea actually goes all the way back to the Greek philosopher, Plato. In essence the people give up some of their rights to a government in order to form a working society and nation. So we live our lives in a web of interrelated agreements, like speed limits and such things.

So it seems to me it is not a difficult step to see that we interpret and interact with our world as a series of contracts. Linking this with some of the people I cited earlier in the blog, Hayakawa for instance, recall our speaking shapes our thinking and Lackoff and Johnson how our conceptual frameworks govern how we speak and interact with others, the conclusion comes out that economic metaphor and consequently contractual understanding is the major way we live. As well, this comes into non-economic aspects of our lives. As a parent have you struck a deal with your children to take out the garbage, or whatever chore, in exchange for an allowance, or in disciplining them, grounding or taking away privileges? On a more personal level, how many people look at their marriages as a contract? That is how often do you hear, he, or she, is not the person I married (not what I was expecting in the bargain if you will) or something similar with the next step being divorce? (another rant is coming on the term covenant marriage but that is for down the road) And how about sexual relationships? Particularly between unmarried people. The relationship is for the physical at the moment and does not include the possibility of pregnancy. I hope to focus a little more on this issue as this blog moves on.

There was a well known sociologist, Virginia Held, in Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society and Politics, at 193 who said "contemporary western society is in the grip of contractual thinking. Realities are interpreted in contractual terms and goals are formulated in terms of rational contracts." Held goes on in her book to tie this up, at 194 "To see contractual relations between self-interested or mutually disinterested individuals as constituting a paradigm of human relations is to take a certain historically specific concept, economic man, as representative of humanity."

So I guess wow is the appropriate reaction. Our language is dominated by economic metaphors, and we conceive, and interact with, our world as a series of contracts.

Locating Our Language - Economics (Part Two)

We have already seen that there is power in words and ultimately our language. I suspect we will find that our language is shaped by the culture we inhabit as well as that culture being molded by our language - a perfect symbiotic relationship.

S.I. Hayakawa, in his classic Language in Thought and Action at 11, observed "words - the way he uses them and the way he takes them when spoken by others - largely shapes his beliefs, his prejudices, his ideals, his aspirations." Hayakawa was commenting on a story about a TC Mitts and of course words.

The question turns to why do we speak in economic metaphors. Maybe we speak that way because the terms are easily understood by most people and because economic metaphors describe well how we see our world. The underlying assumption must be that we live in a world dominaed by economic concerns. That almost seems too simple a premise but in light of the current economic climate, the question of whether economics and financial matters are a significant life topic for most people seems to have the resounding yes for an answer.

Another classic in this area is Lackoff and Johnson's Metaphors We Live By. At 244 they suggest a "great deal of everyday conventional language is metaphorical" which come from, they argue, our embodied experiences - which means as Hayakawa says the way we use words and how we hear words spoken to us in our concrete daily lives as we interact with our world. In fact these thinkers argue that these metaphorical concepts (at 3) "govern our everyday functioning down to the most mundane details. Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world and how we relate to other people." They are able to conclude, at 273, "we live our lives on the basis of inferences we derive via metaphor."

I suspect there would be little argument about a statement that the US is a capitalist culture. And as such a system, capitalism is hugely significant in shaping the surrounding culture. Remember Andy Warhol and his painting of the Campbell Soup cans? In his book, titled appropriately The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, at 229, he says "Buying is much more American than thinking.... Americans are not so interested in selling - in fact they'd rather throw out than sell, what they really like to do is buy."

Generally capitalism is sort of a motivator in the sense it encourages people - to work, to produce, to compete, to earn a profit, etc. All of these things have a good about them but as well capitalism promotes desire. The marketplace is a function of what people want - the demand part of that old familiar supply and demand equation. Now our desires are not always something we know all that much about. And of course we are not in control of the supply side of that equation - business is. In fact rather large businesses are in control of the supply side and large business has been more than happy to help us locate our desires. To help us along the way we have media and technology to open us up to what is available. Remember all of the old movies? One of my favorites was Rebel Without A Cause with James Dean. Notice the smoking - in fact notice how many of the actors smoked in their roles and back in the day we had Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man. Tobacco was big business here from the beginning and continues to this day. How to keep the capitalist drive going? Promotion of desire for the products available which leads to profits and so the cycle goes.

Seems to me that our use of economic metaphors fits well with what these people are saying about us. We speak in economic terms because that is the dominant concern for most people most of the time in our little part of the world, such that it shapes how we speak, how we see and how we relate to other people - remember Don Miller's "we invest in people" and all of Nour's claims about his techniques. It certainly seems to be quite plausible that money is deeply embedded in our hearts. Remember Jesus' words in Matthew, 12:24, "For the mouth speaks out of that which is in the heart" and again at 15:18, "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart."