When I think of “lenses,” I also include “constraints” or “defaults,” or “preferences.” Philosophers have fancy names for some of these like “intuition pumps” or “consciousness.” Then there’s “Weissenschaft,” for example - a world view.
I wonder if it would be helpful illustrating how the default positions we pray - the Resurrection, the Eucharist, the psalms - each lift up and expose the limits of our other default positions. They have the power to keep us moving. I wouldn’t even say moving forward or backward (both special lenses that may be mistaken and are bounded in a sense by time or direction), but perhaps in a trinitarian fashion with God, who is always responding to Godself in action. Perhaps this means asking “where are we moving, and how do we move given the spiritual / emotional practices the church has inherited through the faith of Jesus Christ?”
It might be a good practice for people to identify, reflect, and consider the strengths and limits of their own lenses.
"It might be a good practice for people to identify, reflect, and consider the strengths and limits of their own lenses." What I experience working on parish development with people is that they can only do that when they are offered alternative lenses to look through. And the alternative isn't necessarily in opposition to what they already have. For example, many of us fall back on the Baptismal Covenant in thinking about virtue and spiritual development. But it can come off a bit like a set of moral and institutional laws/rules that I must obey. But when considered in relationship to oscillation models such as Renewal - Apostolate Cycle, they have a process that is more organic and gentle. Over the years as I give myself to the means of grace and love, I am changed more and more into a vehicle of Christ's love. In that may I come to see that the primary actor in my affirmations is not "I will" but "with God's help."
The day after the election, the first thing I did on waking was to say Morning Prayer. I ran through a gamut of feelings as I read psalm 72 and contemplated the view of justice as delivered by the secular king. It seemed so obvious that both supporters of Mr. Trump and supporters of Ms. Harris could see their "king" in the psalmist's vision - it's easy to do, depending on your lens. And yet the psalm ends pointing to the Lord God, who alone does wondrous deeds.
Being aware of our lenses is critical in sound decision-making, and in shaping moral judgment. It's also not enough on its own. It's important to know what we value and how we organize the world through our biases, frameworks, and hoped-for outcomes. It's also critically important to address facts. Much as I might want "my" candidate to be such a Godly king, it's pretty far from the truth whichever candidate I favor. There are nonetheless meaningful differences between them that can be elucidated through appeal to objective truths and the application of our civic priorities. "Both-sidesism" tends to forget the importance of facts and values while relying on the lens of equality of word count. We all tend to forget that it is the Lord God who alone does wondrous deeds.
While I’m sure there is plenty of anti-semitism in Amsterdam, perhaps chanting “Let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs,” tearing down Palestinian flags and harassing Moroccan taxi drivers isn’t the best way to make friends.
Foreigners exploiting Dutch racism against migrants isn’t a good look for those of us from the Global South. It seems like Israelis can harass Muslims without impunity, and then if an Arab defends himself, it’s anti-Semitic. It’s a difficult needle to thread.
Anti Semitism is always wrong. I expect Israel to defend itself. I’m not sure if Israeli football fans disinhibited from bragging about killing Palestinians are the easiest to defend.
I’m glad the Dutch are protecting their Jewish population.
When I think of “lenses,” I also include “constraints” or “defaults,” or “preferences.” Philosophers have fancy names for some of these like “intuition pumps” or “consciousness.” Then there’s “Weissenschaft,” for example - a world view.
I wonder if it would be helpful illustrating how the default positions we pray - the Resurrection, the Eucharist, the psalms - each lift up and expose the limits of our other default positions. They have the power to keep us moving. I wouldn’t even say moving forward or backward (both special lenses that may be mistaken and are bounded in a sense by time or direction), but perhaps in a trinitarian fashion with God, who is always responding to Godself in action. Perhaps this means asking “where are we moving, and how do we move given the spiritual / emotional practices the church has inherited through the faith of Jesus Christ?”
It might be a good practice for people to identify, reflect, and consider the strengths and limits of their own lenses.
"It might be a good practice for people to identify, reflect, and consider the strengths and limits of their own lenses." What I experience working on parish development with people is that they can only do that when they are offered alternative lenses to look through. And the alternative isn't necessarily in opposition to what they already have. For example, many of us fall back on the Baptismal Covenant in thinking about virtue and spiritual development. But it can come off a bit like a set of moral and institutional laws/rules that I must obey. But when considered in relationship to oscillation models such as Renewal - Apostolate Cycle, they have a process that is more organic and gentle. Over the years as I give myself to the means of grace and love, I am changed more and more into a vehicle of Christ's love. In that may I come to see that the primary actor in my affirmations is not "I will" but "with God's help."
The day after the election, the first thing I did on waking was to say Morning Prayer. I ran through a gamut of feelings as I read psalm 72 and contemplated the view of justice as delivered by the secular king. It seemed so obvious that both supporters of Mr. Trump and supporters of Ms. Harris could see their "king" in the psalmist's vision - it's easy to do, depending on your lens. And yet the psalm ends pointing to the Lord God, who alone does wondrous deeds.
Being aware of our lenses is critical in sound decision-making, and in shaping moral judgment. It's also not enough on its own. It's important to know what we value and how we organize the world through our biases, frameworks, and hoped-for outcomes. It's also critically important to address facts. Much as I might want "my" candidate to be such a Godly king, it's pretty far from the truth whichever candidate I favor. There are nonetheless meaningful differences between them that can be elucidated through appeal to objective truths and the application of our civic priorities. "Both-sidesism" tends to forget the importance of facts and values while relying on the lens of equality of word count. We all tend to forget that it is the Lord God who alone does wondrous deeds.
While I’m sure there is plenty of anti-semitism in Amsterdam, perhaps chanting “Let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs,” tearing down Palestinian flags and harassing Moroccan taxi drivers isn’t the best way to make friends.
Foreigners exploiting Dutch racism against migrants isn’t a good look for those of us from the Global South. It seems like Israelis can harass Muslims without impunity, and then if an Arab defends himself, it’s anti-Semitic. It’s a difficult needle to thread.
Anti Semitism is always wrong. I expect Israel to defend itself. I’m not sure if Israeli football fans disinhibited from bragging about killing Palestinians are the easiest to defend.
I’m glad the Dutch are protecting their Jewish population.
Sister Michelle and I will address all that in the coming days. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on what this post was about.