"Cultural Competence" CT8

Overview:  In considering the terms Sensitivity and Diversity, there is for some a certain imposition involved.  It is not as though one has a choice in the matter of relationships with the members and adherents of other cultures, sub-cultures, religions, and ethnicities.    However, it must be remembered that this is not a matter of relationship between by group and another's group.  It is a matter of relationship!

The relationships in between and within certain groups are complex and one will not easily exhaust all the is necessary for there to be some modicum of reasonable relationship across the varieties of people with which one contacts.  To say that this is impossible is an understatement.

Add to the mix the unspoken pressure to accept and even celebrate the culture of racial minorities the problem of how to function becomes more complex.  In my world alone there are Blacks, Koreans, Mexicans and other Hispanics, Romanians, and others.

In order to function in these various cultures one must develop, not Sensitivity and Diversity but Cultural Competence.    Cultural Competence is based upon four core competencies and yes, cultural, sub-cultural, and ethnic understanding is important.

In fact these four competencies are so essential that one does not even have to like or agree with another's culture etc. for them to work.  For example one can show respect to another, no matter the personal feelings involved.  The same goes for the other elements involved.

The Cultural Competence competencies are,

• Respect--certainly some understanding of the other's culture helps here.
• Honesty--one must not deny one's ethics, what they are and what they believe
• Honor--give honor to the other person
• Permission--seek permission before speaking or acting

The mode necessary to make these work is questioning.  In other words, if one is going to learn to function in the Western brand of a particular culture, a few well placed questions will yield the information necessary for one to do so.  

Therefore the following is offered.

THE SCALE OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE

Overview:  There those who are so opposed to other cultures.  Such people are termed Culturally Destructive.  Then there are those who are incapable of grasping cultural issues and are thus viewed as Culturally Incapable.  The third group contains those who though capable choose to not recognize cultural differences and this group is named the Cultural Blind.  Beyond these three groups are those who in some degree or another do or do not possess the cross cultural skills and are not opposed to gaining same.

It is not in the purview of this study to discuss the first three categories nor to provide any antithetical argument in hopes of changing such a person or group.  The remaining categories are where the focus is going to be.

Assumptions and Presuppositions


It is out of the purview of this section to discuss the nuances of difference in these words.  That will be reserved for another time.

As in many other areas of life, one's capacity to function is strongly influenced by presuppositions and assumptions.  Of course basic to one's words and actions are things one supposes or takes for grant to be true and thus those things serve as the foundation.  It can often involve conjecture, deduction, and speculation.

Thus the importance of questioning!

THE ROAD TO RELATIONSHIP

Let us be clear!  The discussion is safe when it is kept on the level of relationships of the individual with another's culture or culture to culture.  What is a great deal more challenging and threatening is the relationship between people.

It is possible for a vibrant, affirming, and healthy relationship to exist between people who are polar opposites from one another.  What is necessary is that there be understanding and acceptance which in an age that suffers from a lack of clearly defined boundaries and a fair amount of enabling behavior can be quite difficult.  A common task, a common challenge, or a common foe also helps the process


Cultural Pre-competence:  The beginning of right relationships.

This is the point at which a person who perceives that there are cultural differences seeks understanding of the other person to include the influence and practice of that person's culture.  Though this generally focuses upon one side of the relationship, it may be that both need to understand something of the other's culture.

Included would be some foundational understandings of the other's race, gender, religious belief, ethnicity, referent group, sub-culture, and sensitivities.  This does not mean that one has to agree with,  embrace, or celebrate those things.  It simply means to come to some understanding of what those things mean to the other and thus their effect upon the relationship involved.

Cultural Competence:  Continuing right relationships.


As understanding and skills increase there continues to be greater perception of and understanding of cultural differences.  This persona has developed a greater degree of understanding and with that understanding a greater understanding of how to effectively relate.

With increased understanding there is a danger and that danger is the stereotyping of the other according some knowledge of the culture.  Take for example the case where an Asian child is adopted at birth by a Western family.  The appearance of the child, now adult is Asian but the ethnicity is Western.  To stereotype in this case can be the basis of great difficulty.

Cultural Proficiency:  Maximizing right relationships.

The understanding and skills to operate within the framework they provide are continually being tuned.  This is the point at which one can be both honest about himself and as the same time treat the other with honor and respect.  Knowledge of the other is key and essential.

UPGRADING CULTURAL COMPETENCY SKILLS

Just as culture is ever dynamic (see previous blog) so too is the necessity for a continue honing of skills.  What follows are some of the guides necessary to function with some competency in relationships.  Because they are interrelated, they are presented in no particular order of importance.

Since the following is a continuing process, there is a strategy if employed, which can be of great benefit.  The OODA Loop is the process of Observing, Orienting, Deciding, and Acting.  One might have several OODA Loops in process at the same time as one deals with others.  For example one might be reading body language, then verbiage, and then emotions, etc., all the while reorienting his half of the interactions, deciding what is appropriate, and then taking action.

1. Boundaries:  Relationships are best when the boundaries of those relationships are mutually understood.
2. Values:  Some understanding of the basis of values is necessary and as well the degree of importance placed upon those values.  In particular are the values ethics based or mores based?  If they are mores based then what are those mores and how important are they? However, it is important to keep in mind that to discard one's own values does not allow for the aforementioned honesty.  That leads to the next point.
3. Self Awareness:  Careful examination of one's own cultural values and beliefs is key to how one responds to another's values.  Keep in mind that honor and respect are not necessarily based upon what one values and believes but on how one treats another.  However, such treatment must never violate one's personal values.
4. Cross-cultural knowledge:  Understanding the culture of another may be the basis of understanding the individual member of that culture.  This again is a dynamic activity which requires a certain vigilance.  However, here as already noted is a danger and that danger is assumption.  It is in assuming too much that one can stereotype another.  
5. Cross-cultural skills:  Simply converting one's knowledge to action is a continuing action.   

As previously noted the OODA Loop figures prominently in these processes.  

Most important in all of this is to remember that one's relationship with another is a dynamic entity that must be kept within certain boundaries in order that it not assume a life of its own.  Key is that such boundaries be based upon one's convictions and values.  Even so, there is nothing to suggest that one cannot do his part to establish and maintain a healthy and beneficial relationship even with those who are diametrically different.  Such is only possible when one lives out respect, honor, honesty, and seeks the permission of the other.

"Contemporary Religious Pluralism" CT7

In today's culture, instead of religion in general and Christian religion in particular influencing the culture in which it is to serve, in reality, it is influenced by culture.  The whole notion of contemporary religious pluralism is an example of such influencing.

HISTORICAL RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Looking back, historic religious pluralism could be roughly defined as "believe" and "cooperate."  Of course there have always been exceptions and those who did not want to "play."  The point was that no one was asked to violate their own belief system and so no common belief was exacted from its members.  Then too there was an emphasis upon cooperation.  Such lead many of the Mainline Denominations to participate in the Ecumenical Movements of the 50's and 60's.  

But there was a change forthcoming.  Just as notions like sensitivity, diversity, tolerance, etc. gained traction in the culture so too they gained traction in the church and there became a certain preoccupation with being non-offensive.  That non-offensive doctrine became so pronounced that it was no long "believe" and "cooperate" but now "what can we all believe together."  

The importance of Historical Religious Pluralism is that it allowed for one to maintain his belief system and even gave room to personal convictions, that is personal theological conviction.  There was no demand for universal truth and one might even embrace subjective truth.  One might sum up the position in the notion of unity not uniformity.

The unity of "believe" and "cooperate" was how historic or classic Religious Pluralism. However, there was a change and it now placed stress on the notion of "unity" but now it is based on "commonly held belief."  

CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions, thus Contemporary Religious Pluralism.  In many ways Contemporary Religious Pluralism is a reflection of the post modern mindset in that it dismisses all that might mitigate against difference and disagreement.

The primary doctrine of the position is contained in the question, "What are the things upon which there is no disagreement?"  Of course there is very little, even among those who claim the title, "Christian."  Add in those of other major religions and the list grows ever shorter with the greater the inclusion.

The outcome is that cardinal doctrinal differences compromised, set aside, negated, etc.It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions.
In extreme cases divergent religions are called upon to cooperate.

As with most any position that is largely indefensible, the arguments tendered are not based upon ethical principles but the mores of that particular religious sub-culture.  The likely arguments are

• Reactionary in that they react against those who have an exclusionary doctrine, e.g. the eternal outcomes of the saved differing from those of the unsaved.
• Generalizing in that they move from a specific example to a general belief.
• Discriminating in that it embraces all except those of deep conviction which would include those with ethical truth claims and those with exclusive truth claims, etc.
• Devaluing in that those who hold to ethical truth are often named as uneducated, without compassion, irrelevant, and intolerant.
• Universal in that all religions contain elements of truth
• Inconsistent in that tolerance is one of the mantras, however as already noted, such belief allows for "correct" discrimination.

THE TENSION

The culture including the sub-culture of religion is in a state of tension.  Such tension occasions the opportunity for the individual to choose.  One can choose the Contemporary Religious Pluralism track or one can choose the more traditional approach.  One is untenable unless one is willing to give up almost all of what one believes for the sake of "unity."  Then based upon that foundation of "unity" one's belief system is built back.  The problem is that the outcome of course is some kind of a "group think" theology.

The other choice in terms of religious pluralism is the more tradition approach.  Such says that each believes as he will, each allows the other to believe as he will, but we join together in what we can, accept our differences, and move forward in what we can jointly support.  In this kind of relationship there is no "Mush God" for each serves Him as they understand Him to be!

"Dynamic Diversity" CT6

Overview:  Since western culture is changing, some would call it progressing, at breakneck speed, the various elements that make up that culture are also changing with that same rapidity.  Therefore, if one has much exposure to the culture, say in a visible position, in order for one to keep abreast of such change and how one fits into that change is very time intensive activity.  There must be an answer and it is not so much in the diverse culture, not in a focus upon the rapid rate of change, but it is in how one relates to the people of that diverse culture.

"At one time we were free to accept differences as difference but now the acceptance of and celebration of Cultural Diversity is being imposed on all"

Keep in mind that to force one to "celebrate" another's culture is to begin the process of imposition.  Such is not the model nor the intent of the following but what follows in this and other submissions is a suitable alternative.

In order to understand the application of the practices which will be later explained, consider the following material as to the background and culture.  Yes, these are broad brush treatments and it must be understood that there are subsets of the culture in which the mores allow for relationships on a different level than in the broader culture or other subsets of that broader culture!!!

RAPIDLY CHANGING CULTURE

Technological innovation is not the only thing that is under rapid change.  However, for the present it seems to occupy center stage as we see the changes in medical science, communications, understanding of the creation, etc.  It seems that almost daily some new discovery or innovative application is made available.

There are other changes taking place that in some form and on some level seek to influence the individual's views, practices, and relationships. Indeed we live in a Diverse and Dynamic Culture.

Personal Differences:  Each person is unique.  In other words, when a person's DNA is knit together by the Divine, it is done in such a way that each is uniquely his own person.  Most of those myriad differences are subject to growth and developments or failure and decline.  Thus each and every person changes and though imperceptible change moment by moment.

Those changes may be in disposition, mental state, morality, opinion, aging, or some other issue.  Such state of change has impact upon the social relationships in which such an one is involved.  Family Systems Therapy suggests that to change one member of the family will result in change in other members of the family.  Such is the case with other relationships.

Cultural Differences:  When an individual changes his social groups, sub-culture, and thus, even if microcosmically, culture changes.  With the inclusion of social media into the discussion, it is no longer just a cultural or national issue but in some sense this applies to the world stage as well.  This effect can be both in the positive and constructive ways but also in negative and destructive ways.  For example no country is immune from revolution as evidenced by events in the Middle East. 

Language Differences:  There is much more in language than words.  Language contains power.  Within the current idioms of English language there is a certain dynamic present.  That dynamic because it is not guided by a tone of ethics has allowed for language drift.  For example, years ago, if one confused the use of "I" and "me" correction by parents or teachers was soon to follow.  Now one does not listen long, even to those who business is communication before they hear the confusion.

Another change is in the amount of techno-speak in the language.  For example "Google it" or "spell check" or "bit rate" or "hot spot" and "email" to name a few, are all quite common in today's vernacular.   Also think of the words associated with cellular phones.  That leads quite naturally to the next area of change.

Technological Differences:  Technology has not only become an important and some might say essential element of one's life, there is now a dependency upon it.  Yes, it provides a certain efficiency in information retrieval, communication, entertainment availability, etc.  Indeed the internet is an information super highway.

The question one must as is at what cost?  The social media has won a place in the lives of many, me included, however, has it not been at the cost of a face to face visit?  Does it not in some sense take away individuality from a person?  It is one thing to read one's words and it is quite another to sit with, see, and sense a persons non-verbals.

Ethical-Moral Differences:  In other blogs this has been discussed at length along with the implications of this cultural shift.

Religious-Secular Differences:  Increasingly there has been a shift away from the religious elements of culture.  Such a shift is so gradual as to be imperceptible.  Yet, the effects are most drastic.  It is the singular most important reason that there is the aforementioned ethical-moral shift.  The problem with this shift is that it is a move to impose secularism upon culture and the constituents thereof.

Other Differences:  Most certainly there are many other differences that might be cited.  It is not that there is differences in the culture.  Such has been so from the early days of colonization and even before as one sees the differences in the Indian tribes that populated what would become the United States of America.  Difference is not the issue!  It is the current trend by many to impose the notion that all must embrace and celebrate those differences.  That my friends is imposition.

ELEMENTS COMMONLY FOUND IN DIVERSITY LANGUAGE

Within commonly accepted definitions of diversity there are words and elements which are common to almost all definitions in some form or another.  

There is some statement about,

• Difference and uniqueness, requiring one to acknowledge the same.
• Recognition of difference, tolerance for, acceptance of, and respect for differences.
• Some kind of a listing of differences.
• A statement of one's responsibility for understanding and embracing those differences.
• The responsibility for the proactive acceptance, celebration, and even participation in those differences.

Again, what began as a good idea, being aware and sensitive to the beliefs and values of another so as not to purposefully offend, has now in some social situations, grown to be a responsibility to accept and even participate in differences.  Again, what was a good idea is now an imposed idea.

However, as with any imposed idea there are two elements that come to the fore.  First, there are "unintended consequences."  Second, there is "push-back."

The Irony of Diversity:  The major disconnect is that if one is willing to embrace, participate, and celebrate in these activities and events, such in no way means nor does it imply that such a person is culturally competent.  In other words, for one to be culturally competent requires a great deal more than participation.  In fact, with the exception of recognizing that there is difference and listing those differences, one can be opposed to all of the remaining elements of the definition as just provided and yet be skilled in cultural competence.

DIVERSITY CHALLENGED

Of recent date, there have been challenges to diversity primarily from two directions.  From within there are those who question the veracity of the notion based upon the imposition factor as just discussed.  From without there are those in the business community that are finding that unless diversity supports the strategic business plan of the company, such does not work.

There is another voice which should be speaking out and that is those who are disadvantaged because of how they are viewed as a result of the imposition factor.

DIVERSITY OBSERVED

Nearing the end of this particular discussion there remains one more consideration.  

She appeared normal, attractive, seemed to engage with people, from a distance appeared articulate, laughed easily.  To the casual observer just another family member or friend at the wedding over which I was officiating.  The ceremony was over, pictures taken, and soon paperwork would be signed.  

I sat when she approached and I engaged her in conversation.  My earlier observations were quite accurate except when she talked.  Her inflections were somewhat off and it was then I knew that she was stone deaf and had been so from birth.  The only difference between talking with her and any of the other guests was that if she was looking away I needed to touch her arm to get her attention.

Observable and Unobserved:  Without a doubt there are some differences that are generally observable.  Differences such as skin color, gender, some physical characteristics, and generally speaking age.  However, in the case of the woman at the wedding, I was reminded that some difference is observable and some is not.

Discernable:  Then there is the difference that one might discern.  That is to say that if one has any insight at all and is willing to observe and listen, such a person can discern differences which are worthy of sensitivity.

Discoverable:  A few well placed questions allow one to discover much about another.  More than one story is told of someone asking just a few questions with an outcome that the other opens up and shares much of what otherwise would be unknown.    

Undiscoverable:  This is the category which contains those things that are deeply hidden and held below what might be observed, discerned, or discovered by another.  The reality is that some of these things are still matters of great sensitivity and though never discussed are still possessed of great emotional content and are the stuff or great sensitivity.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The one who makes no assumption about those he knows briefly, casually, or intimately is the one who may well escape the mine field of dynamic diversity.  Bear in mind that it is not just culture that is in a state of flux but those who populate culture are so as well.  

Therefore, the prudent must BE AWARE as what one observes, discerns, and discovers today may not be the same tomorrow.  People change in all but the unchangeable features of their personhood.  Therefore, the person one meets one day may well be a different person the next day.

Dynamic Offense Levels:   Each of us is ever changing and therefore our offense and tolerance levels change from time to time.  Such change may be small and unobserved and other times may be magnanimous and life changing.

Dynamic Culture: Since culture is dynamic what is not viewed as morally offensive today may not be so viewed tomorrow.

Certainty of Offense:  Out of genuine offense or because of the one who is seeking to be offended, there comes a time when all are accosted for offending another.  The solution to this and other problems is to be found in the matter of living based upon and out of an ethical lifestyle.

"Discrimination and Imposition" CT5

Overview:  In this section of material, consideration will be given to the background and processes which underpin Discrimination and Imposition.  Within the following there is a comparison / contrast of the influence of ethics and morals.  If you have not read the comparison in a previous blog, it would be well to do so at this time.

The material covered will be in terms of Background Word, Attitude Words, and Expression Words (the actions that one takes based upon background and attitude).

BACKGROUND WORDS

As in any behavior, be it words or actions, there are antecedent processes which precede and give foundation to those things.  It is not different with words and actions with improperly discriminate and/or impose upon another.  

We begin with a quick look at the very basic elements that begin to set the stage for these actions.  This first section on Background Words is further divided into Unchangeable and Changeable.  That is there are some things over which one has no control and thus one cannot change those things.  They are Unchangeable.  On the other hand, there are those things over which one had control and thus they are Changeable.  There is an additional category which is a combination of both.

The Unchangeable is the category that contains those elements which a person cannot control or change.

Included are such things as one is born with to include race, gender, genetic qualities, etc.  Then too there are those processes over which one has no control such as aging, illness, or injury.

The Combination category contains the Comprehendable which is the category that contains those thing of which one become aware of with aging.

The infant without a great deal of choice gradually becomes aware of the world beyond his mother.   Thus in the infant years there is a low realization and low control over what to do with that realization.  As the child progresses through the various stages to adulthood there is more and more realization and control.  

Though one may have a high "intuitive" and thus realize on a spiritual-intuitive, social-intuitive, rational-intuitive, or some other intuitive level, there yet remains the matter of one's choice.  That is with realization comes the responsibility for making choices as to what one accepts and incorporates into his paradigms of life.  At this point the question of whether one makes those choices based on ethics or morals enters the decision making processes.

The Changeable category contains a two section breakout.  Included is Ethnicity and Culture.

Another way of looking at Ethnicity is that of identity.  The ethnic situation into which one is born is by no means ever unchangeable.  It may so in the early years when one is dependent upon family and/or sub-culture but with maturity comes the power to choose one's ethnic proclivities.  So as life progresses one's ethnicity is a matter of choosing what particular religious, racial, social, or national group one chooses for their identity.  It may include customs, language, idioms, mores, racial views, social views, and other elements of a social group to which one belongs or with which one wishes to identify.

The other element in the changeable category is that of Culture.  Again this category is in the control of the individual as they in the course of life make choices as to which thoughts to think, words and word combinations to use in communication, what actions are acceptable, what customs to observe, what beliefs to hold, what values to embrace and live out, and what social institutions to enter.  

An overall principle to keep inmind is that as a person matures, is educated, and matures the awareness of these things becomes greater and with increasing awareness comes the opportunity to make choices and those choices are the basis of change.  Attendant to that point is that as one matriculates through those processes, one becomes more and more responsible for the choices made.  Thus the importance of an ethical framework.

THE CORRECT OR INCORRECT ATTITUDES, WHY?

Now return to the question, by what values does one judge an attitude and attendant action to be correct or incorrect?  Consider the following chart and look to the central column.  There are two types of correct attitudes.  One is correct positive attitudes, that correctness is then based upon a value.  

The choice one has to make is which item in the right column is foundational to the establishment of the value?  The second question one must ask is how durable is that foundation?  As you by now, assuming you have at the very least perused previous submissions that the only durable foundation for a value is found in ethics.

ATTITUDE WORDS

It is at this level that we encounter words which indicate attitudes.  When those attitudes of the heart are based upon faulty information, less complete information, wrong information, and/or incorrect  values it leaves one in very precarious position as we shall later see.

What then are the attitudes of the heart which one must carefully keep consistent with right ethical values?  Remember, emotionally laden thoughts become emotionally laden attitudes.  Those attitudes then become expressed in the words one speaks and the actions one takes.  Those words spoken are not only heard by others if verbalized but also whether verbal or non-verbal act to keep one in those thought processes.  

It is therefore crucial that ethical standards be the banks within which those processes flow.  As well it is crucial that those same ethics function within those processes.  In other words, there must be an ethical underpinning, an ethical restraint, and an ethical content in the processes associated with attitudes.  

Remembering the question, What determines the standard for correct or incorrect? consider three words germane to the attitudes under study.  Also keep clearly in mind that these words are changeable and throughout one's life they do change!  Hopefully the change will always be guided by and toward an ethical foundation and process.

Conviction:  A firm belief held as proven.  Conviction can be rational but often there is emotion involved.


Ethical convictions are those convictions held based upon ethical truth.  Though they may be out of syn with the surrounding culture, sub-culture, and social situation, etc. they are those things that have stood the tests of universality, objectiveness, and transcendency and thus are considered to be durable.   These are those truths which are found to be revealed in the writings of Moses and elucidated throughout the remainder of Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

Moral convictions are those convictions held based upon one's understanding of the mores of the particular culture, sub-culture, and social situation, etc.  These are those things that may be but do not have to be held to be universal, objective, or transcendent.  This position holds that truth is not durable but ever in flux since social mores are always in flux.  It is the kind of truth that flexes with the addition of change.

What divides the two positions is found in the question, Just what assumptions or presuppositions does one bring to the discussion?  The implications of that question will be seen in some of the discussion that follows.  Another area of concern would be the validity of the information that one takes to be true.  As well there could be a question of the completeness of such information of which one is in possession.


Bias:  A bent or inclination to a direction of thinking.  Again there is a rational content but bias may contain more and greater emotional content.

The previous development of Ethical convictions versus Moral convictions would also apply here except that since this is a great deal less firm than a conviction, those things when applied to bias serve to guide as one processes and moves forward toward conviction.

Here again there is a dividing line.  Those beliefs and attitude--those biases that are being held and processed based upon ethics, would be more durable than those biases that are held and processed based upon morals.  Thus they would share some of the characteristics of and some of the durability of an ethical conviction.


Prejudice:  A premature and preconceived attitude or opinion usually negative based upon wrong assumptions, false information, or before all information is collected.  Since there tends to be less rational involvement, prejudices tend to possess a high emotional content.

Note that prejudice as is being discussed here is not possible if viewed from an ethical position.  That is to say that ethical truth deals a death blow to the whole notion of prejudice!  Not so moral truth.  Take for example the racial discrimination that was so prevalent in the 50s and 60s.  In particular take the South.  Such prejudice was correct according to the mores of that time and culture.  However, such was and continues to be ethically wrong and those of strong ethical character have always considered it to be so.

Should one have a prejudice that survives the ethical process it would then at the very least move that prejudice to being a bias.  As one processes bias based upon ethical truth then that which survives the process moves to become an ethical conviction.

EXPRESSION WORDS

While the outcome of unethical conviction, bias, and prejudice may be expressed in words, thus the title, the reality is that these things can be expressed in behaviors.  Consider the following.

Discrimination:  Any action that hinders equal access equal access to economic resources, educational systems, and/or leisure opportunities.

Each person every day makes decisions and those decisions call upon the decision-maker to make choices.  Most of those choices are rooted in some kind of discrimination.  The problem comes when such discrimination is based upon the unchangeable elements of one's life.  For example if one makes choices about another based upon that person's race, skin color, gender, or some other physical quality that is out of that person's span of control such discrimination is not acceptable.

On the other hand, if one makes choices that discriminate based upon an ethical position then, if you accept that ethical standards are durable and apply equally to all, such a decision though it discriminates and hardly be labeled, "discrimination."

That being the case discrimination founded upon universal objective ethical truth is a discrimination that is based upon truth and as long as it is applied equally and fairly in reality cannot be labelled discrimination.  However, should that same ethical truth be applied unfairly, applied based not upon behavior but according to race and gender, etc., such application would be discrimination.

The real problem for the moralist is using mores as the basis for discrimination.  This is so because of the non-universality of mores and thus the difficulty in objectivity.  Another problem in what has been termed reverse discrimination, that is making choices in favor of one person based upon that persons unchangeable elements, when such a choice excludes others.  Again, such may be morally correct but in fact is ethically wrong.

Imposition: Any word or action that thrusts one's will, opinion, etc. upon another without invitation to do so.

The question must be asked, what is the basis of one's assuming a right or even a responsibility to impose upon another.  For example, if one does so for ethical reason such as requiring honesty in the work place, such an imposition would be based upon durable truth.  However, that same imposition upon moral grounds could in fact create difficulties.

THE PROCESS

To this point consideration has been given to the basis and process that lead to discrimination and imposition.  From the diagram below, one can see that when the foundation and actions involved in these processes are based upon a foundation of ethical truth, there is a validity of such actions as result.  At times the term durable truth has been included in the discussion.

Also included in the discussion has been those trues which are based upon cultural or societal mores.  Since such can be unique to the social situation and has not stood the test of time, these values are much less likely to survive over the long-term.  As well, since ethical truth transcends the uncertainties of man's existence, such truth if properly understood, embraced, and practiced can provide a certain sense of confidence and hope in the uncertain moral environment of today's moral confusion.

"Ethics vs. Morals, An Alarming Shift" CT4

Tension is a part of the human experience.  From the moment of one's birth through the death experience, on some level and to some degree there is tension.  Some of that tension originates within and a great deal of that tension is from without.  It is impossible to avoid tension as we encounter conflict with other people, conflicts within our own bodies (illness, injury, aging), tension in sorting out opposing thoughts and ideas, tension which comes of confusion born of misunderstanding, and the list goes on and on.

Overview:  Within this posting attention will be given to an example of tension as culture and the individual is called upon to experience the tension of choosing between ethics and morals. Of course it is a choice between two competing ideas of truth.  It is the tension between social construct moral theory and its effects and ethical truth and its effects.

It is but one example of many that could be cited as to how a culture cut loose of its ethical moorings is adrift in a very confusing sea of often conflicting thoughts and thus tensions.  Indeed if one views ethical thought and behavior as that which allows for the function of society, indeed it is an alarming shift!

A Shift in the View of One's Choices

In a nearby area a government agency to meet certain requirements had a policy that all newly hired employees were required to attend a Sensitivity and Diversity class.  As a part of that class attention was given  the Parameters of Culture and to the three constituent elements of those parameters.

The three elements can be further divided along a person's non-choices and choices.  Such choices as one makes of course has a direct influence upon one's thinking, attitudes, and thus life-style.  The three areas for discussion were,

• What you are born with.

The question is this.  What is it that a person is born with that is unchangeable?  While modern medical science has made some change possible that heretofore has not been possible, there for most people are some very basic things over which one has no control.  

• What your are born into.

What characterized the family, sub-culture, culture etc. into which one is born.  What is the influence of those factors upon the individual. What is the likelihood that in the course of one's life one can change these things?

• What you choose to adopt into your life and lifestyle.

The final category for discussion centered upon those things that a person experiences along the roadway of life and chooses to adopt into his life.  

The question that needs careful thought and discussion is not only what fits in each of the categories but what is the possibility that change can take place.

The breakout of the three areas discussed.

First, consider what a person is born with in terms of those unchangeable elements of one's life.  Included in the area were one's gender, one's race, and one's physical qualities.  Except for some of one's physical qualities, these are the things which one is born and these are the things that do not change no matter how long one lives or how much one might seek change.

Certainly there are elements of one's physical qualities over which one has not control.  For example, one's genome, the aging process, the effects of aging, injury, and illness, etc.  Again this category contains those things that may be influenced by decision but cannot be changed by decision.

Basis of discrimination is centered in this area.  In the truest sense of discrimination, it is based upon those things over which a person has no control.  The examples would include, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, discrimination based upon impairment caused by illness or injury.  More about this below and in a later blog.

Second, consider what a person is born into or one's ethnicity.  This category contains those elements of one's life that are part of the early experience and hold some lasting, howbeit not permanent influence.  These are those things such as food preferences, one's sense of distinctiveness, language spoken, etc.  Generally these are those things that come as the result of one's experiences early in life, possibly continue throughout one's life, but can be changed as one gains the life experience that then provides understanding and with that understanding the opportunity for choosing to change.

Third, consider what a person chooses to adopt.  These are those things one chooses to include in one's life which come about because of some experience.  These are those experiences that lead to choice, either to accept or to reject.  These are those myriad experiences in life that provide one with the opportunity to choose wither to adopt or reject ways of thinking, attitudes, actions, and habits.  These choices come as one gains life experience.

Within this model, there is a strong emphasis upon being responsible for one's choices and while generally speaking, there is very little in life over which one has control, one can control his attitudes and actions and in that sense maintain some control over one's responses.  That control gives one the power to choose his course of action beyond what circumstance would seem to dictate.

The Contemporary View of One's Choices

More recently that same government organization has the same requirement that employees attend a Sensitivity and Diversity class, however, now the tone of the material presented has changed.  The following diagram represents not only a change in content but also in the moral/ethical philosophy that underpins the course.

What you are born with and ethnic experience


What you now see is in the current training course on Parameters of Culture is that there are no longer three elements but two and the unchangeable core has been broadened out to include more than before.  That is it now include not just race, gender, and physical qualities now includes what historically was on the level where one could choose to embrace or reject certain behaviors and attitudes.

Thus, included with race, gender, and physical qualities are ethnicity and sexual orientation as unchangeable or what one is born with.  Thus the number of items which now may be the basis of discrimination have been broadened.

This interesting point is that this diagram is more a reflection of the culture (mores) than was the previous which tended toward more of an ethical view.  Therefore, we might say with accuracy that this diagram is the result of social construct theory or a reflection of the mores of the culture.

QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

Why was there a shift away from the first diagram to the second?  Considering the model of ethics vs morals previously discussed in other blogs,

• Was there a change in the influence of ethical standards?  Why?
• Was there a change in moral influence? Why?
• Was there a change in the view of what constitutes genuine truth?  Why?

The reality is that there has been a change in what is viewed as genuine truth because the culture has come to accept morality or the mores of the culture over the standards as established by the ethical truths that have endured over the ages.  The outcome is that correct or incorrect action is viewed not based upon a universal standard but upon the values that the culture holds to be correct or incorrect at that particular point in time.

Is not the Law an example of ethical stability?

It can be argued that the Law is a stabilizing force in the above mentioned moral drift.  There are two caveats that need to be understood.  First, while that is largely true, it cannot be assumed that the Law always follows ethics.  For example the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was more of a decision based upon the mores of the time than upon any common law, case law, or Constitutional Law precedent.

Second, there is an assumption on the part of many that if it is legal according to the Law it is legal according to the Scriptures.  Such as in the previous example is not always true.  Therefore, one must be very discerning when it comes to the Law and religious doctrine.  The extreme case would be found in Sharia Law and Constitutional Law.

Since the U.S. Constitution was framed by men who were largely Christian it reflects the ideas of the Judeo-Christian faith and since that Constitution strongly influences the Law, the differences between the Law and Judeo-Christian belief may not be readily obvious.  Therefore, discernment as to which laws are ethically correct is in order.

What is the influence of the shift upon the individual?


Listen to the words of one of the Post Modern camp who though within the philosophy has enough intellectual honesty to call it as he sees it!  Notice that this was written over 20 years ago.  One cannot assume things have continue in any other direction than his observation.

"With the spread of postmodern consciousness, we see the demise of personal definition, reason, authority...All intrinsic properties of the human being, along with moral worth and personal commitment are lost from view..." 

--Kenneth Gergan, The Saturated Self, (New York:  Basic Books, 1991) 

Implications For Faith

The unfortunate fact is that in a number of cases the local church congregation is reflecting the trends of the culture--in this case Post Modernism has brought about an influence upon the beliefs of and the resulting action.  While this charge may be made against "mainline" churches, there are a number of "conservative" congregations that have not escaped the trend.  The outcome is some form of a Post Modern god which bears little resemblance to the God that is!

This Post-modern creation of god is,

• A god without standards since to have standards would be to offend or discriminate.
• A god without truth since this god must be all things to all people and truth exclues
• A god without a character and a nature much beyond that of mankind 
• A god without choice in that it is a god who is supposed to be on call to grant every wish
• A god without theological distinctive since the standard is what the "faithful" can agree upon

To be sure there are other elements of this god.  To sum it up, it is as one person termed it, this is a "mush god."

A Closing Question

What then are the outcomes on the "street" level where most of us live, worship, work, serve, and play?

There are many outcomes especially those who are separated by more than one generation from the ethical standards of the WW II generation.  Among the outcomes one might expect are the following.  It should not be assumed that this is an exhaustive list.

• A degraded sense of personal responsibility 
• An ego-centric view of life
• An entitlement mentality
• A victim mentality
• A distorted sense of personal boundaries
• A sense of resentment over an unfulfilled sense of entitlement
• A notion of discrimination which is in fact false
• A short sighted view of life
• A loss of sensitivity to otherness
• A failure to value human life
• A tendency for an us-them gang mentality
• An ingrained sociopathic view which allows for deviant behavior
•  A mindset and attendant behavior which while viewed as morally correct is in reality ethically wrong.

The final thought is this!  This shift has been largely out of the view of most because it has been the exclusive intellectual property of academia.  However, such is no longer true as those philosophic influences have been taught to students who are ill equipped to examine the logic and content of the belief systems they encounter as undergraduates.  Those unexamined belief systems then become ingrained and as they go out into business and government they then come to influence others who are less equipped to question.

"The Progression / Regression of Durable Truth" CT3

Overview:  In this section consideration will be given to how secular man views the "growth" of truth.  To be sure it is presented in a simple format.  The first section will be the "progression" of durable truth.  The second will be a discussion of the "regression" of durable truth as man entered the picture.  The final section ask the reader a question, "Which model of truth is more durable?"

The "Progression" of Truth

Judeo-Christian Belief:  When one views the panoramas of history there is but one religion which is being currently practiced which pre-dates all other religions.  This would be true unless one holds the conviction that there were peoples who predate the events recorded in open words of the Torah.  The religion is Judaism.

Adding to that statement is a notion held by many if not most people of Christian conviction.  It is that their roots and foundations are in the Jewish faith.  Thus the term Judeo-Christian.  The basic understanding involved is that in order to understand Christianity and Christian thought, one must come to some understanding of Jewish matters and especially those recorded in the Jewish writings (the Old Testament) culture at the time of Christ (the Gospel narratives).

To do divide Christianity from its Jewish roots and the Jewish culture of its times is to tempt the possibility of dealing in mistaken error.  The other end of the spectrum of the false is Christian hearsay. 

These two backgrounds or knowledge foundations then allow for the understanding of Christian Theology.  Though this is by no means a complete treatment of the subject, and indeed an oversimplification, it allows for the following discussion of the place of Judeo-Christian Thought in the larger scheme of how western man has come to view truth and life.

In order to understand this section, reference is made to the material in previous blogs.

Judeo-Christian Foundations of Truth:

As previously noted, Judaism predates all other religions and systems of faith.  Beside that which is discussed above there is another reason that the term, Judeo-Christian exists.  It is because there are common threats of truth that course their way through both systems of faith.

• Both agree that there is transcendent truth that finds its origin in the Divine
• Both agree that Divinely revealed truth is completely congruent with the character and nature of God.
• Both agree that such transcendent truth as exists is revealed to mankind
• Both agree that such transcendent truth exists whether it is recognized or ignored
• Both agree that transcendent truth is universal, therefore it has consistency and integrity throughout all ages and among all peoples
• Both agree that transcendent truth is objective and not subjective.

The outcome of such belief is that Judeo-Christian faith is a belief with God about,

• The importance of humanity and a high view of man and human life
• The importance of progress and the critical nature of same
• The importance of reason is found in it relationship with revelation.  
• The importance of interdisciplinary truth and that such truth must have integrity in presupposition, content, and process.

However, with Enlightenment there came a shift that swept across the western world.  The result was and continues to be an emphasis upon man and his capacities, absent the "God Factor."  Today we call it secularism.

The "Regression" of Truth

The more that man has attempted to redefine the origin and transmission of truth, the more confusing that man "discovered" truth became and becomes.  This will be seen in the following material on Modernism and Post-Modernism.  The outcome is that the more man has been involved at the exclusion of God, in this matter of truth, the more unreliable has become that truth!


Modernism attempts to "Trump" Judeo-Christian Truth:  Modernism presents itself as superseding the antiquate and outdated Judeo-Christian thinking.  It held that the "God Factor" at best was myth and at worse was a deliberate attempt to subjugate various races, genders, national groups, etc.

Modernism holds that such truths as exist are not transcendent, that is they do not have their origin in the Divine.  They very much hold that the notion of God is dead!  That is not to say that those who hold this position ever believed that the Divine lived and then died.  It is the idea that the notion and therefore the influence of God on western culture is an antiquated and dead notion.  That death includes all of the attendant truth to include theology, doctrine, the influences of the Church in history, etc.

Without there being the Divine, revelation cannot possibly exist for it would have no origin.

"No revelation, no Divine!  Know revelation, know the Divine."

Therefore such revelation as is embraced throughout Judeo-Christian history is not held to be valid and therefore, such truth as is discovered comes by human rationalism, scientific discovery, and as well such truth as may be postulated from existence.  Such a position is based on a very high view of man, man's capacities.
Because of that high view of man and because God is excluded from the discussion there are the following pathways to truth.

• Rationalism theorizes that through Idealism and Mentalism truth may be known.  Rational processes of the mind are key to this theory.
• Empiricism theorizes that through Science, Naturalism, Materialism, Mechanism truth may be known.  Truth is derived from how one observes and processes those observations.
• Existentialism theorizes that through the Sensationalism truth may be known.  Truth is known through what one senses and feels.

The outcome of such belief is that Modernism is a truth that comes in and of a closed system.  That is to say there is no Divine influence in and upon the system of truth the Modernist postulates.  As to the previously posted discussions of Ethics vs Morals, since there is no transcendent truth, man's best guess at what is right and correct is from these three categories just listed.

For example, in empiricism man may observe and test the values of a culture and decide what at least 51% of that culture hold to be true.  In this example truth is then imply a social construct or a truth born of cultural mores.  Of course just because a majority of the culture believes something to be true does not make it so.

Post Modernism revealed

The Post-Modernist rejects all previous notions of and arguments for truth.  While the Modernist and those of Judeo-Christian belief agree that there is this "stuff" called truth, this group rejects all of the above discussion regarding the matter.

Therefore, there is no God or even god, transcendent truth, revelation, universal truth, objective truth!  All is rejected.  In its extreme forms it is titled, Nihilism.  It is the Post-Modernist that tacitly or directly seeks to remove any and all restraint from the individual.  The outcome is that there is a spiraling descent into ethical chaos.  Such is not without implications for the mental-emotional-volitional-social elements of one's being.

Notice that without some way to know and embrace truth in the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and actions of life; there are consequences to include but not be limited to the following.

• There is no basis for values thus no basis for judging right from wrong and good from evil.  
• There is no basis for gaining a sense of confidence which results from right action.
• There is no definition of roles and boundaries.
• There is no basis for meaningful discussions of truth for common presupposition does not exist
• There is no common way to process information--logic does not exist
• There is no basis for building self esteem which comes from aligning one's thoughts and actions with belief.
• There is no basis for relationship (in theory)

One might comfortably conclude that without the restraint of a belief (truth) system there is a type of anarchy both in the individual and as well in the relationships of those individuals who believe and accept post modernism.

One of the tests of the validity and veracity of truth is whether it is even possible for such to exist.  Take for example the previously listed qualities of the Post-Modernist.  If more than one person holds the Post- Modern position and discusses same with another some sort of relationship has to exist.

Relationships can only come when there is common language, common thought and/or common purpose.  In this case there is a common value in rejecting Judeo-Christian belief and Modernism.  Thus there is common thought and in some cases, corporate action.  In the expression of a common value, a form of "truth" is being acknowledged  and accepted.  Thus there is a truth standard and a major flaw in Post-Modernism.

Which is the More Durable Truth?

My thought is that most people seem to find comfort and security in the notion of durability.  That is to say that if something or someone can be counted upon when all else fails, it gives a certain confidence, a certain sense of comfort, a feeling of security where otherwise none exists.

With that thought the following is offered.

The reality of truth is that, if the best you can do is man’s truth (Modernism), it is better than no truth (Post-Modernism)!  Therefore, I believe that Post-Modernism is trumped by Modernism.  However, I believe that the prudent thinker will conclude that Judeo-Christian belief trumps both of the previous.

Also consider, if you can have a truth that is, external to the individual and culture and thus is universal,   objective in the sense that it does not change with the circumstances, most of all transcendent in that it finds its origin in the Divine, the outcome is an open system of truth (Judeo-Christian).  Such truth is a more durable truth and my view is a more durable truth which has stood the test of time, culture, race, etc. is to be preferred over all other truth systems.

"The Foundations of Truth and Reality" CT1

QUESTIONS:  Upon what foundation does one build his truth claims?  Asked another way, what is the origin of truth?  How reliable is that origin and thus the foundation?  If the foundation is not sound, can the truth system built upon that foundation be sound?

Within the various cultures, sub-cultures, social groups, right down to the individual there is a tension which has to do with the origin and foundation of reality or as we might say, the bottom line truth.  The position one takes in the aforementioned question sets the stage for the following material.

The discussion may we be summed up in the last question.  The foundational presuppositions upon which a person builds his  truth systems will determine the integrity, validity, and veracity of that system.

The initial question is this.  Is truth’s origin external or internal?  That is does the origin and thus the authority for truth lay in that which is external to the individual, social group, sub-culture, or culture or does it lay within.  Among the outcomes if truth is internal to those things mentioned are the following two.

First, internal truth tend to divide.  For example if one takes the position that his truth comes as a result of  race, religion, ethnicity, sub-culture etc. then what problems may come when those truth convictions encounter truth conviction from other races, religions, etc.

Second, internal truth can be destructive.  Since it is an internal truth it is far more likely to include and even give license for bias, discrimination, and beliefs that are destructive to others.

There is however, another and in my view more reliable foundation upon which one can construct his system of truth.  It is the case when truth is external to all that has been discussed so far.

Ethical truth can only exist when it's authority and origin is external to,

• The individual
• The culture
• The sub-culture
• The social situation

The outcome is an ethical truth which is universal and objective and points to transcendence and thus transcendent truth.   Universal in that it applies to all peoples of all times.  Objective in that it is not influenced nor changed by circumstances.  Transcendent in that it has its origin from the Divine.

Open or closed values system:  As an aside there is as a result of a direct or tacit decision as to the openness or closedness of the value system in which we live. Either we live in a  closed or open ethical/moral environment.

The one who contends for ethical truth generally directly or tacitly believes that ethical values are only possible because the value systems that we recognize are open systems with the Divine as continually contributing to the processes involved.  The one who contends for moral truth either directly or tacitly believes in a closed system without the involvement of the Divine.

Ethical/Moral confusion:  Looking thus at the notion of ethics being beyond the situation makes a phrase such as situational ethics an inconsistency and only possible as the meaning of ethics and morals has been blurred to the point that they have become synonyms.  Truth is that taking an historical definition of these words into account yields the point that these are actually contradictory terms since the existence and reality of ethical truth transcend any and all situations.

Returning then to the discussion of internal truth, consider the next few points.

Moral truth only reflects only the mores of a particular culture.  There is the view of truth and thus reality that its origin is internal to the culture.  The outcome is that such truth--such moral  truth has its origins and is validated by the opinion and action of the culture.  That is to say that if at least 51% of the culture believes some notion or participates in some practice, then those things are considered validated as moral truth.  In this case, societal mores are taken to be authoritative.

An example might be what constitutes larceny.  If 51% of a given culture holds that a person stealing less than  a prescribed amount is in fact not larceny then such would be a moral standard or truth prescribed by that culture.  Of course the outcome would be that the behavior of the Law would be to conform to that moral standard. 

Exclusive and/or private truth is another view of truth.  Those who hold this notion believe that they are in possession of special or truth exclusive to them or their group.  In some cases there is limited access and in others it is made available to others.

The behavioral outcome is that for some there comes a notions of superiority since they have been vested with this special truth.  The can be an attendant license to behave on a level which is not consistent with ethical or even moral truth.  This may be seen in some religions whose members have been taught that they may lie or even kill in order to achieve the greater good as defined by their beliefs.

Self truth.  Those who hold this position believe that the individual is the origin of truth.  Some even postulate that there is within all an inner light of some sort that reveals to them truth.  Such belief is most often tailor made to their personality and their moral convictions.  When people employ the phrase, "My god would never..." and then they go on to list their agenda they are reflecting this notion of self revelation of truth.  

The problem is that such people seldom if ever create a god that is realistic.  In fact, most often they create a god that does not challenge nor stress their own level of self-centeredness.

QUESTION:  What is the outcome for a culture that seeks to embrace and even force the acceptance of these and other truth systems?

There is no common basis for deciding truth.


For example the person who holds ethical truth, who then relies upon an external authority, might then refer to the authority of Scripture or in some cases the authority of church tradition as taught and practiced throughout history.

Though there may be some commonality with those who hold moral truth, at some point there will be a departure.  For the reasons this is so refer to the discussion in the articles, "Cultural and Personal Chaos" and "Checking the Descent into Unethical Chaos."

There cannot be an agreed upon standard of authority.


With differing truth convictions the standards for deciding reliable authority differ.  As previously mentioned one such authority is found in "I feel that...."  Others rely upon externals either culture or transcendent universal authority.  Factor in the closed /open values systems argument.  Again there is a great potential for division and as well disconnect when arguments are tendered based upon such differing views of the origins of truth and the place of the Divine in those views.


There can be no agreement as to correct and incorrect action

As noted above the ethicist argues that there are objective universal truths, by most considered to be transcendent which establish and maintain the dividing line between right and wrong.  Of course the moralist counters with the notion that the difference between right and wrong are established based upon cultural mores.  Again the individualist would discount both and establish right and wrong based upon standards that might well be unique to him.

There is not enough in common to enjoy a common faith experience nor expression




SUMMARY/CLOSING THOUGHTS:  Mankind has been given the freedom to choose and so each person must decide for himself whether he believes that truth is external to himself or is it the light within.  Further he has been vested with the authority to make a choice in the matter.  As well he has been vested with the power to decide whether he accepts an open or closed values environment.

If all is internal to the entities mentioned above, what can the person who hold such a conviction offer as validating proof and thus confirmation that it indeed is a genuine truth, one upon which one might stake his life.  How might such a person without relying upon personal feelings and/or cultural mores validate his truth claims.  If the self is considered the ultimate authority, then it is to the self that one must answer self as the ultimate authority.

If a person decides that truth is external, then the decision has to be made as to how external. Is such truth then to be the product of society, sub-culture, ethnic group, or of a transcendent God?  If one stops his view at society or any of the other moral externals then it is as previously noted, that entity, say society must be trusted to not only provides the origin and foundation of truth but also provides the ultimate authority for action to include the determination of right from wrong and sanctions associated with such.

Finally, the one who hold that there is universal, objective, transcendent truth views God to be the ultimate authority.  Responsibility for rest with Him for being the final and ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong.  While societal systems and cultural system may exist and serve to keep order and provide safety, as to ethical truth and such sanctions as come from disobeying same God is the final and ultimate authority to which one must give account for his rights and wrongs.

Each person who draws a breath of life has been vested with the power to choose who or what provides his ethical/moral compass but what he has no control over is the outcome of that choice!

"Checking the Descent Into Unethical Chaos"

In previous blogs consideration was given to the descent into chaos.  Applying that descent to relationships means among other things, that without a clear vision of roles, responsibilities, and as well the strength of character to live out those things, there will be consequences, intended and otherwise.  Ultimately without checking it, that decent will end in unethical chaos.  Take for example the three relationships of life.

It seems to me that the pay offs in any relationship includes a sense of security, a sense of loving acceptance, a sense of appreciation, and a sense of nurturing care.  The problems come when these things are not a part of the relationship and the reason they are most often not present is that they are challenged by the aforementioned decent toward unethical chaos in general and in particular into relational chaos.

While most relationships begin on a noble level, left to their own ends and because of man's propensity for self gratification they can very quickly become an exercise in "what is in it for me?"  Me being the insatiable self!  That is without acceptance of the other and the extension of effort even the best of relationships will unravel into a series of very chaotic interactions that for the most part provide no nurture and in fact opens one or both parties to manipulation.

The outcome is that there is a decrease in the capacity for growth, the quality of communication drops, the nurturing effect disappears, and the sense of care is absent.  All that is necessary for the relationship and its participant to began the downward descent is present.

Consider now the previously mentioned three crucial relationships of life.  If it is a relationship with God degrades, then it opens the door to great misunderstanding and mistrust in His ultimate goodness, love, and care.  If such a decent into chaos is with another the same things will accrue to one or both until the relationship becomes unsustainable because it is one of destruction and distancing.  If such is true of one's relationship with and within themselves, again chaos will have consequences in the mental, the emotional, and the volitional arenas of one's life.  

In terms of outcome, such relational chaos as is being described results in the fracturing of the human spirit.  More and more, even secular mental health providers are understanding that treatment must ultimately be on levels deeper than the mind, will, and emotions.  Failure to deal with issues related to the broken spirit can and most often do lead then to deep set issues of anger and bitterness.  The emotional outlay then leads to depression.  

A point of clarification is in order.  As to the chaotic relationship with God, it does not mean that the Eternal is inconsistent and therefore untrustworthy, but that the human part of the relationship is so.  However, since mankind has a propensity for shifting and deflecting responsibility, such chaos as may exist is seen as the responsibility of the Divine.  Most certainly this is another example of the challenge of good by evil.

What, you may ask, is the solution to chaotic and thus disturbed relationships?  A fair question to be sure.

In the simplified, it is summed in one word or should I say phrase--a deep sense of trustworthiness.

A deep sense that the God who is, can be trusted in any and all of the circumstances of life.  While we may not understand His goodness, His ways of caring, and the ways that His love is expressed, it is none the less  essential that we arrive at the conviction of His trustworthiness on a level deeper than mental assent.  It may begin there but must penetrate deep into one's spirit and one's convictions.

As to relationships with others, most certainly there are those who are not to be trusted.  However, there are those in our various worlds who may be counted upon when all else and all others fail.  These are those who are worthy of our trust for though they might not be possessed of great and winsome personalities, hold social positions, possess much in terms of materialism, or wield great amounts of  power, etc. they none the less, are people of deep ethical conviction.

Such deep ethical conviction is reflected in the many arenas of life to include faith, family, and friends etc.  Said another way their deep ethical convictions keep them from spiraling downward into unethical chaos as it results in their living out of character qualities.  Qualities such as honesty, integrity, creativity, thriftiness, sincerity, courage, sensitivity, obedience, and alertness etc.

Then we come to the matter of one's relationship with one's self.  Such can only be characterized by the peace found in self acceptance and deep inner confidence.  Those qualities and other come when one lives out character qualities in the personal and quiet places of life.  

Consider that one dare not hope for sound and affirming relations with God and with man if such an one is not possessed of a penchant for living life, based not upon the winds of change, not upon the pressure of circumstance, not upon the challenge of feelings, but based on rightness of heart--rightness of heart when measured by transcendent, objective, and universal qualities of right and wrong.  All else contributes to the downward spiral into the abyss of unethical chaos.

"The Lost Religious/Character Components of Language"

"We willingly sacrifice much for that to which we are committed."

Maybe take a moment and ponder the thoughts expressed in that statement.

Look with me now at the particulars of the statement and understand the strength of same.  Historically sacrifice comes from two words.  Sacred or that which pertains to God and another word which means to take some course of action.  It has in most instances referred to a priestly function as in offering a sacrifice to God.

As you can see and as with so many other notions and ideas, this word has its origins in religion and since the religious roots of Judaism predates all other religions, it finds its most salient examples in the Jewish Scriptures and in particular in the books of Moses where we read of the people making sacrifice and then came the Mt Sinai experience and establishment of the laws governing sacrifice.  There also are numerous examples of the consequences of not offering sacrifice in the prescribed manner and thus are examples of sacrilege.  And we thought serving God on our own terms and not His is something new.

As an aside, think of the number of words that we use which can be traced to Judeo-Christian faith.  Words such as creation, sacred, love, sacrificial, reverent, sacred, discipline, evil, restoration, patience, sacrilege, sin, irreverent, and so many more.  We certainly find that to be so in other languages for instance Arabic and the word jihad

There was a time that people understood the religious component of life and as well understood the connection of these and other words with faith.  Read the original and unsanitized writings of those who founded America and you will not read long before you realize that they understood the connection of language with faith, in most of their cases Christianity.

One of the reasons that language has undergone change in terms of common usage is that such is necessary for it to be so in order that there be a secularization of the American culture.  Whether language influences culture (my position) or culture influences language or some combination of the two is up for debate.  Whichever view you embrace, such change is quite gradual and therefore more subtle than revising history and misinterpreting the concept of separation.  It has escaped the notice of most even people of faith in general and most religious leaders in particular.

As well we certainly can  add to the discussion that there has been a weakening of the ethical and character elements of language.  The two words in the original statement, "willingly" and "committed" are both character words.  The first speaks to one's volition--that is decision making function.  Such function or decision making apparatus is strongly influenced by one's grasp and application of character qualities such as integrity, honesty, orderliness, etc. in the day to day of life.  Absent character, absent consistency and strength of the volitional processes of life.

The last word, "committed" comes from "commitment" and speaks to one being in a state of that commitment.  Such of course means to be obligated to some course of action by pledge or promise.  The troubling problem is that today we find the common usage of the word is much less binding.  Again, it is a matter of one's character and one's ethical view of life lived out in the practices of day to day living. Again absent character, absent consistency and strength in the commitments we make in life.

The effects of secularizing and the blurring of meaning in language is much more significant than the previously listed trends because in insidious ways it has an effect upon the ways in which we fashion thoughts into expression, identify feelings, combine thoughts and feelings into attitudes, give expression to those thoughts and attitudes, and eventually end up in having an effect in and upon our actions, interactions, and reactions.

Taking then our original statement "We willingly sacrifice much for that to which we are committed"  we now may understand it to say, "We with will, strengthened by character, decide to make sacrificial actions unto God of that to which we have obligated ourselves through pledge and/or promise."  Said another way there is a  God and a character dimension to this statement and in reality to all we do.