AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE IDEAL AND THE COUNTER-IDEAL: A LOOK AT VICTIMIZATION AS WORLDVIEW Dude, Iím trying to put to words to some of my thoughts about victimization and community development, but already, I feel inadequate to approach itÖ Iíd love your help in thinking this out. Sorry itís so long: ------------- As Christians, I think it is important that in developing our analysis of culture and its relationships, we start with what is of primary importance in trying to come to reasonable solutions for how to stand and develop. What is of primary importance is Godís will. When we start with what is of secondary importance, we quickly develop a dialectical worldview, rooting our solutions in our own strength, and becoming more divisive than redemptive in what we develop. The whole framework of Victimization is the dialectic. I love the dialectic as a means for analysis of power roles in a current context. I think Marx and most philosophers use contrast to bring out an emphasis for discussion. But itís when the dialectic becomes a standard for viewing the world that its limits affect worldviews and apply them to our understanding of whatís real. I loved your questions about community development and I really latched onto your movement of them. Thatís why I outlined them. I thought it was a classic set up to the way I would want to construct arguments. So when I titled the sections, I was as much thinking about general arguments as the one that is filled in with your questions. You started with the ideal. Thatís perfect to me, because it is the point we seek. The ideal is Godís desire. And Godís desire is reality. Reality starts with God. Itís the ìMatrixî though, ëcause we are fallen and so only know this by His revealing it to us. In and of ourselves, we fall short of this. So, if we start with ourselves we only define reality by the fallen-short-ideals. But Godís ideals donít go away just because we start with our falleness. As CS Lewis argued, there are moral absolutes that everyone knows. But because God intended for our state to be one of dependency and for our lifestyle to flow out of that state, the point of being given ideals is not to succeed, but to serve. If God didnít desire dependency, if He instead allowed us real independency, then the point would be success. We would know the ideals as only the law, and it would demand our perfection of the ideals. Service would have to be synonymous with success, and there would only be a knowledge of justice and injustice in the world. This would be a perfect dialectic. But God does desire dependency. He didnít let us only fall short of the ideals and independently of Him relate from the standing of injustice. He succeeded where we couldnít. So our ìsuccessî is now only possible in the fallen state when itís from dependence on His success. The point of our living is now not to succeed (as if we have it in us to live out the ideals of Godís will, His law), it is rather to serve and to watch God succeed through us. Service flows out of the state of dependency God desires in the Christian life and is the language of grace. So, this is the ideal, itís Godís will, itís the staring place for approaching tough spots like those we would quickly call Victimizations. This is the place of primary importance in deciding what is real. Tim Keller, a Presbyterian pastor in New York, said that ìoptimism is naÔve, but pessimism is atheisticî. The tough thing is that we eventually see clearly our fallenness. We become aware of sin. And outside of redemption thereís only two things you can do with it. You can chop it up into many little pieces and create the false impression that now itís ìmanageableî. Ie. sin isnít a nature, itís now hate, pride, oppression, injustice, ignorance, poverty, unhappiness, or whatever your dispositionÖ And all these are things that in ìour strengthî we can approach. The other option is to universalize sin and make it the base of reality so that all things are defined by sin and so sin basically ceases to exist before any higher ideal or a larger base for reality, because ìitís the way things areî. My impression is that this is at the heart of existentialism, both theistic and atheistic. There, my limitations become the norm by which everything else is arranged, including God. I wonder if you could argue somewhere that most Man-centered Christians are naively optimistic and have a reductionistic view of sin, but most Man-centered nonChristians are atheistic and have a secularized view of sin. But the ideal starts with God, it is God-centered and what He wants is of primary importance. Victimization is the counter-ideal. The dialectic is a fallen-short-ideal that describes well some of the power relations that exist in the current context. But it is not an ideal that you can start with. It is therefore of secondary importance in terms of its role as a starting place for analysis. The dialectic at best can help contextualize the ideals of primary importance. The law of presupposition, as I understand it, basically says that where you start in doctrine, there youíll end up as well. The starting place serves as the base and all things built on that base are supported by it and constructed from it. If you begin a worldview with the dialectic you will divide. If you begin with the infinite-personal God, you will see things as they relate wholistically under Him. Victimization is a dialectic. It is a current dialectic that has been accepted as the base for building a worldview. When applied to our society, we see the sexes defined not by ìan ontological equality and an economic diversityî, but by the oppressor and the oppressed. Human sexuality is a dialectical fight, not a unified picture of humanity. In similar ways, race is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, class is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, wealth is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, knowledge is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, power is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, and quite often God gets defined as the oppressed and oppressor. The dialectic as a starting place ends with the dialectic. So, a first response might seem to be, ìWhat wrong with that? Thatís the way things are, right?î Itís interesting because I would argue that in the human spirit there is a need for redemption and there is an innate awareness of our standing in injustice before the Lord. It makes me think of that Schuchardt quote. When we deny sin and accept our independence as the reality in which we dwell, we donít lose the need for redemption. We instead only reduce it to a more manageable level. ìMake the spiritual private and the material public and then conquer the material injustices and that is redemption.î But James says that if you lack wisdom, you should go to the Lord. (James 1:5-7). Thatís where wisdom starts. Without it, he reasons you are double-minded, divided, and I might add: defined by a dialectic. Paul says in 2Corinthians 10:12 that he acts in the wisdom that is from the Lord, and not like some ìwise menî who judge themselves by themselves, ëcause thatís not really wisdom. If they are themselves the starting place, then their limitations are of primary importance and God is of secondary importance. So, when someone says, ìthatís the way things areî, I want to know by what ideal they are building that view. Victimization is deceiving because we connect with itís analysis of injustice. We resonate with the need for redemption. We believe that it is describing the way things are, when in fact it is describing the way things are not. The counter-ideal is not how things are, it is how things are not. Therefore, a dialectical analysis is always reactive. It is secondary. It points to the primary, but not because we start with the secondary and get it. The law of presupposition makes that clear. But we start with the primary as revealed by the Beginner of all things and then contextualize it with good contrasts. So, how could I summarize this? Again, I would say that as Christians, I think it is important that in developing our analysis of culture and its relationships, we start with what is of primary importance in trying to come to reasonable solutions for how to stand and develop. What is of primary importance is Godís will. When we start with what is of secondary importance, we quickly develop a dialectical worldview, rooting our solutions in our own strength, and becoming more divisive than redemptive in what we develop. ----------------- In essence, E, Iíve just thought out loud about the first two roman numerals of the outline I made of your questions. The ìhowî of this still begs to be thought out. And Iím interested in trying that too. But first I want to see how you resonate with this explanation of the setup. And Iíd love to hear what wording you would use to say some of these same things.