christian cosmopolitanism, part II -cosmos and community

more thoughts about christian cosmopolitanism:

i think that the ideal of 'cosmopolitanism' is sometimes seen as standing in opposition to a way of thinking that views tradition as valuable, even essential, to good living and good thinking. similarly, cosmopolitanism is sometimes seen as an ethos of 'bland universalism' in contrast to an outlook which values the 'richness of particularity.' cosmopolitanism might be associated with a kind of skepticism or rationalism. worse still, the cosmopolitan individual might be seen as rootless and detached from any concrete community: a lover of humanity who never loves any particular human being.

for those who take such a view of cosmopolitanism, the notion of a 'christian cosmopolitanism' is likely to seem an oxymoron: to be christian is already to be committed to a particular tradition, a particular set of beliefs, a particular way of life, and such commitment is antithetical to the core sensibility and outlook of a universalistic (and, perhaps, skeptical) cosmopolitanism.

it is not necessary, however, for us to think of cosmopolitanism this way. rather than taking skepticism about tradition or rootlessness as the core of cosmopolitanism, we can understand its core to be a commitment to the idea that what is most important about a person cannot be captured by reference to her particular national or cultural situation. what is deepest and most important in ourselves and in other human beings -and what ought to govern how we relate to ourselves and to others- is not something limited to our national or cultural heritage. moreover, our loyalties based on our membership in a particular nation or group are subservient to our loyalities based on things common to all humanity. on this way of thinking, it makes sense to speak of christian cosmopolitanism, because it is a specifically christian outlook which leads to cosmopolitan conclusions about what is most important in a human beings and about the limits of our local loyalties.

this is not to say that the picture of cosmopolitanism sketched earlier has no basis in the history of cosmopolitan thinking, or to deny that some forms of cosmopolitanism have failed to appreciate the importance of tradition and particularity. rather, i think that christian cosmopolitanism may be valuable precisely because it is able to correct some of the mistakes of other forms of cosmopolitanism. a christian cosmopolitanism, for example, is able to delight in the particularities of a culture -because they reflect divine creativity and beauty in their own unique way- while at the same time resisting the temptation to idolatry or sentimentality -because no culture is god and every culture is tainted by sin.

likewise, a christian cosmopolitanism will critize 'rootless individualism' as inconsistent with the command to love, the call to live as part of the body of christ, and the fact that we were created to live in real community with one another. thus, a christian cosmopolitanism will have no problems stressing the importance of local communities for human flourishing. and yet, a christian cosmopolitanism will also understand that the very significance of a local christian community depends on the fact that they are part of something more important and more mysterious than themselves -the kingdom of god. because the kingdom of god is not limited by cultural or national boundaries, our communities ought never to give in to the 'us vs. them' mentality which is the hallmark of so much human thinking.

christian cosmopolitanism

diogenes the cynic lived in greece in the 4th century b.c. and was a contemporary of plato. it is said that when diogenes was asked where he came from, he replied: 'i am a citizen of the world' (κοσμοπολιτης). thus, diogenes is perhaps the originator of the term, if not the idea, of cosmopolitanism.

it is interesting to contrast diogenes claim to be a κοσμοπολιτης with the new testament's claim that christians are not of this world, that 'our citizenship (πολιτευμα) is in heaven' (phil 3:20). at first glance, it might seem that christians are anti-cosmpolitan: whereas the cosmopolitan individual is a citizen of the world, christians are citizens of no place in this world, citizens of another world entirely.

in another way, however, the 'other-worldliness' of the gospel opens up the space for a new kind of cosmopolitanism. precisely because the christian has a citizenship in heaven, his basic loyalty is not to any particular place or culture; his heart is to be in heaven (matt 6:19-21) moreover, the christian's loyalty is not to any local or national diety, but to the god who is the creator and redeemer of the whole world. and the christian is to be like his father in heaven, who treats all people, both the good an evil, with impartiality (matt 6:43-48). thus, the christian is free not to define himself in terms of any particular place or culture, and free also to care impartially for the whole world.

in our culture, it seems that christian cosmopolitanism is fairly uncommon. rather, christian patriotism is the order of the day. the signs of christian patriotism are ubiquitous, from 'god bless america' bumper stickers to american flags in churches. even among those of us christians who might not think of ourselves as 'patriotic' in any strong sense of the word, we are, i think, more influenced than we realized by the fact that we are amerian citizens. this influence includes the way in which our discussions and debates about world affairs are typically framed in terms of america's interests. perhaps even more importantly, this influence also includes the our general lack of knowledge and concern about what is going on outside of america -including the 30,000 children who die every from hunger-related causes or preventable diseases.

for example, how many american churches mourned, prayed and held services in response to september 11? many, if not most. and how many american churches have given a moment's thought to the civil war in congo, which has killed millions in the last few years? my point is not that we shouldn't have mourned and prayed for the victims of sept 11. on the contrary, as christians we are called to respond to and share in the suffuring of others, and sept 11 was clearly an example of great suffering that demanded a response. my point, rather, is that our sense of the suffering in the world is exceptionally blinkered. and the narrowness of our vision is connected to habits of mind and behavior which embody a view of ourselves as americans first, and christians second, rather than the other way around.

what we need, i suggest, is a renewed ethos of christian cosmopolitanism. such christian cosmopolitanism is rooted in a delight in the human world as the field of god's presence and redemptive activity. and it is marked by a resistance to anything which would, in the name of national or local loyalities, stand in the way of our love for all people. the christian cosmopolitan is at home in every place in the world, precisely because he is aware that no place in the world is his true home, while every place is the site of god's grace and love.

the one campaign

i encourage everyone to check out the "one campaign." it is a plan for international debt-relief and increased humanitarian assistance to the world's poorest peoples. the website is: www.one.org. you can also learn more it about through the website of world vision, which is one of the founding organizations of the campaign. the basic idea of the campaign is that it is possible to drastically reduce, even eliminate, extreme poverty around the world if the wealthiest nations would change some of their trade/economic practices and increase their international aid budgets by a relatively small amount. in addition to being promoted by many of the world's leading development organizations, the campaign has also received a large, and strikingly diverse, amount of support from religious leaders and celebrities -its supporters include bono and rick warren, billy graham and brad pitt.

the other day i wrote a post in which i argued that we ought to see development as a matter of freedom, and that if we do so, it quickly becomes clear how skewed our budgetary priorities are when it comes to promoting freedom -e.g. over $200 billion spent promoting freedom through the war in iraq, and $3 billion dollars a year in annual aid to africa, where millions are unfree because of extreme poverty and lack of resources. (june , freedom and development). in our current social-political discourse, the language of freedom is closely connected to the language of sacrifice. it is acceptable -socially and politically- to call on people to make a sacrifice in the name of freedom. the chief example of this is way in which we call on our soldiers to be willing to sacrifice their lives in order to protect our freedom and promote the freedom of others. however, because freedom and development are seen as distinct issues, it is not similarly acceptable to call on people to make sacrifices for the sake of development. when has president bush -or any other politician- talked about our moral responsibility to sacrifice so that others can have their basic needs met? even to make fairly small sacrifices -e.g. having fewer new roads- so that other people can have drinking water or enough to eat?

although the one campaign is asking developed countries to make significant increases in their humanitarian assistance, i'm not sure if what is being asked for even counts as 'sacrifice.' if the plan were adopted, development aid would still only account for one percent or less of the budgets of developed countries. yet, even if eradicating poverty meant making more serious sacrifices, what could possibly be a better reason for us to make a sacrifice? it is estimated that 30,000 children die every day from hunger-related causes and preventable diseases. what could possibly be a better reason than saving the lives of children for us as individuals, and as a country, to make a sacrifice of our energy and resources?

epicurus and christ: divine life and the meaning of suffering

this past week i've been reading epicurus, philosopher of pleasure. epicurus lived in the fourth century b.c. and was more or less a contemporary of aristotle. he argued that happiness, or living well, consisted in a life of pleasure. he described pleasure as the first and innate good, and argued that things were good or bad in virtue of the amount of pleasure and pain they produced. he was, it seems, the forerunner (perhaps grandfather) of many later versions of hedonism, and also utilitarianism.

even during his own day, epicurus had trouble convincing people that when he claimed that pleasure was the goal of life, he didn't mean the pleasures of drink, music or sex (either separately or together). it isn't that epicurus forbade such pleasures, but rather he argued that real pleasure was the absence of pain in the body and the absence of disturbance in the soul. and this state could only be achieved by doing philosophy and physics (which were, of course, much less distinct from one another in his time). moreover, epicurus insisted that true pleasure was inseparable from the virtues, including temperance and justice.

so, it seems that epicurus was not in fact a resident of some kind of attic bourbon street, as our english word "epicurean" might suggest. interestingly, epicurus' project was also heavily theological (which, incidentally, meant that it was also heavily meteorological). epicurus thought that much of the disturbance in his neighbors' souls was caused by their fear of the gods, including a fear that the gods would send some calamity upon them or punish them after death. epicurus argued against the latter fear by trying to demonstrate that after death the soul, which is made up of atoms, dissipates, and so after death one experiences nothing. with regards to the fear of divine-sent calamity, epicurus insisted that the gods were perfectly blessed and indestructible. such beings, he argued, would not be subject to angers and whims, and thus they would never send destruction onto humans. what is more, if humans followed the way of philosophy and freed themselves from disturbance of the soul, then their existence could be somehow divine. that is, the epircurean life of pleasure and virtue is also a life of the kind of self-sufficiency, calm and blessedness which are hallmarks of the gods' life. thus, at the end of one of his letters outlining his philosohy, epicurus says that it is possible for mortal humans to live a life that is fit for immortal gods.

in thinking of a well-lived human life as being in some way divine, epicurus was, it seems, making a fairly common move for a greek philosopher. for example, diogenes the cynic is reported to have called good men images of the gods (θεων εικονας). and at the end of his nicomachean ethics, aristotle suggests that through contemplation it is possible to imitate, in a way, the life of the gods (who, for aristotle, spend their time in contemplation) and thereby to achieve a kind of immortality for mortals.

there is, of course, something related going on in the pages of the new testament. in the nt it is christ who is first and foremost the image of the invisible god (εικων του θεου του αορατου, Col 1:16), but also we (as christians) who are being renewed in his image. likewise, jesus, in the sermon on the mount, invokes god's impartiality as the model for his disciples, and the author of ephesians urges us to be imitators of god.

interestingly, however, paul's picture of how we participate in a kind of divine life comes close to being the opposite of epicurus' account. for epicurus, the mark of the gods is their freedom from pain and disturbance, and it is by becoming free from pain and disturbance that humans can have a sort of divine life. in contrast, it is precisely the suffering of christ which paul strives to imitate and in which he longs to participate: 'to know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made like him in death, that i might somehow reach the resurrection of the dead' (phil 3:10). likewise, for john, it is precisely in his suffering, death and resurrection that the glory of jesus is most displayed (e.g. john 12:23), and his suffering and death are the model for christian discipleship (12:24-26).

in the new testament, then, it seems that suffering has come to have new significance -to have, we might say, meaning. it is not that greek philosophers could not see some value in suffering; more than one talks about how his sufferings and trials were a benefit, because they brought him to philosophy. but here, the redemption/salvation found in philosophy is redemption from suffering, and suffering is 'meaningful' because it leads to that which removes it (or at least minimizes it). with christianity, however, it is almost as if the redemption in christ is redemption to suffering -the call is to share in his suffering, which is suffering even unto death. and in christianity, suffering itself is a locus for contact with the divine, a locus for imitation of the divine in christ.

perhaps, then, this is near the core of the christian message: that one is redeemed not (only?) from suffering, but in and through suffering. and that god is indeed blessed and indestructible, eternal and unseen, but in such a way that godself can be seen in and throuhg the sufferings life of our lord jesus, a man of sorrows.

freedom and development

the new york times reports this morning that mr. bush and mr. blair have reached an agreement on debt remission for a number of (mostly african) nations. this seems like good news, though unfortunately it looks like the bush administration has yet to agree to the plan for increased african aid which the britains favor.

it is well known that bush has made the spread of freedom a central theme of his presidency. and the buzz about freedom's march has been fueled by the recent push for democratic reforms in ukraine, eygpt, lebanon and elsewhere. however, it seems that we have failed to connect our concerns about freedom with our concerns about development/poverty/disease in the world's poorest nations. or rather, the connection between the two frequently takes the following form: countries that have democratic freedoms and working democratic institutions tend to be able to support development, overcome poverty, etc. this way of connecting freedom and development takes "freedom" to be a matter of political practices/institution and then stresses that freedom is a kind of condition (necessary? sufficient?) for development.

this is surely a very important point. but there is another way of connecting freedom and development. this second way takes "freedom" to be not only a matter of political institutions, but an expression of a person's ability to lead a self-directing, flourishing human life. that is, "freedom" is not merely a matter of free elections and free markets, but a way of characterizing a certain kind of human life -a life that is able to pursue in a self-directed way the goods which make up a human life. here, to be free is to be able to engage in the sorts of activities that make up a distinctly human life, and an excellent human life. whereas on the first way of thinking about freedom, freedom is a condition for development, on the second way of thinknig about freedom, development is a condition for freedom. to be terribly poor -unable to find work, unable to feed oneself and one's family, unable to find adequate healthcare- is to be prevented from pursuing the goods which make up a flourishing human life. in this way, it is not live as a free person. thus we speak of the "bondage" or "prison" of poverty and disease.

i think it is obvious that this second sense of "freedom" is at least as important as the first sense. in fact, the second sense is more important, because it is the importance of this notion of freedom that grounds the first notion. that is, political/economic freedom is important precisely because it enables persons to live as self-directing agents in pursuit of the goods which make up a flourishing human life.

why is it, then, that our discourse of freedom focuses so heavily on the first notion of freedom? doubtless this has something to do with the fact that this is largely a "political" discourse, and it focused on fairly narrow "political" concerns. but it is a great mistake for us to focus on the first notion of freedom at the expense of the second, and hence for us to direct our efforts at the political/economic freedoms while neglecting the needs of millions for even basic freedom in the second sense -freedom to eat and drink enough, to have a job, to get medicine for one's children, etc.

we ought, I suggest, to see development precisely as an issue of freedom and not simply as an issue for "charity" or "helping out the less fortunate." this is not because there is something wrong with charity, but because thinking of development as charity fails to see what is ultimately at state in development efforts -whether or not millions of people will be free to live flourishing human lives.

moreover, once we recognize the cause of development as the cause of freedom, we will be able to see how one-sided and imbalanced our efforts in promoting the spread of freedom truly are. for example, consider the following numbers:

amount of debt to be relieved by bush/blair agreement: $17 billion
amount of annual u.s. aid to africa: $3.2 billion
cost of iraq war: over $200 billion.

my point here is not to argue about the legitimacy or wisdom of the iraq war. rather, i think that even if we see the iraq war as part of the "spread of freedom" -perhaps especially if we see it as such- then it become apparent how lopsided our pursuit of freedom's spread truly is. are not those people "unfree" who suffer from crushing poverty, who lack adequate drinking water, who have no access to healthcare? surely these people are just as "unfree" as those who live under oppressive regimes, if by "freedom" we recognize something more than just free markets and free elections.

let us, then, take up mr. bush's challenge to promote the spread of freedom. but let us think seriously about what freedom means and why freedom is something worth pursuing in the first place. the language of freedom, it seems, is singularly inspiring (in spite of being overused and misused), and for this very reason we should not surrender the term "freedom" to those who would define freedom in such a way that obscures or overlooks the places in the world where freedom is most badly needed.

p.s. it seems that u.s. political discourse on freedom has not always been as narrowly focused as it is now. as i recall, didn't a former u.s. president (and an academic, i believe) have something to say about different kinds of freedom? something about four...

how to feel the world

one of the things i like most about summer is the way that one's senses seem to come alive along with the everything else in creation. in the summer you feel more. you feel the air and the sky. you feel the trees full of leaves. you feel your body -your feet in the grass, the air in your lungs.

it a commonplace (and an good one, i believe) for philosophers to talk about virtues and vices in terms of responsiveness to a given situation. the virtuous person sees/feels the right way to respond in a given situation and she responds that way, whereas the vicious person responds incorrectly. we do fairly well at thinking about how to respond in lots of paradigm 'moral' cases -what to do if you're taking a test (don't cheat), what to do if you see a stranger in distress (help him), etc. it striking, though, how much of our life is spent responding to less obviously 'moral' situations and objects-responding to the sky above us as we drive, responding to strangers that pass us on the sidewalk. responding to novels and movies, to a new song on the radio, to the tree outside our window, to the squirrel on the lawn, to the feeling of our tennis shoes.

on the one hand, it seems hard to say how one ought to feel or act in some of these 'less-moral' situations. we can say that one ought to be pained at the sight of injustice, but how ought one to feel at the sight of a particular shade of blue on the lake? joyful? content? it seems strange to say that there is some definite way one ought to respond to many 'less-moral' situations. on the other hand, it also seems strange to suppose that there is no better or worse way to respond in these situations. one's response to these situations seems to express or embody what it means to live well, in the same way virtues like courage or compassion embody living well. it seems that a life full of joy and wonder at the world is a better life than one full of boredeom and half-hearted attention to things, even if one responds 'correctly' in all the 'moral' contexts.

how, then, ought one to see/feel a tree, or a frisbee, or a bicycle? perhaps the answer is that we must begin by seeing and feeling them at all. we must cultivate an awareness, and an appreciative awareness, of all that is around us. there is something about wonder which seems important here. something about having a taste for the strangeness or the specialness of ordinary things. a sense too of how fantastic things are.

i don't think the idea is that we all need to think like annie dillard (though i think she could be a good influence, even a guide, in this whole discussion). and its not that we need to spend all of our time stopping and looking instead of feeling the world by doing stuff (though i think stopping and looking more might be part of cultivating the capacity for the right kind of responsiveness).

christianly speaking, it seems that the proper responsiveness will involve, perhaps even center on, a sense of thankfullness and joy in creation viewed as such. that is, a joyful viewing of the world not as brute fact, but as the handiwork of our loving Creator.

summer sun

at some point during my first winter in chicago, it began to dawn on me that there was a particular, though hard to describe, look to things. objects and scenes around town had a characteristic "chicago" feel to them, a feel that was hard to pin down, but nevertheless undeniable. at first i thought this look/feel had something to do with the objects themselves that are found around chicago -older brick buildings, rusty american cars, salt-stained streets and sidewalks. eventually, however, i realized that the look/feel i was noticing wasn't the result of particular objects, but of the kind of light that chicago gets in the winter. it is a pale, northern winter light. the sun never gets very high, staying low in the southern part of the sky even during midday. and this means that our winter light is drained from its oranges and yellows, so that we are left with a thin and sickly light, a light which lacks not only physical but also emotional warmth. and so, the "chicago feel" i had noticed was simply the way the city looks illuminated by this pale winter light.

having endured this winter light, i feel especially delighted and thankful for days like today. there is a warm summer sun, high in the sky, shining a full and luscious light. what is more, we now have wonderfully long days. may favorite light of all, i think, is the light that begins in late afternoon on a summer's day, and then grows increasingly soft and colorful through the course of a long summer twilight.

i have been trying to spend as many evenings as possible sitting by the lake in the evenings as the sun goes down. one of the great pleasures of doing this is having one's visual field filled almost entiredly by the changing shades of water and sky. i have find myself thinking that my capacity to enjoy, my capacity to delight, is much too small for the beauty of world.

on a day as beautiful as today, it seems fitting to celebrate with St. Francis' Canticle:

Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord,
All praise is Yours, all glory, honor and blessings.
To you alone, Most High, do they belong;
no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.

We praise You, Lord, for all Your creatures,
especially for Brother Sun,
who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendor,
of You Most High, he bears your likeness.

We praise You, Lord, for Sister Moon and the stars,
in the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.

We praise You, Lord, for Brothers Wind and Air,
fair and stormy, all weather's moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.

We praise You, Lord, for Sister Water,
so useful, humble, precious and pure.

We praise You, Lord, for Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night.
He is beautiful, playful, robust, and strong.

We praise You, Lord, for Sister Earth,
who sustains us
with her fruits, colored flowers, and herbs.

We praise You, Lord, for those who pardon,
for love of You bear sickness and trial.
Blessed are those who endure in peace,
by You Most High, they will be crowned.

We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death,
from whom no-one living can escape.
Woe to those who die in their sins!
Blessed are those that She finds doing Your Will.
No second death can do them harm.

We praise and bless You, Lord, and give You thanks,
and serve You in all humility.

amen and amen.