Hegemony:
he·gem·o·ny [hi-jem-uh-nee, hej-uh-moh-nee]
noun, plural he·gem·o·nies.
1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2. leadership; predominance.
3. (especially among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.
“Christian hegemony as a system of domination is complex, shifting, and operates through the agency of individuals, families, church communities, denominations, parachurch organizations, civil institutions, and through decisions made by members of the ruling class and power elite.”
Paul Kivel speaks about Christian Hegemony:
Go to the continuing episodes HERE.
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world”, so what’s with “Christians” making kingdoms in this world?
Oh, you know, this is just another power hungry collection of people who want to reform the world to their own understanding of the truth — not unlike the very dangerous neoconservitists of the video of the front page of the PT.
It should be clear that it would not be in humanity’s best interest to let any one collection of extremists gain control with the ethics that the end justifies the means because the consequences have shown that such approaches have always been ultimately destructive to the world at large.
This fact should be evident to those of us who have been engaged in the rise and fall of Armstrongism.
No real good comes from any of these movements.
Well, up until you provided the definition, and largely because I’m really not into international geopolitics, especially the Machiavellian kind, if you’d used the phrase “Christian Hegemony” in my presence, say last week, I probably would have assumed you meant getting in my prayer and Bible Study Saturday morning prior to or during the time I was trimming my hedges. But, I see your point.
Back in the 1980s, I was somewhat flabbergasted when the Christian conservatives emerged as a voting block. I’ve since learned that although they rightly consider themselves to be NoTW (as the bumper sticker says, “Not of this world”) as ambassadors for Christ they consider it their duty to impact mainstream society in a positive and transforming fashion, ie voting against abortion, voting to preserve traditional marriage, etc. It’s much different from the doctrine on voting which we were taught as ACOGgers. I am Christian, and I sometimes vote, but I vote my conscience, not as part of a somebody’s pressure group, or block. This election cycle, I felt it was terribly important to get a new president happening, but apparently not enough people agreed with my opinion, so we’ve got (to plagiarize Herman’s Hermits) “second verse, same as the first”.
Logic tells me that if you look at some of the tribal and atheist nations, such as Somalia and North Korea, the citizens there would be much better off with a Magna Carta/Christian type government, but you really can’t unnaturally impose a form of government on a group of people successfully. They would need to want it, and to believe in it in order for it to be successful. Look at how many of the Russians are scared spitless by a free market economy, and look back on the glory days when everyone was (kind of) taken care of. So, clearly, something would need to happen to change peoples’ minds in order for a free society to take root and be successful. I honestly believe that genetics plays a role in the type of government most natural to any specific group. We have a melting pot society here in the USA, but most who came here from the founding fathers came here in search of freedom. Not everyone can hang with that (as we should know from the mindset of some of our former brethren in Armstrongism!)
So, forced hegemony, imo is out, humanly impossible to execute. However, if the citizenry of various nations hear a message of freedom, and want to throw off those who enslave them, and to modify their constitution, and promote a more egalitarian lifestyle, we should probably encourage that. Christians, and other freedom loving types can spread a positive message, but rather than acting like Islamic jihadists, should probably remember that their kingdom is not of this world, and leave the hegemony up to Jesus.
BB
if any person could validly demonstrate that s/he is “christian’ in the sense taught Biblically, then you might have some justification for voting, or trying in some way to change the world for the better. if you insist that “I am christian”, then you would be logically forced to prove why your particular version is any more “special” than the 38,000 other estimated versions. HWA’s followers thought they could do it, and a few keep trying, but they run into co ntinual splintering and speciating, as Romans 8:7 or isaiah 55:8 would logically predict.
Keep in mind that the real argument about the time Jesus allegedly walked the earth was whether or not people could reason logically an authority that coincided with “God’s word”. Hillel and the Pharisees said it could be done, Jesus said it could not(Matthew 23, leading logically into Matthew 24 and the warnings against deception).
The real conclusion would have to be this: If human reason can coincide with the perfect nature of a God whose teachings would lead us toward peace, there would be no need for such a word in the first place. We could simply and logically create peaceful world government. If all attempts to do so result in continual splintering to new and different ideas and interpretations, then we must conclude that no such ability exists within human logic and reason. We would be forced to reach one of two conclusions:
1.The “word of God’ is not actually the word of God
2.If it is, then it cannot be followed sufficiently as a blueprint to be applied by humans for world peace.
In modern terms, we would say that humans cannot reduce their minds to algorithms and decision procedures according to mechanical principles to achieve world peace.If the Bible IS God’s word, then both isaiah 55:8 and Romans 8:7 would be correct. If the Bible is NOT God’s word, the result is still the same, because the Bible cannot be used to demonstrate the authority of either church or state as a legitimate authority, other than by the use of force, which is not legitimate.
It would appear that if a person thinks s/he is a christian , and that by voting, s/he could somehow effect “God’s will” by voting, then the conclusin must be that Isaiah 55:8 and Romans 8:7 would be wrong. The christian contradicts himself by his own logic. Assuming the christian is correct in his vote, then should the “other guy’ win, then the christian could not be obligated to obey the ‘other guy”. But if another professing christian voted for the “other guy”, then we could not serve the interests of the other professing christian who voted for that “other guy”.
To argue the old Romans 13 garbage that we must obey the “higher power’ is to sy that God works statistically through the force of majority, which means that truth can only be determined by hedgemony, by the continual ‘conversion’ of other minds.
In my post-Armstrong beliefs, I’ve come to realize that being Christian is a highly personalized thing. It involves transformation of the heart of each individual, considering his or her personality and genetics, and is not intended to be extrapolated over or superimposed over all of the rest of mankind. Paul speaks of the great freedom in Christ, and that’s something that megalomaniacs have never been able to deal with. They’ve got to systematize it into a legalistic formula, and utilize it to control others.
The interesting thing about this is that people who self-describe as Christian vote pretty much equally between the two political parties. Martin Luther King, as an example, and many of the people who marched in support of civil rights voted Democrat. Many liberal Catholics, such as Martin Sheen, believe that the Democratic party is more in harmony with Christian behavior, although they’d prefer to see abortion go away.
Bottom line on the hegemony scene for me is that you can’t force transformation of the heart on anyone. If you attempt to do this, then it loses its purity and meaning. Best thing to do is promote the idea that good values and human rights make logical sense in bringing about an orderly, just, and functional society. Many people will voluntarily buy into that.
BB
Bob wrote: “In my post-Armstrong beliefs, I’ve come to realize that being Christian is a highly personalized thing. It involves transformation of the heart of each individual, considering his or her personality and genetics, and is not intended to be extrapolated over or superimposed over all of the rest of mankind.”
Absolutely correct. You chose to be a Christian on your own analysis, I chose to be agnostic because I believe it is the only honest answer. For the big question is: Is there a God? My answer is: I don’t know. If there is this “being” in my opinion, never wrote a book. Its a question that can’t be answered honestly. But as it is, it is my answer based on my analysis. Secondarily, I don’t care if there is a God. It is meaningless.
Bob, make sure you watch the three part video “The Power of Nightmares” on the main page. It explained a lot to some questions I had about the whole affair of religion and the influence on the American political system.
The idea of a constitution that promotes a “god” within its framework is very scary and would lead to the death of its many citizens who would not be allowed to practice a free and conscious process of choice.
“We have a melting pot society here in the USA, but most who came here from the founding fathers came here in search of freedom. Not everyone can hang with that (as we should know from the mindset of some of our former brethren in Armstrongism!)”
Yes I realize that many have taken government as the new god. Its the wrong choice if they want freedom. Being libertarian in thought, I can truthfully say I need none of the above. Their all corrupt assholes. Minister and politician are all looking out for #1. Themselves.
Fuck’em all.
Ralph,
More and more I am seeing others taking what you wrote and running with it. As you know I think your spot on. It took awhile to grasp your writings but you in the end are correct.
The teachings of Jesus set people free from those who tell you that there are rules to follow, regulations and laws to the way of salvation.
My answer to the groups we are dealing with is to tell the members that they don’t need the priests of armstrongism to tell them what to do, how to live, what days to keep or not keep. It a personal conscious chose between the member and their God. All these mortal men can do is to come between the armstrongist and their god/God. They are not spokesmen, they are charlatans of the worse kind. They ruin families and destroy lives and the potential of the children are never realized due to their parents narrow world view.
Damn them all!
My dad taught me most of what I write, and in the beginning, I thought he was crazy. He even thought himself crazy!
I just discovered some interesting parallels on the Bible that might prove satisfying to Byker Bob. Creationists are so intent on disproving evolution that they miss some great parallels that demonstrate the sharpness of early Biblical writers. In fact, it might be a worthwhile article.
I recently re-read a book by Pulitzer prize winner Jonathan Weiner, titled “Time, Love, Memory”, which explored the history of genetics and the use of fruit flies to study genetic origns of behavior. Turns out they found a “clock gene” that regulated behavior of a species to the degree that if you change the “clock”, you actually change the species. Clock genes, time, seems to be woven in to the cells of all living things, which took me to Ecclesiastes 3, “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”.
All living species have this need to regulate their lives by time, but humans can’t underastand because God has “set eternity(i nfinity) in their heart…”(Ecc 3:11). It is interesting that the study of math led to the discoveries of Cantor regarding our inability to lay an “end” to all things. As the verse finishes, “no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end”. Cantor discovered an infinity of infinities, and Godel discovered there is no way to reduce truth to one system. It just keeps splitting…Why? because humans love to reduce everything to one system that has all answers and no questions, as at the Tower of babel. If you look for truth, you find the results predicted by Jesus in Matthew 10:34-38. The fact that “you can’t get there from here” is precisely what was intended. Ephesians 2;8-10.
And with that Ralph, people who have visited here criticize some of the stuff you have put forth as religious.
Your arguments counter the idea of organized religion and promotes the idea that an individual can seek out their own understanding or salvation (if there is such a thing) and to not let a man/cult leader to get in between you and God.
No money in that for the cults! No money indeed!
All anyone can un derstand is the physical evidence given to them in this reality, this universe. if one would claim otherwise, one would have to prove that which is not evident within this universal reality, but how would one prove it to be true, if it contradicts that reality?
Ralph,
Most excellent video this day on the Painful Truth front page. “Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life.” Dawkins at his very best! Honest and forthright, Dawkins confronts the questions all of us have asked and gives us the answers as some may never considered.
Yes, I have Da wkins’ “Selfish gene” and “The God Delusion “. There are levels of co nnections between Western religion as we generally recognize it, and the operation by which the gene replicates itself.
For example, the gene seeks to make exact copies of itself to survive into future generations, and as Dawkins writes, it will tend to control its immediate environment for that purpose. This means that the survival strategy of all living things at the genetic level is to replicate as perfectly as possible for the next generation, which is pretty much what Western Christianity does. Hoffer does a great study showing the patterns and needs of proselytizing, converting more and more to a single way of thinking. This feels satisfying at such a deep level because its what our genes do in order to control their own replication. There are mahy levels that can be shown parallel to Dawkins’ ideas.