Weltanschauung For Breakfast: igNoble Civil War, Part II

When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days, in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which did death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide:
‘Doth God exact day-labor, light denied?’
I fondly asked. But patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: ‘God doth not need
Either man’s work or his own gifts, who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best, his State
Is Kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o’er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve, who only stand and wait.’[1]

~ John Milton, “Sonnet: On His Blindness”

“A worldview constitutes an overall perspective on life that sums up what we know about the world, how we evaluate it emotionally, and how we respond to it volitionally.”[2] Weltanschauung. Do I have one? Everybody has one, though, even if they don’t realize it, I suppose, but precisely what is mine now? There are “labelled” worldviews, such as “theism;” can I simply choose one and run with it?

The Judeo-Christian faith still provides me my general orientation, but my emphasis is (and has been, of late) upon the Spirit — “pneumanism,” if I may coin the term. Jesus of Nazareth taught that “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”[3] And so also the apostle, St. Paul, “All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God … (and) it is that very Spirit that bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.”[4]

Consequently, one could say – should say, really – that I’m “pneumo centric,” if I may coin yet another term, and I understand the logos of the Spirit to be quite literally the communication of creation and the constituting principal of the same.[5] Thus, I am a creative evolutionist (or theistic evolutionist) as well, fully believing that such a “constituting principal” of the Cosmos is absolutely necessary to our understanding of the universe in which we live, from the smallest constituents of life to the largest, in individual parts as well as the whole.[6] And I take this position as an inference to the best explanation.[7]

The eye cannot see it; the mind cannot grasp it.
The deathless Self has neither caste nor race,
Neither eyes nor ears nor hands nor feet.
Sages say this Self is infinite in the great
And in the small, everlasting and changeless,
The source of life.[8]

The Spirit of Life, the Source of Life; they are one in the same. And did Jesus of Nazareth bear witness to this Spirit? I certainly believe so, even as I believe that he was “filled” with the Spirit … especially “anointed” by the Spirit, which leads me to ask, “How, then, should I live in light of the ‘revelation’ of Jesus of Nazareth?”

Certainly, the Beatitudes come to mind, with their attendant virtues: Humility, meekness, simplicity, honesty, integrity of character, and so forth. And all of these virtues rise up from out of the two greatest commandments of Jesus, to wit: “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”[9] Touché! The prophet Micah said as much, really:

He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?[10]

It strikes me for some reason that all this is actually more Christian than Christianity! Not that I can say precisely why, but it does, nevertheless, strike me this way.

Be that as it may, any dish of Weltanschauung will include a socio-anthropological perspective. In other words, “What is the human ‘person?’”  I still fully believe that the homo sapien is a tripartite being, comprised of mind, body and soul, and I believe this is also true to some degree of other living organisms, though I’m not prepared to expand anymore on this particular point. Suffice it to say that, because of its tripartite constitution, the homo sapien is in physicality iconic of the Spirit of Life, or God. Yes, whatever else we might say of other living organisms, it is humanity that seems to bear to the greatest degree the imáginem dei.

As divine image-bearers, it only makes sense that humanity would have a proclivity toward what we refer to as the virtuous life (virtuosa vita) and away from the bad, or corrupt, life (perversam vitam.) Which leads me to a side-note on an important subject: Character formation. Prayer and overt biblical reference in public schools were not really “outlawed” because prayer is oh-so offensive and biblical references in academic texts and/or lectures (lessons;) it was the whole and very real indoctrination that caused all the fuss back in the 70s. Character formation occurs in schools whether or not this or that individual school realizes this is happening. It would do well, then, not only to recognize this, but to make the most out of what is and will be present, i.e. character formation. There is no such time or space that is amoral; amorality is an undeniable figment of atheistic-materialist imagination. Alas, though, this is not the point of this essay, so…

Enough for now. Tune in again, same time, same channel…

.

---

.

[1] John Milton, “On His Blindness,” Donald Davie, ed., The New Oxford Book of Christian Verse 95 – 96

[2] R. Audi, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 236

[3] Gospel of St. John 4. 24 (NRSV)

[4] Epistle to the Romans 8. 14, 16 (NRSV)

[5] Cf. Allen and Springsted, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 48

[6] Cf. A. Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, 271 – 272

[7] A. Peacocke, Paths from Science to God, 130 – 131

[8] Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.6 as quoted by A. Wilson, World Scriptures: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts,  103 – 104

[9] The Gospel of St. Mark 12. 30 – 31 (NRSV)

[10] Micah 6. 8 (NRSV)

Advertisement