Honouring Our Mothers and Fathers
by Ezra O'Leary
How do we balance honouring our mothers, fathers, and other elders against the upbringing of others whose relationships with their elders were fundamentally different?
Many religious and cultural traditions have a variation on this principle. There is a practical and social benefit to according the guardians of our youth proper respect. Ideally, bonds are sown in communities between youth and elder that cement unique values and behaviours designed to foster social harmony and the passing of wisdom through generations.
As with any social network, the system is not without its flaws. Elders compete with other influences for the attention of youth. The divide of perspectives through generations sees huge splits not just between age, but other factors like education and technology that also shape ideology. However, the lessons of elders that do leave their impressions hold a strong sway over a person as they progress beyond youth and become elders themselves. Indeed, with all the tensions that are traditional between elder and youth, the ideas that breach the divide and hold firm can only do so with a lasting, profound impact.
Consider, then, the youth that rages against a parent, particularly on ideas around religion. The youth loses the parent to premature death, but finds meaning in the religious lessons left behind, and becomes a devout evangelist in adulthood. Their ideology is somewhat conservative because the parent’s reaction to their rebellious youth was to extol the stricter aspects of faith as a protection against the whims of human desires.
Consider the youth that enjoyed a closer relationship with their parent based on their accord on religious principles. No matter what tensions existed in the realms of political and other issues, the youth has always felt the warm embrace of their parent symbolized chiefly in the harmony of their religious ideals. The youth’s religious upbringing was somewhat liberal, emphasizing the joy of acceptance in divine love and tolerance through humility of the ego. If anything, this upbringing was the parent’s reaction to their relationship with their own parent, which was far more distant.
Who is right when the two meet and debate ideology? Both see in the other elements that either disrespect the memory of a lost parent or undermine the close connection currently held with a parent. Worse, they see in each other the pratfalls of religious perspective that were exactly what their parents tried to shepherd them from in their youth. To varying degrees this issue exists as a stumbling block to harmony not only across lines of religion, but also denominations within religions.
One can make the case that both need to think twice before being too critical of the other. Much joy can come from sharing that which brings strength to our spirit. However, pushing that too hard on others who are already sustained in their walks can demand a dishonouring of a fundamental relationship not just in society, but religion. Paul takes this principle a step further in Romans 14, showing that the desire to force discipline on freedom or tear down discipline with freedom can dishonour a fundamental relationship between human and divine. The personal standards we set for ourselves aren’t always a necessity for others, even if they stem from our spiritual walk.
Honouring our mothers and fathers doesn’t end with blood ties. We may find our ties better bound in society if we took greater steps to respect the way others honour their mothers and fathers.
Honoring fathers and mothers is an instructive metonym for honoring religious tradition. An interesting element here is the psychology of the encounter: even before particular convictions are engaged there is an affront, a "disrespect." There's already a roadblock to constructive debate because there is a visceral reaction before an intellectual one. I think you're extolling an understanding 'from the inside,' an empathy. In religion and ideology more broadly, I think we have a harder time developing that empathy than in the family analogue.
You're right. I think most of what I focus on when I talk about faith is empathy. Especially faith put into practice. I'm always looking back to Matthew22:36-40. To me that's the filter through which I look at 'works' to see whether they are effective. In the example above, both parties in principle are causing the same offense to the other. If they were to stop and think about their actions they'd see that they don't like this sort of 'love' when it comes back to them, so maybe they should think twice before loving others in this way.
It's something I've had to learn to be careful about myself. I enjoy religious debate but have to be careful about being seen to challenge anothers faith. While I reserve the right to disagree with how another person practices their faith (in terms of whether I should follow their example) I also have to concede I am as imperfect as they are and should frame my disagreement in a way that casts aspersions on their spiritual standing with God. That's partially what I get from Romans 14 when pushed through the filter of Matthew 22:36-40. It can be a hard line to walk in the heat of the moment, because like you say, there can be a visceral reaction before an intellectual one.
Caveat Qui Credit
Let the believer beware.
Let me disclaim a few things:
This is but one imperfect man’s view on a perfect God.
As such my view is imperfect.
I don’t see God as God is. Trying to get a better view is what this piece and my life’s journey is about.
I am not a messenger dispensing the undistilled will or word of God. I merely offer a view based on my own experience, fellowship, prayer, and thought. If I get out of my own way long enough to let how God has touched my life touch others, then that glory goes to God. The rest is my imperfection; a product of sin I will carry with me until I die, that is luckily forgiven.
This piece, like the disclaimer, more than a finger pointing at anyone else, are a reminder back to me of the virtues I need to work on or the weaknesses I need to work beyond.
My placing it here to read is to hopefully encourage fellowship, whether there is accord or disagreement. I believe the outcomes of both scenarios to be potentially beneficial.
Thank you.
Ezra, allow me to say that this is an absolutely outstanding piece, and I can't wait to read more of your work. I really love this statement :
"The personal standards we set for ourselves aren’t always a necessity for others, even if they stem from our spiritual walk."
I for one, have to be extremely strict in certain areas of my life so as to not allow myself to fall into dangerous situations…this strictness comes from an attempt to know myself, my strengths and my weaknesses. However, I have to work on imposing and attempting to enforce my personal views on others, because they are just that, my personal views. And in all honesty, it's pretty difficult for me to keep my mouth shut when I know a person engages in activities that aren't scripturally or morally wrong, but I don't participate in them. I guess this difficulty is a reminder that I need to work on my humility.
I think there's a natural instinct to speak on the actions of others that comes from a place of love. We speak from a place of what has worked for us because we want to share the joy that we get from walking our path.
At the same time, I guess it follows from the idea of a personal faith that any affront (whether intentional or not) is taken personally. I have to constant bear this in mind, especially when I disagree with someone over interpretation of scripture. Sometimes you have to let a conversation go and marinate on it until you've both had time to understand each other. At least that's how it works for me.
Christians are called on to be judicious, and yet not judgmental. I find among fellow believers that it's more difficult than it should be to see the difference. You mention differences of opinion in belief and in practice, and simultaneously not casting aspersions on others' standing with God. We MUST be 'judgmental' from the standpoint that Christian freedom is not relativism, and yet we have to continually locate our humility and realize we are in no place to 'judge' in the stricter sense.
I think there's a natural instinct to speak on the actions of others that comes from a place of love. We speak from a place of what has worked for us because we want to share the joy that we get from walking our path.
At the same time, I guess it follows from the idea of a personal faith that any affront (whether intentional or not) is taken personally. I have to constant bear this in mind, especially when I disagree with someone over interpretation of scripture. Sometimes you have to let a conversation go and marinate on it until you've both had time to understand each other. At least that's how it works for me.
[...] more here: Honouring Our Mothers and Fathers | Concrete Academic By admin | category: principle variation | tags: between-decks, crossfaded-using, [...]