Postmodern Ties to the Western Messianic Ideal

In observing the thematics that seem to arise in personality types in America, one type that I keep coming back to is that of the Western world's man of power. That's a vague definition, but it is linked to the Western idea of the singular hero, which I blogged about earlier. The cultural value in this type of character is likely founded historically in religious traditions; the Christ, a Messiah; a singular hero.

This value in the singular hero has likely caused people to connect with that ideal and gain a sort of personality type with strengths in individual, heroic-like ability. This has been particularly interesting as of late, because it seems that the accepted form of this singular hero has shifted. The contrast I see, has been from a type that was highly valued since probably around the late 19th century, to another type that began emerging at the turn of the 21st. This has been intriguing to watch because it seems that there is great conflict within the culture as to whether this new hero model is right or not; some even claiming that the old ideal was wrong and the new ideal, though still a hero, is right.

The singular hero of Western culture that existed from at least the late 19th century, was a man of knowledge and understanding. Most people attribute this to modernity, and they are mostly right. The more the man understood, knew, and sought to know by reason, the more the man was seen as powerful and right. Using the technology of the time to understand his world, man would delve long hours and time into books of great intellectual depth and abstractions. A common family expression of this value was that the evening hours, a time set apart for reading, was the most valued period of the day.

Turning to more contemporary times, since around the turn of the 21st century, there has been much debate in the culture about whether the reason and knowledge-based system is really something to continue. Much of this is subversive; people don't even realize it is happening. The essential argument of the new type of singular hero, is that he is not primarily a man of infinite knowledge and truth, but of infinite relational connections. Now, not everyone accepts this model; it is still an expression of the singular hero ideal that is in contention against the older, all-knowing ideal. In any case, it has risen to greater prominence and the signs have been around the culture everywhere, mostly in the avant-garde groups of the culture: the youth and emerging adult. Expressions of this can be seen ranging from the greater desire to be all-connected through Internet portals such as Facebook, Instant Messaging, Cell Phones, to the largely meaningless (except the communal aspect) of Online-orchestrated Flash Mobs. Again, be sure to note this: much of the community that young groups are seeking, have little to no value in discerning the reason they are coming together, they seek community first, and from that usually truth emerges, but not as consciously at the older heroic model.

To me, both expressions indicate each a differing set of values; one on knowledge and one on relationships. However, they are commonly fueled in their beliefs that this is done by individuals striving to pursue the same ideal of heroic-esque glory. So when someone criticizes the older way of doing things, of seeking to be all-knowing, it is difficult to see reason for that criticism when they hold up a new ideal to strive for: relationships. Both seek the infinite, both seek to be God in a new way; whether that is a good or bad thing.

The Kingdom of God and History

Oftentimes, I am compelled to consider the future path of civilization. From my thoughts about "essentialism," I began to consider the future projections for a society that follows such a way of thinking. Most conclusions that I've been reading about and thinking about, lead to a societal decay on a large scale to some degree or measure. When I considered what this decay could look like, I began to see many ideas come together to form a couple of potential outcomes. By many ideas coming together, I mean that a new idea was entering my thoughts that largely depended on other ideas pre-existing, which seems seems like a good cognitive method to begin to see relations between ideas that may actually exist, but not recognized before.

Back to the point. The importance of coming up with these two resulting outcomes that entered my mind was that they hinged on whether a certain belief in my mind was one way or another. And this is important because one's stance on this belief is likely due to what time of history one is ascribing the stance in. Particularly, one stance is from the early 20th century, and one stance is much more recent.

The generated outcomes of "essentialism" and all the issues within that historical progression were the following. The first is that Western society will undergo a cycle of first falling apart, then rebirth where the new society will take what truths the last society discovered, but will throw away much of the culture and false truths that existed. This occurs in a cycle and each society as it rebirths, builds upon societies prior; thereby increasing societal stability with each passing age. The second outcome that came to my mind was that Western culture will be accepted throughout the Earth as a unifying culture for all mankind. However, when this society falls apart, there somehow isn't as much availability for rebirth. It is similar to the Tower of Babel event, where all of mankind was divided. However, this time, this may not be the outcome, it could something else.

Both of these ideas hinged in my mind on some of my Christian beliefs. This makes all good sense, because I am a Christian and my mind should hinge on my beliefs. The particular belief it hinged on was what my view was on the future of the "Kingdom of God," which is discussed often in the Bible. One popular viewpoint is that the Kingdom of God will come in a dramatic, earth-shattering (so to speak) event. Followers of this idea could commonly be referred to as believers in the "New Earth, New Kingdom" dynamic. A second popular viewpoint is that the Kingdom of God will come when society on Earth progresses to that point, at which Jesus will come back to Earth and rightly become King. Followers of this idea could commonly be referred to as believers in a "Progressive Kingdom." Believers in the "New Earth, New Kingdom" dynamic would likely interpret the future of Western society in a fashion that will bring the dramatic event that changes the world quickly. Believers in the "Progressive Kingdom" dynamic would believe that Western society will indeed fall apart, but that a new society that is better than all the last will be built upon the ashes.

The historical importance of these two views, is that the "New Earth, New Kingdom" concept has existed at least since the early 20th century. Popular allusions to this idea can be seen in some of the art of the day, such as in the film of Metropolis. The "Progressive Kingdom" concept is an idea of at least the past ten years. Noticing this difference that is based largely on which belief one holds that is from which era is important as it signifies more as to who one is compared to who one thinks one is, and that is the relevance for it to me. As far as to why the "Progressive Kingdom" idea has been gaining a lot steam lately, that is for another posting.

Between God and Truth

I cannot think of as much to write in this post as the last one. Fear not, this isn't because I'm getting used to the blog; it's because for the past week, I've been with my family here, which has a way of unsettling one's discipline and focus of mind. So now, I return to write again with regularity.

A prominent thought on my mind of late, has been of purpose. That sounds general, so to narrow it down, it could be said that I've been thinking about what God has for me here. His direct purpose for me is something I strongly desire. However, this is not pursued easily because right now it is competing with a desire to know God personally. These two conflict because purpose is typically associated with knowing a truth or fact; something one can take and run with without looking back. Relationship is associated with not being independent of God in any circumstance. This example of relationship seems a bit in the wrong however, as it seems that God wants some level of independence. Yet, in something so important as one's purpose, I would imagine that being independent of God in that would be wrong. And so the issue remains: I desire purpose, but my definition of purpose is a truth that allows oneself act towards that truth without ties to the original source of that truth.

Existentialistic thought is very prominent throughout popular Western culture, and I am no exception. This is not to say that all of the individualistic traits of existentialism are wrong, but they do create this point of tension; especially in light of how I have lived and thought according to mindsets that support a view of existence that allows and even holds up (indirectly) a separation between God and man. This indirect allowance and holding up is perhaps what keeps parts of the church so tied to the issues that stem from this perspective.

Mostly, the indirect force seems to come from the belief that God is Truth, that man has been separated from God, and that this Truth should be pursued above all else. The issue with this is that Truth is almost always associated with Concept / Idea and not Being. Concept and Ideas are objects that exist in the Western mindset as something within the mind of an individual and therefore isolated. Therefore, it's not easy to stretch that internal construct to another being via a relationship. Furthermore, ideas according to this mindset are often ruled by logic and reason, which according to Western thought are also void of external connections.

And so, I wage war between these concepts; to find God hopefully along the way.