Stereotyping and Overgeneralizing People and Institutions

[JohnH]

I might have this wrong, however I see this dynamic more as a European version of tribalism applied to spirituality groups.

Tribalism is practiced by all humans because we all show up on the planet in a tribal unit.

A key feature of maintaining tribal identity is adding value judgement to tribal identities. This mostly influences the children and the followers.

This is a major part of the Gospels offensiveness. Jesus teaches us to value people irrespective of tribal affiliation and he calls Himself the judge of people. He simply called us to love our old order neighbour and our liberal neighbor.

I think it is fair for me to make an observation such:

“Amongst a fair number of people in group A, some in B, a tiny number of C, and nobody in D or E do I observe members carrying guns, promoting conspiracy theories against a particular political party, such as claiming a President’s wife of that party is a man, and even having a bumper sticker for a candidate for office.”

Likewise:

“Amongst many people on group D and E I see a lack of assurance of salvation where people fear they lose their salvation multiple times a day. Amongst many people in group A and B I see an overconfidence of assurance of salvation despite signs of a lack of victorious Christian life in moral areas.”

I value people in all 5 lettered groups, but I also see different challenges each faces for a victorious, Christ-centred life.

[Ernie]

I might have this wrong, however I see this dynamic more as a European version of tribalism applied to spirituality groups.

Which dynamic are you referring to?

[flyingnorm]

I might have this wrong, however I see this dynamic more as a European version of tribalism applied to spirituality groups.

Which dynamic are you referring to?

The dynamic of adding value statements that are judgmental in nature as opposed to descriptive in nature like JohnH did. JohnH's descriptions are accurate or inaccurate assessments of a groups observable values. Accuracy depends on the observers level of bias, depth of research, and ability to describe their findings.

That is very different than saying group A has more value than group B. Describing my own group as superiour or inferiour is quite different from merely describing my group.

Using language like we are the "biblical" ones, or we are the "real" Christians or the "real" Mennonites is a value statement. It begs the question of "who placed you in that position to judge the world? And if you are in that position, can others analyze your standard of judgement and use it against you?"

[Ernie]

I might have this wrong, however I see this dynamic more as a European version of tribalism applied to spirituality groups.

Which dynamic are you referring to?

The dynamic of adding value statements that are judgmental in nature as opposed to descriptive in nature like JohnH did. JohnH's descriptions are accurate or inaccurate assessments of a groups observable values. Accuracy depends on the observers level of bias, depth of research, and ability to describe their findings.

That is very different than saying group A has more value than group B. Describing my own group as superiour or inferiour is quite different from merely describing my group.

Using language like we are the "biblical" ones, or we are the "real" Christians or the "real" Mennonites is a value statement. It begs the question of "who placed you in that position to judge the world? And if you are in that position, can others analyze your standard of judgement and use it against you?"

I basically agree with all of this.

But can't "biblical" or "real" also be descriptive? I mean, aren't there real Christians as compared with fake ones? Jesus does tell us that we can know people by their fruits. That involves judging.

[JohnH]

I might have this wrong, however I see this dynamic more as a European version of tribalism applied to spirituality groups.

Which dynamic are you referring to?

The dynamic of adding value statements that are judgmental in nature as opposed to descriptive in nature like JohnH did. JohnH's descriptions are accurate or inaccurate assessments of a groups observable values. Accuracy depends on the observers level of bias, depth of research, and ability to describe their findings.

That is very different than saying group A has more value than group B. Describing my own group as superiour or inferiour is quite different from merely describing my group.

Using language like we are the "biblical" ones, or we are the "real" Christians or the "real" Mennonites is a value statement. It begs the question of "who placed you in that position to judge the world? And if you are in that position, can others analyze your standard of judgement and use it against you?"

I can say with complete confidence my own church is superior to:

- the Unitarian-Universalist church, which no longer is theistic
- a small home fellowship I used to visit that eventually took the position that Jesus is just a man, isn’t God, and was open to not believing God exists at all.

Other than that, I never said A is inferior to E, and indeed there are problems unique to A, B, C, D, and E. It is not wrong to observe, though, certain people whose families start out in E, but then migrate to D; their children seem to all end up in B or C; and then you hear the youngest one has migrated to A. That is what I mean by “transitionalism”.

[joshuabgood]

Jewish Holy Person: I can take complete confidence that my religion is superior to the wicked Roman paganism and the godless Roman militarism.

Jesus to an actual Roman Centurion: I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

[JohnH]

Jewish Holy Person: I can take complete confidence that my religion is superior to the wicked Roman paganism and the godless Roman militarism.

Jesus to an actual Roman Centurion: I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

I think denying that Jesus is God, and teaching others that Jesus is not God, is the exact opposite of having great faith.

[Ernie]

Jewish Holy Person: I can take complete confidence that my religion is superior to the wicked Roman paganism and the godless Roman militarism.

Jesus to an actual Roman Centurion: I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Both can be true, correct?

[joshuabgood]

Jewish Holy Person: I can take complete confidence that my religion is superior to the wicked Roman paganism and the godless Roman militarism.

Jesus to an actual Roman Centurion: I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Both can be true, correct?

The Kingdom of God is of such a nature that perhaps we ought to be humble regarding our own "institutions" and our "judgements" about other people/institutions. There is a lot we don't know. In the words of Rich Mullins, we aren't as strong as we think we are. In the above case, a man with a sword, representing a pagan institution, was a man of greater faith than all of Israel...while holy ones of Israel were full of dead bones.

It seems clear there is a larger lesson here that we can learn from this interaction. And to my eye, it fits a theme of the Kingdom of God, it shows up in unexpected places, on the electric chair, in a whore house, etc. And to be sure, in an Amish farm, and a Mid Atlantic church-house, and a RCC cathedral.

May we have the eyes of Jesus to see it where it is.

[Neto]

Which dynamic are you referring to?

The dynamic of adding value statements that are judgmental in nature as opposed to descriptive in nature like JohnH did. JohnH's descriptions are accurate or inaccurate assessments of a groups observable values. Accuracy depends on the observers level of bias, depth of research, and ability to describe their findings.

That is very different than saying group A has more value than group B. Describing my own group as superiour or inferiour is quite different from merely describing my group.

Using language like we are the "biblical" ones, or we are the "real" Christians or the "real" Mennonites is a value statement. It begs the question of "who placed you in that position to judge the world? And if you are in that position, can others analyze your standard of judgement and use it against you?"

I basically agree with all of this.

But can't "biblical" or "real" also be descriptive? I mean, aren't there real Christians as compared with fake ones? Jesus does tell us that we can know people by their fruits. That involves judging.

And, as long as the judgement in question is based on Scripture, it isn't a personal judgement, it is 'merely' an application of GOD's judgements.