The Public Construction of Meaning

David Weinberger observes: "...the public construction of meaning is the most important project of the next hundred years."*

Simply put, to humankind has been given the task of drawing distinctions in the world around us. Distinctions permit us to organize and categorize what we see, and with further distinctions we determine significance and meaning.

I would take Weinberger's assertion even further. I believe that the public construction of meaning, the distinctions we draw and the meaning we assign to those distinctions, has always and will always be the most important project assigned to humankind. Beginning with the first task given to Adam in the creation story, until the last breath drawn by a living human being, mankind has always and will always be about the business of drawing distinctions.

The delicate process of naming often captures this entire process. In the creative act of naming we select a slice from the world around us and draw distinctions on every side, separating it from every other thing not like it. And in determining that name it is quite common to assign a measure of significance in terms of what a thing means to us; from a loved one's pet name, to the names we assign to our firstborn child.

One man believes we should draw a legal distinction on the basis of race, but not sex. Another draws the distinction at sex, but leaves the category of race undefined and undistinguished. On the basis of prevailing wisdom, how can one say which of the two is right? More to the point, how can one draw a distinction that declares one to be wrong?

In the private sphere, perhaps such mutually exclusive distinctions can coexist peaceably. But the public sphere, where Weinberger focuses his attention, affords us no such privilege. The public sphere, if it were to remain neutral in this, must immediately refuse to draw distinctions of any kind. Yet this is not what we observe taking place in the halls of government today, and the world would function no better tomorrow if governments eradicated law, which -- by definition -- serves no effect if not to distinguish legal conduct from illegal conduct on the part of the citizenry.

We draw distinctions and give names, both to those we agree with and those we do not. To the one who draws distinction on the basis of race, in a situation in which we do not, we give the name “racist.” To the one who draws distinction on the basis of sex, in a situation we do not, we give the name “sexist.”

Is the one who gives significance to divisions of race superior to the one who gives significance to divisions of sex? Can decisions informed by some genetic features take the place of decisions informed by other genetic features?

Inevitably, distinctions reflect the way we see the world and the facets of it on which we focus our attention. At risk of being named an essentialist I choose to give greater meaning and significance to some genetic features, particularly those I do not see. But do we not all do the same in the distinction we draw between which human features to cover and which to leave open to the naked eye? It seems a powerful waste of disposable income if we could simply get away with covering the top of one’s head and forgo the expense of additional clothing.

The eyes are trained by what they see, and discernment is trained by the distinctions we choose to practice. Inevitably the distinctions we draw will reflect our personal values. I find therefore that the most important project of humankind is nothing more, or less, than preferring the highest values and putting that preference into action every day of our lives.

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5)



* David Weinberger, "Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder", Holt Press -2007, p. 222.

The Duke of Marlborough

"Wouldst fashion for thyself a seemly life?--
Then fret not over what is past and gone;
And spite of all thou mayst have lost behind,
Yet act as if thy life were just begun.
What each day wills, enough for thee to know;
What each day wills, the day itself will tell.
Do thine own task, and be therewith content;
What others do, that shalt thou fairly judge;
Be sure that thou no brother-mortal hate,
Then all besides leave to the Master Power."
~ Goethe

The passage above was the life motto of the 9th Duke of Marlborough, Charles Spencer-Churchill, childhood friend and cousin to Sir Winston Churchill. I learned today that the Duke and Winston grew up together and were very nearly the same age. Winston Churchill's father was the younger of two brothers, hence the title of Duke fell to Churchill's cousin instead of to him. Churchill included the above passage in a very kind obituary he wrote for his friend upon his passing in 1934. I read the obituary this afternoon while wandering the halls of Blenheim Palace, birthplace of Sir Winston Churchill and residence of the current Duke of Marlborough.

Blenheim Palace itself, listed as one of 93 World Heritage Sites within the United Kingdom, owes its continued existence to the life and persistent efforts of the 9th Duke. In his obituary, Churchill observed that the Duke was born in 1871 and served as a conservative statesman in a time when a mere 300-400 families controlled the entirety of politics and governmental affairs in the United Kingdom. The Duke's original title and the palace itself were given to the Churchills by Queen Anne after the Duke's ancestor, John Churchill, saved Britain by defeating Spanish and French armies through an unbroken string of military victories during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714).

Over the course of his life, Winston Churchill's cousin watched the aristocracy of his birth utterly swept away. Alert to the changing times and determined to pass the property on to his posterity, the Duke devoted much of his adult life to preserving the estate that we enjoyed visiting today. To those of us who visited, today it stands as a tribute not only to the life of Great Britain's beloved Prime Minister, but also to the Great Britain of his birth, a time when Dukes and the nobility of the land were entrusted with the future of the nation. If by chance you ever have occasion to visit the Palace, may I commend the Rose Garden to you? I assure you, a visit there will not lead to disappointment.

To Be or Not to Be

[written 9/8/05]

An article in The Washington Post, reprinted in today's Stars and Stripes, talks about the role of chaplains in the military, and focuses on Christian evangelical chaplains especially. The tone of the article seems to be, "Why can't those Christian chaplains just treat their role as a job like everybody else….why do they have to go interject their faith into everything? It's so very unpatriotic."

Welcome to yet another segment of the ongoing culture war here in America. The article went on to list a number of ways that Christians in the military are violating long established traditions and values, and subverting both our military and the nation. Christian chaplains at the Air Force Academy were criticized for encouraging Christian students to witness to their fellow classmates. Another "violation of decency" occurred during a funeral of a Christian sailor when the Navy Chaplain present mentioned, in passing, that those who do not accept Jesus are doomed for eternity. To add to their list of violations, Christian chaplains-in-training were also chastised for daring to pray in Jesus' name….of all the nerve! The article closes with the statement, "Could there possibly be a worse time for this fundamentalist Christianity to be pushed in our military, when we're in a war and the people we are fighting are recruiting their members by saying we're Christian crusaders?"

You see, it's fine to say you're a Christian. By and large, throughout history, it always has been (not to ignore the horror of those times when it has not). But you better not act like a Christian! The Christians hurled to the lions in the Coliseum were not murdered for saying that they were Christians. Christianity was a religion protected by the Roman Empire. The rub came when they failed to acknowledge the deity of Caesar. Hey, call yourself whatever you want, but you better be able to temporarily put aside your religious differences and worship Caesar when the time comes.

It wasn't for claiming to be Christians, that thousands upon thousands of Christians were tortured and murdered in Communist Russia. Article 124 of the Constitution of the USSR explicitly guaranteed all Russian citizens freedom of conscience. It was only when they began to act like Christians that men and women came into direct conflict with the Soviet state. It was not for being Christian, that men and women were slaughtered during the time of the Reformation. It was not for claiming to be Christian, that pastors were rounded up and murdered by the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler himself stated publicly that "Christianity is the unshakable foundation of our people's ethical and moral law." And yet, any pastors who refused to pledge fealty to Hitler, who refused to endorse him in their sermons, were thrown out of their church and made to feel the terror of the Nazi regime.

It was not for claiming to be Christians that three Sunday School Teachers were sentenced to 3 years in jail earlier this week – their mistake was that they actually allowed children to come to the Sunday School. You can be a Sunday School teacher, just don't actually try to teach anyone. Sure, "be a Christian," just don't try to teach children at a Vocational Bible School in China right now. You can say you're a Christian all you want. You can write it on Christmas Cards, you can put Bible verse references under your name at the close of every letter you write. You can pray before meals, and even go to church (in China the government actually provides a church for you to go to---you can attend church right alongside some of the local Communist leaders). But it's not about looking like you're a Christian, it's about letting it affect how you live your life.

There have been times in history when merely claiming to be a Christian was indeed as good as a death sentence, but such cases are the exception rather than the rule. You can visit the Voice of the Martyrs Website any day of the week to see a list of a number of believers currently in prison for their faith. They aren't there because they registered as "Christian" in the latest census, or stamped "Christian" on their military I.D. Tags. They came into conflict with the government when they dared to act according to their faith.

It is not what you believe that separates you from the rest of the world, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless ?" (James 2:19-20) It is not a faith in God that causes enmity between Christians and tyrants the world over. It is a faith in God that is immovable when push comes to shove; a faith that will not bow the knee on command; a faith that will not edit the graduation speech when ordered to do so; a faith that will not remove reference to the name of Jesus in a prayer; a faith that will not hold back from telling another person about the true condition of their soul. Daniel wasn't thrown to the lions for being a Christian. He was one of three rulers over the entire Kingdom of Babylon. The King planned to make him ruler over the entire kingdom. His position was secure. There was just one little thing that he had to do: not pray for a month. Actually, when you think about it, all he really had to do was close the window when he prayed. That's it! That's the one little thing that he was asked to do. Was it too great a request?

Daniel did not conform. To him, that one little thing was worth the lion's den. He was given the chance to keep himself in the clear with the Babylonian government, and he missed it! What of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego? They were rulers over the entire province of Babylon. Again, their position was secure. They were "in tight" with the powers that be, and they knew it! The request put before them was even easier than the one put before Daniel: The moment you hear the music, bow before the golden image. That's it! All they had to do was bow one little time, to one pagan, government-sanctioned, idol. To them, that one moment's disobedience was worth an excruciatingly painful and agonizing death in a furnace of fire.

Those that do not know God, simply don't get it. They assume that your faith is like everybody else's; important, but not that important when push comes to shove. A pseudo-form of Christianity is all many Americans know; a faith able to be turned off and on when circumstances require. After all, those that follow other religions can turn their faith on and off as needed, why should "evangelical Christians" be any different? You remember the speech by the man who came within a handful of votes of being our nation's current president? Do you remember when he was asked about abortion and responded, "personally I'm against it, but…"? That's the kind of Christianity that America has come to expect; a Christianity that can claim to be genuine without having any effect whatsoever on the way we live or the decisions we make. The communists in Russia, or in China, or in Vietnam, would have had no quarrel with such sentiments. (Perhaps that's why that candidate's picture was on display as a hero in a communist-run museum in Vietnam during the opening months of his campaign) Such Christians are "safe" in communist countries. But how important is it to be "safe?" How important is it to accommodate the voices of secular society that say, "this is a really bad time to be a Christian….we have enemies in Muslim countries that don't like Christians right now."

Martin Luther was put on trial, not for being a Christian, but for having the moral courage to follow through on what he learned from studying scripture. To him, the price was worth it. He went on to say, "If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God, except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved."

The question remains: To be or not to be? Which kind of Christian will you be today?