A query to FS readers: Have you reflected upon, or have you seen reflections upon, the Biblical story of Joseph–sold into slavery by his brothers, later reunified with his brothers and father–in the context of stories that adopted or donor conceived persons tell?
I re-read the Joseph story recently and was so struck by the emotion in it, the many times he weeps, the feelings of fear and guilt and remorse and desire for wholeness among all the characters.
Thoughts?
Categories: Faith and Families
It sounds like such an interesting story
I googled it and found this very interesting post about it on an adoption blog:
“Neverforgottenisfound”
“Gods will according to the bible and not according to the christian adoption world”:
Read full post here:
http://neverforgottenisfound.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/gods-will-according-to-the-bible-and-not-according-to-the-christian-adoption-world/
Quote from post:
Absolutely and completely fascinating.
I don’t see much reflection on the Joseph narratives in connection with relinquishment and reunification by biblical scholars, homilists or adoptees. There is some rich material there and interesting material with respect to the blessing that Jacob gives to Joseph’s twins. (He blesses the younger first, just as he received the blessing of his father Isaac first.) Probably one reason for the slight interest is that Joseph is old enough to know his family of origin. A key element in adoption narratives is the loss of history prior to knowing anything about it.
Among adoptees, more common is the story of Moses’ relinquishment – forced by a threat of death. The interesting thing about his story is how he was led back to his roots with his initiation in the Israelite mysteries, learning the name of the Israelite God. The God urges that he return to his tribe and people, but Moses is reluctant. I don’t recall seeing anything in biblical scholarship pointing to the theme of relinquishment, adoption and reunion with respect Moses, either. There is much discussion about the historicity of the relinquishment-adoption narrative.
I should say “among adoptees” that I know.
Thank you so much Mark. There seems like rich work to do here, doesn’t there?
With grown children of divorce I did a story theology approach with the parable of the prodigal son and the responses were so powerful.
A story theology approach with the Joseph and Moses stories with persons who were relinquished by birth families sounds like it would be rich and moving and surprising for many.
Mark writes:
“Among adoptees, more common is the story of Moses’ relinquishment – forced by a threat of death.”
This is where commercial (money/profit industry) “donor” conception and commercial “surrogacy” differs from adoption. I do see the Joseph parallel there (sold into slavery) in these situations…but in my personal “donor” conceived situation, where no money was exchanged and no one was forced…I identify more with the Jesus story of adoption but obviously not the same.
I love that they all share the same general theme though, “fierce love for their blood family and lineage”
All very interesting!!!
I can’t imagine Jacob’s pain upon hearing that his son Joseph had died (instead of the truth), nor Joseph’s pain as he pretended not to be a half-brother.
Yet, for all of their pain, without Joseph’s sale into slavery, there would have been no Moses, no Exodus.
If you interpret the Old Testament literally, one of the defining creative moments of Western civilization *required* Joseph’s life be steered this way.
If you interpret it metaphorically, Joseph’s tragic early life taught him strength, motivation, love and understanding. He passed this on to a whole people.
Ralph writes:
“…taught him strength, motivation, love and understanding. He passed this on to a whole people.”
YES!!!! There is SO much wisdom in these stories that need to be shared. One of my favorite quotes: “Everything in life is either a gift or a lesson. If you are lucky the lesson is the gift” (source anonymous)
Lesson? Gift?
http://mercymercy.dk/index.html
So then we could see Jesus as a donor conceived child, created as a tool for his Father to sacrifice to His ambitions. Mary could be seen as having less choice in the matter than the Indian surrogates. She wasn’t consulted or compensated, just informed. God was the original reproductive predator/prostitute:
[You make use of the bodily functions of another person to fulfil your own needs. That’s what happens in prostitution. It has nothing to do with the interests of the child.]
Interesting.
Very sharp, Mont….
Jesus always knew who his father was and had a very meaningful relationship with him (to put it mildly), that didn’t make Joseph any less valuable as a father figure (dad). The lessons he taught us are a priceless gift. I guess in a way you could say that GOD is the ultimate “reproductive predator/prostitute” of us ALL (among other things) which is a part of the good as long as you (we) value the lesson.
(Jesus always knew who his father was and had a very meaningful relationship with him (to put it mildly), that didn’t make Joseph any less valuable as a father figure (dad).)
So kids having 3 parents isn’t always a bad thing?
Lesson, listen….who am I to say?
Mont D. Law writes:
“So kids having 3 parents isn’t always a bad thing?”
Are you asking this from a “legal/law” standpoint or from a lived experience POV? I can’t address either….particularly laws of man.
I view the Joseph story not about adoption, as Joseph was already a young adult when he was sold, and he was not sold to become a member of anyone else’s family but to be a real slave. I do see it as a person struggling to coming to terms with his abusive family.
Mont D Law – I think you’re being disingenuous and don’t believe what you’re saying. Seems more disrespectful of religion than logical to me.
Look, we all have or can have a relationship with God. Jesus was raised by two parents.
And from a theological point of view, we are all created by God. How much choice you have in anything is something people disagree about – both from the point of view of religion or a mechanistic view of the universe.
That does not mean that we have the right to use someone else. Nor does it mean that it’s okay to create children without thinking about whether or not we are going to cause them to suffer. Nor is it okay to adopt children without thinking about the children’s feelings and best interests.
Joseph had it much easier however to come to terms with his family, than do most of us who experienced an abusive past- he was in a position of absolute power over them.
Most of us however, often have to heal and become whole without the benefit of come uppance.
To respond to the blog post, I agree with ki sarita. Joseph’s brothers wanted to hurt him. They did wrong knowingly. And, as she said, Joseph was a slave.
Also, Joseph knew his family before he lost them. It’s a different kind of reunion.
I know that adopted children want to know their biological parents, but I don’t seem biology as everything. There’s a connection, but it isn’t quite the same thing as going back to your family that raised you.
Diane writes:
“There’s a connection, but it isn’t quite the same thing as going back to your family that raised you.”
So what do you believe should be the cut off date as a qualifier as ‘raising’ a person? 3 minutes, 3 days, 3 months, 3, 6, 9, 12 years?
Seconded. Mont, you’re kind of comparing apples to elephants. If you don’t believe in the virgin birth (I would guess that you don’t), then you believe Jesus just had two parents. If you do believe in the virgin birth, then you believe the birth of Jesus is a completely unique event in history, and it’s unhelpful to compare it to other circumstances in the way that you are doing. (There are helpful ways to compare it to other circumstances but mainly by analogy, for edification; not for derision.)
Also, this thread is about the other Joseph in the Bible, so your comment seems off-topic.
Regarding him (the other Joseph), I too was struck by the very raw emotion in that story when I reread it recently.
@ Karen “So what do you believe should be the cut off date as a qualifier as ‘raising’ a person? 3 minutes, 3 days, 3 months, 3, 6, 9, 12 years?”
I think the relevant point is that if a baby doesn’t remember the person who gave them up, they have a different experience of reunification from Joseph who was a young man when his brothers sold him.
To me, Mont’s point is that there is a world of meanings that can be taken away from Old Testament stories. That is their beauty. No one can claim ownership of them; they belong to all of us.
Diane writes:
“I think the relevant point is that if a baby doesn’t remember the person who gave them up, they have a different experience of reunification from Joseph who was a young man when his brothers sold him.”
Well, of course, every experience is going to be unique to the situation, but the relevant point to me are the similarities between the emotional importance of ‘remembered’ reunification experiences and the emotional importance of the ‘non-remembered’ reunification experiences. They share more in common than not.
Ralph writes:
“No one can claim ownership of them; they belong to all of us”
Yes…what is your take-away (lesson) from this Ralph?
@ Karen,
I want to respond to this quote of yours, “fierce love for their blood family and lineage”, but am struggling to find the words – and dare not write a dissertation.
In ancient times, not just among the Jews, but many places and peoples, descent in the tribe (usually patrilineal) enabled a relationship with the people’s god. Ancestry mattered in a spiritual-cultural sense. The Jesus narratives transform that. The kin-dom of the god (to use the language of Isasi-Diaz in mujerista theology) does not require a blood relative in order to find or be found by the god; nor is one’s identity to be determined by birth. The necessities connected to circumstances of birth no longer prevail.
I mention this to emphasize the narrative element in Christianity that displaces the blood narrative. It puts a new principle of identity in the foreground. This is the theme of “birth from above”. In practice, this was demonstrated by Paul’s ministry to the gentiles.
I used to think that this sort of theology might be pushing adoption and donor conception practices towards ignoring the genetic parent; but now I think that these practices have come about because people in general have lost sight of the reality and value of these things (the bio-cultural roots of parentage). At the same time, Christianity has not expressed in a clear or convincing way that human beings gain their “higher” identity from their origin in the divine. Modern human beings who have been uprooted from their natural parentage and heritage – donor conceived and adoptees are two examples of this – have not yet developed cultural resources in part because the cultural situation sees spiritual identity or reality as something only subjective – i.e., having no reality.
One of the most striking things to me about Joseph (of Genesis) is that for years he buried his painful memories. He remained cut off from all contact with his family and achieved success beyond his wildest dreams. He was sure that he was over and done with his past. “And Joseph called his son Manasseh (root word to forget) as he said; for the Lord has enabled me to forget my father’s house and all my travails.”
And yet; at the first sight of his brothers it all came roaring back.
Joseph experiences a life of tremendous challenges and pain – he is hated by his siblings, nearly murdered (his brothers planned to murder him before the slave traders conveniently arrived on the scene), sold into slavery in a foreign land, experiences sexual predation at the hands of his new owner’s wife, is then accused of attempting to rape her, and is wrongfully imprisoned for that crime…
He is also exceedingly blessed – his father loves him overwhelmingly (despite his being one of twelve boys in a society where younger sons were not seen as assets), he is successful whenever he’s given a task to do, he is given the gift of prophesy and the courage to use it to save an entire nation from famine…and he is given a heart of forgiveness when the tables are turned and he encounters his brothers after decades of separation.
If Joseph is a historical figure, which the source document his story is taken from purports him to be, then he experienced very real pain and suffering at the hands of his brothers and other oppressors – it is readily conceivable that he may have experienced depression, separation anxiety, and hurt similar to what some adoptees and donor-conceived individuals experience.
However, the Biblical narrative suggests that throughout his life, Joseph’s every triumph and setback are providential. They are working out to ensure a divine plan – they have teleological significance. Joseph believes as much himself, as evidenced by his statements to his brothers when he forgives them.
So in this way, I think Joseph’s story can be rather empowering to anyone who feels oppressed, because it encourages even the most downtrodden to seek comfort in God, and to trust in his providential grace – that no matter the hell one is going through, even so it is well with one’s soul and God may use any circumstance to work miracles and to evidence the power of redemption.
Hi Mont –some feminist theologians have already beaten you to that interpretation. I recall a story about Mary being raped by the Holy Spirit, etc.
Hi Ralph, I don’t think anyone disagrees with you that a world of meanings can be found in these texts. I think that is precisely what stimulates a discussion like this. (I feel like in your comments you are assuming that others–not you–engage in a “literal” reading. That assumption turns me off.)
Meanwhile, what an amazing thread this. FS readers are great.
Was Jacobs love for Joseph truly a blessing? I think not. Aside for triggering the brothers jealousy, overt preferential treatment for one child over another not only ignites jealousy but has the potential to be burdensome to the preferred child as well.
If a child sees a sibling less preferred, doesn’t that child know deep down that he could easily be rejected as well? Doesn’t that create anxiety to avoid losing the coveted status? To always have to prove oneself for what really is an undeserved status? Could that be the reason for Joseph’s tattle-telling on his brothers? Or his dreams of superiority?
What Joseph would NOT have experienced, upon being imprisoned in Egypt, was anxiety about the fate of the Jews. Yet the musical Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat includes a moving song, “Close Every Door to Me,” on precisely that topic. Joseph sings longingly about how the Children of Israel had been promised a land of their own. But Joseph’s woes had nothing to do with that. The Children of Israel were already living in a land of their own; Joseph’s woes arose from the simple fact that the Children of Israel didn’t want Joseph living there, too. Thus, the song is a beautiful, and completely acontextual, sop to contemporary Jewish concerns.
Ok, we now return you to a discussion about adoption and donor conception, etc., already in progress….
@Karen,
My take-away is this: when Jacob had 12 sons, he couldn’t have possibly believed that they would all live their lives without trauma. He, like any of us, could not have predicted really anything of what would happen to them, or what they would accomplish. I suppose he trusted in God to take care of them. Together with his extended family, he would have, in the way of those times, taught them knowledge of God and trust in him and his will.
Joseph’s lifestory contains all the torments previously mentioned. Yet it became a *positive and transformative* experience. The idea that one shouldn’t bring children into the world solely because they might experience pain and/or trauma directly related to their birth circumstances, their family, their tribe, their country, etc., to me, is preposterous. And also (again, to me), to remain piously childless in fear of that outcome for them is in fact a transgression against God.
Jacob had a role to play in his sons misfortunes too due to his poor parenting decisions as mentioned above. Of course, he was but continuing the dynamic that he had grown up with, that of having to viciously compete with a sibling for a parent’s love.
I do hear what you’re saying, Ralph. I’ll share that recently a friend helped me to see this story in a way that helped me feel that out of a mixed up family background full of loss, something beautiful can arise. So the affirmation in this story means a lot to me. But I’m still not sure it’s the role of parents deliberately to provide loss to their children. I think parents are supposed to try to prevent it as best they can.
Once children are in the world, however, they are a gift to the world no matter how they got here, and all the resources of the world’s traditions should be brought to bear in reassuring them of the beauty and meaning in their existence.
@Matthew Kaal – I don’t agree with this: “So in this way, I think Joseph’s story can be rather empowering to anyone who feels oppressed, because it encourages even the most downtrodden to seek comfort in God, and to trust in his providential grace – that no matter the hell one is going through, even so it is well with one’s soul and God may use any circumstance to work miracles and to evidence the power of redemption.”
There are some things so terrible, that the idea that God had a hand in them is horrific. I believe, rather, that God gave us free will because otherwise we would not really ever “grow up.” The other side of free will is that other people have it, and some of them will use it to do evil.
Diane M,
I am probably not expressing myself well, because I don’t mean to describe God in a deterministic way. Let me be very clear, I do not believe orthodox Christian theology affirms the premise that God wills evil. [For God to will evil would be nothing less than a negation of his very being, imo] I believe orthodox Christianity asserts that God’s providential will is accomplished in spite of evil and in spite of the evil actions of individuals like Joseph’s brothers and that ultimately his right and just will is accomplished. Free will certainly exists, Joseph even acknowledges this: “What you intended for evil, God intended for good”
For any person, if they believe in a good God (or other spiritual reality), this can be a comfort because it reminds them that ultimately God’s will is done in all circumstances. The great hymn “It is well with my soul” is an amazing testament to the power of this statement in the face of tragedy. It was written by a 19th century pastor grieving the loss of his entire family, who died in a ship wreck. It is a holding onto of a promise in faith that even if the horrors of this life never recede, that even so, all things will be made right in the end and we can have faith in that – and faith is a dramatically powerful thing which can redefine how we view ourselves, and our dignity as individuals, and how we relate to our experiences.
This is the redemptive transformation I was getting at, that faith in the goodness of God and a sense of assurance in the accomplishment of his will are capable of providing sustenance and being a source of perseverance for the oppressed. [and I should add that this is not required or necessary for a person of faith, just that it is a possibility, sometimes everyone gets knocked down and discouraged - Mother Teresa is a prime example, she struggled with doubt and discouragement most of her ministry, and is still considered a saint].
On a subject I care so much about I am very sad that I don’t know enough to talk confidently about these stories or how to interpret them. I’m relieved to see someone who seems to be very educated, drawing a correlation between adoption (in some instances) and slavery even when the characters in the story were not abused not made to labor and were raised in comfortable and pleasant surroundings.
People are resilient and can turn out wonderfully raised by people who are not their parents, even better than had they been raised by their own parents even when the circumstances that landed them in those people’s care were reprehensible, unfair, cruel even. But the fact that someone achieved greatness because they overcame tragic and unfortunate circumstances should not be taken as cue to craft tragic and unfortunate character building circumstances for other people to live through. We should always be striving to treat people fairly and ethically. We should always be questioning the ethics of our own actions out of a desire not to put other people in a compromised position where they have less than they deserve – not in a monetary way but a basic human rights way.
There are wonderful people who have much to offer a child who has been tragically separated from their family and that relationship can be beautiful especially when it is not covered by a dark reality like having obtained a child from their parents by having asked them to abandon them, enticed them to abandon them either with money for their children or by making the person take pity on their childlessness and create them a child as a gift because they would have been such wonderful parents if they could have reproduced. That is the e sense of slavery when the biological parent or someone else looks at the human child as an object to be given as a gift or sold or traded and the recipient gives them a new identity as their child rather than as who they are the child of whoever sold them or whoever they were kidnapped from. Even though its more tragic in many ways, its far more ethical for a person to be born to a person who simply cannot handle the responsibility of parenthood and someone else has to step in and take over because that person who steps in takes that position without having requested the tragedy of separation, they are just there to help a family in need raise a child that needs a home and love and guidance. The most respectful thing that person can do is allow the person they are raising to be who they are and retain their identity. Not raise the child to become a parent not do it because they want to be parents not do it in exchange for a child they can present as their son or daughter, but just do it because they want to raise that child, that person as who they are, this other person’s child without changing their name without making them feel like they have to call someone else mom or dad in order to be loved by them. Its a pipe dream but if a person could be who they were and still be worth the effort of adopting and loving without having to take on the identity of the person adopting them then it would be truely pure and nothing like slavery.
But very few people will love a child that is not their own offspring for who they really are. It seems the only reason they’ll do it is to become parents and have that title of Mom or Dad. The kid must live life as their child first and a child of their bio family second to be worthy of helping. Effort earns people a child it seems. You can earn yourself the right to be called mom or dad. Earn your self a son or buy one, what is the difference. Immagine being told that you were not the son or daughter of the people who made you because they had not done enough to earn you. Some stranger can come along and say they are going to earn you an they get the title of mother or father in advance. They have not even done the work themselves yet when the law grants them custody and title. If they did it for nothing then it would be pure.
Mark writes:
“At the same time, Christianity has not expressed in a clear or convincing way that human beings gain their “higher” identity from their origin in the divine. Modern human beings who have been uprooted from their natural parentage and heritage – donor conceived and adoptees are two examples of this – have not yet developed cultural resources in part because the cultural situation sees spiritual identity or reality as something only subjective – i.e., having no reality.”
I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. But I can say that my experience has actually bought me closer to a “higher” identity from my origin in the divine (all of us and everything).
@ Karen,
I am trying to say two things 1) that the public discussion of things like adoption and donor conception cannot easily move into the area of higher identity because it is commonly seen to be a matter of belief AND, just as important, Christianity (from my limited experience of it) has been pretty vague about what born again means with respect to “higher” identity as it relates to those whose bio-cultural identity has been denied concreteness.
Certainly a lot of things that are matters of belief are felt and understood to be real. Belief can be a starting point for detailing or more generally describing the reality it points to. Beliefs also need to be able to be amended, corrected and changed. I am thinking of discussions with non-believers or people from different traditions – who may have something important to offer.
2) I also want to say something tentative about culture – old and new. Some (not all) adoptees and donor conceived persons are doing something out of personal experience that is aiming at a cultural desire and practice that brought them into existence. Cultural creation is going on. Knowledge is being discovered and disseminated; values and beliefs are being forged. The culture these people were created by does not recognize what their progeny are searching-out or saying. The old culture keeps producing people just like them.
Hi Mark:
You write:
In the “American Advice” class I am co-teaching, a student came up to me afterwards today and she said she noticed I had written about “donor babies” (her language) and she wondered if I could/would be addressing this topic in the context of American Advice. (As it turns out, she’d learned something about the topic when I visited and spoke to a class at the same college a couple years earlier, but she hadn’t quite realized that was also me : ) )
I was intrigued, of course, and I’ve been thinking as I drove home, etc., what the seed of an idea I feel she planted might/should grow into. I’ve been thinking about the tension around advice as a driver/reflection of social change and, in the donor conception field, the rise of “tell the truth early and often” advice and resources in the wake of grown donor conceived persons advocating for the rights of donor conceived persons to know the truth.
I am sharing all this just to invite reflection of any kind. Still thinking…
Elizabeth,
She raises a really challenging question for a class with limited time. Where do you start? Here are some very incomplete thoughts:
Donor babies is a very exciting topic…but can misdirect because of that fact. Isn’t the driving engine the desire and ability to make families? How far will people go in order to have “their own” children?
Adoption has been used for that purpose and has been designed by agencies in order to provide children to people who wanted them…for many purposes, farmers in the 19th century and the orphan trains. They’d advertise that children were coming.
Famous or wealthy people were provided children by Georgia Tann in the 1940′s-50′s. She advertised. (see Barbara Bisantz Raymond, The Baby Thief).
I wonder if advertisements are forms of advice?
There are these resources:
I know that you are looking at things like Dear Abby and films, but there is a clinic in Kansas that has been stepping up in the field, Kris Probasco works in both adoption and DC practice and gives informed advice.
http://www.clinicalcounselingassociates.com/Adoption_and_Infertility_Resou.html
RESOLVE has a fact sheet (61A) “Disclosure Issues” in donor conception. (this is a well organized and funded group advancing DC practices – they do a lot of outreach and advocacy).
There was a blog by a young woman born out of a surrogacy situation “umbilically challenged”.
Ralph writes:
“The idea that one shouldn’t bring children into the world solely because they might experience pain and/or trauma directly related to their birth circumstances, their family, their tribe, their country, etc., to me, is preposterous.”
Absolutely, I agree with you. Life without challenge would be empty and devoid of meaning (lessons), in my opinion.
Elizabeth writes:
“But I’m still not sure it’s the role of parents deliberately to provide loss to their children. I think parents are supposed to try to prevent it as best they can”.
Absolutely, I agree with you. It is about intention, not who comes first the chicken or the egg. They are meant to coexist together in harmony and balance.
Mark writes:
“Belief can be a starting point for detailing or more generally describing the reality it points to. Beliefs also need to be able to be amended, corrected and changed. I am thinking of discussions with non-believers or people from different traditions – who may have something important to offer.”
I think I understand what you are saying. I am actually coming from the complete opposite direction (if I am understanding you correctly). My starting point is of a non-believer whose reality (life experience, rational thought process and observations) actually supports Christian social philosophy as well as the Buddhist, Jewish, Baha’i, spiritualism, humanism etc. etc.
I think it’s unrealistic however to expect these different belief systems should or even need to be corrected or amended. They all represent parts of the whole and each have an important message.
Mark thank you so much for that! I’d like to explore too how advice mainstreams a practice. If you’re advising how to do it then doing it is also affirmed.
And yes we’re looking at advertising too.
Thank you!
Mark,
We are running out of comments here, but I’d love you to elaborate on your statement about Christianity being “pretty vague about what born again means with respect to “higher” identity as it relates to those whose bio-cultural identity has been denied concreteness.” I wonder if the experiences of Biblical figures like Daniel, and the other Israelites taken into captivity in Babylon and stripped of their Jewish identity might be helpful in exploring this question? Or maybe the experience of Ruth in her experience being grafted into the Jewish identity?
I’ll echo Karen is stating my hesitancy about thinking beliefs need to be able to amend and change. I think this is more true of individual believers – they need to use their right reason and understanding to engage their beliefs (to be able to amend and change according to conscience and understanding).
@ Matthew (and Karen)
“Higher” identity is a frequent New Testament topic. John was “from God” as was Jesus – who also spoke to Nicodemus about being “born from above”. Paul relativized family and tribal origins with the “new creation” “in Christ”. The change in practice was the mission to the gentiles. There are many many places this idea is used and shown intrinsic to Christian theological anthropology. Humanity is essentially one. Circumstances of birth are not relevant to who “one really is” – a child of God. This thinking is very clear and consistent.
Two thousand years later, thinking coming from a very different direction (adoption & DC practice) urges that the essential nature of children is such that they only require loving “parents” – persons who are determined in socially accepted ways, irrespective of bio-cultural relationships. When I think of the times when I heard passages from John’s gospel to the effect that we may become children of God through the power of God, without human interventions or inter-mediation, I was thrilled because what seemed to make me human were two parents whom I did not and could not know. Here, in this theology, I could become a child of God and know it. I could know my parent – my source.
The vagueness I was referring to was the disconnect on the part of the church people and theology from bio-cultural realities for those of us who have been separated from any conscious experience of our parents or their history (our history). There was simply no awareness, no interest, no question on the part of church people or theologians. Adding insult, church people were often complicit in creating the circumstances and developing practices that created children who would be disconnected from their bio-cultural roots. These same church people have this amazing theological anthropology of “higher” identity, but never made explicit the connection between “earthly” and “divine” origin or identity. All that work was left for someone else.
Regarding beliefs – here is what I mean: a belief, if true, points to a reality which can conceivably be known to anyone who is able to overcome prejudice. A false belief should be something we or anyone would be happy to release – or if not happy, at least, grudgingly willing. Science does this from time to time – not always happily. Families do it too, as when you learn that Uncle Bill is really your Father. Religious beliefs are of the same structure: everything began with some sort of experience and was translated into language. There is nothing in principle to limit what may be discovered and all beliefs should be able to be confirmed by other means than self-reference to the belief.
The danger of absolutizing beliefs – making them immune to correction – is relativism since two unquestionable beliefs that contradict each other creates the necessity of two truths or realities.
Thanks, that clarifies a great deal.
“Here, in this theology, I could become a child of God and know it. I could know my parent – my source. ”
“The vagueness I was referring to was the disconnect on the part of the church people and theology from bio-cultural realities for those of us who have been separated from any conscious experience of our parents or their history (our history). There was simply no awareness, no interest, no question on the part of church people or theologians. Adding insult, church people were often complicit in creating the circumstances and developing practices that created children who would be disconnected from their bio-cultural roots.”
Yes.