This is a fascinating article which highlights two very different ways to look at one "really important" issue. For those of you who never fail to read and absorb my ruminationisms on this site, you are in no need of my prefatory remarks on grasping the heart of the article without being distracted by the provocative particulars mentioned in it. You may skip to the next paragraph with my profound thanks. For the rest of you, please take some time to browse my other posts before clicking on this link. I need you to put your thinking caps on and be prepared to read an article which includes ideas you may vehemently oppose. Rather than allowing your mind to dwell on the fact that this guy is in a different camp from you, please try to consider the bigger picture.
When you establish boundaries or when you adopt other boundaries as your own, the obvious implication is that you have some reason to determine who is inside with you and who is outside and unlike you. Whether this involves an athletic team, a country's citizenship, or a church tradition, there is a desire to know who is in and who is not. As referenced in the article linked here, sometimes the regulations and definitions of inclusion have very important consequences. And "important" scenarios involve great tension if a group of outsiders are determined to tear down the wall.
So what boundaries interest you? Which walls are you concerned to preserve, ensuring resistance to opposition? If a group of outsiders is making serious progress on upsetting your boundaries, do you consider this "the end of the world?" Or do you ponder the possibility that your boundaries may not have been rightly placed and may not be needed after all for the world to carry on existing?
No comments:
Post a Comment