"Honour thy father and thy mother" is one of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. The commandment is generally regarded in Protestant and Jewish sources as the fifth in both the list in Exodus 20: 1-21, and in Deuteronomy (Dvarim) 5:1-23, though Catholic counting this is the fourth commandment. - Sourced from Wikipedia
Setting aside the countless numbers of people living and dying by these variations in syntax and interpretations; what provisions if any, have been made for (in this case) parents that were "unhonourable?"
This is not to be a tirade through which I join the ranks of those that seek to vilify the parents, for the shortcomings of the off-spring.
At the on set I acknowledge the astronomical under-taking of those that take on the role of parenting. Of course not everyone embraces it as such - but I don't want to get lost, in the minutiae of that. It might be readily argued perhaps rightly so, that I have nothing credible to say about parenting, given I've never been one, nor am I likely to be.
I didn't have the style of relating with my parents (adopted) that would reveal whether my unique presentation in their lives was a source of growth (or fulfillment). Certainly I was privy to statements that could lead me to conclude, they subscribed to the "we made our bed and now we have to sleep in it" - school of thought. Without hammering myself - I believe it fair to say, if my parents got anything in the way of guidance regarding adopting children (given it was 1959) they still may not have been "prepared," for some of the curve balls I threw them.
In this post my tack is more questioning, to what degree do these tenets of biblical antiquity continue to "inform" us here and now, in this the twenty-first century? Beneficial? Detrimental? Lost values? No value?
As I scanned further into that Wikipedia entry, it refers to a time when to curse one's parents or strike them, was punishable by death. It also mentioned that the "Talmud" associates the honouring for parents to be equivalent to an honouring for God.
Given this is a theology that depicts a wrathful, vengeful Deity and the correct relationship toward "Him," was that of "God-fearing" - how does that shape the approach to parenting while at the same time demanding "honouring?"
I can only speak for myself when I say along the way to considering a personal relationship with a God it has been necessary to have many a no holds barred dialogue. I believe this to be the ground work to an open hearted connection ongoing. I mean if this God is Omnipotent - then there is nothing that is on my heart that is already not known. The point is for me to be honest that it is there and not pretend "piously" it is not.
The thing I seem to observe with regard to evolutionary trajectory is that even though practices may change (some virtually disappearing altogether) but even though the "law of the land" might be said to be secular in nature; there are still energies and "throwbacks" to the past. While it might be said readily enough - "you can't teach an old dog, new tricks." Has anyone stopped to think about how hard it is to release and old DOG (ma?).
So while one might not be stoned to death for dishonouring their parents (at least not here in Victoria) you might well experience a "social flogging" for speaking disparagingly about your mother or father (frankly, more so - mother) it seems there are huge tolerances for men and men as father's, to be endlessly dragged through the mud. To be honest, some men have created a reality that invites that. I'm not slamming all women in this assessment - I am saying some can hide within the dogmas of their choice; spinning that to their own bias (human behaviour - not one distinct to gender).
The onset of Patriarchy (for whatever period of time that has been in place, has not been beneficial for women or men). Ironically or maybe necessarily so, evolution, through the women's movement (a necessary move forward) has had many women embracing the same "undesirable" qualities in order to attain their equality and equity (the same qualities they denounced in men) - that shit, has been ushering men into early graves for quite sometime and it has been upheld by men and women. Patriarchal minded women are not likely to usher in peace any more than men living, believing and behaving that way.
A continued call for an outward balancing for all of humanity seems to me merited - which would mean the inward balancing of the individuals from both genders (and would also extend to those that don't identify with the binary dictates for sexuality).
Which brings me back to dogmas and other deeply entrenched societal agreements. I fully acknowledge my need to take full responsibility for my life, my choices, my beliefs, my behaviour. It's up to each to decide if that is true for them as well. I'm not here to tell you what's what; only that it's true for me.
In order for anyone to come fully to terms with their personal biography (for the purpose of transforming it) they must be allowed to speak frankly. In order to do so it will necessitate "stepping" beyond the bounds of these dogmas; otherwise, (whether in their original context they served some useful purpose or not) one is held captive by the ensuing stigmas or varying fears of reprisal. This brings about a non-beneficial upholding, of a negatively pervasive status-quo.
This post spun from the referencing of just one "Commandment" which came to mind after a couple of conversations today, that touched on parenting and family of origin influences.
I don't think the present can be lived to it's full potential by not honouring the wisdom from the past. Hence new is not necessarily better or even progress. Neither is it beneficial to be entirely bound by dictates from the past - not everything about the "good old days" bares repeating.
No comments:
Post a Comment