[July 2000 journal entry]
What meaning (if any) remains (for me, at least) for the concept ‘lord’ (in reference to ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’) from a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality? (Related terms include ‘master’ and ‘king’.) I have considerable reservations about using the term ‘lord’. Reasons?
- The concept ‘lord’ is sociomorphic language and, therefore, vulnerable to the idolatrous use of ‘God’ language characteristic of the ‘religious’ sphere.
- The concept ‘lord’ as used in the ‘religious’ sphere necessitates an assumption about ‘revelation’ that also is anthropo-/cosmomorphic language and vulnerable to the idolatrous use of ‘God’ language characteristic of the ‘religious’ sphere.
- The concept ‘lord’ as used in the ‘religious’ sphere leads to a passive spirituality and ethics (with a decidedly stronger sense of authority for ‘lord’ than for ‘shepherd’). My methodology is ‘from below’ and, therefore, grounded in the sense that I am accountable for my life decisions/actions as well as grounded in the recognition that human beings are meaningfully (not absolutely) ‘autonomous’.
- The concept ‘lord’ as used in the ‘religious’ sphere implies comprehensive authority for the sanctioned views in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. To deviate in the realms of politics, science, medicine, . . . is to weaken/diminish the meaning and usefulness of the concept ‘lord’.
