And what's more, he believes God wants us to "love others well." After all, Christ gave us the toughest assignment when He commanded us to love our enemies, and to love others as He loved us.
But quite frankly, reading Samir Selmanovic's radically inclusive idea of seeing "our God in others", can stretch many of us, especially those who find it easier not to like others with beliefs or disbeliefs about Christ so different from ours.
But Samir gave us plenty of warning: "If you are drawn to stay on the solid ground beneath your feet, it might be best to follow that impulse and get rid of this book." Just to make sure we get the message, Samir asked his talented daughters to issue the same warning in a delightful example of reverse psychology. Check out the link.
For me, Samir's book gently presents an eloquent and appealing theology of loving others well. Hard to argue with his compelling message of love.
No doubt Samir's theology offers much to applaud and agree with. And judging from the impressive list of book endorsements, many thinking people agree with him, admire his innovative contributions and support his assertions.
But more provocatively for me, the stretch begins when Samir asserts that our God is much larger than the one defined, claimed, and worshiped separately by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, each through its various God Management Systems which Samir brilliantly described.
Samir's radical theology, however, invite us to question and challenge.
For me, it was easy to accept many of the beautifully articulated and poetic assertions within the book itself. The stories are moving and powerful. But, it was a lot tougher to accept those same assertions in the context of what I had understood the Bible to say about truth in my previous readings.
Many questions popped up. Like...
What did God really mean when He said he chose the children of Israel as His people and promised to be their God in the Torah? Was that the work product of Jewish God Management System?
And whether the Christian God Management System framed Christ's harsh words for the legalistic Pharisees who would not believe in Him, John's consistent declarations of Jesus as God, and Paul's lecture to those "foolish Galatians" of only one right gospel?
So, as my thinking friend would say, "It's complicated!"
Did the Christian God Management System create a narrow and inaccurate revelation of the Christian God who sent his Son Jesus to die for all, and required belief and acceptance of Jesus as our Savior? Is the Gospel Commission as traditionally understood in Matthew too narrow?
Did the Jewish God Management System require Jews to be circumcised to show their identity as Yahweh's children? Did it require them to reject Christ as the Messiah?
Do the Bible, Torah and Quran as the authoritative sources of God's revelation (in respective God Management Systems) reveal too narrow a view of God for Samir's theology? If so, where are the other revelations of God that are broader and more inclusive?
How does the Holy Spirit work in of each of the respective God Management Systems? If our God Management Systems generated our narrow and exclusive views of God, what was the Holy Spirit doing all this time? And what is the role of evil in these systems?
Here are a few of Samir's many questions and/or assertions in his book.
1. "Is a God who favors anyone over anyone else worth worshiping?"
2. "To say that God has decided to visit all humanity through only one particular religion is a deeply unsatisfying assertion about God."
3. "If those of us who are Christians do not find a way to acknowledge that God is everywhere, we might lose the basis for seeing God anywhere."
What do you think of Samir's ideas and assertions about God, and how might we might apply some of them to our current situation?
Please share your thoughts and comments!
Posts
51 comments:
We all know that the Hebrew scriptures were shaped in part by the "tribal god" mentality. I think our fear of "others" and their religious beliefs almost reflects a hidden, continued belief in many gods.
In the New Testament, Paul tells believers not to fear eating food offered to idols because believers know that idols are not real. The truth is, we would all fear others less if we really were monotheists. If we believed that there really is only one God, and that it is impossible to worship a different god (because there is no such thing as a different god), then I think much of our squabbling would stop.
All humans who worship God in love worship the same God. We worship differently; we understand God differently. But there is only one God, "no god but God." This modern tribalism must stop!
Good morning! Thanks for jumping in early with your comments, Gulliver. Appreciate them. Hope others join in too.
In the interest of clarity and further discussion, it would be great for you to elaborate and develop your assertions further.
As currrently expressed, your comments appear (to me, anyway) to include several assumptions or pre-sumptions, even. So please clarify.
For example...
I'm not sure "we all 'know' that Hebrew Scriptures were shaped in part by the 'tribal god' mentality."
So does that mean that the Holy Spirit was tribal? Were Jesus and the new testament writers also reflecting the tribal god mentality when they quoted the Hebrew Scriptures? Which tribe? Was Paul starting a new tribe? Are we celebrating a tribal Sabbath and trying to keep a tribal Law?
Nor am I sure our fear of others "almost reflects a hidden, continued belief in many gods." How do you reach that conclusion?
Please share your reasoning that that "all humans who worship God in love worship the same God."
And I don't know what you mean with "this modern tribalism must stop!" Could it be that you and others defined another tribe? A tribe of the non-tribe perhaps? (:>)
Looking forward to yours and other thoughts on the above...
Hello LIfe is Good,
The reason I said "we all know" is because tribalism is something we have discussed ad nauseam during our Stretch Cafe appointments. Each member of our group holds a different shade of opinion about what "tribalism" means and how far it extends forward in the timeline of the Bible, but our group clearly recognizes, I think, that for the ancient Hebrews Yahweh was thought to be Israel's god, while other nations were thought to have their own gods. Your questions about the Holy Spirit, Paul and Sabbath are excellent ones which we have also been discussing at Stretch, but not immediately relevant to the point I was trying to make above.
My point is extremely simple, for which reason some may think it is simplistic. The reasoning behind my statement that "All humans who worship God in love worship the same God" is that I believe there IS only one God. Even Hinduism, humanity's signature "polytheistic" religion, teaches that at the end of the day there is only one Ultimate Reality. If we really believed that there is only one God and that God is love, then we would understand that all those who worship God in love worship the same God (albeit differently). No other good God exists to be worshipped than God. Those who worship God as a petty or revengeful God are not worshipping God, but an idol (or worse).
I don't think I am here defining another tribe. I'm saying that all those who value love first are a part of the same tribe whether they know it or not.
It seems to me that it would be good to delve into the history of the Christian God Management systems (since that seems to be the majority religion of those at Stretch) so that we can know what our roots are, how they were shaped by political pursuits, etc. This seems like a relevant topic if we are to notice the foundations of our faith. As of yet, I for one don't feel exposed to this history enough to make a productive comment on it. At any rate, it seems that at the end of such a study certain assumptions about human character will result. (Which I think we might all be able to make any way.) But, I for one would feel more informed as to how human nature has affected and turned Christ's "Kingdom of God" into a God management system: Christianity. I would assume that the same human nature tendencies that has turned it to what it is today has been in effect throughout all the other religious and all of world history, and it is precisely that point that I think Samir is trying to make and unpack in this book (so as not to express a superlative!). If we can look at our respective (respected) religions with this scrutiny it would seem that we can live with more love and grace within this increasing homogenization of religious co-habitation. But it still sparks an interest in history for my own religion as a question of how it has been perverted to its present state, or even just leading up to Martin Luther.
Excellent discussion Curtis and Gulliver!
WTG....ILI....(I like it!)
While Samir poses innovative lenses in his ideas of "God Management Systems," part of our inquiry and discussion, I believe, should also be to get a common definition among us, and also, question some of the inherent assumptions made in the idea and definition of a GMS, and how valid are the conclusion that emerge from the GMS framework.
I look forward to hearing more stretching! More please!
Here are a few of Samir's many questions and/or assertions in his book. 1. "Is a God who favors anyone over anyone else worth worshiping?" No. But is a God who chooses not to reveal himself at all able to worshiped at all? If not, maybe being chosen is not the same as being favored.
2. "To say that God has decided to visit all humanity through only one particular religion is a deeply unsatisfying assertion about God." Maybe to Samir. And some Stretchers. But sadly not to many Christians, Jews, or Muslims who all have their own remnant bigotry. Maybe that’s why glimpses of God can be seen in Torah/law loving Jews and fully submitted, humble, non-violent Muslims for example.
3. "If those of us who are Christians do not find a way to acknowledge that God is everywhere, we might lose the basis for seeing God anywhere." Could this be one reason why more and more Christians are leaving the church to find God?
Wow! Great questions Mike.
I think your question about whether it is possible to worship a God who chooses not to reveal himself is spot on because it calls out man’s need to interpret God’s revelation of himself to man, and in so doing, launches our respective interpretive lenses, or God Management Systems (GMS) as Samir asserts.
It seems to me that man's interpretation of God’s revelation, by definition and human nature, is an act or process of seeing God through a GMS lens, no matter how exclusive OR inclusive.
Your point about remnant/bigotry in Jews, Christians and Muslims (and I would include atheists) is an example, I believe. It is still the way we humans manage our interpretation of God, and our need to understand and believe and explain something greater than man.
If we agree that one of the common characteristics shared by humans is the need to worship, then, worship, it seems, requires God's revelation and man's interpretaton.
With the recent appeal of inclusivity of God’s love as a point of view, I propose that "inclusivists” have also created their own God Management System as well. It is the way they or we look at God and the world. I think what Samir may be offering, still with his GMS, is that they or we simply become more aware of our respective interpretive lenses--inclusive or exclusive--as well as those of others.
But, for me, the follow on question that triggers is whether it is possible to love and worship God passionately in spirit and in truth without our respective GMS lenses?
And whether it is possible that the same God who we believe created man with a need to worship, then revealed Himself to be worshipped, also created man’s need for respective GMS lenses--whether inclusive or exclusive—as a way we can enjoy security, certainty and comfort?
If so, how do we evaluate whether our respective GMS lenses have served humans well? From which point of view do we define and evaluate the impact of various lenses?
In that case, what do we think is the role of the Holy Spirit in the GMS (assuming we accept Samir's idea of that lens) and respective “remnant/bigotry” that has resulted?
And finally, what is the role of evil in the GMS systems?
That gets us back to the earlier suggestion of Curtis that it would be productive for us to better understand the idea of a GMS, and particularly, of a Jewish-Christian lens as a starting point of exploration.
Looking forward other thoughts and comments on this discussion! Please jump in!
I do have some more questions now, relating to the terms "remnant bigotry," and "God Management Systems." I am hoping these are productive comments.
In Genesis 11 at the Tower of Babel God came down and observed that ". . . the people are one and they all have one langage, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be witheld from them." (v. 6) And further decided to " . . . confuse their langage, that they may not understand one another's speech." so, I am wondering if the GMS' are a bi-product of the Will of God when he separated all the people at the Tower of Babel (if we are to assume this is a historically relevant "biblical myth"). My train of thought for this is that in every language there is a culture (not within every culture and language is there a different religion, but each religion is different with in every language and culture because that is the lens by which we see the world). These separations are becoming ever more transgressed with the factors of internet communication, world travel, etc. But within the narrow scope of one's own language and culture, it would seem that confusing the people into different sects would separate us from the knowledge of God. What if that was God's will, that He would remain a mystery? Regardless now, though, I think everybody at Stretch (myself included) are a little to curious to except that question as simply rhetorical negativity. But if it was God's will that God remain a mystery within the mind of humankind, perhaps that is an important starting point to understand the function of a GMS biblically speaking. I am also thinking of when Paul says in Gal 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!," how does a statement like that fit into ours and Samir's discussion? Perhaps with the Areopagus in Greece when he said (in Acts 17:16-34), "I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." (http://www.sacred-destinations.com/greece/athens-areopagus-mars-hill) It seems like perhaps this is the start of the interaction of mystical intellectualism with polemical Christianity, and that it is a biblicaly supported polemic! So, my question is, what do we do with that? Was Paul polemical? Was there a semblance of religious tolerance in his interaction with the Greeks in Acts 17? (I believe there was.) And how would this interaction be different today? How SHOULD this interaction be different today? Do these verses in scripture tell us anything definite about a GMS within the confines of those of us at Stretch trying to define a GMS?
It seems to me that if it is God's will to separate us as at the Tower of Babel, that perhaps this separation isn't working any more. :) But now we have the unfortunate confrontation of understanding that our respective (respected) cultures aren't sufficient revealers of "truth." And this paradigm concerning truth is continually growing. How do we keep our religious affiliations and not see them as God Management Systems, but instead, perhaps, "God Communion Arenas"? Would this do away with "religion" as we know it?
I do remember in the 90's that there was a lot of talk in my local church about the devil being in the new age movement, that this new age movement was trying to combine all the religions and make a "mixed cup of abominations" like spoken about in the book of Revelation. Is this a legitimate concern? Perhaps I should stop there. :)
Productive questions indeed!
Hooray, the Stretch water keeps getting deeper and current more turbulent! Great for more divers! Please splash in.
This discussion brings to mind something I recently read in Donald Miller's book, Searching For God Knows What. "The very scary thing about religion, to me, is that people actually believe God is who they think He is..... and it makes me wonder if God created us in His image or if we created Him in ours." It seems not only do we want to manage God but we have defined Him. So doing we have limited Him. He is much greater, capable, and mysterious than we can imagine.
This discussion brings to mind something I recently read in Donald Miller's book, Searching For God Knows What. "The very scary thing about religion, to me, is that people actually believe God is who they think He is..... and it makes me wonder if God created us in His image or if we created Him in ours." It seems not only do we want to manage God but we have defined Him. So doing we have limited Him. He is much greater, capable, and mysterious than we can imagine.
Raised within the well-constructed walls of SDA-Christian fundamentalism with its tones, overtones and declarations of exclusivity one would assume that, by shear repetition of the message, my vision of God and God-management would be sufficiently narrow to comfortably fit through the eye of a needle.
However, be it inspired by angel or demon, I have never found comfort with the notion that God plays the exclusivity game. To accept that God would choose only a single tribe or select group to provide special revelation and special blessing while denying others a glimpse of Him and withholding the favor of His truth flies in the face of the notion that God is the Creator of the Universe, of heaven, of earth and of all living-kind.
Samir offers some lucid thoughts (I call them lucid because they are consistent with my beliefs):
“To say that God has decided to visit all humanity through only one particular religion is a deeply unsatisfying assertion about God.”
“If God created all humanity but gave life-giving knowledge—usually referred to as revelation—to only some of humanity, could God in any meaningful sense be thought of as the One God and not only as a god.”
“To continue indulging in the supremacist fantasies of my own religion would, for me be to conspire in my own diminishment and the diminishment of my religion. My journey with God would have to stop. There would be no future for r such a God in my life.”
I believe that Samir’s stuff is “spot on” but I also recognize that Samir’s stuff produces some tricky terrain to traverse for if Christ is God than the revelation to Christians is indeed superior to other revelations.
Has God revealed Himself as directly and as hands on to other cultures??? To that question I could answer in the affirmative without jeopardizing my personal God-Management system but wonder if fundamentalist Christianity could handle such a thought? But, on the other hand, whether they can buy into that point or not doesn’t really make a difference...does it? Or, on yet another hand, it may.
Israel; aka Always Doubtful.
To the observation of Curtiss regarding the "inner-circle of church fathers" declaring that notions of enlightened unity of religious beliefs was and is the work of the Devil, I would only comment that "when has there been any other way." New knowledge, new discoveries have always been treated with rude-derision. Why even the revelation of Christ was viewed as demonic by those who couldn't accept the shifting paradigm.
The devil is blamed for most all that is new. I think that even floridation of our water was thought to be the product of godless scientists working in league with the dark prince to control the minds of humankind.
The formula is simple: By taking an ounce of new insight; adding a pound of biblical assumption a narrow mind can render a ton of demonically inspired deception.
I appreciate your thoughts.
Israel aka Always Doubtful
Fascinating questions and excellent points. Thanks for diving in.
With all the references to God Management Systems and tribal gods being discussed, I guess we are talking about the revelation of God and the “limited” understanding of God's revelation by Moses and the other Jewish writers who claimed that God chose Israel over other nations.
Conclusion: Jewish God was “tribal” and too small as reflected in the OT.
I’m not sure what Samir has in mind exactly when he talks about God Management Systems and how they work. But, to the suggestion Curtis made, I wonder what we mean when we use the GMS framework of understanding God in our discussions?
Let’s start with our understanding of the Jewish GMS, work our way to Christians, then Muslims.
Are we saying that God’s revelation of himself as captured in the Hebrew Scriptures is really a function of culturally limited understanding of God, and that Jews made God tribal?
And that the Torah is really an culturally limited expression of the Jews making God in their image because Moses or other Jewish writers really did not understand what God was revealing, and that the “real” God was so much bigger than the God Israel understood and worshipped?
If we think the OT revelation of God is “tribal” (“I will be their God and they will be my people”) and therefore too small, how do we look at the other parts of God’s revelation? Are the 693 Torah commandments also tribal?
When and how did theses human systems of managing God take hold in the Bible? At creation? Covenants with Noah? Abraham? Moses? Or David? Or Jeremiah?
Was our traditional understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit also tribal in its inspiration of Jewish leaders, prophets and writers?
The slippery slope I see is this. Just how much of the Bible do we think reflects God's true revelation of his bigness, versus man’s limited understanding of God’s revelation because of man’s cultural biases?
If we agree that human biases made God “too small, tribal and exclusive,” wouldn’t we also have to agree that those same human biases now make God “big enough and inclusive?”
I see both GMS-generated viewpoints (too small v. big enough) as similarly-biased interpretive statements about God by humans. I don’t see how one narrow GMS understanding is less accurate or true about God than the other universal GMS understanding about God, even though we may prefer a broader view.
On what sources do we base our understanding of God’s "true" revelation, and our faith, in comparison to the traditional sources like the Bible? Or are there multiple "true" understandings of God's revelation that we can select from and that can coexist without negating the others? From whom do we get "truths" about God?
Swimming solutions everyone?
Life is Good:
I love your incindeary questions. In my mind; Yes, God is tribal in the OT but he is no less tribal in the NT. In the NT however admission to the tribe seems easier.
Any GMS produces an explanable God.
We all use the term "God Management System" and frankly I use it, respond to its reference but have never defined it to my satisfaction. I'm not sure if I've seen it defined. I don't recall Samir or any S=T-R-E-T-H-E-R-S setting it to words.
If you all have a definition in place, I apologize for reading by it, over it or just missing it.
Regardless, I don't have one. Help me create one with your thoughts:
Here's a clumsy,first-blush rendering that we can use as strawman to begin:
God Management System:
The accepted beliefs of an individual, group, sect, denomination, or religion that provides understanding, comfort, predictability and organization to the matter of God's interaction with humankind.
The system acts as a foundation upon which protocols of behavior, custom and ceremony are built.
In short it the product of our preferred perceptions; justified by carefully selected interpretations; and protected by our prejudices.
We construct the "God Management System" to accomodate our compartmental-mind. We build it, put in place and refer to it when required.
Rip the compartment out is the message I walked away with from Samir. All God Management systems should be rejected.
Restoring "oneness" with God cannot be achieved with a 'system"; it only comes in the form of "a journey...a never-ending practice of questioning, pondering, building, wrecking and rebuilding. It is a journey without a destination or, perhaps better stated: the journey is the destination.
Israel, aka Always Doubtful
I feel a bit sheepish now that I've started to read the next book on the list for the upcoming stretch cafe--it's all about the history of religion or the GMS (as "understood" and without specific definition by us yet, although thank you Isarael for sparking it with your take on it). I have a hard time not defining this discussion without bringing in quotes from this next book, but don't want to spoil anything. I think some good historical dialogue would perhaps make some things clear. In short, I like the cable and dingy metaphor and the idea of every 500 years being a "New Emergence" within not only Christian, but also Muslim and Jewish histories. This is a really rich book and so far I'm only through chapter two, but without further permission I decline to take these remarks any further. I do believe it opens up a wonderful discussion on further defining what a GMS would be, though. (I'm just saying!)
The GMS that I believe the Bible intends is one of individual relationship with God. Jesus modeled that and then told his disciples that he wanted us to be one with him and he is one with the Father. Peter and Paul talked with God in intimacy and received specific clear words from God. The power of God manifested in them in many ways through the indwelling God all because of their relationships with Him. The NT is a handbook on relationships with God and is instructive that God does not use the same formula with everyone. The NT is iconoclasic and tears away at formal religiosity while recognizing the importance of true and spiritual religion and the 'chuch.'
With all that being said, if the history in the Bible is not true, if the revelation of God in the BIble is not literally true, if the of the Torah were not given by God to Moses, and if the teachings of Jesus are not divine, then we have one big steaming pile of SQUADOOSH.
A lot of this discussion dances around the issue of the authenticity of scripture and taking away what we don't like and calling tribal. If that half of the Bible is not correct, then the rest is nothing. Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through Him. He is the 'living veil.' Is Mohammed the living veil? Is Moses the living veil? If the Bible is not true in revelation and historicity, it's a collection of myths and fairy tales. Which is it?
The God Management System God gives us is one of personal relationship through Jesus Christ with an incredible uniqueness setup by God for each person as He deems best, to be lived under the illumination of Holy Scripture. I don't care for any other GMS out there.
Been on the sidelines reading these threads with interest because these discussions are above my pay grade. won't swim, but I'll stick a toe in. Glad to see that someone who seems more traditional surfaced the inescapable question that may seem old fashioned to the bloggers here. Many thanks to the Anonymous brother for calling the question around which all have been dancing so far…I was encouraged by his comments so I'll ask...I’m most interested to know if you believe the Bible as written is the authoritative revelation of God for Jews and Christians? While I think I understand what the discussion about God Management Systems is mostly about, I’m not sure I understand where you all feel the Bible, as written, fits in those systems. If you don't believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God, and that Jesus as reflected in the Bible is the authorative reflector of God, then what books and to whom do you look for the authoritative revelation of God? I have no problem believing that God is a God of all who loves all because it is what the Bible tells us. I don't know how to make it all fit, but I believe God does.
But I do have a problem with saying, as bloggers here appear to be saying, that the God of the Old Testament is a tribal God, and therefore by inference from the Selmanovic quotation, probably not worth worshipping. For my simple beliefs, if God is God, he can be anything he wants to be, even tribal! And because he is God, we worship him, regardless of whether he prefers some over others. I don't see how the Selmanovic question you quoted is any different from the age-old question of whether God is fair or not, because in my belief system God is God and therefore I worship him and trust him to make the just decisions, whether I agree with them or not. How strange that the God of the Jews, while promising to be their God, allowed them to suffer the most bitter of hardships as his people. But yet, despite the horrific Holocaust, the Jews continue to worship the God who they believe chose them. I don’t have any problem thinking of them as the preferred people.
Okay folks. With all the buzz about IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT GOD, I have some basic questions to which I'm not sure I've seen clear answers yet. Fuzzy with avoidance it seems. I'm okay with whatever your answers so please answer honestly. I have my own faith and biases to contend with as you have yours. But it would help me understand the thinking, assumptions and biases behind some of your points on this blog. FYI...I'm taking your "More About Jesus" at face value as a professed objective of your blog. But I have to admit that as I read some of the bloggers here, I'm getting unclear about just who we all think Jesus is, and what his role is in our salvation, and just what he requires of us. Seems like I read themes that we've made our God too small, but have not heard if you think the God of the Bible is too small or just right? I get that God requires us to love others well, and that love is the fullfillment of the law, and that Jesus died to save all.
QUESTION
---In your hearts and minds is the Bible the most complete revelation of God through Jesus? Yes or no. If not, why not?
QUESTION
---In your hearts and minds is Jesus the Savior who came down as God incarnate to reveal God, save us from our sins, and who rose again to give us eternal life, and simply asks us to trust and follow him? If not, who and what do we follow?
QUESTION
---In your hearts and minds is Jesus's commission to preach this gospel to all the world as recorded in Matthew 25 require Christ's followers to obey it and also, to share it with the clarity of Christ, and John, Paul and other NT writers? Yes or no.
QUESTION
---In your hearts and minds, do you believe worshipping God is about picking and choosing the God who we consider "worth worshipping" based on our criteria, and then, decide to worship him or other gods based on our answers to those questions which are raised in the initial blog post?
CURIOUSLY ANONYMOUS
Wow! Great questions Mike. I think your question about whether it is possible to worship a God who chooses not to reveal himself is spot on because it calls out man’s need to interpret God’s revelation of himself to man, and in so doing, launches our respective interpretive lenses, or God Management Systems (GMS) as Samir asserts. It seems to me that man's interpretation of God’s revelation, by definition and human nature, is an act or process of seeing God through a GMS lens, no matter how exclusive OR inclusive.
I agree. But I don’t like Samir’s GMS term because rightly understood, nobody can “manage” God can they? If they could, wouldn’t logic make them God? So I humbly submit GCS instead! Which stands for God Comprehension System LOL!!!
Your point about remnant/bigotry in Jews, Christians and Muslims (and I would include atheists) is an example, I believe. It is still the way we humans manage our interpretation of God, and our need to understand and believe and explain something greater than man.
Samir’s chapter on atheism being just as bigoted and exclusive is SO thought provoking, it is worth re-reading.
If we agree that one of the common characteristics shared by humans is the need to worship, then, worship, it seems, requires God's revelation and man's interpretaton. With the recent appeal of inclusivity of God’s love as a point of view, I propose that "inclusivists” have also created their own God Management System as well. It is the way they or we look at God and the world. I think what Samir may be offering, still with his GMS, is that they or we simply become more aware of our respective interpretive lenses--inclusive or exclusive--as well as those of others. But, for me, the follow on question that triggers is whether it is possible to love and worship God passionately in spirit and in truth without our respective GMS lenses?
If it’s not possible to love and worship God passionately in spirit and in truth without our respective lenses, then I’d say God really wasn’t speaking to King Cyrus [Isaiah 44:28-45:6; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Ezra 1], Balaam [Numbers 22-24], King Nebuchadnezzar [Daniel 2,4:31], Cornelius [Acts 10:1-8], the Roman centurion [Matthew 8:5-13], the Syro-Phoenician woman [Mark 7:24-30], and the Samaritan woman by the well [John 4] because God doesn't ask us to do things we can't [with his help cf.John 15:5 and Philippians 4:13]. None of these were “God’s people” with a Jewish or Christian GCS lens, but that didn’t stop God from showing up where they were and revealing Himself to them as someone worthy of worship.
This also becomes apparent through the historical records of ancient Greece 600 years before Jesus was born. They had no Bible, no Scriptures, no Ten Commandments. But they apparently knew they were not the highest intelligence in the universe. They talked about reality within the “seen” and the “unseen.” They sensed the life force of God and spoke of Him as the “Divine Essence” that creates and governs everything. By the time Jesus lived, they were passionately understanding God as “Logos” [John 1].
And whether it is possible that the same God who we believe created man with a need to worship, then revealed Himself to be worshipped, also created man’s need for respective GMS lenses--whether inclusive or exclusive—as a way we can enjoy security, certainty and comfort?
Isn’t being worthy of worship different than craving, needing, or requiring it? Regardless, when taking a quick look at the apparent happiness of everyone in their religions [and often their ready willingness and enthusiasm for sharing their beliefs], is it logical to come to any other conclusion than their comprehension of whatever they understand about God has, in fact, helped them become secure, certain, and comfortable?
If so, how do we evaluate whether our respective GMS lenses have served humans well? From which point of view do we define and evaluate the impact of various lenses?
This is a great question and deserves much discussion! For me, as a Christian who believes in the inspiration of the Bible [flaws and all because men are flawed and all], I believe we primarily evaluate our respective GCS [God Comprehension System] based on it. But since spiritual things are spiritually discerned [1 Corinthians 2:14], we couldn’t do that without the help of the Holy Spirit. That’s why Paul says, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
So really, it’s the Holy Spirit that helps us define and evaluate the impact of various lenses. Often he does so based on what has been previously inspired and revealed through the Bible. But if you take the Bible seriously, as scary as it sounds, you must not limit the Holy Spirit to what’s in it. Because the Bible says there are a myriad of other legitimate ways to comprehend the reality of God and evaluate his oracles and revelations. Nature for example is one way cf.Psalm 8:3-4, providential circumstances is another cf.Proverbs 3:6. But music cf.Psalm 40:3, imperfect people of same or even other faiths cf.Luke 9:54, inspiring books supposedly secular and/or sacred cf.Acts 17:22-28, thoughts and impressions cf.Matthew 16:17, in addition to dreams and visions for some cf.Daniel 55-6] are all other ways outside of Scripture that Scripture says are legit. And this has been the case for a very long time. Long before the Bible was written. Or the people in Hebrews 11 wouldn’t be there.
In that case, what do we think is the role of the Holy Spirit in the GMS (assuming we accept Samir's idea of that lens) and respective “remnant/bigotry” that has resulted?
IMHO, the role of the Holy Spirit is to help us comprehend God and evaluate the things that are loving and good and therefore like God outside of the Bible worth holding onto [1 Thessalonians 5:21]. But the same could be said of the Spirit’s role in helping us hold onto what’s good inside the Bible. If it weren’t, we would still endorse slavery and polygamy. So if the Spirit’s role described by Jesus after he left [John 15:26] is to help us with our comprehending of God, isn’t it logical to conclude the same spirit hovering over the waters as far back as human memory and history records was doing the same thing after Creation [Genesis 1:2]? So that rightly understood, it’s never been by might, nor by power, but by His spirit that things have been revealed and understood [Zecharaiah 4:6]? If so, that explains how the people in Hebrews 11 could know Truth without having a Bible to read. And it hints at why others held onto their bigotry. They put more value on their job or role or understanding of God than God does compared to everyone else He also “created in his image” [Genesis 1:27].
FWIW though, as distasteful as its abuse has been, inside and outside of Christianity [see Samir’s chapter on atheism’s bigotry and exclusivity for more], the idea of remnant is thoroughly Biblical and rightly understood, not at all at odds with the Spirit’s movement. We know this is true because all the pagan non Jewish guys I mentioned earlier wouldn’t be having revelations of God and his will if it weren’t. Anyone disagree?
That gets us back to the earlier suggestion of Curtis that it would be productive for us to better understand the idea of a GMS, and particularly, of a Jewish-Christian lens as a starting point of exploration. Looking forward other thoughts and comments on this discussion! Please jump in!
Long story short: I’m suggesting God apparently chose to reveal himself initially and perhaps most thoroughly through a Jewish-Christian GCS as far back as time and history records. But if we take that seriously, we cannot limit God’s activity through his spirit to only that lens. When we do, our hidden bigotry eventually surfaces but not before our Biblical illiteracy.
The ability to find “our God” in “others” who worship contrary to our religious beliefs and traditions can be an index of who we truly are and where in the developmental stage we are. I suggest that assumption simply because finding “our God” in “others” is a form of defense mechanism referred to as projection. Projection can be a form of denial to resolve what we have but cannot accept or a form of empathy where we identify positively of another.
This form of behavior can be pathologically severe as evidence in schizophrenia, paranoid type (John Forbes Nash, Jr. of Beautiful Mind) or as altruistic as with those who sacrifice their lives and go on as missionaries to lands unknown (David Livingstone). At best, it helps us keep a healthy part of skepticism.
I truly believe there is a God but we really do not know who God is. No one has really seen him or heard him. We only believe that others have seen him or heard him. And as the general public knows, belief can be influenced by a number of factors and cannot be objective. At best, what we know of him is a projection of our own development. And because development is an ever-changing phenomenon, we see our God change which is reflected in how we see “other’s” God. At any rate, change can be considered normal only if the slope of change is positive, meaning progressing from infantile to maturity.
It appears that Samir's premise is for us to continue with our psychological development towards a mature level where we can be accepting and tolerant of others.
The Merry Christian
WTG Mike.
God Comprehension System(GCS) works perfectly for me (WPFM)! IRLI! I really like it!
The ability to find “our God” in “others” who worship contrary to our religious beliefs and traditions can be an index of who we truly are and where in the developmental stage we are. I suggest that assumption simply because finding “our God” in “others” is a form of defense mechanism referred to as projection. Projection can be a form of denial to resolve what we have but cannot accept or a form of empathy where we identify positively of another. This form of behavior can be pathologically severe as evidence in schizophrenia, paranoid type (John Forbes Nash, Jr. of Beautiful Mind) or as altruistic as with those who sacrifice their lives and go on as missionaries to lands unknown (David Livingstone). At best, it helps us keep a healthy part of skepticism.So...when God created humanity “in his image” or went out of his way to interact with people of all lenses, he was in denial? Of what? Or does this example not work with God?
I truly believe there is a God but we really do not know who God is. No one has really seen him or heard him. We only believe that others have seen him or heard him.Why do you truly believe there is a God even though you believe no one has really seen him or heard him? Whatever your reasons, could they be considered as ways you have “seen” or “heard” God?
It appears that Samir's premise is for us to continue with our psychological development towards a mature level where we can be accepting and tolerant of others. Can't we accept and tolerate others without loving them or the Giver of that love well? What if Samir’s premise is calling us to more than mere acceptance and tolerance of others?
Dear Anonymous:
Again there seems to be so many Anonymous authors that finding a thread that connects me to the “Anonymous” I am currently addressing is impossible.
This is in specific reference to the Anonymous entry of May 11, 2010, 4:57 p.m.
Your notion that a God Management System (GMS) defines the structure of an individual relationship with God is appealing if, of course, it respects how all people relate to the limitlessness of God and not just to those individuals who maintain a common frame of reference. I.e. Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc, etc.
Unfortunately, however I generally view GMSs with jaundiced-suspicion for it seems that they represent a “clustering of beliefs to define God, place him in a neat box and make His relationship with us manageable, comfortable, predictable and less challenging.”
It is almost humorous that we acknowledge God as being beyond understanding, unexplainable and limitless, then set about the business of explaining who God is and defining the parameters of how God relates to mankind.
You cite Peter and Paul as examples of talking with God intimately and receiving clear word from Him. Well, I’m not so sure about how clear His words were. I think that scripture will validate that Peter and Paul were adversarial and clashed over the divisions of interpretation of God’s Will. Read in Galatians of Paul’s calling Peter out and accusing him of hypocrisy.
Even when reading the Gospels one finds quite different theologies being advanced by the Gospel authors and if one studies the history of the early Christian Church one would be appalled at the politics, dirty deeds, graft, forgery and deliberate omissions of facts.
Non-Christian critics of Christianity generally cite the vast divergence of Christian beliefs as evidence of Christianity’s imperfection. Shakespeare once declared that “any fool in error can find a verse of scripture to justify his belief.”
While I certainly believe the Bible, (both OT and NT) is instructive and that one can find God through it, I also believe that it is not the only source of God’s revelation to mankind.
I beg to differ that the NT tears away at formal religiosity. Actually as the NT has ultimately evolved in practice it has only replaced the old religiosity with a new form of religiosity that can be equally odorous.
Rather than dissect, challenge and explain my beliefs regarding your sequence of assumptions re the Bible being literally true and God giving the Torah to Moses, etc, let me, in the interest brevity, merely suggest that there is a resulting pile of SQUADOSH. That pile of SQUADOOSH, I assume is a form of fertilizer that if used prayerfully and intelligently can nourish the growth of an expanded and satisfying revelation of God’s interaction with humankind.
Your inference that there is only one living well brings to mind that new word I learned, SQUADOOSH. Yes, I believe that Christ was a living well as I believe that Mohamed was a living well and Buddha, Gibran, and many, many others who have been inspired by God with messages for humankind are living wells.
It’s sad that you don’t care for any other GMSs out there as it seems contradictory to the concept of a Universal God of all mankind and all cultures as opposed to a Tribal God of just Christians.
I hope I haven’t danced too much for you.
Israel
I was wondering whether or not the questions about the authoritative nature of scripture were going to set this conversation down a rather rocky path. I now am of the opinion that it could be going there. This is fine if we disagree. I think it is inevitable. However, we must keep in mind that we are discussing God's will and God's relationship with us, and MOST importantly, how we are to co-exist peacefully with each other. I think it would be advantageous of each other to disagree within this forum in a gracious manner. I am certain there are great piles of SQUADOOSH out there, and that if we put all our ideas about God into one conatiner, if God were looking at it, that is what it would appear to him. I think it goes back to the idea of the Infinite. We are nowhere near this infinity of consciousness. So, when the Infinite (AKA, God) looks down on our finite understanding and conversation about Him, I cannot help but think that all we understand and converse about him will be in the end, SQUADOOSH. So, I would like to say, Israel, that we all have this in common. However, I do think there are less offensive ways to state it.
I was grateful for your reference, Israel, to the confusing way we are referencing each other's comments. I feel that it is hard to follow who is quoting who. Can we develop a standard way to do this where it would make the discussion smoother? Or would this be a tech issue that I for one have no idea how to fix?
Getting back to the authoritative nature of scripture, I am almost wondering if for the discussion at hand, this is a non-sequitur. That simply means that it is an important question, but perhaps will not be productive for the questions of how we get along with another group of people that don't have our point of view. Instead, it seems to be making us revert back to a separatist conversation, and I wonder if we can leave that discussion for another topic. That being said, yes, I do believe in the authoritative nature of scripture, but like you, I would agree that the interpretation of this authority is not a perfect and consistent understanding amongst all Christians. With this in point, it would be perhaps important to state again, that this is further example of the question of co-habitation. It would appear that this whole discussion is example of Christianity itself having multiple versions of its own 'mini' GMS systems.
That brings me to the phrase GMS. This is a relatively negative connotation: God Management Systems. It was contrived for the purpose of making us realise that this is impossible, and for that simple design, I applaud Samir. But I don't think we should get use to using it within normal conversation, and think it is wonderful that three or four times now one of us has tried to come up with an alternative. All I think this GMS is, is a outlook on organized religion, a committee decision that we should understand God "this way." But, it could be argued that we do this personally to, that I and you and you and you all have a GMS "lense." All this is saying is that we all have our own points of view. This has been said multiple times in multiple ways and deconstructed linguistically by Derrida, postmodern theorists, and numerous other philosophers over centuries and centuries since probably before the flood. "What can we know?", has been the question of mankind forever. The short answer: . . . well, there isn't one, I suppose. But this brings us back tho the nature of "authority." I suppose we are all looking for one to make our lives easier. But I don't think it's going to happen. If anything, the authorities we have found on earth have been anything but simplifying. When they are, they verge on dictatorial and we don't like this either. This paradox shows us that this earth simply isn't perfect. So, I would like to propose a question further: If there is no such thing as authority (besides saying that scripture is authoritative, because then we have the hard and difficult journey on interpreting that authority and then we have to find an authority on the scripture, which is a conundrum as well) how do we get along in a world where the unknown is inevitable? I believe that this is the point we perhaps were asking at the start of this discussion and perhaps it is good to ask it again.
Ironically now, the word I have to submit to publish this post is “impas.” Just thought perhaps those of you who might smile would like that. ☺
I feel that it is hard to follow who is quoting who. Can we develop a standard way to do this where it would make the discussion smoother? I find it helpful to provide the previous post's comment or question, and then reply with italics. To do so, hit SHIFT plus the LEFT CARROT KEY [whatever it's real name is] followed by "i" and then the RIGHT CARROT key. Those 3 characters must precede in the comment box the first word you want in italics in reply. When you're done typing, you must "close" the HMTL code by retyping them at the conclusion of your last word in the box you want in italics EXCEPT you add a BACKSLASH after the first carrot but before the "i" and final carrot. I'd show you what that code looks like, but Blogger won't let me since it doesn't recognize that as words to show.
The same thing can be done with "b" for bold. One disadvantage of posting the previous comment or question before responding to it is it limits the length of your total post to a certain number of characters. Which forces you to be more succinct or cut your post in half and post it in another comment. FYI.
To: Curtis from Israel:
Good stuff. Your points are well taken however we must also guard against mushy-diplomacy and evassive intellectualism becoming an impediment to clarity.
I'm sure that there is a balance though.
Israel
In response to AD and Curtis: As the initiator of the word SQUADOOSH (My new gravestone caption, Here lies SQUADOOSH), I want to reply to you both in no particular order.
First to AD, I agree wholeheartedly that God is not to be put in a box. That mankind tries to do that is not God's or the Bible's issue. I do believe that the Bible does not indicate to us to do that. I challenge the comment that the NT perpetuates religiosity. In your examples you cited the evolution towards it and the graft, etc. within the church. All of those are the problems of fallen people, not the teachings of Christ or scripture. A religion must be evaluated formost by the life and teachings of its creator or progenitor, not only by the people who screw it up later. So, I assert again that CHrist was an iconoclast of the first order and tore down religion to reveal the gift of life through true sprituality. As to your discussion of Peter and Paul going at it sometimes...true, but Peter backed down in Jerusalem because Paul was in the right, and he knew it. That was conflict resolution in Christ.
To Curtis, I brought up the issue of scriptural authority because I think it is central. I probably used the coarse term, SQUADOOSH, because, with great respect to all, I read some relativisic intellectualism that affords no philosophical boundaries and leads to a lot of wheel spinning. What is the objective antecedent truth that builds a context for common discourse? It is right for me to ask whether we think the Bible is nice but not divine, or nice and divine. I need to know this, because I need to know how information is processed by my fellow bloggers. It is not a lack of respect. It is necessary to go to the next level of understanding. Maybe the only common ground for the group is that there is a God, and he ain't us. If that is so, I need to know that. However, I do reject the relativistic hodgepodge of God revealing Himself equally in the top 5 or 6 world religions. The law of non-contradiction applies. These religions are so different, that whatever else they may be, they are not equivalent. The universe and life is built on objective truth. Science exists to detect objective truth in natural laws. The Bible speaks to objective truth in morality. Jesus called Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I disagree respectfully to other contributors to this blog that we can meld disparate theologies into a consistent divine whole. That all being said, I do not claim to know all that there is about objective truth, but I know it is out there.
That I declare more scriptural authority than others and call the question on what others think of the Bible is not something that should negatively affect our ability to coexist and get along. It need not lead to separatism. It should instead lead to greater understanding. If it should so happen that someone would say that they were a relivistic universalist, and I told them that I disagree completely and believe you are wrong because I believe life is in Christ. I could still go have a beer, play a round of golf, and offer love. We are urged in scripture to be bold in Christ, but to speak the truth in love. It is so hard to negotiate these paths. However, if we shy away from the bottom line, and shrink away from defining questions such as who was Christ, and is scripture authoritative, we learn nothing of ourselves or others.
The most important thing:
We enjoy these forays into the nature of God. I just want us all to never forget that Christ came to give us life. His charter statement in a Nazareth church was to heal the brokenhearted and set the captives free. He yearns to give us the life our hearts seek at their deepest levels - the life we weep for deep within. He came to fight for our hearts as the precious treasures of the kingdom so we can be co-heirs. As we perform intellectual calisthentics on the nature of God, let us never forget that the offer of CHrist is life through freedom, communion, wholeness, and holiness. We were on the cross with Him, we were resurrected into new life with Him, and we are seated in Heavenly places with Him. We can be what we were always intended to be!
Hello Mike:
A sampling of the God of Moses juxtaposed with the God of Jesus certainly bears evidence of a developmental process. For instance the following two passages:
Genesis 2: 20, 21. …But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Matthew 6: 8. …For your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
It would be unreasonable to even assume that a partner for Adam could have existed among the various species below him, those that were created before him. Did God change or did our interpretation of God change?
We are the beholders and we create the object and not vice versa. Just like space and time have to contract or expand to accommodate the constant speed of light, we have to change our interpretation of an unchangeable God. We only do that through maturation of our biological endowments and undergoing life’s experiences, all components of a developmental process.
What other attributes would be greater than being accepting and tolerant of others and yet maintain our identity? We can accommodate but once we assimilate we lose our identity.
The Merry Christian
To Anonymous (special reference designation: SQUADOOSH)
I am anxious to respond to your most recent insertion but am on the run today. Good stimulating stuff. I'm looking forward to carving out some time to ponder and respond.
While some might construe spirited debate about spirituality/religion as not properly Christian, you and I are in accord that at the end of the debate we can each walk away from the fray with value having been added and a better understanding of the rationale of the other in developing thier a point-of-view; then go have a beer to discuss stimulating topics such as the failure of the White Sox to hit in the clutch.
Israel aka Always Doubtful
Thanks for your thoughts Merry Christian! I don’t disagree that our perception of God changes as we develop and mature. But I'm not convinced our development leads me to believe the God of Moses and the God of Jesus [oxymoron?] aren’t the same. Or that the God of the OT really isn’t omniscient [cf. Psalm 147:4-5 & Isaiah 46:9-10]. Regardless, I know lots of Christians who accept and tolerate Jews or Muslims for example, but do not love them. So forgive me if I’m too slow to grasp your rationale, but what if Samir’s premise is not about acceptance or tolerance—two things an atheist can offer. What if it’s about actively loving others well whether they ever assimilate? Because God says He is the giver of that kind of love we lack, it is greater. Though faith and hope in that same God are two other gifts He gives us not far behind [1 Corinthians 13:13]! You disagree?
First, I agree with Pastor Mike and his suggestions to respond to specific comments. Let’s implement to avoid confusion.
Second, thanks for engaging in such passionate discussions about God, and exchanging ideas of whether it is possible for us to see God in others who believe and worship differently! They jury is still out, I think. There are some excellent points being made, and critical questions being asked here. Thanks for stepping in. I hope our spiritual quest continues to not only understand God better, but also, ourselves and our reactions to God and Jesus as well on this blog. Here are some random musings and assertions to which I, myself, am included.
Third, since culture, in my view, is a core component of our God Comprehension Systems (GCS), here are some assertions about culture that may be another elephant in the room. Please give me your thoughts.
How many of us would feel as comfortable with the tone and nature of our questions and discussions about God, Jesus and the Bible if we were Muslims discussing Allah, the Qur'an, and Muhammad? Would we feel as passionate with our so-called "higher critical thinking" if we were Muslims? Would we feel safe? Would we be able to think critically and voice our points of view in similar discussions with Muslim clerics? What do our answers to these questions tell us about our culture and our respective GCS systems?
Given the secular and atheistic writers’ attacks on Christianity, would we agree or disagree with the premise that: “Eastern religions are protected in today’s Western society because attacking Eastern religions is seen as culturally insensitive and prejudicial. But the Christian faith, which is the target of Western culture (but people have forgotten that it came from the East), is now the dartboard. Society can attack any aspect of Christianity.” Could secular writers deny the existence of Allah and live? Are there comparable Muslim DaVinci Codes or Allah Seminars that attack similar components of Muslims as they do Christians? Where is there “mushy diplomacy” going on? How have those attacks influenced the way we view our own Christian GCS, discuss God, Jesus, and the way the Bible was written?
Is there a difference in the God Comprehension Systems of Jews, Christians and Muslims, and atheists with the idea of loving others because God is in them? What is there about each system that makes it easier or harder to love others because God is in them? What components of God are similar in all three? What does that tell us about our respective GCS?
Gang,
I have what I think is maybe another view of this discussion of GMS's or GCS's. We have really been looking at a macro view when we compare/contrast Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I would like to bore down deeper and frame the discussion around the denominations of Christianity. There are only about a gazillion of them (plus or minus 10%). Each have their own doctrines, bylaws, and subcultures. As you bore down deeper there are variants of these things within each denomination.
I believe in many ways that the GMS's that manifest in these different denominations are not driven entirely by a 'comprehension' of God, but by a need to control the brethren. They are Brethren Control Systems (BCS). I suggest to you that the corporate church is most comfortable when all the brethren are singing from the same sheet of music. Some of us have the background of a denomination with...what is it now?...29 official doctrines and a subculture with its own distinct oddities (Special K Loaf and Haystacks)
Sound doctrine is important. Codes of behavior are important. However, if we really limited it to what was Biblical we would have far thinner books on bylaws, codes, and doctrine.
My main argument is the GOD IS WILD. Look at ocean storms, grizzly bears, and stallions on the run. He has a divine wildness and dignifies individuals by dealing them in entirely different, sometimes counter-intuitive, and unique ways. The more the church centralizes the practice of faith, the less freedom the individual has in exercising his. How uncomfortable would it be for a corporate church body to have its members living with the expectation that they can relate to God, hear from Him, be intimate with Him, and receive revelation from Him the way Paul, Peter, and most importantly, Jesus did. Is the Bible a book of exceptions (all that stuff only happened in Bible times), or is it a book of examples. Meaning, here and now the demons submit to me in His name, I have an expectation of receiving direct council from God, divine healings occur, continuing revelation happens...with you and me. WOW. Dangerous, tricky, and wild. Yet, God calls us into relationship with Him. Jesus is our example. Jesus, who tore down old religion, was our example. He dignified the individual relationship of God first. Then He sent out men to build a Church. Church is very important. However, we should not be in a position where the church darkens the individual's relationship with God with BMS's. We should encourage believers into a maturity of faith that is modeled by the incredible intimacy with God that our Bible heroes enjoyed. After reading all these posts. I think the many of the things we all dislike about GMS/GCS/BCS are the things imposed by men to exercise a framework of control corporate faith expression. They fail because faith is properly the province of individuals.
SQUADOOSH:
You have serious reason to be concerned. I heartily agree with most everything you've said in your most recent blog-entry. (15 May, 10:19 A.M.)
Israel aka Always Doubtful
Hey SQUADOOSH and Always Doubtful aka Israel...you two should be concerned! You have said somethings that I agree with....so that makes three of us that agree on latest SQUADOOSH post! (Assuming of course that SQUADOOSH agrees with himself!)
Israel,
I am happy I was sitting down when I read your post. Having pinched myself I am willing to accept I am awake!!! Hey, the odds were in our favor that this would happen sooner or later.
Life is Good, I have not changed my mind yet. However, I am about to go to an evening church service and may be swayed by powerful preaching.
Mike Fortune (Pastor Mike I presume?)
Until proven otherwise, it is still easier to believe in a creator than to believe in evolution. Having said that, there is no reason to believe that there was more than one creator. Since we are the beholders, we create our own Gods based on who we are and wish who we are, but with the greater task of creating a God that would come closest to who he truly is. Since we really do not know who he is, nor has he corrected our assumptions of who he is, we get a varied number of Gods, but all created in an attempt to describe the one God. Because of this, I would fully agree with you that the God of Moses is the same as the God of Jesus. Or better still the God of Samir Selmanovic.
I have struggled to understand why there were so many Gods until I understood how the mind develops. To Samir’s credit, more power to him for asserting that “our God is much larger than the one defined, claimed, and worshiped separately by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.” Never mind the fact the Samir Selmanovic is described as being an SDA in wikipedia, making him believe in the same corporate God we believe in. That only reflects how sophisticated he has progressed in his psychological development. But I can assure you that he still is trying to describe the same God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all the religious Gods in the past and the Gods of the future.
I believe the love for others that we are not assimilated with is more of a concern and respect for them. I don’t think that requires a God concept. Or am I misguided?
Merry Christian
Hmmm....To the many calls for some standard way to respond to posts, I agree with Mike's May 13, 2010 12:56 PM post. I say, GO FOR IT! Clearly, an excellent suggestion.
However, for those of us who have HTML-carrots-keystrokes challenges with the most precise instructions Mike posted, I wondered if an alternative could be:
Copy and paste Time stamp, BLOGGER NAME in ALL CAPS, and use parenthesis ( ) around bloggers point to challenge or support. Then comment.
Let's see how this works...hmmm.
May 15, 2010 10:19 AM...SQUADOOSH.(After reading all these posts. I think the many of the things we all dislike about GMS/GCS/BCS are the things imposed by men to exercise a framework of control corporate faith expression. They fail because faith is properly the province of individuals.)
Well I agree, SQUADOOSH! Although I must admit that I smile whenever I type your blogger name!
(Then He sent out men to build a Church. Church is very important. However, we should not be in a position where the church darkens the individual's relationship with God with BMS's.)
Spot on! Brethren Management Systems is what I experienced with denominational leaders and evangelists for forty years in the wilderness (1950s-2000s!) Clearly shaped my views of church authority.
Hope this works as a fall back alternative to carrots. (:-)
OBTW...I invited Samir to join our conversations. I'd be especially interested in his and other's thoughts on the questions LIG posted on May 15, 2010 9:11 AM
To ANONYMOUS post on May 13, 2010 5:47 PM (The most important thing: We enjoy these forays into the nature of God. I just want us all to never forget that Christ came to give us life. His charter statement in a Nazareth church was to heal the brokenhearted and set the captives free. He yearns to give us the life our hearts seek at their deepest levels - the life we weep for deep within. He came to fight for our hearts as the precious treasures of the kingdom so we can be co-heirs. As we perform intellectual calisthentics on the nature of God, let us never forget that the offer of CHrist is life through freedom, communion, wholeness, and holiness. We were on the cross with Him, we were resurrected into new life with Him, and we are seated in Heavenly places with Him. We can be what we were always intended to be!)
Wow ANONYMOUS! Thank you for this inspiring and most appropriate reminder and gentle prompt. Your counsel is very well made and well taken. Great contribution. Thank you.
To CURTIS post of May 13, 2010 11:52 AM (Getting back to the authoritative nature of scripture, I am almost wondering if for the discussion at hand, this is a non-sequitur. That simply means that it is an important question, but perhaps will not be productive for the questions of how we get along with another group of people that don't have our point of view. Instead, it seems to be making us revert back to a separatist conversation, and I wonder if we can leave that discussion for another topic. That being said, yes, I do believe in the authoritative nature of scripture, but like you, I would agree that the interpretation of this authority is not a perfect and consistent understanding amongst all Christians. With this in point, it would be perhaps important to state again, that this is further example of the question of co-habitation. It would appear that this whole discussion is example of Christianity itself having multiple versions of its own 'mini' GMS systems.)
Thanks for the reference to our "mini" GMS systems. Excellent observations above and in your other posts. Your counsel about the tone of our debate and resulting separatist conversations is excellent. I do think it is important, however, to flesh out our views of scripture passionately because it does help us better understand how each other sees the God and the world.
For example, for me, the Bible is the most complete revelation of God for Christians (to answer the CURIOUSLY ANONYMOUS question posted on May 12, 2010 11:26 AM). To me, it is the Christian's most authoritative revelation of God and can't be separated from our understanding of Jesus because the examples of Jesus are all in the Bible.
With all its human flaws, I believe in the authority of the Bible for Christians, and OT for Jews, especially when compared to what prophets and mystics have said. I can't trust my own reasoning by itself, nor can I trust the reasoning or claimed inspiration by prophets or church leaders without comparing them to my understanding of the Bible as the basis for evaluating the validity of my reasoning, and their comments.
I also believe that the Holy Spirit not only inspired the Bible writers, redactors included, but also, the canonization process, and decisions that generated and integrated the OT/NT into the Bible.
On that basis, I can believe passionately in the above, without having to diminish, in my mind, the validity of the Muslim or Jewish religious beliefs, both of whom reject Christ as the son of God. So far, I'm in toleration mode.
However, I believe that God wants us to love others well, as Samir points out, and that means, seeing God in those who worship and think differently about God than I do. Not easy for me, and I struggle with it, no doubt. But when I struggle to see God in, and show love and grace to, those others, I'm humbly reminded that the devil is at play in this process and the devil is making it hard for me to see God in others whom God created, but with whom I disagree passionately. I'm convinced the devil magnifies and distorts the differences among those who worship God in different ways, and Satan helps us become critical and judgemental of those others, whether their systems are GCS/BMS or, as you pointed out, the mini GMS folks. I know the Satan strokes my ego to make me believe that I have a better GCS than others.
Hello Always Doubtful:
I’ve been reading previous posts (I ran out of things to do today) and focused on your post dated May 10, 2010 2:38 PM.
Let me put my topic in perspective so you may get the flavor. Let us say you were a quantum theorist faculty in college and teaching a course in “Quantum Theory for Poets.” None of your students had any background in physics (being poets) and you gave them a problem to solve their first day in school. Let’s say you posed the question: If you were riding a rocket going the speed of 185000 miles per second (close to the speed of light) and you shone a flashlight forward, how fast would the light from the flashlight be? And you required the students to give an answer and never gave them any clue to its correctness. You would imagine you would get a varied number of answers. And what if you’d asked them to give you their solutions and formulations? And then watch them argue with each other as to who had the better of correct/right answer. And what if some students lost their temper, got irritable and fought each other that spilled outside of the classroom? You get my point? This is how I perceive the world deals with religion.
Are you really convinced that God revealed Himself as directly and as hands on to other cultures? Or is it that other cultures acquired a better understanding of God? Can you elucidate?
Merry Christian
Dear Anonymous (Merry Christian)
I just logged on to respond to my good friend SQUADOOSH'S entry of 13 May when I ran across your recent entry asking whether I'm actually convinced that God revealed himself as directlly and as hands on to other cultures.
I will answer that with the qualifier of "Conjectura non est Scriptura"..."Conjecture is not scripture."
I offer this as an exprssion of my own beleif without the slightest compulsion to convert you to my point-of-view.
My short answer is yes, I beleive that God has interfaced directly, lovingly and hands-on with other cultures.
Yes, I will elucidate as candidlly and concisely as I am capable.
A Universal God who creates the heavens, the worlds beyond, the world we call earth and all humankind shaped in His image would assure that all his creatures are afforded equal access to his grace, his majesty, his love, his mercy and an equal opportunity to be able to restore the oneness with the creator that was lost to all.
The notion of a preferred revelation given to a preferred tribe/group/or culture is inconcievable to me.
I believe it is arrogant and smug to think of our western-christian culture as the repository for the only manifestation of God here on earth.
To deny all other cultures a revelation that is equally as loving, direct, hands-on and pure, results in God only being the God of some...not the God of all.
Why would an all powerful, all-knowing and compassionate God limit Himself to only one manifestation...to only revelation???
Whatever it is...whether it's my fundemental respect for all people...my sense of fair play...or the wonderful message of universal love taught by Jesus; I cannot subscribe to anything less than all mankind being personally touched by the father-creator. Not vicariously from a distant land and culture with which there is no comfort but rather directly and lovingly.
A Universal God is universal.
Israel aka Always Doubtfu.
Hello all! Sorry, I hope it you’ll understand, I took some time off since my last post. In seeing your last responses to mine, I got the feeling that perhaps it looked like I was starting to police and I’d like to try and get away from that. I don’t see myself as a leader, but I like merely to ask questions in curiosity and sometimes I suppose I forget that. I hope its not too late to try and clarify:
There were some basic assumptions that I used to assess the arguments relating to the word “squadoosh” and the arguments of trying to expose our biases. For the most part I agree that exposing of our biases is the first step in honest debate, and I agree with those of you that called me out on that. However, my point was not that I think those of you calling for this are “not properly Christian,” (Israel, May 14) but that our discussion itself isn’t necessarily Christian in that it is based upon questions that all faiths could do better to deal with.
So, in asking these questions I TRY to ask them taking into account what a common query might be amongst all faiths. This is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve perfectly I will admit, and in that I think you are all right when you say we should reveal our biases right away so that we can be called out when our assumptions aren’t based on facts. So in that perhaps I was a bit too hasty to assess this current debate as being unnecessary to expose what we do believe.
It just seemed to me that we could get caught up in too much side lined debate over whether or not Jesus is God and whether or not the Bible is authoritative, in which point could be debated strongly in a negative way by any non Christian background, or even a Christian one and has been debated already for centuries. It was my observation that this is a cyclical deviation that we perhaps might never come back from, and I think there are many interesting questions being raised that don’t have to do with our personal needs for who we think and how we think God should be and who we think he (alone) reveals Himself to. If the focus is on titles and creeds, it would seem to me that this discussion could lead toward separation rather than identification, and it is against that I had spoken up for. However, perhaps I am wrong, perhaps it is good to get this out of our systems and then move on.
I am not saying this for the sake of “mushy diplomacy” (Israel, May 13), but for the sake of a more focused discussion. I do believe in a balance and I don’t think making this point puts us all at odds with objectivism. I do agree with the assumption that this “universe and life is built on objective truth.” (SQUADOOSH May 13) However, I don’t agree with assumptions that we can some how come to an understanding of this objectivism, however, because I believe this objectivism "that the universe is founded on" is an infinity that is very far above us AND that is why we all BELIEVE rather than KNOW. I believe we are saying the same thing though where you also said (same post, SQUADOOSH), “Maybe the only common ground for the group is that there is a God, and he ain't us.” It is there that I think it would be interesting to discuss HOW we can move forward even though, fundamentally, each faith believes the other to be wrong (even if we are all among the same faith as a community). Therefore, I think that the “objective antecedent truth that builds a context for common discourse” (SQUADOOSH, May 13) is a study of the history of the western progression of our religion, of which I think I have declared a bit redundantly in my previous posts.
Perhaps it would be interesting to ask the question (for the sake of clarity and not division) if there are any non-Christians participating in this discussion. If there aren’t, perhaps we shouldn’t even be asking these questions about inter-faith co-existence until our discussion is inviting enough so that we all feel safe enough to join and post. Instead, perhaps it would be better to discuss this topic in a more Christian focused, denominational approach as SQUADOOSH proposed in his May 15th post.
I would like to post four videos by Edward W. Said (10 mins each, the last one perhaps is the best if you would like to pick and choose). I think this is an interesting topic that could inform our western lenses a bit better. Enjoy, and feel free to reply!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCOSkXR_Cw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0HYX9JVH8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlF5ED-gE5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZLA-mwOdSs
Post a Comment