Right off the top I ask for your patience and forgiveness as I risk to try to articulate some thoughts that have been dawning on me. It began needing expression with the dream I had about a month ago. It impresses itself upon me, and I had to write something down even as preliminary as this. I plan to develop it for many reasons. One is that I have many friends who have left the church altogether because they’ve changed their minds and no longer feel like they could stay and keep their intellectual integrity. I think that is unfortunate and that institutions are often to blame. Secondly, I have always been interested in ecumenism, not just between denominations, but between different religions and philosophies. This theory provides me with a structure for thinking about religion, spirituality, philosophy and even all of life that is inclusive and universal. So, here goes:
As an introductory summary: “God” does not exist, and this is his choice. “Jesus” is the history of a suffering humanity longing and striving for truth, justice and love. The “Spirit” is the united community of people, the fullest and final incarnation.
God does not exist. God is above and beyond. Evidence can be mounted and presented, but that’s all it is: evidence. Scriptures, as impressive a collection of documents as they might be, are problematic at best and are entirely inadmissible at worst because scripture is not proof anyway. The increasingly questionable historicity of the documents and the events they relate only compound this problem. This is the profound realm of mystery, obscurity, enigma and darkness, cloaking an inapproachable and almighty being who is apparently all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present, but more specifically who has been taught as true, just and compassionate. But this mystery is uncertain, unknowable, unnameable, and inapproachable, and if real, theoretical because of the limitations of our minds.
Jesus is boundary-less. There are no borders to what Jesus means. Whether or not he was divine, or whether or not he even historically existed as a certain person, the story of Jesus means something of great importance historically and divinely, and that is the revelation of the mystery, the incarnation of the enigma, the dethroning of the almighty to our world. Jesus means the embodiment of the mystery within humanity. All the dark and unfathomable mystery and darkness of what God represented has now been made manifest in history and in the human race. Jesus means truth, justice and love… all those things God apparently was, but is now solely manifested in the human drama. God is no longer “up there”, but in our history. God dissolved himself into the human story of suffering. As we live lives of truth, justice and love in the midst of this suffering, we exhibit what Jesus means in our history. Jesus isn’t “up there”, but Jesus is at work in this world, on this earth, in the human drama through our actions.
The Spirit is the forgiveness, reconciliation and unity between people. The spirit is not a ghost “out there”, but the manifestation and practice of love in unity. It is unity that is the spirit. The spirit is most evident when truth, justice and love prevail. Where there is love, that is the spirit. Where there is freedom, that is the spirit. Where there is justice, that is the spirit. Where there is unity, that is the spirit. So the ultimate and final work of the divine is in the unity and community of all people… a reality that awaits manifestation in our history as we work toward it.
This trinity is universal. Religions, sciences, spiritualities and philosophies all have their mystery… the unknowable and sought. They all have the revelation or manifestation of the mystery… its transmission or discovery. They all have the community… the desired and ultimate manifestation of all that is good for all people.
Check out my t-shirts HERE. I’m growing my inventory all the time. And check out my contemplative art here.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
Julia,
Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying.
You: “I think the space everyone has with God (as we understand Him or not) is a wide space. It’s not so narrow as I once thought.”
——-Yes, that is true. But we must not forget that the “space” does have limits. I guess that’s the rub; we all see the limits set at different places. Even those who say there is no limits can be taken to a place where they will set limits.
——-I too understand that some of what I interprete from scripture might be off the wall as well; however, some scriptures are easy to interpret, it is just that some don’t like what it says, so off they go into–”That’s your interpretation ‘land.’
Again, thanks for your response.
fishon
Wow, I thought what you wrote, Naked Pastor, was fantastic and I can’t understand all the puzzled comments you received.
I’ve always believed in:-
A Cosmic Christ – wrote a poem about him when I was a kid
A Suffering God – thank you Adrian Snell for helping me to grasp that concept
A unifying spirit in all of us – thank you Hinduism for making it so clear
Trev said:
“Christ accepts all-comers…the every day man and the philosopher. I know that sounds condesending, but the fact is there are people at different levels of understanding (not intelligence) who need different ways to approach God. The bottom line is God came down in human form and gave Himself so that all who believe would be saved. And even within that statement there is room for interpretation in the how and what of it. But if a man believes, what do you have to disqualify them? And no one here is the judge of np’s or anyone else’s heart…not even their own.”
Okay…who is it that “accepts all-comers”?
Is it…”the revelation of the mystery, the incarnation of the enigma, the dethroning of the almighty to our world…the embodiment of the mystery within humanity”?
Or is it a Person that accepts all comers? Or is that Person also that other stuff?
NP, so are you saying you are unconcerned that you may be leading people away from their faith in Christ?
fishon –
But that’s just it. ALL of our interpretations are subjective – even the “easy” ones.
Regarding the wide space: free is free is free is free is free is free, indeed.
Fred,
I really like what Eighth Day said in a previous comment:
“Your thoughts articulate the beginning of a journey into mysticism, born of the deep conviction that God is more than the words we use to articulate God; that Jesus is more than just an historical figure (although isn’t he at least that?) and that the spirit is more than just an objective being.
If we understand the creation narrative correctly, God’s life is expressed through all creation. We can therefore encounter the character of God in all creation…”
Jesus Christ IS more than just a historical figure, though He is at least that. It is my understanding that He was a Person, that He was God revealed to the world, and that He continues to be, as NP put it, “the embodiment of the mystery (God) within humanity”. He represents the ways of God, the truth of God, and the life of God…which is truth, justice, love, and joy in the midst of suffering.
Might I address the naysayers one last time (yeah, right):
I have, for some crazy reason, been involved in this debate all day. The narrow-mindedness pissed me off while I was eating my turkey sandwich at lunch and the lack of understanding made me clinch my teeth as I cut my grass. But what was really cool, was that the naysayers kept me going back to read np’s post over and over again. And it actually started to make more and more sense. It’s hilarious because He is not saying anything that flies in the face of Biblical, historical Christianty. The gist is that God was mysterious, unapproachable, unknowable…then Jesus came and was the embodiment and revelation of the mystery…then the Spirit came to unify and bring community where the revelation of the mystery (God as revealed by Jesus) was embraced. Then he compared it to how other religions, science, etc… operate. Where are you folks getting off on saying that np is leading people astray or that he has fallen in some way? All he is asking you to do is think, reflect, and approach God from a new angle. He is beyond all of our imaginations…even np’s
Trey,
Except that you’re watering down what he said. I may have picked and chose, but so have you…
“Whether or not he was divine, or whether or not he even historically existed as a certain person”
And where is the purpose of the incarnation? Just to experience our suffering? Not to die for the sins of the world? Not to redeem all creation? Where is the Gospel?
“It is unity that is the spirit.”
Not God. Not the promised spirit that lives in us, but some abstract idea?
“But this mystery is uncertain, unknowable, unnameable, and inapproachable, and if real, theoretical because of the limitations of our minds.”
If real? Theoretical?
I’m sorry Trey, but “Biblical, historical Christianity”
meant to say:
I’m sorry Trey, but this is not “Biblical, historical Christianity”
Hooooly. You done gone and riled some people up.
lol isn’t it amazing when you present a an idea or view that is not inside the hive mind mentality and they can’t even stop and consider it before they freak out, throw standard regurgitated theology at you, ask if you should still be pastoring, tell you you’re abandoning the true faith, you’re being deceived by satan, you’re part of the deception of the elect, etc, etc, etc.
You’re brave sharing this so openly. I let bits of my thoughts out and have to deal with a similar backlash and I am not even a pastor!
Count me among those who support your search and walk.
God Bless
‘I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe he was the son of an English merchant who came to this world via the Spirit of God the Father, who is now deceased, in order to teach us how to become better fishermen and fisherwomen and to tell us that we need to get busy and work on our religious performance in order that we can become perfect.’
Jesus Christ is there, and believed in. The Spirit is there and the Father is mentioned.
But this has nothing to do with faith in the living Lord, Jesus Christ. Nothing.
If any pastor ever heard such nonsense from one of his flock, he would have a duty to correct him.
When one gets away from Biblical Christianity, one can believe all sorts of foolishness…even in the name of Jesus.
The Mormons are a perfect example of this.
Interesting, NP. Hey, it’s your blog, you can write and draw what you want!
I’ve posted a few times here – if not for Jesus, Christianity wouldn’t be a go-er for me. I find it hard to believe in church, but I’m sticking with Jesus. I think we over-complicate what it means to believe, have faith, follow him, trust him, because we want systems, hierarchy, a structure to believe in. He made it all quite simple. Love God. Love one another. It’s going to take me a lifetime to do that, and I’ll not be done by the time I’m dead.
I’ll be reading with interest. I value you and your work very much. We don’t have to agree all the time for that to be true.
Blessings
Jenny.
Julia said, on June 24th, 2009 at 12:10 am
fishon –
But that’s just it. ALL of our interpretations are subjective – even the “easy” ones.
Regarding the wide space: free is free is free is free is free is free, indeed.
———-Ok, maybe I said it wrong. I will try again. Some of what is written in scripture is subjective as to my interprtation. However, many things written in scripture are not subjective–even the easy ones. Just because you say they are all subject does not make it so. The one everyone hates to have used::”I am the way…no one…except through me.” What is subjective about that? Now there are those who reject what Jesus said, but that doesn’t make it subjective. It only means they don’t believe it.
Enough. Time for bed.
fishon
And as far as free——no one is free–we all have set limits. It is just that your limit may not be my limit. My limit may be way more free than yours on a certain subject.
fishon
This is the fundamental problem with theism.
If God exists, God is eternal — not measurable by the terms of measurement we use for “non-eternal” things (such as matter, gravity, etc).
Therefore, if God exists, God does not exist in the same way non-eternal things exist.
So if I, a mere mortal, claim that God “exists” I am in fact saying he does NOT exist.
OR I am claiming transcendent knowledge over eternal matters (which suggests that either the eternal does not actually exist or I myself an eternal, transcendent creature).
I’ve heard some theologians overcome this dilemma by describing themselves as a/theistic, a kind of practicing theist aware of their inherent comprehensive limitations that mean they must also be atheistic (if for no other reason out of respect for God).
I would describe myself as a very “reverent agnostic”
yes, james. one of whom is Pete Rollins. thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Have you read ‘God without being’ by Jean-Luc Marion?
not yet. but i have it. and i’ve heard lots about it. thanks.
James Shelley said:
If God exists, God is eternal — not measurable by the terms of measurement we use for “non-eternal” things (such as matter, gravity, etc).
Therefore, if God exists, God does not exist in the same way non-eternal things exist.
So if I, a mere mortal, claim that God “exists” I am in fact saying he does NOT exist.
…
That only works if you are redefining “exist” to mean “measurable by the terms of measurement we use for ‘non-eternal’ things.”
How do you justify that leap? Why does “existence” mean that? It seems to me that is a naturalistic usurpation of the word and the implications obviously distort the meaning of existence, and, by effect, of theism and atheism as well.
By your definition of the word, eternity does not “exist.” Therefore God cannot even be eternal. What a muddled, mixed up concept–simply by redefining “exist.”
Fred:
I’m looking out the window. I see a tree. I postulate that the tree “exists”. Fair?
I can corroborate the existence of the tree by asking you to come over and touch it, peel some bark off, whatever.
If I said there was a tree and you had no tactile or visible verification, you could either assume that
a) I could see something you could not (you are crazy)
b) I was simply “imagining” things (I am crazy)
or
c) The tree “exists” in some other way than the tactile/visible trees you are used to, which means, for all logical assumptions, the tree does NOT actually exist like other trees “exist”
My point: “exists” has to be defined by the terms we use for non-eternal things, otherwise it ceases to mean anything: maybe you don’t exist…and maybe there is actually a white unicorn in my backyard too.
James Shelley said, on June 24th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
So if I, a mere mortal, claim that God “exists” I am in fact saying he does NOT exist.
———-Unbelievable. Now you may claim that, but I and millions won’t claim that.
———-If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it fall, did it make a noise when it fell? Your proposition is about as silly as that little diddi.
Up until a few short years ago, no one knew that there were such things as has been discovered in deep space. However, there were scientists many years ago that said and taught that there were other universes, galaxy’s, other planets, and suns, and black holes. They couldn’t prove it. They couldn’t see, touch, or smell them. So since that was so, if we take your premise, those things exist, but they can’t prove it, in fact they don’t exist. But they did exist, and time proved it out. And time and death will prove God exists, though you don’t acknowledge it.
God exists–but God doesn’t exist.
Hum, I don’t think you exist. I think you are a made up character of NP trying to fool some of us. James Shelley is just a fictional character, not a real person. I can’t see him, nor can I prove he exists.
fishon
Haven’t read the whole thread yet as had a migraine today and can’t read too much stuff right now, but I want to point out (if it hasn’t been pointed out already) that the word ‘EXIST’ comes from the Latin ‘EXISTERE’ meaning ‘to stand out’. God does not exist in the same way that we exist. He is the one ‘in whom we live and move and have our being’ (St. Paul). He’s the ground of our being from which WE exist. God doesn’t have to exist, he’s Being itself.
I believe that it WAS through his suffering that God redeemed the world.
James Shelley said:
My point: “exists” has to be defined by the terms we use for non-eternal things, otherwise it ceases to mean anything: maybe you don’t exist…and maybe there is actually a white unicorn in my backyard too.
—
“Non-eternal”? Or “material”? It seems you are leaning towards a naturalist presupposition. It seems you are using the word “eternal” as equivalent to “unable to be measured.” That’s not what it means. By that definition, nothing truly or completely “exists” because nothing can be completely measured (as per the Uncertainty Principle).
Tiggy said:
“He’s the ground of our being from which WE exist. God doesn’t have to exist, he’s Being itself.”
There’s a fallacy here that says if a category is above another category, it cannot include that category. A cube exists in three dimensions. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have square faces because squares are only two-dimensional. Two-dimensional surfaces exist in three dimensions.
God more than exists. Does that mean he doesn’t exist? No, it doesn’t.
It’s more the contrast between being the GROUND of our being and standing out from it. It isn’t to do with the reality status of God.
If you use the term exists in the sense of being real then you could say that ultimately ONLY God exists and that the rest of us derive our reality from him. This is something that Hinduism struggles with and I think you have to view it at different levels of reality. Of course we exist, but God gives us our existence, our reality.
I think we’re all a little off our rocker….it’s just that some of y’all don’t realize it. I’m out.
Peace, brothers.
Tiggy–I think I agree with your last two responses.
Fred: I am more than willing to be enlightened as to how “eternal” things can be “measured”. In fact, I’m all ears. (Otherwise, I’m personally fine with associating the “eternal” with the “immeasurable”)
Fishon: By your reasoning the invisible white unicorn in my backyard could also exist, science just hasn’t proved or discovered it yet. What’s the point?
Trey: Agreed. Waaaaaaay off the rockers.
Unicorns died out a long time ago – along with virgins.
James Shelly: Your response is completely irrelevant. The issue is not at all whether “eternity” is measurable. The issue is whether “existence” must be measurable. If something can’t be measured it doesn’t exist? That’s pure naturalism.
Just reading through some ’stupid answers to quiz show questions’.
Host: Name something people believe in but cannot see?
Contestant: Hitler.
Godwin’s Law!
Fred:
if someone postulates that something “exists” in “eternity” they must eventually appeal to some kind of collateral, measurable evidence other than saying “It exists–just because I say it does” (even if this evidence is a nothing more than a tacit, experiential or intuitive phenomenon, it is still admitted as evidence and felt to be beyond one’s personal “opinion” of the matter)
…otherwise the statement: “God is Yahweh” and “God is a cosmic, pink elephant” are, at face value, equally valid statements. Of course this is ridiculous to anyone of faith. Why? Because eternal or not, statements that qualify the existence of something register as folly apart from some kind of tactile relationship to the object (which, of course, in the case of this example would be the testimony of the Bible).
If I said “God is a cosmic pink elephant” you would ask me why I believed it; you apply your ‘naturalistic’ criteria on my statement.
Why does the statement “God exists” deserve to be responded to any differently?
‘the statement: “God is Yahweh” and “God is a cosmic, pink elephant” are, at face value, equally valid statements.’
Yes, they are.
‘Of course this is ridiculous to anyone of faith.’
Not if you have faith in a cosmic pink heffalump!
“Not if you have faith in a cosmic pink heffalump” – Tiggy
touché!
Someone said this reminds them of “Barth, Merton, and Kierkegaard.” Seriously? It reminds me of Moe, Larry, and Curley.
Hey Todd: whoever told you that it sounds like Barth, Merton and Kierkegaard… you should take them out for a beer. And you should buy!
Well it beats the Alpha course hands down! For an amusing account of which, see
http://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/week-1a-introduction/
The links for each week are in the box on the right cos they sort of go backwards.
It really shows up the intellectual inadequacies of Alpha – the course that is churning out Evangelical clones even from Catholic churches.
I would like to start a group called ‘Intellectuals Against Alpha’. Anyone with me?