z-theory #7: diagram
This is just a rough sketch of what I’m thinking about lately. It has to do with my rather controversial post yesterday. Seriously: this is all in development. I’m endeavoring to discover a structure for thinking about faith. So far this is working for me.
Check out my t-shirts HERE. I’m growing my inventory all the time. And check out my contemplative art here.
If you liked this post, or would like to use it, please buy me a beer!
It is a good explanation to understand God more.
This may be too simple but.. We can’t know anything about God if he doesn’t reveal himself to us. And if He does reveal himself, we should trust him. and it’s probably not wrong for him to punish deliberate rebellion..
sorry david, but really, one has to start thinking why you’re a christian after all these?
it makes sense and all, but somehow doesn’t fit in. can you explain? i mean how this fits in with biblical truth?
I personally like this paradigm for an explanation of ‘faith’. Because in faith we have the mystery, the discovery, and the history (living it)…faith is this interaction from a Spirit to a spirit (we are all spiritual). So how does this look and make sense – I think it is keen to make a paradigm that represents this belief called ‘faith’ (namely in God).
Why people wanna see you leave the ‘faith’ is really, really, beyond me.
But I guess we are starting to see something – some Christians believe in exclsuion and there is no way around that…cause Christianity in a modern, generic, framework is exclusive. We just need to find out the price to get in and we have a great country club.
I think this simple graphic makes me understand your previous post a lot more. I’m still not sure what I think of it all.
The Mystery: “No one has exclusive rights.”
——–Jesus does.
The Discovery: “This is the revelation of the wholly other.”
——–What is the ‘wholly other?’
The History: “Where truth, justice, and love abide, this is the spirit.”
——–Who’s truth, David? Who’s justice, my friend? What is true love, preacher?
By the way, David, do you embrace Allah as God as taught by the Koran?
fishon
Semety said:
“We can’t know anything about God if he doesn’t reveal himself to us.”
And just how does he do this? The bible? If so, then there is no “revealing” necessary. All we have to do is read.
“And if He does reveal himself, we should trust him.”
In other words, just believe what the bible says…even the parts we don’t understand or find hard to believe.
“and it’s probably not wrong for him to punish deliberate rebellion..”
Where the hell did that come from?
hey bob: wondering what’s your take on this theory.
I’ll try again, David. You were the one who mentions Allah under “The Mystery.”
By the way, David, do you embrace Allah as God as taught by the Koran?
fishon
If I said no would that make you more comfortable because you can label then dismiss me? If I said yes would that ease your questions about me? What is the reason for the question?
Interesting ideas, np.
Just to throw some fuel on the fire:
Allah, as understood in Islam, is wholly transcendent, i.e., not immanent, not relational, not loving. Is that somehow correlative with Yahweh or God as you understand him?
Nirvana, as far as I understand, is the state of perfect peace–not in a sense of “well-being” (e.g., “Shalom”), but in the sense (or, literally, “non-sense”–pun certainly not intended, hence the hyphen) of cessation of desire, need, attachment…well, everything, really. Is that somehow correlative with Yahweh or God as you understand him?
Are these all imperfect thoughts that somehow denote the same Idea/Concept/Person?
David, I was not the one who brought up Allah; you did.
Oh, I have already labelled you–as I suspect you have labelled me. You label too my friend. Your cartoons speak that loudly.
Dismiss you because of a label I put on you–oh come now, preacher, is that what you do with people you label. If so, that doesn’t mean we all do that.
If you said ‘yes,’ no, that would not easy/stop my questions. Questions are how we get to answers. Are you intimadated by my questions?
I asked the question because I would like to know the answer. Did you think there was something sinister and mysterious about the question, when it was you that opened up the subject? Maybe you just want to toss out a theory [z theory] but not be questioned about it or any part of it?
Oh well, if the question intimadates you, I can’t force you to answer it. And you are under no obligation to answer it, either.
YOU: “If I said no would that make you more comfortable because you can label then dismiss me?”——oooooo man, that is close to labeling me.
fishon
The more I think about it.. the more I’m disturbed. But I realize what really disturbs me is not what NP wrote, but that people agree with him.
fishon: You ask your questions in a condescending form. Do you expect David to answer your questions hoping you will receive them with an open mind?
thescamel, I don’t even know what that means: “questions in a condescending form.”
All I asked originally was—By the way, David, do you embrace Allah as God as taught by the Koran?
Man, some of you guys are way to sensitive.
Some of us are not as educated as some of you.
Some of us guys are not as articulate as some of you.
YOU:Do you expect David to answer your questions hoping you will receive them with an open mind?
———–NO. And by the way, I don’t expect David to be open minded about my opinions and beliefs. I express them–he can take-um or leave-um. What’s the big deal?
How open minded are you about me disagreeing with you that my questions are condesending. You’re not, and nothing I say will make you open minded about it.
Being open minded is overrated. Heck, I bet there are many things you are not open minded about–when push-comes-to-shove.
Interesting, that open minded thing you bring up. A TRULY open mind would have answered my question, but instead I get, “What is the reason for your question?” I expectantly for your inquirey to David about his closed mind–Nay, no I don’t; not going to happen.
fishon
Kenny Johnson said, on June 24th, 2009 at 12:59 am
The more I think about it.. the more I’m disturbed. But I realize what really disturbs me is not what NP wrote, but that people agree with him.
——-Kenny, you shouldn’t be surprised. Man, there is sooo much stuff out in cyber land and preached from the pulpits, today, that make our buddy, NP, sound tame. But then, God did warn us of this coming confusion and false teaching. And God did tell us that there would be those who would gather teachers around them to itch their ears.
What drives so many of the new guys [emergents] crazy are those of us who are SURE of what we believe and will not bend. So they develope us into the bad guys.
Enough ranting from me. Off to bed.
fishon
I’d never thought I’d write this but NP but you turned out te be just to open minded for me. I try to intepret what you are saying in a meaningful way but fail. To a certain degree I could go along by seeing your model as an application of the Trinity but it seems you are writing about the trinity’s essence and I could in no way agree with that. Disturbed describe my feelings well. It feels liks I’m losing a brother in Christ.
Hi Np,
I think I understand what you are trying to do, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
You are trying to remove all labels that are placed on people as labels, by thier very nature, are exclusive are marginalise people. You want to be inclusive and not have people removed from your community but loved a cherished instead, right?
There are a couple of thing I think that maybe you should ponder over:
1) Perhaps labels can be helpful as well as detrimental. For me to say I am a christian means that they way another christian will talk to me is different to the way they would talk to an Athiest. Not out of spite, fear, or anger but out of love. Metting each person where they are. Labels help us introduce God to people where they are.
2) Perhaps the most loving thing we as Christians can do is, to an extent, be exlusive. Now don’t get me wrong I’m not calling for the church to be closed but what I am saying is that we should be different. Christianity makes claims to exclusive truth, based on a historical reality, Jesus Christ. To say to someone that Jesus is truth is to accept all that he taught, including his exclusivity (i.e. “No-one comes to the father except through me”), and follow him. To include that which is not Christian into our churches may be nice and make people feel included but is it loving? Perhaps we are risking thier future glory over our need not to offend now?
3) Have you that that maybe in the discovery the mystery becomes the history? The greek work we translate mystery (Mysterion) actually means the opposite from what we use it to mean in English. In the NT mystery means that which was hidden but is now revealed.(i.e. Col 4:3; Eph 3:9, etc.). This then means that we can know the ‘other’ because it is revealed to us in Jesus. We can claim that we know who God is because Jesus came and told us. He revealed the father to us (John 1:18), as well as revealing himself and later sending the holy spirit, God in us.
Pehaps then, by making your congregation too open you are not actually giving love and justice but rather lies and false hope?
Just something to ponder over.
Kenny Johnson…what are you disturbed at…that others think differently…why?
NP, you have hit on something that is incredibly difficult for people of faith to embrace: the absolute vast and impenetrable mystery that is God. It is so much easier for us to believe we have everything in its neat little box… which, if you think about it, is incredibly arrogant.
Jesus refused to be confined to the neat little box of religious orthodoxy in his day. He pointed to a God who was far larger than the prevailing understanding.
nakedpastor said, on June 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
hey bob: wondering what’s your take on this theory.
David, I am not a….”deep thinker”. As a skeptic (and not a very intelligent one at that), my mind tends to look for the obvious, the simple answer, and question with extreme doubt any other option. But at times, I love to speculate, to wonder, and even ponder the improbable as being possible.
I find your Z theory intriguing, just as I find the existence of the “supernatural”, black holes, and fireflies intriguing.
All I ask David is that you continue doing exactly what you are doing. Some responders point out the risks you are taking by not clinging to, shall we say, the roots of your faith, the roots of your religious belief. I say, roots be damned! Roots are under the dirt, cold, wet, and dark. It is the tender branches and budding leaves that search for the sun and feel the first rain drops.
I believe that thinking for ones self and sharing with others what you discover along the way is the highest “calling” in humanity. I believe that is what you are doing here. And consider some of the responses as evidence that what you are doing is right. As Gustave Le Bon said – “Men dominated by a certitude cannot tolerate those who do not accept it.”
“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.”
~Loa Tzu~
I see a problem with lumping “undiscovered scientific truth” with “God.” Our universe is finite. Therefore, scientific truth is finite. Scientific knowledge is necessarily limited by the Uncertainty Principle. So as we increase our scientific knowledge, we diminish something from the top level of the “Z.” The bottom level increases. Does that make sense? As we increase our knowledge (even scientific knowledge), does God decrease?
I have another question: Where does the middle line start…top or bottom or both?
FiF: It slopes from the top, backward, and down, mainly because it is the “revelation” or incarnation, etc… and it slopes back because, even though it happens in history, it is retroactive.
I think Cecilia hit it on the nose.
“This doesn’t exist as we know existence”. I’ve been thinking about that over your last few posts. It seems to me that Jesus did exist as we know existence. He was born of a very human mother, created of Spirit and flesh in a very human womb. But these were not two separate things stuck together with some kind of divine glue. John 1 tells us that “the Word was made flesh” – not ensconced in flesh but ‘made’ flesh. Being fully God and fully man does not mean that Jesus had a dual nature – John 1 tells us this nature is singular. This is important, for without this singular ‘Godmanity’ the only thing that died on the cross was an empty human body; what was shed on Calvary was merely human blood while Christ’s divine nature had no part to play in the act. If Christ remained a spirit being separate from his flesh, then the shed blood of Jesus Christ has no power – it is merely human blood. Clearly, this is not the gospel. ‘God became flesh’ is how the bible describes Jesus. He is described in no other way, and the biblical test of the Spirit is to ask, “Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?”
Clearly then, God was a material substance in Jesus Christ.
But there’s more. When Jesus ascended into heaven he took his humanity with him. He left no body behind. To that extent God is, today, very much located in the material world of flesh and blood as well as in the realm of Spirit – flesh and wholly other – all at once. God does indeed exist as we know existence. He’s called Jesus.
How does this relate to the “Z” theory? Well… you probably have all this sewn up in the “Discovery” bar. The point I want to make is that once God was pure mystery, purely unknowable, wholly other. But he is not anymore. He is now located firmly within our material world. And it is this location in our physical existence that engages the ‘History’ bar and integrates the value of our physical being and physical world with the life of Christ and our worship of him. Centuries after the fact, the shed blood of Christ remains our answer to gnosticism. We are reminded of this every time we take communion, we are reminded of this every time we consider the cross of Christ and his bodily resurrection.
Thought provoking post NP – as they usually are…
For fishon, Allah as an arabic word simply means ‘God’…I am guessing NP believes in God. I am also guessing you haven’t researched any Arabic.
As for coming to Fishon’s defense – well I see people literally walking away from him because they think he is going against Christianity – and I think that is sad – but normal for the course in a closed minded faith. Why can’t people just open their minds and consider what NP is actually saying there – his intent? Why keep getting stuck on the small things that mean very little?
Kenny, I appreciate your comments but I am not sure what the problem is with what David is saying there? I tend to like what he is saying about the mystery, discovery, and living of this faith (spirit)…a lot of that resonates with actual reality itself.
This is really turning into archaic forms of understanding Christianity refusing to accept a reality we all know exists – God is someone no one here has seen – thus mystery to that aspect of God (no one can claim those rights). The discovery part is also different for each person – to say we all have the same faith is to lie – none of us quite the same and we discover at various levels concerning our ‘faith’. Jusr because some system says God is this and that doesn’t mean anyting – what do you actually know about God – that ain’t just learned from some creed?
This is the exact reason people are leaving this faith in droves – it’s too close-minded and refuses to think in any single modern way (and then call that thinking – evil). I can’t see what David is doing that is actually ‘evil’…someone please show me the one action he made or said that is ‘evil’? He’s not promoting hatred, not promoting non-belief, he’s not promoting any action I would even so much as consider ‘evil’. If you can find one – you have quite the imagination.
I say keep it up NP – your not doing anything ‘wrong’ by examining your faith and looking at it from a realistic perspective. I respect that about you – this is someone looking honestly at his faith and making sense of it – without all the ‘givens’. I admire that. I can honestly say if you were my pastor – I’d see no problem with your evaluations of your faith.
societyvs said, on June 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
For fishon, Allah as an arabic word simply means ‘God’…I am guessing NP believes in God. I am also guessing you haven’t researched any Arabic.
———–Give it up, societyvs. You are good at trying to rearrange things asked and said by me. The question to David was:::::By the way, David, do you embrace Allah as God as taught by the Koran?————–did you get that? “as taught by the Koran.”
———–You may be guessing as to what David believes in and about God. I don’t want to have to guess. He has been playing that game way to long. You might take another look at how he framed the first part of Z—”God, Allah, Yahweh, and Nirvana.” Don’t pretend that Allah and Nirvana isn’t a red flag to the vast majority of Christians.
“Fishon’s defense,” I think you mean David’s.
YOU: well I see people literally walking away from him because they think he is going against Christianity – and I think that is sad – but normal for the course in a closed minded faith.
——-Accually, it takes a brave and courageous, and especially open minded person to walk away from a leader or group who has become….
——-To bad that the folks who followed Jim Jones or Koresh were not open minded. They stayed by their leader and died. That is CLOSED MINDED.
One last thing on that—don’t hear me to say David is of those guys who led people to their physical death, but I am concerned about him leading folks to a spiritual death. That is why I ask so many questions. Don’t you think it would have been smart of the followers of Jones and Koresh to have asked a lot of questions?????
YOU::This is really turning into archaic forms of understanding Christianity refusing to accept a reality we all know exists – God is someone no one here has seen – thus mystery to that aspect of God (no one can claim those rights).
——-We aren’t talking about seeing God. We are talking about things that David is teaching outright and subtley.
Why do you take me to task and debated me for some of the thiings I believe and have stated? Same reason I and others take him on. We are no different. We just come from different opinions, beliefs, and views.
YOU:Why keep getting stuck on the small things that mean very little?
——-Small things to you, not to some of us. There you go trying to put your beliefs and emotions [small things] on us. Are you trying to tell me what should and shouldn’t be small or big things?
YOU:::Jusr because some system says God is this and that doesn’t mean anyting
———Apparently not to you, but you don’t speak for millions of us. You sound like Miller.
YOU::: what do you actually know about God – that ain’t just learned from some creed?
———–Actually, the Church that I am apart of has nor ever has had a creed. Our creed [if you must call it that] is the Bible. Nope, absolutely no other written document.
What do you know about God that you didn’t learn from a creed, societyvs? If you accuse us of only learning from a creed then you are in the same box.
YOU:::This is the exact reason people are leaving this faith in droves – it’s too close-minded and refuses to think in any single modern way (and then call that thinking – evil).
————-YOU DON’T KNOW THAT. You are just parroting some emergent goofball.
Oh yes, people are leaving the faith, not because of what you say, but because of the reasons the BIBLE gives. 2 Tim. 4:3-5 {NLT} 3 For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will reject the truth and chase after myths. 5 But you should keep a clear mind in every situation. Don’t be afraid of suffering for the Lord. Work at telling others the Good News, and fully carry out the ministry God has given you.
—-I believe I will take the Bible’s word over wherever you got you info.
Has anyone called David “evil,” societyvs. I don’t recall that been written, but then maybe I missed that. If you can’t show me in this particular debate, then you are just creating a strawman. And NO ONE has said NP was wrong for exaiming his faith. Another strawman. The debate is about what seems to be his move from orthodox Christian faith {God, Jesus, Holy Spirit}.
fishon
fishon, I am apologize. I felt it was more the way you structured your comment. You seemed to shut down all of NPs ideas. I accept that it is hard to hear tone through text. I may have read your comment wrong by interpreting your questions as argumentative. I did not mean to assume wrong. I would have answered your questions if I knew you were sincere. Again, I just wanted to apologize.
thescamel,
No problem, thescamel. I have been accused of many things, and I suppose that I am guilty of some of the accuzations. However, I think that what rubs some the wrong way about me is that I am pretty plain spoken. I don’t not like to engage in politically correct dialogue, and I really don’t know how to do that.
I do admit to taking NP on quite often. But as he has stated yesterday, he knows that what he says will cause debate. He and I hardly see eye to eye on anything, but I don’t dislike or have any hard feelings towards him. Nor do I think he has any towards me.
And I am still waiting for an answer. I can’t imagine anyone thinking it is out of order, as it pertains to what he has written as his Z Theory. It wasn’t some off the wall question.
fishon
I’m finding it interesting, David, that you’re holding off responding. I see the Z Theory expressing the essence of Trinitarian theology, and more — it suggests, by its inclusivism, that “the Spirit blows where it wills.” I suspect, David, that you’re in the process of becoming a Christian universalist like me.
I have a pointed question. Dare I ask it? OK, I will: if this is the trajectory of your faith journey, how can you remain comfortable in The Vineyard? What the Z Theory implies flies in the face of much of what evangelicalism stands for.
“did you get that? “as taught by the Koran.” (fishon)
And it’s a stupid question – because in over some 100 blogs I have read of NP’s – not one time does he say he follow Allah as written in the Qu’ran…so your question is based on a simple term ‘Allah’…which means God in Arabic. In the ‘discovery’ section I don’t see the word ‘Qu’ran’…do you fishon? Your supposing something about NP that (a) has no basis in history and (b) he never talks about…so really…it’s a moot point.
“but I am concerned about him leading folks to a spiritual death” (Fishon)
I love this – your concerned with David leading people to ‘spiritual death’ – correct? Did you read the ‘Z theory’ and namely the ‘history’ part? It’s all about ‘spirit’ and the awakening of this in the human being. Also mentioning spiritual death is a crock of…namely when it comes down what David is saying in this conversation. How would you spot one of these ‘spiritually dead’ people fishon – I am interested?
“There you go trying to put your beliefs and emotions [small things] on us. Are you trying to tell me what should and shouldn’t be small or big things?” (Fishon)
Get over it you hypocrite. Are you not also trying to put your beliefs onto David and others with your comments? Why can’t you just accept this is an arena of ideas and we all express what we express – and yes I feel these are small things people are getting their panties in a bunch about…so? Who cares if David says ‘God is dead’ – with accordance to how we can explain existence…it’s true. If he’s wrong – refute that and explain where God is and how we can access this God with our ‘whole beings’ (including sight and sound).
“Apparently not to you, but you don’t speak for millions of us” (fishon)
Well me must have millions of babies in the faith – good to know I’ll always have something to do.
“What do you know about God that you didn’t learn from a creed, societyvs?” (fishon)
Yeah right (lol)…I don’t adhere to the Apostles Creed or the Nicene – so basically everything I believe from the bible is based on scripture tempered in the fire (experience). In the end, those creeds are to make people feel good – like a country club code of conduct they all ‘adhere to’…except a creed is worse then a code of conduct – it has nothing morally meaningful about it.
So everything I adhere to in this Christian faith must (a) be scriptural, (b) make sense, and (c) work. I see nothing wrong scritpurally with what David is writing nor do I see how it is causing problems for anyone (unless you’re a creed person – then I think you’re arguing for nothing IMO). I don’t see the moral dilemma involved.
“Oh yes, people are leaving the faith, not because of what you say, but because of the reasons the BIBLE gives” (Fishon)
Your kidding right? You didn’t just say that did you? Are you smoking goofballs? C’mon and get with the program fishon – which reasons? Sound teaching – maybe there’s none left – ever figure that?
2 Tim. 4:3 {NLT} “For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear.”
How come this can’t be used against nationalistic evangelical thinking? Or pretty much any church that arose from the mid 1800’s and early 1900’s Christian movements? Or even the Reformation? Catholics likely said this about the Protestants (and vice versa).
Fact is – Christianity today is filled with a lot of garbage that is for people that want ‘easy answers’ and their beliefs in God ‘filled out for them’. Most people don’t even think for themselves in churches – and when they do – someone like fishon rolls out a scripture like this to ‘scare’ them back into obedience. Churches teach most congregants not to think – just believe what the pastor tells ya. I know I was in that kind of church – exactly like you mention fishon (non-denominational/evangelical/charismatic)…and still have friends bound to that way of being.
The key to that scripture is ‘whatever they want to hear’…now since no one has heard this before how can David be accused of saying something he know ‘everyone wants to hear’?
“I believe I will take the Bible’s word over wherever you got you info” (fishon)
I guess fishon’s right – I got my info from the bible and it just cant be saying what I say it does – because I am not fishon.
“Has anyone called David “evil,” societyvs. I don’t recall that been written…” (fishon)
Then maybe you can go back and read pastor Micks comments in the last blog when he prayed for people to leave David…or another person telling David ‘I think I just lost a brother’…are u kidding me? What do these people think David is…if not something close to ‘evil’…or maybe what you say ‘a false teacher’ (with your use of 2 Tim). No one has to say the obvious fishon – it’s bad enough already and to think these are Christian brothers treating Christians brothers this way…absolutely shameful.
“The debate is about what seems to be his move from orthodox Christian faith” (fishon)
And I commend him for the move (although he hasn’t moved away from orthodoxy). What the hell is orthodxy anyways – the 4th person in the Trinity? I aint orthodox and guess what fishon – I still follow Jesus.
Societyvs: In the ‘discovery’ section I don’t see the word ‘Qu’ran’…do you fishon? Your supposing something about NP that (a) has no basis in history and (b) he never talks about…so really…it’s a moot point.
————No, I don’t see the word koran. So what. Allah is not a biblical term it is a koran term. So you were one of those guys that sat in class and never asked probing questions? No wonder you can’t think out of the box.
fishon
Societyvs, Get over it you hypocrite. Are you not also trying to put your beliefs onto David and others with your comments?
———–Hehehe, don’t like it when the tables are turned, do you!
You asked the question:YOU:Why keep getting stuck on the small things that mean very little?
MY Answer:——-Small things to you, not to some of us. There you go trying to put your beliefs and emotions [small things] on us. Are you trying to tell me what should and shouldn’t be small or big things?
———–Again, small things to you, not to me. You are trying to put on me what is your consideration as small that means very little.
fishon
“Allah is not a biblical term it is a koran term” (fishon)
Allah is a language term for God – it’s from the Arabic language…you might be amazed at this but even Christians who speak solely Arabic call God ‘Allah’ (since that is the exact term meaning God).
“No wonder you can’t think out of the box” (fishon)
I am the one in the box? You don’t even know Allah is an Arabic term for God and think it is God’s name in Islam…then you go on to link that term with being a Muslim alone…it ain’t me stuck in some box right thurr. Just admit you were wrong on this one and we’ll move onto bigger and better things.
societyvs said, on June 25th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“Allah is not a biblical term it is a koran term” (fishon)
Allah is a language term for God – it’s from the Arabic language…you might be amazed at this but even Christians who speak solely Arabic call God ‘Allah’ (since that is the exact term meaning God).
————–Enough of your game playing. It is boring. I am not as bright as you, but I am not as silly as you thing, either. You know exactly what I was asking, David, and so does he. Playing word games with what ‘Allah’ means still does not take away from my question.
If he is unwilling to finish what he starts and claims to believe, then he is not the open minded–new thinker that he claims. Heck, he would not even answer a couple of simple, logical questions about the Bible and his ‘man-made’ z theory.
YOU:I am the one in the box? You don’t even know Allah is an Arabic term for God and think it is God’s name in Islam…then you go on to link that term with being a Muslim alone…it ain’t me stuck in some box right thurr. Just admit you were wrong on this one and we’ll move onto bigger and better things.
——————Now that is really funny. I DARE YOU TO SPEAK A BAD WORD IN MANY ARAB COUNTRIES, IN REFERENCE TO JUST THE WORD ‘ALLAH,’ AND SEE HOW LONG YOU KEEP YOUR HEAD.
fishon
I came in late to all this; I read the previous post, and thought, “I’d like to understand more of what David is saying. I don’t think he is denying faith, God, or anything, as some want to believe, but rather that he is trying to put the Great Unlimited into limited words (as we all do) and is trying new new forms.” But then it was a tough week–three deaths in the church, followed hard on the heels by Vacation Bible school, so I never got back to it.
I’ll have to dwell with your Z-theory some more, but shooting from the hip, I like it.
Fishon, I think you are reading too much meaning into David’s mention of “Allah.” It is simply the Arabic word for God, and as a semetic language, is related to the Hebrew word, “Eloheim.” If your native language was French, you would not pray to “God,” you’d pray to “Dieu.” If your native language was Spanish, you would not pray to “God,” you’d pray to “Dios.” If you were German: Gott, not God. Same with Arabic: if your your native language was Arabic, you would pray to Allah–even if you were a Arabic Christian, because “Allah” is not specific to Islam, it simply is the Arabic word for God. Probably you and I are closer together in our theology than we are to David, but sometimes I think you are a little too ready to jump his case. And while I’m at it, “wholly other” has a history in Christian theology.
Maybe I’m prejudiced here, as I have a number of Moslem friends, and my last name is itself Arabic (I don’t know if some ancestor lost in the mists of time was from the Middle East, or it is just an accident of linguistics). But you know: although Moslems misidentify Jesus, they at least acknowledge His existance, and claim Him as a great prophet, in stark contrast to Judaism, which typically denies even His existance.
John Fariss
Al – Lah – Arabic – The God or God (some languages always use an article in front of the noun)
El – Loh – Hebrew – for some reason no one seems quite clear about, it’s written in the plural form of El- Lohim. Maybe because the word formerly referred to The Gods.
Adonai – Lord
Yeshuah – Jesus
It’s just a different language – get over it! FFS they didn’t speak English.
John Fariss,
As I told societyvs in one of the many posts that have taken place over the last few days, my question to David was:::By the way, David, do you embrace Allah as God as taught by the Koran?
My question was very specific——do you embrace…as taught by the Koran?
That is far from asking about the generic name “Allah.”
It was a very legitamate question. He used the name, not I. And I was curious as to just what he meant by it. I suppose I could have went to the Nirvana thing.
I am sorry that some misunderstand my question—-or rather, choose to ignore it and misrepresent what was asked. I notice twiggy missed it too. IT WASN’T ABOUT LANGUAGE–IT IS ABOUT WHAT DAVID EMBRACES. I guess it was a intimidating question for many folks–they have tried to make it say something that wasn’t asked.
fishon
David knows exactly what I was asking.
My name is not Twiggy!
Apologies for misunderstanding. I just have my own personal rant about names of God etc. It wasn’t even aimed at you – I was just ranting. What particular aspect of the Qur’an’s teaching on Allah did you have in mind?
I’ve been thinking about this Z-theory for awhile now and haven’t commented too much because I think I just don’t get it. No matter how many times I’ve read it and reread it or considered additional comments and explanations, I just don’t get it.
Maybe I don’t understand what the point is. Maybe I’m not ready for it right now, much like a Kindergartener would be confused by Algebraic equations. Maybe I will always think it’s too complicated, much like I still feel about higher mathematics (and I’m well past Kindergarten.)
I don’t know….the comments are interesting in a “There’s going to be a train wreck/Can it be stopped short of mangled bodies?” sort of way. I am glad that this is a place of dialogue and struggling with the process as each of us works out our salvation (or faith or non-faith or relationship to the Wholly Other–whatever the case may be) because no matter how our separated beliefs may be, we share the journey of life. And dialogue can help us through the harder spots on the path.
What don’t you get exactly? I mean about the Z theory, not Algebra.
(I can do higher mathematics, but I kind add up! I’m dyscalculic.)
Tiggy,
Well, it’s kind of like saying “Humans wonder about the mystery of God. God becomes God-human. Humans who embrace the God-man live in and through the spirit of love.” If that’s what the theory means, I didn’t need the theory because I already knew that from the gospel and my experience with the Wholly Other. So, why would I need the theory?
If I”m misunderstanding the gist of it and it is more about some kind of philosophical, mystical, trinitarian thing–then I’m completely missing it! However, I do think the visual of the Z (like a path from God to human) is cool.
But, I would ask whether the path must be traveled from the top down or could also be traveled from the bottom up? To my way of thinking, Christianity is the only religion in which God does the work going from Wholly Other, becoming human, and then settling into the humans that want Him there. Other religions seem to start from the “We are good. We claim spirit.” and try to work their way up the diagonal to become human-God in order to reach the Wholly Other. Those that work their way up from the bottom seem (to my perhaps narrow way of thinking) to be embracing a gospel different from the gospel of grace taught in Scripture.
But, like I said, I think I am just not getting it. I am probably in need of lots of ZZZZZZs tonight! ;^)
YOU need sleep? What about me – it’s 4am here in the UK!
I think I should leave it to NP to say if you got it or not, but it sounds like you got it a long time ago.
I wouldn’t underestimate the role of grace in other religions though – it is there. To me, every major faith seems to express a beautiful understanding of God.
Good Night Canada!
Fishon,
Thanks for the clarifying. I recognized the form of your question, but something about it led me to think you had an objection to the use of the word “Allah.” From the other comments, it looks as though some others had the same reaction. If that is not so–so be it.
As to the your question itself–well, to be candid, if I had a blog, and was known from that blog as pastoring a Christian church (denomination is irrelevant), I would not answer it either. That would either be because I declined to dignify it with an answer (with all that implies), or because I learned over the years that a person isn’t obligated to go to every knife fight they are invited to.
John
John,
You don’t think that the folks of a church whose pastor blogs and sees a NEW z theory proclaimed by their pastor deserve an answer if they have a question about it?
You don’t think that a pastor of a church who has a blog and is proclaiming a new z theory in hopes of influencing the people he is blogging to should answer questions about his new theory? Are all questions out of bounds or just some?
Maybe that’s what happened with the folks with Jim Jones. They were told that questions were out of bounds and that he would not dignify the questions with an answer! That is how cults get started. John, we are not talking about an insignificant issue here—we are talking about a NEW THEORY. And out of new theory comes NEW DOCTRINE, and out of new doctrine comes a NEW CREATED gOD.
I wonder what you would do if your pastor popped up with a new X theory?
I know this, if I came up with a new V theory my congregation would be all over me with questions. And let me tell you why they would question me. I have taught them that they should question me any time I teach something that doesn’t sound right or they can’t find in the Bible. I tell them that at least once a month. I would rather have them question me, often, than be taught not to ask questions, and someday have a new pastor with a Q theory and never question it.
If someone has a new theory and he doesn’t want to be asked questions about it–he may very well be on a power, ego, low self-esteem trip.
fishon
Fishon,
Wow! You sure can connect a lot of dots. But are they really there? I mean, you seem to jump to the conclusion that he is refusing answers put to him by his congregation. Are you a member of that church?
I’m not in a position to answer for David, nor does he need me to answer for him. He is a big boy, and can do that for himself. But that does not change the fact that he has no obligation to answer questions that either of us put to him. In fact, I think he is sort of thinking out loud (or in print) anyway. I don’t know how well you know any artists, but my daughter is one. She does that all the time. She may ask me to help her with a story line, only to completely reject it. But the process of my creating one stimulates her own “creative juices.” David may not have it all worked out, and is just trying to get his “juices flowing” through dialogue here.
John
It’s not a ‘new theory’; it’s a new expression of an old one. And very well expressed I would say.
” I DARE YOU TO SPEAK A BAD WORD IN MANY ARAB COUNTRIES, IN REFERENCE TO JUST THE WORD ‘ALLAH,’ AND SEE HOW LONG YOU KEEP YOUR HEAD.” (fishon)
But I wouldn’t speak a bad word about “God’ in general so why would I go to some Middle East country and do that? Allah means God – I got nothing bad to say about God – and never really have.
” I have taught them that they should question me any time I teach something that doesn’t sound right or they can’t find in the Bible” (fsihon)
So how is David’s whole thinking on this Z theory unbiblical again? I am all for the questions but you seem to claiming something here – that maybe David;s idea and thinking here is not biblical? It’s based in the Trinity – so maybe it’s not – but at least he is the most core church belief in the Trinity. I bet ya – if you ask david – he can back this all up with biblical motifs.
While we are on this topic of ‘being biblical’ – what about abortion…it’s not in the bible – so how can a student in your congregation be sure your teaching them the correct view on this? Should they not question you and if it doesn’t suffice – just ask you to quit talking on the topic (that’s if you do)?
Some things are pieced together from the bible – the intent is there (like with abortion) – but no actual scripture exists to deal with this issue. How is that any different than what David is doing here?
Can someone give me the best defense of NP in the last year award (lol) – now thats arrogance
John,
Maybe I am jumping to conclusion, but I am betting that his congregation doesn’t know the answer to my question about:::By the way, David, do you embrace Allah as God as taught by the Koran? If I am wrong then they can tell me. Many are on this site. No guessing–the truth and nothing but the truth.
By the way, that is why I then brought in the next question for you, because I anticipated that you might ask what you did ask:::You don’t think that a pastor of a church who has a blog and is proclaiming a new z theory in hopes of influencing the people he is blogging to should answer questions about his new theory? Are all questions out of bounds or just some?
Oh, you are right. He has no obligation to answer me. But I have my right to draw conclusions as to why he doesn’t or won’t answer. And you can guess what my conclusion is.
I don’t know how well you know any artists, but my daughter is one. She does that all the time.
——–I don’t know many artists. But John, the z theory is not art; it is a preacher thinking outloud about new theory and doctrine–and the artist thing will not cut it. Either he is a full time pastor first and an artist second, or he should….
fishon
societyvs said: I bet ya – if you ask david – he can back this all up with biblical motifs.
————-Yea, like I am going to waste my time and see if he will answer me on that.
Why would he do that–he still hasn’t answered my original question–his, as you put it, “biblical motifs.”
fishon
That’s because he’s away!!!
I would say the Z theory is art. A sermon is art, or should be. When I used to teach in a Catholic school, though not a Catholic, the RE lessons were more like Divinity lessons and I took the opportunity to put across my faith with some conviction. My lessons used to come out a bit like sermons and it definitely felt like artistic expression. Things said or written can be art.
Tiggy,
Never thought of my sermons as art. I do put lots of time and effort into choosing the right words. Hum, I’ll have to think about that. It you are right and sermons are/can be art, then that would be the only artful part of me. I can’t even draw good stick men–oops, stick people.
fishon
Blimey, I thought you’d all gone to sleep. Early night needed over t here in Canada?
I can’t draw stick people or even write properly. I’ve only recently found my form of artistic expression after years of everyone saying I seemed like an artistic person. Even prose writing can be an art. Good punctuation is an art, not a science. It has to take into account things like the rhythm of the sentence and the sounds of words. I’m pretty sure the sermon is an art form.
David
Denise has a comment for you………….BRAVO…BRAVO..BRAVO! Truth and awakening!
[...] in the development of this framework. You might also want to follow along with nakedpastor’s z theory construct, which is another current stab at formulating a kind of religious expression beyond the [...]