Z-Theory #8: Dialog and Love
How can Billy Graham, a southern Baptist evangelist preacher, sit down with Robert Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral, and say that he’s sensed the spirit of Jesus in Tibetan Buddhists, even though they didn’t know the name “Jesus”? How can N.T. Wright, an evangelical New Testament scholar, co-write a book with his friend Marcus Borg, a progressive, panentheist, and fellow of The Jesus Seminar? How can Thomas F. Torrance, a Scottish Presbyterian Reformed theologian, win the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion because of his contributions to the relationship between science and theology, as well as for assisting the Eastern Orthodox Church in its articulation of Trinitarian theology? How can Pope Benedict XVI be engaged in open and friendly dialog with one of Judaism’s foremost scholars, Jacob Neusner? How can Thomas Merton, a Benedictine monk and hermit, who’s writing revitalized the American monastic movement in the fifties and sixties, die in Bangkok while participating in a spiritual summit with Buddhists? How can profoundly deep agreement occur between David Bohm, an important quantum-physicist, and Krishnamurti, a world-teacher on philosophical spirituality, as well as with the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism?
I could go on and on. But the z-theory has helped me answer these questions for myself. I don’t for a minute believe that these people were concealing their true identities, pretending to agree on the outside while profoundly disagreeing on the inside. I don’t think one party believed they were right and heading for reward and the other party was wrong and heading for destruction. I believe that these people understood that every person has equal status within the free space of dialog and mutual respect, appreciation and understanding.
An online friend sent me a kind warning that I was already familiar with, originally articulated by the Buddha:
While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment.
I wholeheartedly agree. For me, the z-theory has freed my mind from a narrow, fundamentalist way of thinking and has opened new vistas of understanding and, I hope, wisdom. For me. The theory is just that… a theory. Nothing more. It is just a way for me to understand reality. It helps me to answer the “how” questions from the first paragraph of this post. I’m wondering if its possible that it could help others too. For I believe we are in greater need today than ever before to find ways of dialoging with others with openness, respect and love.
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!
Oh, now I get it (I think). After I read this post, I went back and re-read your Z-theory. This is more of a break from traditional Christianity than I first realized. BUT at the same time it is also quite affirming of it. It’s just that this theory is giving equal weight to all religions, because they follow the same pattern of unknowable being-revelation-community. Am I getting close, np?
So when Jesus says “I am the way, no one comes to the Father but by me,” are you saying (in terms of the Z-theory) that it’s like He is saying “I am the slanting arm of the Z, no one gets to the upper arm of the Z without going through me?”
And that since Jesus is boundary-less according to your theory, then He was a representation of this “slanting arm” and that He is one of many ways God reveals Himself?
Sorry for the multiple posts, everytime I typed something, something else came to mind.
Trey: your efforts are good. roughly.. yes.
Yeah, us ‘Bama boys can be a little slow at catching on
What would be the implication of Z for a little local community of believers that have collectively said to Jesus, “We want you as Head of us, like was promised.” You know, where the rubber meets the road on the low bar of the Z.
I wish.. I want to believe in unity and community without the bounds of religions. I don’t know why this has to be wrong. And I don’t know why I think it is. I wish I were a universalist. But hell is there. I can see it. hell is there and that screws up everything.
If we’re only instruments, clay for good or bad, then why does it say He loves us? If he loves us, then why are we only clay? Whatever God does is right, then Hell is right. Where do we get our idea that torture is bad? If we’re not grounded on God – where do we get morals? Why is anything right or wrong? If we are grounded on God, then how come we seem to think Hell is wrong?
maybe we are lost in a cruel universe… Why shoudn’t God pick and choose?
Semety what happens when you follow those scary questions through to their conclusions? You have the questions and yet you seem to forfeit asking them based on the requirement that you have an answer.
“A true mark of intelligence is being able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it.”
What would your faith look like if Hell didn’t factor in?
Yeah, although I’m starting to “get” your theory, np…I probably disagree with it more now than before. It’s just, as a Christian, I can’t help but believe that Jesus was THE revelation of the unknowable, mysterious God…that, in effect, He was THE slanting arm of the “Z”. Although all religions may exhibit this “Z” structure, I don’t believe that each conceived “revelation” of God is equally correct. I think God chose to reveal Himself specifically through Christ… . Now you may believe the same thing, but I just don’t see it in your theories.
Additionally, I have no trouble believing that while Billy Graham sensed the presence of God among Buddhists, that he still believed that salvation in Christ was THE way to God. The same goes for the rest of the folks in your list. Every day, people sit down and have meaningful, mutually rewarding, and respectful conversations with people they profoundly disagree with. It doesn’t mean they don’t think they are right and the other guy is wrong.
The thread topic says “Dialog and Love”. Maybe “theory” is a wrong label for the Z, since lots of folks don’t connect the putting forth of a theory as an act of dialog or love. Perhaps it would be better called the “Z Dialectic” or something. It’s more like a bridge than a monolith, if that makes any sense.
trey: i realize that even though you might be getting what i’m saying, that doesn’t mean you have to agree with it. what i meant to say is i like how you said it. but my question is: isn’t it possible to believe that all truth is God’s truth, that even the revelation in other religions is somehow valid, has equal status; and that Christ is THE revelation without negating the others? Is it possible, I ask, to say that the Torah is Jesus, or the Dharma is Jesus, and say that Jesus is the Dharma, or Jesus is the Torah? Is it possible that each one is particular without excluding the particularity of the other?
I agree with Trey’s 6th comment…and I’m still pondering this whole Z theory thing.
np,
Interesting stuff. To answer your question: yes, it is possible. I can agree that there is validity in the revelation presented in other religions, philosophies, etc… and that admitting that there is truth somewhere in those revelations does not have to conflict with a belief that Christ was THE revelation. I’m sure you can find Jesus (i.e. aspects of the mysterious God revealed to the world) in the Torah, the Dharma, etc… . What doesn’t compute with me, and probably a lot of your readers, is equating those truths with the complete and ultimate revelation of God which was Jesus. As a Chrsitian it just doesn’t add up. It would be like someone who believes that democracy is the best sytem of government. Now that person may find good governmental aspects/principles in socialism and maybe even some in communism. They may even incorporate some of the truths discovered in other governments into their own…to not do so would be closed-minded and shallow. However, it doesn’t negate that this person holds on to the belief that democracy is a superior form government compared to the rest. As a Christian, haven’t we chosen Christ as the BEST revelation of God compared to other religions? If we follow God as set forth in the teachings of Jesus, aren’t we stating that, although other religions may contain some truth, the complete and ultimate truth of God is found in Jesus (above all other revelations)?
I agree with Trey. And I can agree with Trey and still see no reason why those conversations between people of different perspective can’t happen and shouldn’t happen all the time.
Trey…yr theology is the aforementioned raft…can you ever imagine seeing it as a means and not an end?
Faithless, I think I see it as both a means and an end. But I think I do see Christianity more as a means. When we come to that end (which to a Buddhist I guess is enlightenment, but to most Christians is death or heaven), theology and religion will be meaningless. Once we cross that river, like the raft, we can discard religion. What np may be doing (and I say this with all respect) is jumping out of the raft before he’s across the river…which is to say, abandoning the tenets of Christianity before he comes into complete “enlightenment” in heaven. As long as we are alive, we’re in the river…we need the raft.
I said “abandoning the tenets of Christianity”, but really I have no idea if np is doing that or not. I’m just saying that to confer an idea and for the sake of discussion.
um Savvy I’m really not sure what you’re asking. Can you phrase it differently?
NP – no. two mutually exclusive things can’t both be right. IT doesn’t matter if there’s two or a million.
I don’t think that David is calling others to abandon the essential tenents of any faith,but he appears to value open-endedness that wd lead to inclusivity,so it’s likely that some cherished tenets will be challenged,especially those that claim exclusivity. And I wd agree…why do we regard subjective faith as objective truth?
Yes, we can have conversations with people of different perspectives. Some of us do it all the time. But every so often we trip over each other’s intransigence; Someone clinging to a belief that’s forcing them to refuse to accept another.
A belief does not have to be true to be useful. And a belief, even if it’s true, isn’t necessarily applicable to every situation.
That’s why it’s useful to learn to let go. Like the raft. Once the river is crossed, you could carry the raft with you. But it would be pretty cumbersome, and slow you down. You don’t need to carry all that baggage with you everywhere you go. So you let it go.
Trey thinks that David is trying to get off the raft in the middle of the river. But the truth is that crossing the river is only one part of the journey. David hasn’t thrown the raft away. He’s simply left it behind for the next person who needs to cross. It’s Trey who refuses to let go of the raft and is trying to drag it along with him.
Letting go of a belief doesn’t mean we throw it away, and get rid of it. It means that we set it aside, so that it doesn’t get in the way of what we’re trying to accomplish.
From what I gather, David’s Z-theory is an adjustable wrench. A fixed wrench only fits one size of nut. An adjustable wrench still isn’t going to fit every nut, but it can be changed to fit a wider variety of nuts. And it’s only one tool in an entire bag of tools.
So whether you’re sitting across the table from David, or me, or PZ Myers, or the Pope, or whoever, if you’re having trouble grasping some concept because it conflicts with your beliefs in some way, the Z-theory is one option that David is offering to help. To remind yourself that this concept is true from this other person’s perspective. It contributes to the greater truth.
But you can’t hold on to one tool while you’re trying to use another. When you’re finished, let it go; put it back in the toolbox.
I hope that helps a bit. I’ve got to get some sleep before I start mixing any more metaphors.
Peregrine, first of all, you haven’t a clue as to what I’m refusing to do. Now that that’s out of the way… Going back to the original quote…the raft is used until you reach enlightenment. A traditional Christian interpretation, which I clearly stated in my post, is that we never reach full enlightenment until we reach heaven. So, in the context of the original metaphor, while on this earth we are all “crossing the river” and won’t reach the other side until heaven. The raft, that is faith, or religion, or belief, etc… is that thing that keeps our heads above water when the rapids come…when things get rough. We truly need it and if we think we don’t we’re full of it. My admonition is this: during this part of the journey (our time here on earth) we view things vaguely compared to the full revelation that we will have in heaven. Therefore, hold on to your raft, because although we may feel as though we are starting to become enlightened and can leave that silly religion stuff behind, we really don’t know crap (for lack of a better phrase). The waters may appear calm now, but you’ll need that raft sooner or later.
Having said that, a review of all my posts on np’s Z-theory will reveal that I think it’s great, very insightful and loaded with truth and revelation. I’ve even stated how it has encouraged my own faith. I’m just not willing to say that an ardent Buddhist who rejects that Christ was divine, or wasn’t “God” is as right as someone who says He was. As a Christian, a Muslim who says that Jesus didn’t actually die on a cross (because God wouldn’t let that happen to one of His prophets) is right. Sure you can find truth and revelation in those faiths. I can accept them, I can study them, I can respect them…but they are not equal in revelation to the revelation that is the Gospel.
And, you know what…I wouldn’t expect any follower of any of those other faiths to think any differently concerning their own religion. I expect a Muslim to think he is more right than a Christian, a Jew more right than a Muslim, etc… That doesn’t mean they can’t sit down and learn from each other as N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg did or the Pope and Jacob Neusner did.
A Sanskrit saying nailed it.
“Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names”
Shaka when the walls fell.
Trey says,….”but they are not equal in revelation to the revelation that is the Gospel.”
I’m almost sure yr aware of how unverifiable this statement is outside of yr subjective experience of it and you claim to witness the same subjectivity in others.
Ultimately, I think faith is the only proper response to metaphysical truths/beliefs/doctrines. My question is: If we’re unable to objectively prove our own metaphysics, why is it we doubt the validity of others?
A Sanskrit saying nailed it.
“Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names”
How does that work exactly? Especially with contradictions?
Faithless, I really like your questions!…very thought provoking and non-inflammatory
To address your post…you’re right. I really can’t verify that statement…and it is definately subjective to my own religious/metaphysial experiences. But can you blame me for it? If one isn’t willing to grant as much validity to another faith as they do their own, however they can appreciate, learn from, and respect that faith…is there a problem with that? To me that is healthy. It gives room for individuality while still promoting tolerance and healthy dialogue. You ask “if we’re unable to objectively prove our own metaphysics, why is it we doubt the validity of others?” Well, I guess that’s a question of faith. By faith, I believe in Jesus as the revelation of God to the world…that he was a sacrifice for our sins so that we could be reconciled back to God. Now regardless of how much truth is found in other faiths, if the sacrifice of the God-man Jesus is absent from their tenets, I can’t accept that they are AS valid as Christianity.
I don’t negate any true revelation that exists in other religions. I just think they lack the most important revelation – Jesus. Is that a fair statement?
>>I don’t negate any true revelation that exists in other religions. I just think they lack the most important revelation – Jesus. Is that a fair statement?
Fair statement. Either Jesus is Lord or he isn’t. Either he is the definitive revelation of God or he isn’t. That doesn’t mean, however, that there aren’t truths to be found in other religions — insights on the spiritual life, ways of praying, and so forth. Nor is it to suggest that one who is not a Christian can’t be a truly spiritual person or have a relationship with God. I think it’s a question of lesser light versus greater light. I know that’s not politically (or theologically) “correct”, but I would stand by it. So would Paul (cf. Romans 2:5b-16).
As for the matter of whether anyone who has never heard the gospel, or has heard it inadequately, can be saved . . . I leave that up to God — the God who treats all justly and fairly, and who wills that all be reconciled to him.
Either Jesus is Lord or he isn’t(Doug)
He aint!
Trey….the non-inflammatory was accidental…I apologize
I wasn’t blaming as much as making a point about boundaries..if we support our unverifiable claims with more unverifiable claims, then the arguement gets to be quite circular….it’s not really a queston of faith,but one of methodology…
what’s so healthy about dialoging with the lesser-thans?…isn’t it obvious when we think we’ve got the better hand?The point is : Are we really sure we’ve got something they don’t have?
Love it David. Love it.
Peregrine…Tamarian…seriously?
I see what you’re saying, faithless. I just think that the methodology for “faith” is different than for any other discipline (if you can call faith a discipline). Where as for science, we ask questions and then seek fact to come up with truth; in faith some things will never be and never can be proved. That’s the dilemma…and that’s why it’s called “faith”…the substance of things “hoped” for, as the writer of Hebrews put it. Anyways, I don’t think anyone of any other faith is a “lesser than”. Anything I do have I have because God allows me to have it…it is nothing that I earned or deserved, so why would I think that I’m any better than anyone else? That’s the Christian perspective. But I see your point. If we think we have better insight than someone else, regardless of how we attained it, there is a tendancy to view ourselves “more highly than we ought” (like Paul said to the Romans).
Trey…I wd agree,but for the sake of clarity, the difference between our POV’s might be stated as, you think that the raft ‘came down’ while I think we ‘built it’. Nevertheless, I think we desire the same shore.
The thing is, if all Christians really believed that most of the world was going to Hell, then they couldn’t actually bear it. So either they are totally insensitive and lacking imagination (a strong possibility) or they don’t in their heart of hearts believe it. Maybe in their heads they do. Otherwise they’d be conflicted and torn like Semety is because she’s a genuinely authentic person.
I don’t know about that. I know some who understand justice more clearly. God is right to punish us all, therefore they see his mercy in the ones he doesn’t and justice in the ones he does. I think some are in conflict anyways, especially the ones with unsaved family, but some don’t see the conflict, like my roommmate. Some people can want others to be saved, while not being upset about the ones that aren’t.
Well they’re f***ing heartless t hen!
no. they just care about those closest to them first. and they trust God’s judgement. they can seem cold, until you get to know them. but they care for God more than for people.
Ugh.
Look Tiggy, you don’t know my friends, you’ve never met my friends. They have their own problems, and shouldn’t be insulted because they believe what the Bible says. They have proven their love in very difficult times.
I say ‘ugh’ to the dichotomy between loving God and loving people as though God isn’t to be found in people.