z-theory #11: develops slowly
The z-theory (check out the background here and here) is important to me for these reasons: it provides a comprehensive framework that helps me make some sense of reality; it furnishes room for a reasonable faith within that reality that can be conscientiously held; and it has potential for an integrative view of existence that includes all people.
I do not wish for one moment to claim that this is right, that it is the only way to think, that it is the only paradigm, theory, structure or framework within which people should think. I would however claim that it has provided me with those things, as well as the immediate result of a more tranquil mind. I do realize that some would assert that my mind is far from tranquil. That’s why I say it is more tranquil. An intellectual and spiritual journey that I have been on for a few decades has finally found nourishment, an oasis in the desert, peace. It didn’t come from reading a book or working things out with a calculator or by talking to any guru on any subject. I suppose that it came to me, out of the blue if you will, after I had practically given up the search. And it finally came to me in a very simple dream that I continue to unpack for meaning.
Concerning “God”: I believe this theory provides a way for all people of all faiths and non-faiths to dialog.
Concerning “Jesus”: I believe this theory contributes to an understanding of how the All-in-All has assumed embodiment for all people.
Concerning the “Spirit”: I believe this theory issues a spirituality that is all-inclusive and extends beyond faiths, religions and spiritualities.
I realize that this theory causes some offense. I do not mean to be offensive, but helpful. I plan to expand on this more in the coming days.
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!
There has to be a way for us to come together with peoples of other faiths AND to reconcile this idea that Jesus put forth of Him being the way the truth and the life…no one comes to the Father except through Him… If we don’t find a way…which Jesus seemed to do…then we we are destined to war and hate, and violence…God help us.
I believe that Jesus can be in and reach anyone…He can even help a Hindu be a better “Christian” than me…many probably are. Praise be to God, Allah, Dios, and whatever name we call the ONE true God.
The Cosmic Christ who is in all of us.
I’ll buy this explanation, np.
I’m interested in seeing how this works out with a reasonable understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; which deals faithfully with passages like “I am the way, the truth and the life, and no-one comes to the father but by me”.
From everything I’ve seen so far this seems to be headed toward towards syncretism and/or pantheism, and if that’s the case, I’m outta here.
James…what did you come to hear/read…an echo confirming yr certitude or an original voice challenging you to think from another perspective?
James: I’m glad you made this comment because it really does reflect the human mind’s insistence on not being disturbed, challenged or renewed. My mind too. All of us! The brain is a tricky organ, who’s number one priority is self-protection of the organism and its own comfort. This is why we read books we agree with, go to hear sermons that are in line with our own theology, and reject anything that is even slightly different. The brain is determined to define “truth” as formulaic and rigid rather than as mystery and wonder and pathless. We are all going around confirming our own beliefs and rejecting everything else. This is the human enterprise. You said it well.
But to be fair, I too, question how the metaphysical in the paradigm can be accepted by the strict materialist/scientist?
As well, it wd seem that those who lean more to the left(liberal) in their spiritual life might welcome the concept,while those who don’t(conservative) will probably feel threatened. Let the games begin!
FiF: Concerning the strict materialist or scientist… Is it possible that the mysterious in science, the unsolved, the undiscovered, the empty spaces, IS the All-in-All? Is that possible? Is it possible that the discovery of the mysterious, the incarnation of it into fact, it’s unveiling if you will… which I’ve read from many scientists and artists, etc., that it “came to them” when they least expected it… as though, in almost a personal way, it refused to be “had” or “taken”, but in the end offered itself to be comprehended, understood, perceived? And is it possible that the application of the discovery for the good of humanity or the earth or whatever… is it possible that, like spirit, it is disseminated for the good of all?
These are the kinds of questions I’m asking.
‘Is it possible that the mysterious in science, the unsolved, the undiscovered, the empty spaces, IS the All-in-All?’
But if you start pointing to the unsolved in science as God then what happens when it IS solved?
…”disseminated for the good of all”…but,what place for the shadow….the unveiling of mysteries that we in turn, use to promote ourselves at the expense of life itself.
What??
Sorry Tig…I have an overreactive cryptology gene…I’ll explain later…
Tiggy…The ’shadow’ is a Jungian term that I use with some liberty…some wd call it the dark side…my point was, with respect to David’s reply,how does the ‘Z’ theory analogy hold up when things go terribly wrong?
FiF: Concerning this question of when everything seems to go wrong: Is it possible that “God”, The Mystery beyond the mystery, has also surrendered to us, invested him/herself into our history, our story, become us, incarnated into us… to the extent that we are responsible to live out the life of The Mystery… we are to love one another, seek justice, do mercy… when we do, we are living the life of The Mystery… when we don’t, we are denying it, rejecting it?
I can identify with that….Big question tho(IMO)….it’ll have to wait till later, must get back to work .
In Jungian terms, the shadow is whatever we fail to accept in ourselves and hence also in others. Some people, groups, ideas become the projected shadow. I guess FIF is saying that no idea can be all-embracing – it will have a shadow somewhere. But any theology has to be in process.
Back to my question….. actually I think I know yr answer David, and yr most recent post supports that,but it may be worth asking for those who are following the development of the theory,as I am.
Here goes…Is the gospel, however we’ve come to understand it, measured by the “Z” theory or is the theory contained in the gospel?
FiF: I think we can fairly say that no matter what approach we take to the Bible, we all have our own hermeneutic. We might claim this hermeneutic is extracted from the Bible itself, but I think we can fairly say that this isn’t purely true. So even though the development of the z-theory may have been inspired by the Bible, motivated by the Bible, and even shaped by the Bible, I think it should be said that is a hermeneutic with its own life separate from the Bible and would wish to subject the Bible to its hermeneutical suppositions. But I think that can be fairly said of any hermeneutic, structure, paradigm, or order. Don’t you?
Like Dooyeweerds ‘Modal Theory’. He developed it from the Bible, but it can be applied to any situation and here is applied to air traffic control as an example.
http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/aspects.html
I’ve been to Christian conferences where it was applied theologically but also to other things.
FF says: “James…what did you come to hear/read…an echo confirming yr certitude or an original voice challenging you to think from another perspective?”
Being challenged to think from another perspective was not this issue. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though?
NP then says: “This is why we read books we agree with, go to hear sermons that are in line with our own theology, and reject anything that is even slightly different.”
Sorry, not guilty. I started following NP and iMonk because of major problems I’m seeing in the Evangelical church today. And the stack of books waiting to be read over the next 4 weeks while I’m out of town on business hardly qualify as being “in line with our own theology”. And for a time you had my respect, showing where our beliefs and practices often don’t square with the words and the example of our Lord. And I enjoyed your keen (or was that cutting) insights greatly, just as I continue to enjoy the insights of iMonk.
But at this point? Startin’ to look like NP has jumped the shark.
David,I wd agree with that, but also, I think if the ‘Z’ theory has any power as a useful tool to facilitate dialogue between relgious faiths/science, then it must be, by necessity, a mirror that enables the two to see their common ground…..Mmmm, another trinitarian structure?
James…are you saying that you welcome the challenge, but only so far?
FiF: I agree. Every theory is just that… a theory… to be discarded if no longer useful or if discovered to be incomplete or faulty. I am wondering if it is possible that this theory, which I think may have universal application for all paradigms or systems, will be useful to everyone. I’m not sure what you mean by the word “mirror” though. Do you mean looking glass… as in it helps me to understand another system as it helps them to understand mine?
Yes, ‘looking glass’ is better.
Have you read any Ken Wilber, David?
FF: The problem is, either Christianity is true or it isn’t. There is a line one cannot cross and still consider him/herself a Christian. Either there is something that was important enough, and different enough from the surrounding culture that the early believers were willing to die for it, or there wasn’t.
If I’m understanding what I’m seeing here correctly those early believers died in vain, the majority of the apostles died in vain, and even Jesus Christ died in vain.
James, I’m tempted to respond in many ways, but to stay on topic ,consider this:
With respect to the “Z” theory, try to step away and observe what you’re doing. Are you not on the downward slope checking licence plates for who has the ‘real deal’? If my plate looks ‘out of country’, is it not enough that we may be heading in the same direction? Rumour has it that the bottom line is where the real action is.
Ah, but as a Christian there is really only one question: Did Jesus say; “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no-one comes to the father but by me”, or did he not? Because if he did, I have no choice in the matter, regardless of my culture and how I might have been raised to be “open” to the beliefs of others.
Jesus didn’t say he was a way, or even that although other ways (the Greek and Roman religions, for example) were accepatable, that his way was preferable. Rather, he stated that he was the only way, and there was no other way.
Again, if I am to consider myself to be a follower of Jesus my path is set, and the matter is clear. To do otherwise would be to reject Jesus Christ.
And no, I’m not the one checking license plates – that’s my Lord’s job. But he has stated that of the many roads supposedly heading that direction only one actually gets to the proper destination.
It always makes me laugh when someone starts off a sentence, ‘As a Christian…’ I knew someone who did that and then when he decided he was gay would start every sentence with, ‘As a gay man…’
James the Mad, your mind is running on a tiny loop. Do you not think that possibly Jesus had a view of himself and a sense of identity that was wider than that of a Jewish man who lived in 1st century Galilee. (or whenever he’s dated from – I don’t do numbers
)
Absolutely. That’s why the narrowness of many Evangelicals, especially those who demand lock-step obedience to the narrow confines of their denominational imperatives, irritates the daylights out of me. Jesus’ followers took their message throughout the known world, to every tribe, tongue and nation.
But at it’s heart the message was the message of Christ, and Him crucified. That was the only message worth taking, and it was (and is) a message worth dying for.
Who do you mean by ‘Jesus’ followers’? It was a very long time before any of Jesus’ followers reached the Aborigines, for example.
James….actually,I think that there are good reasons to not think that the words you quote are from Jesus, but the author’s theology of who he believes Jesus to be. Apparently, it’s significantly different than the synoptics…
So we have three hermeneutics; his, yours and mine and the subject is pure metaphysics…I cd be wrong, so why wd I be exclusive given that the subject can only be accepted on faith….. but aren’t you in the same boat?
Tiggy: Key phrase – “known world”.
FF: While it’s true that John spoke from a different perspective, given the use of phrases like “Son of Man” and “Son of God” throughout the synoptics, among other things, I don’t see a contradiction. John wasn’t presenting another Jesus, just fleshing out the portrayal of the one that was already known.
Jesus’ followers took their message throughout the known world, to every tribe, tongue and nation.
But who are you talking about here? How far forward in time are you going? I thought you were talking about the apostles at first, but they didn’t go to every part of the world that they knew of.
People in those days loved to refer to someone as a ‘Son of God’. I’m not sure what they understood by it is what the church has come to define it as though.
James….”spoke from a different perspective” doesn’t quite adequately explain the real difference in theological development that confronts us when we compare the synoptics and the fourth gospel. I posted this last month on a similiar thread….
http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/3465#comments
If you like,you can reference my comments at 8:14 and 8:18
Tiggy: It is true that the work of taking the gospel to every tribe, tongue and nation is not yet finished – to that degree I mispoke. But the apostles took it as far as they could, and set up the mechanism for it to continue. Have we carried that out perfectly? Not hardly. But that is the command, and the goal.
As for the rest of it, this is not the time and place for a full-on theological discussion. Let’s just say that I am satisfied with answers that you have found to be less than convincing.
FF: I looked at your list, and yes, I did see a couple known discrepancies. But for the most part your list merely confirms that John was writing from a different perspective than the writers of the synoptics, and calling them different based on that list is falacious. Considering that John’s gospel was one of the last documents written, the question occurs: Why would John need to reinvent the wheel? If adequate documents already existed showing one side of the picture, why would John simply rewrite what others had already written?
And again, I see things in the synoptics that, while not fully developed, do connect nicely with John.
Yeah, I know, you’re going to disagree on that one. But that’s life. I ain’t gonna lose any sleep over it.
James…I wd think that yr use of the term “different perspective ” is a bit of a gloss over with respect to what we actually find in those documents. It’s not like the author(s) of the fourth gospel are giving an account of the same accident from the other side of the street. Isn’t it obvious that the evidence points to a dynamic developing theology, especially with respect to Christology, Consider the Virgin Birth narrative as it develops over the latter part of the first and into the second centur:, Mark-none , Matthew/Luke- highly developed…when we come to John-none,but what is there,nothing less than God the Son. I wd call that ‘development of the Jesus narrative’… the question is: Is it of divine origin or not…or something else?
And to get back to the real matter…What if I perceive these narratives differently than you? Is it about ‘what we believe’(a list of doctrines), or rather ‘how we believe’(what place our heart)?
Or: D. All of the above.
Even if we assume the primacy of Mark (actually a fairly reasonable assumption), I see no contradiction between apostolic authorship and a developing Christology. Indeed, as the church developed and others saw the need they simply followed up by providing a more complete picture.
Mark, then, would have provided the basics. Matthew and Luke (writing to Jews & Romans, respectively) provided a more detailed picture, each in keeping with their target audience. And John, writing last of all, gave the other side of the picture – the spiritual side, as opposed to the physical/historical side. The Christology was fleshed out because of the observed need by those who were in a position to be able to provide the necessary information.
So yes, I am firmly convinced it was of divine origen, and that the writers of the four gospels were either eyewitnesses of the events described or had direct contact with those who were.
As for Evangelicalism (my personal perspective), yes, we have placed an overemphasis on correct doctrinal beliefs, to the point where many of us are willing to consign people to hell over secondary, non-salvational issues. But as 2John 1:7 makes clear, there are certain doctrines that are non-negotiable for the believer. So while how we believe is important, our beliefs still need to be based on key foundational truths.
Did you know, James, that there are some people in the world – such as my good self -for whom factuality is of little importance? That probably sounds odd, but what matters to me is meaning and not historicity. Personality-wise my Intuition is very high, while my sense of the factual world is low. I know this from Myers-Briggs tests. You ca have all the accurate facts in the world, but unless they are meaningful and resonate with a person, it matters little. That’s one reason why we all approach religious belief differently. For some it’s a case of factuality, for others it’s logic, for others it’s values and for the Intuitives amongst us it’s meaning and symbol which reach the parts other things can’t reach.
That’s part of why pre-programmed, canned “evangelism tools” can be so useless. But this changes things . . . how?
If the scriptures are true, if they are indeed God’s word to us, then they are definitive. How you receive and/or process that information is immaterial.
Ever heard of ‘Reader response’? How we receive and process information is definitive.
Which merely means that I’m probably not the person to try to convince you of the truth of the scriptures, since I wouldn’t use an approach that would be meaningful to you.
I don’t have a problem with the truth of the scriptures. In a sense factual truth means little to me compared to the meaning of a story. I don’t need convincing – I’m happy to accept the gospel story on its own merits. That’s not to say I don’t believe it to be historically true – I’m quite happy to. But for me it’s not an exercise in belief, but in entering into the passion of it.
Tiggy…yr on a roll…you go girl
“You ca[n] have all the accurate facts in the world, but unless they are meaningful and resonate with a person, it matters little. That’s one reason why we all approach religious belief differently. For some it’s a case of factuality, for others it’s logic, for others it’s values and for the Intuitives amongst us it’s meaning and symbol which reach the parts other things can’t reach.”
I nominate you as Director of Traffic…Slope Division
Some would say, ‘Slippery Slope Division.’
‘But here I am, talking ’bout Jesus just the same’ – Larry Norman (RIP)
From Brideshead Revisited:-
“But my dear Sebastian, you can’t seriously believe it all.”
“Can’t I?”
“I mean about Christmas and the star and the three kings and the ox and the ass.”
“Oh yes. I believe that. It’s a lovely idea.”
“But you can’t believe things because they’re a lovely idea.”
“But I do. That’s how I believe.” (pp. 81–83)
It’s not the sail that moves the boat…but the wind that moves the sail.
Always keep your hand on your rudder – Old Celtic Saying.
In Canada we say, “Keep yr stick on the ice”
Of course another Canadian saying is, ‘Always keep your beaver warm.’
Yuk! Yuk!
You don’t like beavers? I brought one back from Canada into the U.S. and I asked the customs official if he wanted to see it, but he didn’t.
Tiggy…now that’s a beaver tale.
BTW…not Yuck as in awful, but Yuk Yuk as in Ha ha!…we have a comedy club in Canada called Yuk Yuks
Oh, I don’t know that Canadian onomatopeia. I’m sure we don’t make that sound when laughing over here!
Actually I brought two beavers back and dressed them up as Mr. and Mrs. Beaver from ‘The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.’ I even managed to get an appropriately sized sowing machine for Mrs. Beaver.
See, I really DO like beavers!
I believe another Canadian expression is – ‘Don’t let your moose get too horny.’