Monday, August 10, 2009

Freedom of Unity in Diversity

There are a diversity of doctrinal views and thoughts about the nature of God that Christians have throughout the Church. The Catholic Church was pretty much the existing Church presence in the world prior to the Protestant Reformation. During this time there was consistency of Biblical interpretation because the interpretation was that which was set forth by the papal authority. Only those in leadership read the Bible, the rest of the people were told by them what it said and how it was to be interpreted. That’s just the way things were done in those days until a new idea came along that seemed good to put into practice.


With the onset of the Reformation throughout the Western world a new perspective emerged that people can and should read the Bible for themselves. The Gospel was written to all people and should be accessible by all. This unveiling of the Bible opened the door for it to be published in the common vernacular and studied by anyone and everyone irrespective of religious training by papal authority. However, this idea created the question of who has the authority then to claim to have an accurate interpretation. If the Church leadership doesn’t decide that for everyone else and everyone has individual responsibility to understand the Bible themselves what then shall be considered a correct reading of Scripture?


Due to this new freedom divisions began to take place between groups who interpreted Scripture differently. Even though there was a shared core value of what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity” between the groups (Catholic and Protestant) they still aligned based on their differences instead of their similarities. This gives the erroneous appearance that the differences are so contrary that no one really can nail down anything true and consistent. When in reality there is more agreement than disagreement. When people align based on what they are against or based on one difference that difference becomes larger than life and seems insurmountable. People looking from the outside in often only see the diversity devoid of unity and think these people claim to have truth and yet all they have is disagreements between themselves. How can people see that there is truth here when we do not even seem to be able to articulate it in unity?


The Church is rapidly changing in form to move away from the disconnectedness of doctrinal disagreement to the continuity of value agreement. Vast numbers of Christians are now seeing that it is okay not to have neat codified interpretations on all matters of doctrine about God. We know in part and we cannot know that our view of a particularity is concretely true, it is mostly likely partly true, but there is most likely much more to it than our view of it. It is quiet likely that the Christians down the street have a different take on that particularity and bring a much needed addition to the perspective of the other group. The Church in the world is now seeing value in the variety of perspectives and not using these differences to create schisms, but uniting based on shared experiences and values in the Lord. This is creating a fluid Church with great freedom to not need to know it all and just take each day at a time in learning about the Lord and not turning current knowledge into rigid absolutes that cannot be altered by new revelation.


When I am asked by what authority I choose one way of looking at a particular topic versus the other ideas that are out there, I can only say that I know in part and I welcome the other parts and I will add to my perspective what I learn along the way and I could be adding wrong things sometimes. When an error becomes obvious to me, I let it go and replace it and move on. Then something else may change in my thinking and I’ll meet that when that comes. I only know in a small part and I try not to hold on to that so tightly that it can’t change with new understanding.


The Church as a whole is rapidly moving into a more experienced based identity than a doctrinal identity. While theology has its merits – one can know the Bible inside and out and have not experienced the truth of it. What good is such knowledge if it isn’t able to be experienced as true? If you can’t know God like you can know your good friend, what good is intellectual knowledge about Him? If He isn’t invading life with His reality and making real His identity then the Church has nothing to say to the world and only offers an empty shell of a religion.


Sociologist Harvey Cox published the well known book The Secular City in 1965 arguing that religion was fading away to be replaced with secularism that is here to stay. Then twenty years later, he wrote Religion in the Secular City arguing that “religion is and would continue to be a significant force in society.” Then in 1995 he published Fire from Heaven proclaiming that the Pentecostal form of Christianity has swept the world and would far surpass the cultural rise of secularism to pervade modern culture. Pentecostalism is any form of Christianity that is experiential believing that God is showing up in the lives of people today with miracles of healing, signs and wonders, tongues, prophesy, etc. Billions of Christians attest to these experiences and are counted amongst Pentecostals. This term is no longer being associated with a particular denomination, but a larger inter-denominational and post-denominational movement that has been sweeping through the Church since 1906. In recent times it has been gaining momentum to the extent that some hail it a New Reformation, even though church historians see it as an extension of the existing Reformation rather than a separate movement.


The point is that the Church is changing from absolutist doctrinal mentality of modernism to a fluid freedom that allows for ambiguity and flexibility on doctrines and embraces each person experiencing God for themselves directly rather than solely indirectly through learning information about Him. The church down the street might have different doctrinal ideas, but we are all experiencing the same Jesus and on this we agree and have life and community regardless of different ideas.

22 comments:

CyberKitten said...

It's interesting that you seem to be saying that the church is coming together - and yet the Anglican church in particular is presently tearing itself apart on the issues of the ordination of women and homosexuality. I see very little compromise on doctrine in those two areas!

GCT said...

Because Cyber, it's simply not true that "the church" is coming together. Sectarian strife is just as bad as it's always been. Simply because some Xians are embracing post-modernist ideas in their religion doesn't mean that "the church" is. In fact, I find it rather weird for anyone to speak about "the church" since there hasn't been a unified church for hundreds of years.

I just wonder if anyone asked god whether it was OK to be less doctrinal before setting off on this course.

Karla said...

Cyber, good question. There are still obvious schisms in Christianity. But there is a large movement towards grassroots unity -- not based on doctrinal agreement -- but on shared values and experiences. The unity is happening as a byproduct of ministries moving away from aligning based on set doctrines and aligning in a more organic fashion of shared identity in Christ.

GCT, Jesus was the one who talked to the Pharisees about being those who were obsessed with the letter of the written law without having an understanding of the life that law was meant to provide. The Church has historically been about making sure everyone knew all the "right" things about God doctrinally beyond the "mere Christianity" of creeds already commonly accepted as true, which created these schisms. This idea is still in the Church today, but there is a large growing movement away from that mentality to greater freedom and acknowledgment that we can learn a lot of important things about God but we can't hold on to them in such a tight manner that we can't grow in our understanding about Him. It's okay to only have a piece of the big picture and for that piece not to have clearly defined edges.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: The unity is happening as a byproduct of ministries moving away from aligning based on set doctrines and aligning in a more organic fashion of shared identity in Christ.

So - you can imagine a time when the role of women is no different to that of men and when homosexuality is fully accepted?

It'll be interesting to see...

GCT said...

"When I am asked by what authority I choose one way of looking at a particular topic versus the other ideas that are out there, I can only say that I know in part and I welcome the other parts and I will add to my perspective what I learn along the way and I could be adding wrong things sometimes."

This doesn't address the question at all. How do you "know in part" the parts that you think you "know in part?" That's the gist of the question, and it doesn't do to simply claim that you "know in part." This is simply answering the question of how by asserting that you simply do know.

"When an error becomes obvious to me, I let it go and replace it and move on."

How does an error become obvious to you? When talking about the attributes of god, for instance, how do you figure out whether one claim is in error or not?

GCT said...

"GCT, Jesus was the one who talked to the Pharisees about being those who were obsessed with the letter of the written law without having an understanding of the life that law was meant to provide."

This doesn't address the question. It is only your interpretation that this addresses the question, but it's your interpretation that is under question. Certainly the Xians of the time felt that doctrinal was the way to go. Who are you to say they were wrong?

"...there is a large growing movement away from that mentality to greater freedom and acknowledgment that we can learn a lot of important things about God but we can't hold on to them in such a tight manner that we can't grow in our understanding about Him."

So you claim, but where's the evidence? And, how does one get to "greater freedom?" How does one know that that's what god wants? The Biblical god seems to favor obedience over freedom of conscience. How do you "learn a lot of important things about god," and what are those "important things?" How do you "grow in your understanding of [god]?"

"It's okay to only have a piece of the big picture and for that piece not to have clearly defined edges."

How do you know that you even have that much?

Karla said...

Cyber, I'm not talking about unity of agreeing on moral principals or doctrines, I'm talking about a unity of camaraderie and love despite differences. . .

Karla said...

GCT, to simplify I take it you are asking how I can know anything at all as true--even if it is a part?

Is that an accurate of one of your questions?

Karla said...

GCT "Certainly the Xians of the time felt that doctrinal was the way to go. Who are you to say they were wrong?"

I'm not saying they were wrong, I'm saying something new is evolving that seems better, time will tell.


GCT "So you claim, but where's the evidence?"

I keep up with the books, articles, webcast, teaching DVDs, and CDs, of a wide array of ministries and this seems to be a common theme.


GCT "And, how does one get to "greater freedom?"

By getting closer to what is true.


GCT :How does one know that that's what god wants?

By getting to know God and reading the Bible in tandem with that relationship not separated from that relationship. Christianity isn't a simple textual religion -- it's about a living experiential relationship with God.


GCT "The Biblical god seems to favor obedience over freedom of conscience."

I understand you see it this way, but I do not. I see a God who gives grace and mercy people -- a God who doesn't desire to condemn but to give life and freedom and love. Any obedience He seeks, is for our good, not for His.



GCT "How do you "learn a lot of important things about god," and what are those "important things?"

You can learn "about" Him by reading the Bible and talking to others who have walked with Him and hearing what they have to teach, but none of that compares to knowing Him and experiencing Him personally. So it's important to learn about Him, but essential to know Him.


GCT "How do you "grow in your understanding of [god]?"

I grow in my understanding of Him, by spending time with Him and by reading the Bible and by learning from others who show the results in their lives of knowing him. And from learning from others way in the past by reading their books as well as reading modern books about recent encounters with God.

GCT "How do you know that you even have that much?"

I experience the reality of it. If I don't have good cause to question it and if others don't I have cause to contemplate why I do and they don't and then I see if there are more that do or don't and follow that out. Finding truth is a journey that never stops.

GCT "How does an error become obvious to you? When talking about the attributes of god, for instance, how do you figure out whether one claim is in error or not?"

Well if I thought something was true about God and then didn't find any Scriptural support for it-- I would abandon that idea. I am trying to think of an example that won't send us into a tangential conversation. . . I'll have to think more on how to explain this to you.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Cyber, I'm not talking about unity of agreeing on moral principals or doctrines, I'm talking about a unity of camaraderie and love despite differences. . .

So... they'll still *have* differences... but they won't *fight* each other over them?

Now that will certainly be an advance! [laughs] Personally I'm not holding my breath on that one.....

Karla said...

Cyber said, "So... they'll still *have* differences... but they won't *fight* each other over them?"

Basically. There are many now who think doctrinal differences aren't cause for division and we value each flavor and movement within Christianity. The differences within Christianity aren't a matter of basic creed, but extra stuff and things we simply can't be absolutely sure about.

This really is a major thrust in the Church these days.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: The differences within Christianity aren't a matter of basic creed, but extra stuff and things we simply can't be absolutely sure about.

So... you're saying that there are *no* major differences - in substance - between any Christian denominations? That the differences are basically.... 'fluff'?

karla said: This really is a major thrust in the Church these days.

From all the hand-wringing over here lately I find that rather surprising.

Karla said...

Cyber, there is general consensus on the basic creeds such as the Nicene Creed amongst all Christians -- any diversion from that is the exception rather than the rule.

The rest isn't "fluff" necessarily, but many are realizing that there is plenty of wiggle room. Also that just because there are differences in interpretation these things do not need to divide us into factions that remain in our own denominational bubble.

I don't know much about the Church in England, but I am seeing this become a reality in America.

GCT said...

"...I take it you are asking how I can know anything at all as true--even if it is a part?"

1. I'm specifically asking about how you can know anything WRT god or religion. Far as I can tell, you have to assume the Bible is correct and you have to further assume your interpretation is correct as well as assuming that your experiences are correct (that they are authentic experiences of the god you think you are interacting with) and that you are interpreting those experiences correctly in order to come to your definitive ideas about what god wants. Yet, without being able to support those assumptions, it's rather presumptuous to conclude as you have.

"I'm not saying they were wrong, I'm saying something new is evolving that seems better, time will tell."

How do you know that it's better? See #1. Also, time has not told so far, as we still have no definitive answers and are no closer to definitive answers after thousands of years.

"I keep up with the books, articles, webcast, teaching DVDs, and CDs, of a wide array of ministries and this seems to be a common theme."

Of a specific subset of Xians that want to proclaim this idea that is actually opposed by other Xians.

"By getting closer to what is true."

How do you know what that's happening? See #1.

"By getting to know God and reading the Bible in tandem with that relationship not separated from that relationship."

See #1.

"I understand you see it this way, but I do not. I see a God who gives grace and mercy people...Any obedience He seeks, is for our good, not for His."

I don't see how you could disagree. The Bible is pretty explicit. Freedom of consciousness lands you in hell. god has to give grace and mercy to save people because they have sinned from not obeying him.

Finally, you are still not seeing the obvious logical problem with your assertions that god only wants what is best for us. You don't know that. In fact, you claim that you have limited knowledge of god, meaning that you can't know what he wants with certainty.

"You can learn "about" Him by reading the Bible and talking to others who have walked with Him and hearing what they have to teach..."

I have read the Bible, as have many, many other people, and none of us is any closer to really knowing what god wants. We only have guesses and contradictory opinions. Also, see #1.

2. What can people teach me about god that they can confirm? Best I can tell, they suffer from the same problems as I outlined in #1.

"I grow in my understanding of Him, by spending time with Him and by reading the Bible and by learning from others who show the results in their lives of knowing him. And from learning from others way in the past by reading their books as well as reading modern books about recent encounters with God."

See #1 and #2. Also, I highly doubt that you would include certain testimony like Bush saying that god told him to invade Iraq, or mothers who claim that god told them to kill their children. Yet, you have no way to differentiate between the claims. IOW, you are engaging in special pleading.

"I experience the reality of it."

No, you think you do. You can't very well claim that you know that this is real because you experience that it's real, because that doesn't get to the issue anyway. Also, see #1.

"If I don't have good cause to question it and if others don't I have cause to contemplate why I do and they don't and then I see if there are more that do or don't and follow that out."

Yet, you abjectly refuse to do this. Besides, do you really believe things until you have cause not to?

"Well if I thought something was true about God and then didn't find any Scriptural support for it-- I would abandon that idea."

Yet, surprisingly enough I'm sure you can find scriptural support for all your beliefs if you just search hard enough and interpret in just the right way. Funny thing though is that all other Xians say the same thing as you and come to different conclusions.

Karla said...

Actually GTC I read from a pretty wide range of authors belonging to various denominations, movements, eras, flavors in the church. I'm certainly not isolated into a certain flavor of Christianity. I try to broaden it all the time.

Next, the question of how I know the things I claim to have knowledge of, I could turn the question back to you, because as I have pointed out before you to have assumptions and presumptions about life that cannot be proven 100%.

What I believe to know is based on a lot of different things including; research, reason, experience, and also by my spirit. I know that last one will raise questions, but I believe that God leads me through my spirit with His Spirit into greater truth. All that mixed together creates what I hold to be true.

I'll get back with you later on the other questions you brought up. I don't have enough time to address them right now.

GCT said...

"Actually GTC I read from a pretty wide range of authors belonging to various denominations, movements, eras, flavors in the church. I'm certainly not isolated into a certain flavor of Christianity. I try to broaden it all the time."

And, I'm sure that people from other eras have lots to say about what is going on now?

"Next, the question of how I know the things I claim to have knowledge of, I could turn the question back to you, because as I have pointed out before you to have assumptions and presumptions about life that cannot be proven 100%."

IOW, you're admitting it's a problem for you, but you think it's a problem for me as well, so it's OK? Also, you have asserted that I have assumptions and presumptions, but when I ask you what they are, all I ever hear is crickets chirping or things that don't hold up to scrutiny.

"What I believe to know is based on a lot of different things including; research..."

What research? What research do you have that shows what god is, that god exists, what god wants?

"...reason..."

What reason? What process did you use to come to some reasonable decision? How did you avoid all the problem pointed out about unsupported assumptions?

"...experience..."

Again, how did you avoid the problem of unsupported assumptions? This is what I'm asking you about, you can't very well claim that your experience is valid because you used your experience.

"...and also by my spirit."

Your what? What is spirit? How do you know it exists? What evidence do you have for it? Are you aware of the current neurological research that goes against your ideas of soul and/or spirit?

"I know that last one will raise questions, but I believe that God leads me through my spirit with His Spirit into greater truth."

How do you know this? How does this happen? What does it even mean?

"All that mixed together creates what I hold to be true."

You've not gotten to the root of the question, however.

Karla said...

GCT, you are asking epistemological questions and I believe that the ability to know anything as true is rooted in the reality of ontology (there existing a self-existing being which is the foundation for all knowledge). Being comes before knowing. There must be an intelligent agent that does the knowing.

That agent has given us senses to compile information that we turn into knowledge by reason.

He has also revealed knowledge to mankind. And He continues to reveal things to those who have relationship with Him.

Just because there are different ideas about God in the world or even in Christian circles, doesn't negate the existence of truth concerning God is able to be known in some degree.

Naturalists don't all see things the same way either.

GCT, do you think that if something is true that there should be strictly defined agreement to that truth claim?

Or do you think there are limits to our knowledge and we should always be open to that knowledge growing or changing?

GCT said...

"GCT, you are asking epistemological questions and I believe that the ability to know anything as true is rooted in the reality of ontology (there existing a self-existing being which is the foundation for all knowledge)."

Um, OK, so you believe that some supreme being has to exist in order for us to know things...that's been pretty obvious. I'm asking how you know that and basically your answer boils down to that you believe it. I think you can see why that's not compelling or satisfactory.

"Being comes before knowing. There must be an intelligent agent that does the knowing.

That agent has given us senses to compile information that we turn into knowledge by reason."

You're making an unjustified leap based on a misreading of the definition of the word you are using. In order for a being to know something, that being must exist and be intelligent. I can accept that. But, it's an unsupported leap to jump to there being an entity that gives us this ability.

"He has also revealed knowledge to mankind. And He continues to reveal things to those who have relationship with Him."

So you keep asserting without example or support.

"Just because there are different ideas about God in the world or even in Christian circles, doesn't negate the existence of truth concerning God is able to be known in some degree."

The fact that you can't actually differentiate between the truth claims does, however.

"Naturalists don't all see things the same way either."

Naturalists have a method for resolving disputes. Religions do not. What Joe the Plumber asserts about god is just as valid as what you assert with no justified way of telling who is right or wrong.

"GCT, do you think that if something is true that there should be strictly defined agreement to that truth claim?

Or do you think there are limits to our knowledge and we should always be open to that knowledge growing or changing?"

This sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Nevertheless, there are obviously limits to the knowledge that humans possess and we should be open to growing and changing. That's the way science operates. That is not how religion operates. That is not how the religious think either (for the most part) and it is not how you act, even though you claim that you do.

Karla said...

"In order for a being to know something, that being must exist and be intelligent. I can accept that. But, it's an unsupported leap to jump to there being an entity that gives us this ability."


If knowledge requires an intelligent knower then before humans existed where would knowledge be housed? If all finite knowers ceased to exist, would knowledge no longer exist?

How could we begin to attain knowledge without an eternal being housing that knowledge first?

Karla said...

GCT "This sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Nevertheless, there are obviously limits to the knowledge that humans possess and we should be open to growing and changing. That's the way science operates. That is not how religion operates. That is not how the religious think either (for the most part) and it is not how you act, even though you claim that you do."


You are correct that much of, at least, western religion often operates on the idea of knowing absolutely. But there is a shift in thinking at least amongst Christians (not all, but some) that while there is an absolute, we don't know absolutely--so our knowledge needs to be loosely held.

Yes, I often write in an emphatic style that seems to suggest that there isn't wiggle room or other perspectives that I also value--even when I am saying that I do.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: If knowledge requires an intelligent knower then before humans existed where would knowledge be housed?

Nowhere - at least not on Earth.

karla said: If all finite knowers ceased to exist, would knowledge no longer exist?

Obviously.

karla said: How could we begin to attain knowledge without an eternal being housing that knowledge first?

We *gain* and increase our knowledge by exploring the environment around us. The 'facts' exist independently of us but the knowledge about them only exists when we find out about them. Knowledge does not exist independent of the knower. If there are no minds there cannot be any knowledge of things.

GCT said...

The amount of knowledge in the universe is not a quantifiable thing, like the amount of matter (as ck pointed out), thus your argument fails.

"Yes, I often write in an emphatic style that seems to suggest that there isn't wiggle room or other perspectives that I also value--even when I am saying that I do."

Like your wishy-washy perspective on whether god exists?