In yesterday’s The Moment of My Christian Conversion–And How Mistaken It Left Me, I left off wondering why God chose “to reveal of himself just enough to deeply inspire people, but not so much that they would actually agree upon the beliefs inspired by that inspiration.”
That’s right; that’s how I roll with my Rollerball.
No, but you know what I mean? You wouldn’t think that God, of all people majestic entities, would be as willing as he apparently is to leave so much of who and what he is so completely up to the interpretation of his individual adherents. I think it’s safe to say that if God wanted all of us to think and understand the exact same things about him—if he wanted to once and for all make perfectly clear exactly who he is—he would, and we would. But that hasn’t happened. And that leaves so many people who call themselves Christian with so many radically different ideas about what that does or should mean that it’s reasonable to wonder—and it’s certainly reasonable for someone outside the faith to wonder—whether or not we’re all really worshiping the same God.
One group believes in a God who holds that women should possess no authority in His church, and that when they die all homosexuals and people who don’t believe in him go straight to hell. Another group believes that women make excellent pastors and bishops, that unrepentant homosexuals are as welcomed in heaven as anyone else, and that heaven is available to all, Christian or not.
Can that really be the same God?
Of course it can. People might … get a little muddled, but God remains eternally God. (And in truth, who can blame any Christian for being at least a little confused about God? Have you tried to read the Bible?)
So for those of us who believe in his infinite wisdom and power, the question is why God has arranged it so that different people who believe in him believe such wildly different things about him.
My answer is that God is exquisitely orchestrating his relationship with every one of us in a way that exactly meshes with what each of us most needs. God knows our life, our heart, our mind, our history, our psychology. So, in the manner of a loving God, he melds into our consciousness in a way that respects us—that works with us, that ennobles us, that enhances not just who we are, but who he knows we can become.
God starts with us where we are, period. And then, within each of us, he begins working on that process by which we are all ultimately rendered the same.
Apart on earth; together in heaven.
Keeps things spicy, doesn’t it?
**********************************************************************************************************
Email: johnshore@sbcglobal.net
Follow: http://twitter.com/johnshore
Fan: http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Shore/89494795412?ref=s
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 61 comments }
Newer Comments →
Well, 2000 years with only 30% in the loose affiliation and all the divergent Christian sects is not something that I would put on my resume.
Mike wrote: "God seems to make it very difficult to get the word out…the word that he wants to get out. Clearly it is a little puzzling that he would start that process by showing up amidst a bunch of largely illiterate, isolated, desert tribes with very limited means of communicating with the rest of the world."
Yeah, and look how poorly it worked out for Him. (grin)
Mike,
You put quotes up there around a statement I did not make and thus bolstered yourself by attributing to me an argumentative failure I didn't achieve. Neither Zeus nor Vishnu claim to be the great I am and the one who was and is and ever shall be. How odd that you would argue against something I believe with something totally fictitious. Rather than arguing against the accuracy of what John did say, you try to refute it with something he might have said. That's pretty weak for a thinker.
And no, the pursuit of knowledge is never bad in my estimation. However, if it requires setting aside faith, then it begins on pretty weak legs, apparently needing shoring up in advance to make it easier to accept wherever it leads you. My pursuit of knowledge affirms God. If yours doesn't, that's your journey, not mine.
Thom
Thom said: "God is"
I don't deny that you fully and wholly believe that, but you position is merely "I don't understand how I got here, therefore [my] god did it." which is an argumentative failure of the highest order.
Just ponder that the argument that was posited in John's essay is precisely the same type of argument that one would have to formulate if one were trying to justify a non-existent god…which was the whole point of my jumping in on the thread. Replace 'God' with 'Vishnu' or 'Zeus' in his essay and you might get a feeling of what it might sound like to someone on the outside of the bubble.
Thom said: "I think sometimes the pursuit of a sharper intellect dulls one’s faith to the point where neither matter."
How so? Is there a time when the pursuit of knowledge and understanding are bad? Is knowledge and understanding only valid if it affirms god-belief?
‘Penultimate’ was a poor choice of words. I was merely meaning to convey that such ideas were major contributors to the dulling of our intellect.
As long as y’all realize that what is being presented here is saying that
1) God could make us understand clearly
2) God chooses not to make us understand clearly
3) God wants us to understand clearly
I feel it necessary to point out that our disparate and divergent ‘understandings’ of God and his interaction with us are precisely would be unchanged if there were no God at all. This just seems like more tortured philosophical gymnastics to make theology fit the fact that there is no indication of any gods at work in our universe.
Mike,
The greatest indication to me that there is a God — and only one — at work in our universe is my own life . . . where I've been, where I am now . . . and where I know I'm going. I think sometimes the pursuit of a sharper intellect dulls one's faith to the point where neither matter.
God is.
Thom
Amen, Larry. Minor points aside, our unity is in serving the King, which we can do by faith through grace and more with hearts focused on seeking than minds focused constantly on probing and disproving. Living out instead of living up would go a long way towards removing the shackles of legalism that have turned off and turned away so many.
Thom
"But who is going to teach this “true gospel” you speak of? Who knows it? Where’d it come from? All we have is the Bible. And (and here we really disagree, Thom) the Bible is about as complex and abstruse a book as exists."
Actually, Christianity differs not so much on the major points as stated in the Bible but rather on minor points, such as baptism, gifts, eternal security, the rapture, etc. So on most of these minor points we could do something like dunk people in water and then sprinkle them lightly. In this manner, everyone is happy. Big deal, and not eternally important one way or the other.
All Christianity agrees on one point: Jesus. That should be enough to at least bring us into a little bit of unity, okay?
Now, as far as the "true gospel" goes, I was not referring to an exact theology one way or the other. Instead, I was making the point that the word "gospel" was a shortened form of the phrase which Jesus used often: "gospel of the Kingdom of God."
And if we look at the gospel as being the "good news about the Kingdom of God," we are going to have totally different insights. We will view Christianity not as a religion to live up to, but rather a life to live out in God's kingdom, serving the King.
John – This seems like as good a time as any to appear a little suck-up-ish. As I observed my 13-year-old son sitting on our sofa reading your book "I'm OK – You're Not" earlier this week, unprompted, I was reminded how grateful I am for your message in the cacophony of Christian influences to which he is subject. At that moment and in following thoughts, I determined to make that book required reading (or at least suggested) for all of my teenagers.
I sincerely admire a couple of things in particular about your thoughtful and provoking insights, both here and in that book: Your determined commitment to the foundational elements of the preeminence of Christ. Whatever happened in that supply closet, you definitely came away with a certitude in your commitment to Christ that is admirable, and mixed with the rest of the package that is John Shore, it generates a pleasant and unique taste that I've come to appreciate.
Furthermore, your determined commitment to let God be God in the face of overwhelming ideological dogma from every direction is truly refreshing. I could not agree more. Let's allow the love of Christ and the power of his reconciling life, with all the righteous judgment it has and will bring to bear, to manage the boundaries and limits of tolerance. For me, I hope to exalt Christ to a point where I can merely manage my own issues, much less those of the world he has called me to love and be an extension of his light.
Blah, blah, blah – maybe you get the point through that: you're cool; I'm a fan; let's start a new denomination!
John: I'm sure that everything I say warrants further exploration. I'm always exploring, and I'm so thankful everything is not easily laid out. I think God understands our need for mysteries which drive us back to Him. I don't want to be wrong on anything if I can help it, but if I am right on the big issue, eternity is the prize.
Mike: God truly does not compromise "free will." It was His gift to us and the exercise of it, while it creates great tension, also teaches us lessons and demonstrates the truth about Him and His design. It allows us to learn from our mistakes and gives us a greater desire to invest in the lives of others. Without it, I'm not sure what would drive us back to Him. I think the intentional divergent interpretations are a result of man's intent, not God's. My decision to believe Him at "His Word" is based in part on trust and in part on a vast experience of exercising my own free will.
We will always have theological problems, and we shouldn't sweep them under the rug. But, as we examine them, we need to keep in mind that faith supersedes. Without faith, problems are just quizzical little things.
LOL. I think most people who have take me on as a project give up eventually. I have a very stubborn soul
Thom
http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/
Thom: You're Mike's newest project. Good luck.
Thom,
My real point is not about the inconsistencies, but John effectively saying that those divergent interpretations are intentional. This makes no interpretation objectively correct or incorrect and simply sweeps a theological problem under the rug…and is to my mind profoundly dangerous and anti-intellectual. The reality is that if God were who believers claim, he would be able to get a consistent message out without compromising 'free will'.
Mike: the word "penultimate" doesn't mean what you think it does. And you've utterly misread what I wrote. Not your fault; I'll gladly take responsibility for having failed to communicate what I meant. (And the truth is you make my case: we all hear what we want to/can.)
Thom: Your articulateness is bracing. I don't think there's a thought you've expressed here that isn't predicated upon an assumption that I think definitely warrants further exploration–but you sure do say well what you say. Nice. Rare.
Mike,
I'm sure John will respond on his own, but I couldn't help jumping in. The intractable problem of the inconsistencies is not as big a problem as we sometimes want to make it. I know there are great debates about whether the Word of God is inerrant . . . and many examples given about where things don't always line up perfectly. However, if you first take the Bible as truly being His Word and then examine the various inconsistencies as errors made by imperfect men transcribing and translating through the centuries, you can come to the conclusion that it is indeed inerrant as His Word and stands as such despite the errors men may have made in carrying it forward. The "hills to die on" are still there and the errors become less important. We have a tendency to inflate the inconsistencies to the point where we discount the validity of God's Word with the end result being the elevation of man's.
While I don't agree with John that we can leave the reality of who God is up to everyman's individual interpretation, I do agree that God reveals Himself to us in different ways and that much of that is dependent on our willingness to perceive and receive. The differing interpretations, I think, are often due to our unwillingness to accept Him as never-changing and our desire to re-make Him into a more comfortable image that conforms to our idea of what God would be like if we could create Him today (Idolatry). The truth is and always will be: He is the Creator and we are not.
We would do well to study harder to get a look at His true face instead of reading him through our mirror.
Thom
http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/
John,
There seems to be an 800 pound gorilla in the room. You posit that God reveals himself to each individual uniquely and in a manner that makes sense to the reveal-ee. You feel that this is an intellectual answer to the obvious problem that God seems to make it very difficult to get the word out…the word that he wants to get out. Clearly it is a little puzzling that he would start that process by showing up amidst a bunch of largely illiterate, isolated, desert tribes with very limited means of communicating with the rest of the world. As you noted, he also apparently gives individuals grossly divergent messages as to what he wants.
The problem is that what you posit might work to explain the unexplainable, but it also means that any individual can believe absolutely anything they want and still be ‘correct’. Does noone see the danger of such theology? If God ‘reveals’ himself to a simple bigot…surprise!!….God endorses his xenophobia. This idea cedes every bit of reason and introspection and is a penultimate dumbing down of our intellect.
John; you have posited theological ideas before, but this [IMO] has to be the worst of them. It is mere whitewash of the intractable problem (which you recognize) of gross inconsistencies.
“God is exquisitely orchestrating his relationship with every one of us in a way that exactly meshes with what each of us most needs…he melds into our consciousness in a way that respects us…”
I think this is true. The Word is living and active. God speaks. And in his relationship with me he speaks differently than he does in his relationship with another believer. The Holy Spirit works in my life in a unique and personal way.
But I don’t think that this truth is the answer to your original question, because it seems that the different beliefs in the Christian world do not always “mesh with what each of us most needs”. Any belief, no matter how destructive or harmful or, even, apathetic, is justified, according to your argument.
Hmmm. Still thinking about this.
So, John. Where do you draw the line, then? Monotheism? Christianity? What defines Christianity? The Creeds? The name of Christ only?
Just probing your thoughts!
JAy.
John,
I'm not sure we disagree. Actually, what I said was "Jesus is not that hard to understand." The Bible as a whole is very complex. Jesus' teachings, on the other hand, not so much. Granted, we can make even simple things complex if we try to make them fit our preconceived hopes.
Thom
Larry: But who is going to teach this "true gospel" you speak of? Who knows it? Where'd it come from? All we have is the Bible. And (and here we really disagree, Thom) the Bible is about as complex and abstruse a book as exists.
Larry,
Without grace, I would be your neighbor in Hell, I assure you. And you're right, we have the watered-down Gospel, and Gospel-lite, and Gospel-heavy, which places so many burdens of legalese on the Christian that we can barely see the light above our heads. Jesus was not that hard to understand.
Thom
John,
My experience with NavPress was a ways back, so I can't really speak about how well they are representing their authors today. I worked with them directly and not through an agent. My current book is with a very good agent and hopefully she will find the perfect publisher soon. I guess you are working with different publishers now? I'm going to order a copy of your book. Though, as you said, we disagree on one particular issue, I do like the way you communicate.
Thom
http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/
"God starts with us where we are, period."
This is called grace and without it, people like me would be residing in Hell right now.
But I think – possibly – the real reason there are so many different types of Christians is that we have not been taught the true gospel. The one which Jesus taught, which was the gospel of the Kingdom of God.
John, I'm right with you here.
How is it the same God appears to the same people with polar opposite mind frames about him and how he works? He blesses those who depend on Him entirely for their every need, like the flowers of the field and the sparrow do, and God blesses those who, religiously, give sizable amounts of money to TBN Praise-a-thons.
Makes me scratch my head…and worship.
John,
Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. I do agree with you that this struggle is a tough row to hoe, but my pursuit is for holiness more than happiness. I want to be on the path God designed for me, as he says in Jeremiah 29:11: "'I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." My comfort in the struggle comes from knowing that He has a hope and future for me . . . and if my desire is for Him, he'll reveal it. That's more important than the happiness, "whatever than entails for me."
I understand the bombings you get. I get them also. This can be a very divisive issue, particularly if we forget that God loves all of us, broken as we are. We have a tendency to look at another person's brokenness as being greater or lesser than our own. Truth is, we all have, as you say "a . . . tough row to hoe."
Thanks again . . . and keep up the good work of trying to communicate with people who are seeking to know more about God.
Thom
http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/
Thom: Fair enough. I sincerely apologize, and thank you for your patience. I shouldn't have allowed my exhaustion with the bombings I'm forever getting about (to quote the latest such email) "loving the gays," to prompt me to react to you too, as you say, dismissively.
It's true we have radically different understandings of homosexuality as it relates to Christianity, but I certainly do wish you luck in your struggle to be happier, whatever that entails for you. I wish luck to anyone who is hoping that God will change them from gay to straight. Cuz that's a … tough row to hoe.
(And let me tell you: I definitely feel sorry for anyone who's had a book published my NavPress. If your experience with them was half as bad as mine was, you've got nothing but sympathy on that from me.)
FYI, John. We do have one thing in common. My second book, "Those Not-So-Still Small Voices," was published by NavPress. And it certainly does not reflect what you assumed to be my obsession.
John,
My apologies. Actually, I should have said that your blog mentions differing positions on homosexuality. I don't really know what your position is and shouldn't have presumed that. I truly misspoke there.
What you wrote: "One group believes in a God who holds that women should possess no authority in His church, and that when they die all homosexuals and people who don’t believe in him go straight to hell. Another group believes that women make excellent pastors and bishops, that unrepentant homosexuals are as welcomed in heaven as anyone else, and that heaven is available to all, Christian or not."
What I really meant to say is that it is important for us to be clear as Christians on that particular issue. The open theology that is being presented these days by some groups that acting on out on homosexual temptations is not a sin, is not Biblical. Being tempted is certainly not a sin, but acting out on the temptation is. Gays who are Christians will certainly be in heaven, as many times our sexual brokenness is something that manifests itself in our lives before we become Christians and is not magically removed at conversion. It takes a desire and yielding to God's will. That yielding is certainly more likely to occur if we as Christian provide clarity and not confusion.
And yes, I am a married man who has struggled with unwanted same-sex attraction, as do many men and women within the church. I hope your statement; "Carry on. And good luck to you." truly was one of support. I think you were a bit unfair to characterize my desire to help others walk to freedom in such a way as to say it is "The Big Thing on your mind about God." You don't know me, or my walk with God, well enough to be so dismissive. It is not an obsession — as you said — but an area of interest because I see people struggling with it. When you say "of all things," you are mocking something that is important. I would not have done so with issues you believe are important to you.
Thom
Janelle: You said, "Any belief, no matter how destructive or harmful or, even, apathetic, is justified, according to your argument." The word "justified," right there, becomes a really interesting word. I didn't actually say that, at all. But forgoing any too complex exploration of the relationship between what you've asserted I said and what I actually did say, I can definitely say this: it doesn't matter whether whatever anyone believes is "justified" or not. You're not going to change anyone's beliefs, and either is anyone else. People believe what they believe. Our choice then, is to assume that either God will work on them in a way that is pleasing to him (and so is or would be to us), or that he won't. I think he will. So I don't really care what anyone else believes. I trust God to bring people to him in his own time and way.
Thom: Where/when did I state my position on homosexuality? I certainly didn't in this post. Which means that's … the Big Thing on your mind about God. Why are you so deeply concerned—and from the fervency of your question, I might even say obsessed–about that, of all things? (Oh. I see from your blog that you are "a married father who has fought and fallen and risen again to fight against same-sex attraction." Well, then. Never mind. Carry on. And good luck to you.)
John,
I agree that it is probably impossible to get all Christians on the same page on all the issues addressed in God's Word, and that certainly some of them are open to interpretation, which is influenced by other factors which weigh on each of us. However, where there are absolutes spelled out clearly, we need to strive for agreement here on earth in hopes of reflecting His glory here as much as is possible. I think waiting until heaven to settle it all out can lead to unnecessary pain for those on the journey.
For instance, your position on homosexuality, while it may be a "please everyone now and let God sort it out later" approach, is harmful. Confusion on this issue destroys families and puts men and women into bondage. The church should be the place where Christians can find straight and clear biblical answers regarding sexuality, but we leave it to culture to direct. Cowardice should not be a characteristic of Christianity. Sexuality is a reflection of God's creative intent for men and women. To treat homosexuality so flippantly shows a disregard for one of the most painful struggles Christians face. The Bible is clear about homosexuality being wrong. Surely you know that. We need to be about the business of loving homosexuals and helping them discover God's intent rather than just shrugging our shoulders.
Newer Comments →