Jump to content

The Shack By Wm Paul Young


glintofpewter

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Janet,

 

I'm ambivalent, I guess, because of my disappointment at Bill's departure. This was the only thread I was participating in while I am moving. Attempting to outline Young's theodicy is now my main interest although a story always reveals new views as it unrolls. I haven't read the last part.

 

I would be interested in continuing the discussion with you.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch, Janet,

 

I'd still like to finish out this discussion with the both of you. I'm still "in" for this if it is okay with you. My posts will just be more anecdotal. I think we already agree or know that God is not a large black woman and the Spirit a hard-to-see nymph of a woman. :) So I'd be interesting in hearing what the two of you think of the conversations in the Shack. Do they make sense? Or do they raise further questions? Or do they really lead to healing and hope?

 

bill mc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ch 6:

I loved the metaphor that Papa would treasure anything given from the heart like a parent treasures children's art pieces. Young is trying to provoke people by saying God listens to funk. As a whole "this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereotypes" Papa says later.

 

I have thought of God saying "I am especially fond of him" a lot since I first read the book. It's good for me to think of God saying that when I am having difficulty relating to someone.

 

Papa avoids the first of the tough questions when Mack asks, "If you couldn't take care of Missy, how can I trust you to take care of me." I like the response though- Papa's brought Mack there to heal the wound inside Mack and heal the wound in his relationship with Papa. It's all about Mack's unique relationship. He couldn't handle a father right then.

 

What did you guys think about the discussion of "freedom"? For me, I thought Papa's response was thought provoking, even though my mind has always railed against God being a puppetmaster.

 

I liked the way Papa addressed Mack's sense of abandonment. I didn't like the explanation of Jesus' healing the blind man. I liked that Jesus was described as a limited human trusting in God's power, but I think the miracle stories surrounding Jesus were amplified to support the claim that he was divine. The Trinity, to me, is also just a human attempt to define God, but is probably not the whole picture. The whole scars on Papa's wrists thing is unimportant to me, except in that it sometimes helps me to know God has suffered, too.

 

Other quotables:

"Who wants to worship a God who can be fully comprehended, eh?" "Love is not the limitation; love is the flying" AMEN!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a whole "this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereotypes" Papa says later.

 

It is interesting to think of God as the supreme iconoclast, isn't it? :D

 

Papa's brought Mack there to heal the wound inside Mack and heal the wound in his relationship with Papa.

 

I can sorta relate to this. After all, as a parent I sometimes have to "wound" my children (shots, pulling teeth, demanding obedience) in order to achieve a "higher good." And there are just some things in life that, as a human, I simply can't see a "higher good" to. If God sees it, he ain't tellin'. ;)

 

On the other hand, as Buddha said, "Life is a bitch." My transliteration. :) There are many wounds that we can carry with us our entire lives that, perhaps, we don't want to be healed from because they allow us to empathize, to have compassion. I have often wondered why the gospels portray Jesus as having this completely transformed body after the resurrection, but still with the wounds in his hands and feet? I don't think that if this myth were true, it would be because Jesus would want to put us on an everlasting guilt trip of "See what I had to do for you?" True love doesn't foster eternal guilt. But I wonder if the gospels are hinting at something that the apostle Paul says, something that most orthodox Christians would definately get bent out of shape about. Paul says that Jesus "learned obedience" through the death of the cross. I don't think he was saying that Jesus had been disobedient to God his entire life and that crucifixion was God's way of getting Jesus to comply with God's will. I just suspect that Paul is saying that we don't truly learn to empathize or serve others until we suffer with them. Most Christians rejoice that they will someday be perfect and have no more wounds or tears. I can't vouce for if that will be the case or not.

 

But I appreciate that Young is bringing out how much God suffers with us or values our hurts, not because God is a sadist, but simply because "life is a bitch" and this is the way things are. Papa doesn't quote Romans 8:28 to Mack and assure Mack that Papa is completely in control. This is, again, a radical notion for most Christians and it is no wonder many conservative Christians will go no where near this book.

 

My sister married a fairly devout Catholic. Their first baby was born with a number of birth defects and died when he was 8 months old. My sister lost whatever faith she had in God through that experience. I never offered her any answers, I just cried with her and helped hold her as they lowered that 36" coffin into the ground. Nevertheless, she sends her other two children to church and occasionally goes with them. I asked her, a couple of years ago, "If you're now an agnostic, why do you send your kids to church and sometimes go with them?" Her reply impressed me, so simple that I found it profound. She said, "I don't think I believe in God, but I still believe in love. We experience love there."

 

I still think of that response from time to time. I wrestle with it. It moves something in me. There seems to be something true about it, but it is like Sharayu, I can't quite bring it into focus. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"we don't truly learn to empathize or serve others until we suffer with them."

I totally agree with this -- well put!

 

Thanks for sharing your sister's story. I'm so sorry! Her quote is precious:

"I don't think I believe in God, but I still believe in love. We experience love there."

Don't you wish everyone had a spiritual community like that?

 

Janet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very glad that you are continuing with us, Bill.

 

sorry for not getting here earlier

 

For me this chapter sparks a lot of ideas and images. I think part of that is because Young solicited input from many other people. There are many cliches among the new words and ideas.

 

a couple:

god's timing is always perfect

just follow my voice

 

But God is the "supreme iconoclast" Amen, Bill. isn't that what the resurrection is about?

 

Bill, I think your sister was honest when many are not. As adults we returned to church because we knew our kids would acquire values and thought that church would be a good influence. It wasn't that singular and calculated but :D...

 

Children discipline and medical treatments - an interesting connection - we once decided ahead of time that if the doctors proposed bone marrow transplant which, if needed, would be life saving, we would say no because the side effects reduced quality of life for Annie too much. We never had to make that decision. But isn't comparing child raising and medical treatments to God's ways -- well I won't go there, because I would like to believe that all I need to know about suffering and evil is

 

"Honey, I have no easy answer that will take your pain away. Believe me, if I had one, I'd use it. ... Life takes a bit of time and a lot of relationship." p.94

 

A friend helped me move yesterday. Conservative, his church is preaching prosperity these days. When he asked how my faith was what first came to mind was that I miss singing "Jesus loves me".

 

In this book I get back in touch with that feeling

 

"especially fond of you"

I knew a pastor who conveyed that well to each member. It was healthy unless some one felt the pastor loved only them or loved them in a special way. Actually a good picture of the distortion that happens with religions and dogma.

 

The Trinity perhaps is an assertion of one God and the divinity of Jesus, but today, for me, stories about love and relationship seem much richer than doctrine. So the family life depicted is at least a good model. Is this a lesbian couple? Elouisa and Sarayu?

 

If I did not have a relationship within myself then I would not be capable of love at all. p. 104

 

Isn't this a universal idea? Loving yourself. If I may wrench the Tao, being centered, can be about protecting one's soul, by not grasping at pain or pleasure, protecting thereby loving self so that one can be present and love others. Just a thought.

 

The male aspect of God -- "an emphasis on fathering was necessary because of the enormity of its absence." A defense of a male image of God, a call for men to be fathers, a call for men to be engaged in religion/church. Excellent writing and rhetoric ;)

 

Freedom

 

Janet I think the discussion about freedom and later, independence, is multilayered. Papa says Mack is free to do whatever, then Papa challenges our notion of "free to do whatever" and asks, like Pilate, "What is freedom really?" and adds later "Only I can set you free?" Another wrench to the Tao - it is only when we are non-attached to the world, to pain and pleasure, good and evil, etc are we free. And it can be hurt and pain that separate us the divine whether it is Papa or the Tao.

 

"Freedom is a process that happens inside a relationship"

civic freedom, national freedom, personal freedom - the more we know and trust the more we can play and be free with each other? Laws and armies force us to play nice until we are free? How much truth can this sentence hold or does it break down somewhere?

 

AND THEN THERE IS

 

"We created you to share in [unlimited, content divine fullness]. But then Adam chose to go it on his own, as we knew he would, and everything got messed up. But instead of scrapping the whole creation, we rolled up our sleeves and entered into the middle of the mess --that's what we have done with Jesus."

 

Looks like an attempt to be progressive, in a theological sense and with a lowercase "p", and conservative at the same time. How could Adam choose!!! the wrong action when he was in full relationship with Papa who says "Freedom happens in relationship." Were Adam and Papa NOT in relationship? Did Adam spill his milk and Cheerios and now mom and dad and Adam are cleaning them up together?

 

 

Anyway I like this out of context.

"we rolled up our sleeves and entered into the middle of the mess"

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend helped me move yesterday. Conservative, his church is preaching prosperity these days. When he asked how my faith was what first came to mind was that I miss singing "Jesus loves me".

 

Interesting, Dutch. I sometimes wish we had a second verse that goes, "Jesus loves YOU" that we could sing to each other. :)

 

"especially fond of you"

I knew a pastor who conveyed that well to each member.

 

I had one like that also. He always made me feel like I was his best friend. We did alot of events together (Promise Keepers, Men's Prayer Breakfast, Christian music concerts, etc.). I miss him. But he is a pastor and his main responsibility is to his church, so I've let the friendship drift apart. The funny thing was, everybody I talked to about him said that he made them feel exactly as I did, that they were his best friend too. We need more people like that.

 

{quote]Freedom

 

This is where I differed from both the Calvinists and the Arminians. I don't believe that God is sovereign and "in charge" or "in control" of the universe. But neither do I believe that we have totally "free will". I liken it to my marriage. My wife is not "in charge" or "in control" of me, and she is the first to admit it. At the same time, because I value the relationship that we have together, I don't really have the "free will" to do anything I like. If anything, I feel around me the constant influence of her love and acceptance, not in a controlling manner, but as a gentle (and sometimes not so gentle) call for me to be continually sifting the wheat from the chaff in our lives, to make the right choices for the right priorities. If we are truly living "in union" or "as one", then our wills are usually headed in the same direction and it is not about her enforcing her will on me or me proclaiming my freedom of will to her.

 

I tend to think my relationship with God is much the same. The more I catch his vision, the smaller the degree of difference there is between God's sovereignty and human free will.

 

Of course, the Shack is about God's sovereignty. Mack definately has the view that God is "in charge" of what happens on earth and sits in heaven pulling levers, pushing buttons, and throwing switches (or refusing to do so) in order to control what happens or doesn't happen "down here." This image of God is very comforting as long as things are going our way. But when circumstances like Missy's come along or when terrorists fly airplanes into our symbols that God has blessed us, we are left wondering "Where is God?" We are tempted to ask of God what Elijah asked of the prophets of Baal: "Perhaps your God has gone off to relieve himself?"

 

I'm not sure whether Papa thinks he's "in charge" or not. Young is walking a fine line here. Papa is definately compassionate towards Mack. But, again, Mack values Missy more than himself and can't understand why things have gone the way they have.

 

So I can't help but wonder, how comfortable would I be singing "Jesus Loves All the Children of the World" while walking through a children's cancer ward? Could I do it? I don't know.

 

How could Adam choose!!!

 

Good point, Dutch. Christians often think that Adam and Eve were created perfect. If that were truly the case, then, being perfect, they could not have sinned. It's like when they say we will be perfect when we get to heaven. Well, if we are like Adam and Eve in heaven, what is to prevent things from getting messed up again? How does God make us perfect while leaving us with any sense of self and will?

 

There was a recent episode on the FOX series, "Dollhouse", where the popwers-that-be could erase bad memories from others. They "fixed" a young woman who had lost a child so that the woman, while acknowledging the loss, no longer felt any pain with it. She simply acknowledged the fact of her child's death, but it no longer affected her and she could talk about it with a smile on her face. Such an approach to "pain" definately made another character in the show uncomfortable, like robbing us of our ability to feel makes us less human.

 

Alot of Christians do look forward to a time when God will wipe away all our tears and there will be no more pain. Part of me wants that to. But part of me wonders if we will be less human for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"tend to think my relationship with God is much the same. The more I catch his vision, the smaller the degree of difference there is between God's sovereignty and human free will. "

 

Beautifully put, and I especially liked how you related it to marriage, Bill.

 

I like this out of context, too, Dutch!

"we rolled up our sleeves and entered into the middle of the mess"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CH. 7,

I really enjoyed the scene where Jesus dropped the bowl of sauce, because it's not the way those humans I love act when someone makes a mess. It was a surprise when Young turned it into a washing of Papa's feet by Jesus.

The whole thing about not being able to share with one part of God without the others knowing -- was that an issue for someone?? I liked the affirmation that "Relationships are never about power". The agenda about real, true, devotions may have been freeing to some who think of them as boring.

I would like to look at the stars on the dock with Jesus so real and tangible beside me. The idea that Jesus would look physically handsome was not a hangup for me. I kind of think we need to drop the confusing language like "My purpose from the beginning was to live in you and you in me." The phrase from the later paragraph "a dynamic and active union" is a better way of being indwelt by Jesus' spiritual life.

I liked at the end when Mack felt lost that Jesus responded, "I am with you and I'm not lost. I'm sorry it feels that way."

 

That's all for now! Your thoughts?

Janet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing about not being able to share with one part of God without the others knowing -- was that an issue for someone??

 

Not specifically, seeing as Young is drawing the Trinity as three separate persons in his story. Within theism, Jesus does sometimes claim to know what God's will is and sometimes he says that only the Father in heaven knows -- ideas held in tension, I suppose. This brings up the subject of human knowledge or experience of God, and I'll share my 2c on that in just a moment.

 

I liked the affirmation that "Relationships are never about power".

 

Yeah, me, too. I think relationships are about compassion (yes, this is running through my head and heart ALOT right now). :D

 

I would like to look at the stars on the dock with Jesus so real and tangible beside me.

 

Me, too, Janet. I would relate to Jesus much better that way than to the "mystical Christ" who, to me, is a know-it-all. And this is where my 2c comes in. I was watching a recent episode of the show "Universe" with my son, and an astronomer said that, with the naked eye, we can only see about 1500 stars in the night sky. That sound like alot until we consider how many billions of stars there really are and the vastness of our universe. Our vision of what is really out there is limited by our humanity. Of course, we've developed telescopes that let us peer deeper into our universe than ever before, and the deeper we look, the smaller we become and the more we realize that we don't know.

 

This episode sparked me thinking about God, not that God is "out there", but how limited our view of God really is, being only from a human perspective and only from the experiences of a few thousand years. I like what Peter Gomes said in his book, "The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus"; he says something to the effect that it is ludicrous, given the vast size of our universe, that God can be known and experienced only through the person of Jesus Christ. Of course, this flies in the face of Christian orthodoxy, but it makes perfect sense to me. We are discovering, on an average, of 200 new planets orbiting other suns every year. Granted, the chances of life on those planets are, admittedly, slim. But if any kind of sentient life was there, it would be literally astronomical that things would take the exact shape of "Jesus".

 

For me, I don't believe that Jesus was literally God incarnate. I don't anymore think God can be fully encapsulated in any one person than I do that God can be fully encapsulated in any one book, religion, culture, or planet. :) But I do find Jesus to be "full of the Spirit" and that image works well for me. But that also means that he would be just as awed to sit on a dock looking at the stars as I am. Making Jesus "fully God", where I am in my journey, makes him to distant because of what I call God's transcendence, the impossibility and futility to try to fit God into ANY kind of box.

 

Well, I'll bet that was more than you asked for, huh? :D

 

I kind of think we need to drop the confusing language like "My purpose from the beginning was to live in you and you in me."

 

Yeah. Ask me sometime about my involvement with "Exchanged Life Ministries." ;)

 

I liked at the end when Mack felt lost that Jesus responded, "I am with you and I'm not lost."

 

:D The "know-it-all" Jesus! :D Of course, according to Christianity Jesus never even sinned. So he certainly wouldn't know what it is like to experience being lost or feeling guilty. :)

 

I'm sorry it feels that way."

 

It is encouraging to know that our relationship to God is not based on our feelings, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the following quote from soma in another topic.

I love Jesus in the physical form and start my my meditation with it. It is hard to love the impersonal so Jesus is a form I can love in the physical where he resurrects my mind in Christ consciousness ...

Chapter 7 may be my favorite chapter.

 

Janet

 

I love the act when someone makes a mess ...

I would like to look at the stars on the dock with Jesus so real and tangible beside.

 

Bill

But I do find Jesus is "full of spirit" and that image works well for me.

 

As soma observed he, you, I and start with Jesus, not because he is ludicrously the only way but because it is through Jesus that we learned to access the transcendent Divine. I believe it was Thomas Merton, who, when he went to study eastern religions, was told to become the best Christian he could be. Sometime ago I was bothered by the historicity of Jesus but I know no other as well even though billions of years preceded him. There are probably many unnamed prophets who showed the way to their own tribes and clans. This chapter makes Jesus tangible and I wonder how perfect any perfect human can be. Children who are perfect are not always healthy. Separation from parents is necessary for child development. What did Jesus look like when he in the terrible twos stage of his life? Jesus had to grow up learning along the way and spilled other bowls of their contents and smashed his thumb as a carpenter. He even had to learn what his mission was. It wasn't clear to him in the beginning. Could a perfect human do other than that? Perhaps the scene about the sauce shows where we should look for perfection - in relationships.

 

Janet

The whole thing about not being able to share with one part of God without the others knowing -- was that an issue for someone?

 

I think it was only necessary for the story although it does bring up the issue of the Trinity which was locked down long ago for a variety of reasons. I have no problem with the "primordial" and the "consequent" aspects of Whitehead as a unity of the transcendent and imminent divine. Jesus, as an historic person, is separate. In other words Papa and Sarayu are two aspects of God. Jesus is one of many humans who point the way. Whatever metaphor or image emphasizes and reveals relationships is good for me.

 

Relationships are my weakness. That's why I am separated - to be real. :(

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch,

Thanks for being real. I'm sorry!!! I think metaphors that emphasize and reveal relationships are what most of us need (but then again, I'm an engineer and hang out with many engineers, and we are not known as masters of relationships). I have faith and hope that your awareness and openness to seek the information will combine with the energy of God and there will be a new freedom you find in the area of relationships. I think you have an insight there, with the idea that we should seek perfection in relationships. I did a Bible study not too long ago, and the premise was that we are all seeking fulfillment from things besides God. In my case, the study showed that I find much meaning from relationships with other human beings. The danger is that human relationships are temporal. Sometimes they break, sometimes they end in death. The Bible study said that only the relationship with God brings true fulfillment and meaning. I wasn't so sure -- it sounded like it was directing me to be a meditating hermit or something.

 

Bill,

I loved your "know-it-all" Jesus comment!! Obviously, when I'm feeling lost, my need is to have a know it all around to show me the way. Your ideas about putting God in the Jesus box were NOT too verbose. When you get time, I DO want you to write about Exchanged Life Ministries.

 

The conversation is fun!

 

Janet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch and Janet,

 

Ya'll are bringing up such great stuff (as you always do) that encourages me to think about my own walk and my own relationships.

 

Dutch, I'm so sorry about your separation. I'm here through PM if you just want to talk.

 

I mentioned at the start of our conversations on this book, Young is taking a stab at the problem of theodicy, why a good and loving God would allow evil in this world. I'll admit that I don't find the answers that Young gives through "God" to be very convincing...but I love that Young's "God" allows Mack the space to just be who he is, where he is, and to struggle with the questions.

 

When it comes to the problem of theodicy, I, not being God, don't have any real answers either. All I would have to say about it is that we, as limited humans, don't really understand what we mean by "God" and "good" and "loving" and "evil". So while there are alot of books on the shelves of Christian bookstores taking a stab at this question, I find the question itself to be poorly phrased and probably pointing in the wrong direction for us as humans. The question wants to know "why do we suffer?" and I am a realist to the point that I don't believe in an overarching, specific purpose. I don't think that "God has his reasons and this is why he has done this to us or allowed this to happen to us." I simply think that suffering is part of the human experience and how we respond to it makes us more or less human, more mature or more infantile.

 

So, for me, the question of suffering is not "Why?" but "Who?" Not "Who is responsible for our suffering?" but "Who do we turn to when we suffer?" Looking for who is responsible can either turn us into atheists or, as the last decade has shown us, turn us into a revengeful nation. Pain and suffering make us feel alone, solitary, like we were in someone's sights and they were out for the kill. Religion often tries to answer that by pointing to a sinful world, or Satan, or our own sinful desires. But I think religion, at its best, offers us a community of relationships where we can find, not answers to the "why", but responses to the "who do we turn to?"

 

From this aspect, Young paints a portrait of almost-human deities that Mack can relate to, be himself with, and find some sense of comfort with. While Young takes a stab at the problem of theodicy, what he really does is to provide a mini-community of loving individuals where Mack is allowed to fully feel his own pain and to safely work through it.

 

For me, that is what churches should be doing, and some are. They should be humble enough to say that they don't have an answer to the problem of theodicy. But they should be open and welcoming places for people to work through their pain and suffering.

 

Sidenote: When I got divorced back in '85, church was the last place I wanted to go. Even though my divorce was "biblically justifiable", I didn't want to go around explaining that to everyone. I knew that even if I was to take the line that I was "in the right" for the divorce, people would still say (which is true) that I, in some sense, did something or didn't do something which led to the divorce. The Christians didn't really care about the pain that I was going through, they just cared that one of their laws had been broken, and I wanted nothing to do with it. I had to seek help and healing elsewhere. Now, I'm sure that my case is not universal and that some churches are VERY supportive of members who go through pain and suffering. Thank God for these places. They have moved beyond the "Why?" to the "Who?"

 

So that is what I think religion does best. It doesn't answer all of our questions of why? But it can, at its best, provide a community of whos that we can turn to where we can find hope and healing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"what he really does is to provide a mini-community of loving individuals where Mack is allowed to fully feel his own pain and to safely work through it.

 

For me, that is what churches should be doing, and some are. They should be humble enough to say that they don't have an answer to the problem of theodicy. But they should be open and welcoming places for people to work through their pain and suffering."

 

This is perfectly put, and I hope to be able to quote you at church tomorrow. Bill, when I was experiencing marriage troubles, I didn't take them to church, either!! I've always felt a bit sad about that, and I hope that by now I have a true, loving community there who would be more likely to help than judge. I wish there were more people out there who would admit how difficult marriage can be, rather than just putting on their plastic grins and game faces.

 

Janet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill

what he really does is to provide a mini-community of loving individuals where Mack is allowed to fully feel his own pain and to safely work through it.

Janet

I wish there were more people out there who would admit how difficult marriage can be, rather than just putting on their plastic grins and game faces.

Sometimes I think it depends on the church and the problem. It also takes two. Our former church split just before my marriage broke up and I felt allied with Diane, who had been a major player so I left with her. If I had stayed I would have found support. I also have support where I am now.

 

While Young takes a stab at the problem of theodicy, what he really does is to provide a mini-community of loving individuals where Mack is allowed to fully feel his own pain and to safely work through it.

 

For me, that is what churches should be doing, and some are. They should be humble enough to say that they don't have an answer to the problem of theodicy. But they should be open and welcoming places for people to work through their pain and suffering.

 

I think within what Young is developing as a response to the problem there is an answer similar to yours, Bill. I think he is positing that the question itself is irrelevant and that the answer to the problem of what we call evil is in relationship. Who are we with when tough and painful events happen.

 

"Honey, I have no easy answer that will take your pain away. Believe me, if I had one, I'd use it. ... Life takes a bit of time and a lot of relationship." p.94

 

"...there are millions of reasons to allow pain and hurt and suffering rather than to eradicate them, but most of those reasons can only be understood with each person's story."
p. 127 I jumped ahead; this quote is from chapter 8.

 

The second quote is about God who limits God's self which I think is so unsatisfying. I prefer the concept that God is inherently limited. So God is limited, condescendingly or equally with us, journeying with us, suffering with us, limited, either voluntarily or involuntarily, in preventing evil. God suffers with us, comforts us - if we are open to the inbreaking of the Spirit.

 

Why is there pain, hurt, and evil in the world? Because ###### happens; that's the way things are. If creation becoming is dynamic, evolving, then cancer will happen, serial killers will happen, and wars will happen. And God offers to be in relationship with us. Not why but who are we with when ###### happens?

 

Our relationship with God is evolving and the immanent God is also changing because of our relationship. I think grampawombat said that some day God will have all those perfect attributes we say that God has but right now God is not perfectly good or perfectly omnipotent.

 

Just pushing the boundaries

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The second quote is about God who limits God's self which I think is so unsatisfying. I prefer the concept that God is inherently limited. So God is limited, condescendingly or equally with us, journeying with us, suffering with us, limited, either voluntarily or involuntarily, in preventing evil. God suffers with us, comforts us - if we are open to the inbreaking of the Spirit."

 

Dutch,

I like your wisdom here. I had never felt dissatisfied before with the idea of God limiting God's self, but I can see your point.

 

"some day God will have all those perfect attributes we say that God has but right now God is not perfectly good or perfectly omnipotent." Do you know what grandpawombat's reasoning was, Dutch?

 

Thanks!

Janet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second quote is about God who limits God's self which I think is so unsatisfying.

 

I think I understand what you're getting at here, Dutch. Whether we say that God limits himself or whether we say that God is limited, the pragmatic conclusion is that God has limits.

 

I run into a similar logic when my wife and I have discussions about the efficacy of prayer. Her side is that God CAN do anything. My side is that, from a human point-of-view, it doesn't matter what God CAN do, it matters what he does. So it does no good to debate the "possibilities", it is the "probabilities" that win out. I could walk down the corridor of a children's cancer ward and proclaim that God is capable of healing every one of those children in there. But the question is, will he? And life teaches me, probably not.

 

If God is, as some say, all-knowing, then there would be no practical reason for God to "limit himself" in order to experience something. All-knowing is all-knowing. :) The practical upshot of all this, for me, is that it doesn't matter whether God is limited or not, human experience of God definately is. And that is why we need each other.

 

Young is, I believe, trying to point to God's transcendence. Nothing wrong with that. And maybe he is just going slow in challenging orthodoxy. It's one thing to rock the boat, it's another to simply flip it with no warning. Like you, I don't always find his answers satisfying. But someone has to crack the door open to say that it is okay to ask these kinds of questions and I think Young excels at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you get time, I DO want you to write about Exchanged Life Ministries.

 

Janet,

 

Briefly, my experiences with Exchanged Life Ministries: I dont know how much you know about them so Ill assume that you havent heard of them.

 

ELM is a branch of conservative Christianity that focuses on the teachings of people such as Watchman Nee, Neil Anderson, Bob George, and various other teachers who say that, left to our own power, we cannot live the Christian life, that Christ in us is the only one sufficient to do so.

 

It appealed to me because, about 12 years ago, I was so burnt out on trying to get the Christian life right, trying to break old habits, trying to be everything I thought God expected me to be as a Christian. So along comes this ministry that says, Of course you are burned out, you cant live the Christian life, only Christ within you can do it. Sounds good. Very Pauline. ELM sent me to a training course that essentially teaches you how to stop trying to be a Christian and how to simply trust in the mystical Christ within you to live your life for you.

 

I was into ELM for about 3 years. But I grew weary with constantly trying to discern whether I was in the flesh or in the Spirit, whether it was me or Christ within me that was in control. The paradigm of ELM is, like many mystical religions, that we must completely surrender ourselves to Christ (or divinity) to the extent that we or self disappears. The notion is that once our self is eradicated, then, and only then, does the Christ within appear or manifest. So the struggle is to keep the self constantly suppressed; something I am not very good at because, frankly, I believe that God relishes in having all of these unique selves that we are. The end result, when someone is said to be living the Exchanged Life, is that we no longer live, but Christ lives in and through us. Again, it sounds good, but it is very analogous to demonic possession, except that the possession is done by a mystical Christ. :)

 

The longer I was in ELM, the more I saw rivalries there in the leadership between who was the most spiritual and who was the most fleshly. And I grew uncomfortable with the notion that God wanted to completely eradicate who I am and put some kind of Stepford Jesus in my place. Ive always been more of the bent of dont tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I found that ELM was more interested in arguing over doctrine than doing anything about our worlds problems. Of course, being a conservative ministry, they believe that the world is close to ending anyway. :(

 

My experiences there made me very leery of people who make too much of Christ within or the mystical Christ. As humans, we all have different understandings of things. I understand how some people want to follow Christianity from a more mystical approach. I dont think there is anything wrong with surrender to the Divine. But I think that the Divine wants to make us, not selfless, but unselfish. For me, the proof is in the pudding and if those who claim to have this separate person of Christ living within them act nothing like Jesus in the Bible, I have to question the validity of the claim.

 

I no longer claim that Jesus lives inside me or that there are two people in here. As far as I know, its just me. :) I dont think that God wants to eradicate me or turn me into Jesus. I simply think that patterning my life after the best teachings of Jesus makes me more human, a better me. I dont want to be eradicated by God or possessed by Jesus, I just want to show the same compassion to others that he did. For me, the records in the gospels are enough. I dont need some kind of link to a, supposedly, living Christ in order to be a good person. I appreciate what Spong says in this regard, that we should be all we can be. That should be enough. Im finally reaching a point in my life where I am comfortable with who I am while also recognizing my desire to grow to be the best I can be for the sake of others and for my own sake. So I dont need a mystical Christ or a spirit-guide or some other person inside me to become a mature human being.

 

Again, Im just speaking for myself. Others see this issue quite differently.

 

PS None of the above negates that I believe in and experience God within, primarily because I dont see God as a person or even as three person. To me, God is Spirit and I define Spirit as the presence of compassionate connectedness. Sometimes this presence is perceived through human-like experiences such as fatherhood or motherhood. Sometimes this presence is perceived through a person such as Jesus. And often this presence is perceived in out-of-the-box experiences where we simply call it spiritual feeling connected to what Is, to our universe, and to each other. For me, this doesnt require a doctrine of a Trinity, just an opening of the eyes and ears to what I havent experienced before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And I grew uncomfortable with the notion that God wanted to completely eradicate who I am and put some kind of “Stepford Jesus” in my place. I’ve always been more of the bent of ‘don’t tell me what you believe, show me what you do’ and I found that ELM was more interested in arguing over doctrine than doing anything about our world’s problems"

 

Thanks, Bill, for explaining the pitfalls. I had never heard of ELM, but it sounds similar to some stuff I was hearing at the evangelical church I took a Bible study at. I have always looked at the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" as a metaphor for the wisdom that fills our hearts with God and helps us make the tough decisions without putting ourselves first. However, I have experienced something that I would consider a "metaphysical" effect of Jesus in that it seems like I'm often offered growth in areas I never would have chosen myself. :-)

 

Someday I'll figure it all out, but for now I'm okay with the mystery.

 

Janet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God is, as some say, all-knowing, then there would be no practical reason for God to "limit himself" in order to experience something. All-knowing is all-knowing. :) The practical upshot of all this, for me, is that it doesn't matter whether God is limited or not, human experience of God definitely is. And that is why we need each other.

Jakob Boehme says God could not know herself except through the experience of relationship. So one might say that since she is wholly other to, and in relationship with, creation, that she is learning about herself as creation continues becoming. In some sense God is not in control of events, but present to them and us.

 

I think this means that if you want to talk about the hurt and pain and evil in your own life talk to God. If you want to talk about the evil done to others go and journey with them bringing the presence of God. The place to face evil is in one's "sphere of influence" and with God. (my son tells me St. Augustine used this phrase). The question is not about how could a Perfect (favorite attribute here) God allow this or that - because she can't - but, as you said Bill, "that is why we need each other." Bill, the first time I went to a cancer ward I felt like you did but the solution is to walk into the room and encounter the child. That changes everything. Color with them, eat with them. You still wish it didn't have to happen but your experience is radically changed.

 

Janet, here is grampawombat's original post

 

Posted 13 July 2009 - 02:15 PM

I describe God as "coming into being." for me, God is still pretty much below the radar, but growing in power and influence. If God is omni-anything it is omnibenevolent, or capable of infinite love. I think that God's power increases through interactions with sentient creatures. Maybe in a million years or so God will be what people seem to think that God already is. I think there are a lot of ways for people to get glimpses of God's nature. For me, coming to understand what Jesus of Nazareth was supposed to be about works better than anything else I have found so far. But as I commented somewhere else, what I learn from Jesus seems to generally conform to my own lefty political agenda.

 

 

Dutch

 

My computer is now at my "new" apartment and I am still sleeping at the house. (Don't ask.) I will be at the computer at least every other day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service