God doesn't fit in a box.
I'm getting a bit tired of my judgment being called into question all the time. And no - I'm not saying that my judgment IS good all the time. Because I know it's not. But please - give me some credit.
I could make this blog about defending the things that my judgment is being called into question about, but I'm not going to do that. Instead, I'm going to talk about the God that I believe in - because I think some of my decisions that are being called into question have been made because of my understanding of him.
I believe that God created the universe, and he's bigger than it. He created a world full of people in his image, people with brains and the ability to make choices and decisions based on the conclusions that they come to with those brains. And then - he gave those people the freedom to make those choices. Choices about what they do and what they believe.
Now here's what God DIDN'T do. He didn't make a world without questions. He didn't make everything spiritual so cut and dry that we are forced to believe in one religion without question. He didn't make us robots. (Based on what he did create - as mentioned above - I would think the latter would be obvious.)
I think sometimes we try to put God in our own little boxes. I've kinda tried to stop doing that. Heck, I'm trying to expand my own little box for myself as well. If I can't fit into it anymore, I sure as heck know that he can't. Why do people seem to think that God isn't big enough to handle questions? That he created a world full of people that use the personalities he gave them to seek him in different ways, but he isn't big enough to leave room for all those different ways?
I know what I believe in. I know what I believe about God. I do not believe I have all the answers, or that I do (or ever will) know everything about him. I believe he's pretty infinite - leaving room for questions and doubts and new ways of understanding. Meaning that I will try to never push my ways of believing on someone else. I think that's holding them kind of small. They're created in God's image the same way I am, why should I not allow them room to think for themselves? God does. Instead, I try to recognize what they may see about God that I don't - because honestly, I think the God I believe in is too big to fit inside one religion. I think he's manifested in lots of beautiful things in this world. I think he can be found in fundamentalist churches and "emergent" churches. I think he can be found in Catholic churches and Protestant churches. I think he can be found in religions other than Christianity. I think he can be found in art. I think he can be found in music. (And not just so-called "Christian" art and "Christian" music.) I think he can be found in endeavors that are not associated with church or religion. Heck, I even believe he can be found in horror novels.
God's bigger than the universe - so why keep trying to fit him into just your beliefs? So please - give me room to find him where I find him and stop questioning my journey along the way.
Thanks.
39 Comments:
VERY good post.
Just today I had an anonymous person from my old school (their screenname was "class mate") leave 3 comments on my personal blog saying they were praying for me and my return to the church and I should take their comments as a sign from god and not turn my back on him.
I kindly thanked them for their prayer (while I don't believe prayer puts you in touch with a higher power I take it as a compliment when someone "prays for me"), I explained that I was at peace with my Agnostic Humanist ideas of the world.
Its interesting that so many people warn us of Judgement Day and at the same time pass Judgement upon us. I say: point the finger elsewhere.
Live your life, I'll live mine. And where we meet, that's just fine.
I've never posted on your site before and I am sure I'll be called closed minded and ignorant or putting God in a box. However, if there is more than one way to God you must then logically be forced to believe that either a. Jesus did not die on the cross for the sins of mankind. or b. God is evil. Because if Jesus did die on the cross and took the punishment of sin upon himself and yet there was another way to God than what a horrible viscious God to let Him do that when we could all go and be good hindus and still make it. That is why I can never believe in an existential viewpoint like this. I'm just saying "hands".
Good post Sis.
Tom, while I see your line of thinking (and it does make sense), I'm hesitant to agree completely. I agree with you on the basis that this is the only way *we* as finite humans can see things. That's the only thing that makes sense. But Sheryl's point (I think. Sorry if I put words in your mouth hon. :-) ) is that God is bigger than us and what we are capable of. To use a Christian cliche "His ways are not our ways." This is why I will never claim to know who is "in" and who is "out". It's very hard to me to accpe that God will let the pious "Christian" who never helped anyone and was judgemental and not loving to others into Heaven but he won't let the faithful Buddhist who loved the God he served *and* the people around him and strove to make this world a better place to be. There are quite a few people who don't claim to be "christians" that I would be surprised if I didn't run into them up in Heaven.
Lauren, I appreciate what you are saying although I disagree on some things. First, a Christian who has never helped anyone I would say is not a Christian for Jesus said we would know them by their fruit. NO fruit = not a Christian. I believe Luke 13:24-28 also speaks to this. And contrary to popular belief there are commited "Denominational" Christians who do help people. The difference is I do take the Bible as the authority for my life, because it says it is. Therefore what some people see as forcing my beliefs on someone else I see as that I actually believe that Jesus is the only way to God so what type of person would I be if I believe that and yet never tell anyone else. I would have to ask what authority you use to say a good Buddhist who helps people can get into heaven, and where is the cut off on being good. If I steal, but I don't murder is that ok? Where is the cut off. To your point on the Christian "cliche" of GOd's ways are higher than are ways and I don't believe cliche is the right word for it since it is in the Bible it is not like "what would Jesus do" which is a cliche. I do believe God's ways are higher than mine, but I also believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God that it claims to be and that God in His unlimited power can use that power to reveal Himself to His creation. Therefore the Bible says that that was the reason Jesus died.
I think maybe some terms should be clarified.
I generally agree with some of the sentiments expressed, such as God being found in different things like art, music, and literature.
However, I don't necessarily agree with what seems to be the relativistic "I'm OK, you're OK" language (this is where some clarity might be needed), such as "leaving room for different ways to God", or that "God is too big for one religion".
And howdy, Tom. Long live the Tridumbverate!
great post, sheryl...thanks for your honesty...i think we're at a similar place in our journey...
and my condolences to tom who *totally* missed the point!
and a moment silece for Gregor, who seems determine to get God back into a box itty bitty enough for him to deal with. So much Pride and Arognacne in one place... how convenient. I'm OK but you apparently think only friends of Baby Jesus are ok...
Comments like that stick a burr so far up my vent, you wouldn't believe
and for the sake of fairness...
Tom has the monopoly on being right. He knows this. He didn't miss the point, he's pointing up heresy and untruth *as he sees it*
Problem is, its only his tiny version of truth, fuelled by an ego the size of a Jovian moon to try and ram it down everyone's throat.
Ever wonder why Holy Wars are so damned bloody? It's wedge. and that belief set, like the morons who wrote the 'Left Behind' series, stand at the thinner end.
I do want to point out that I tried to not insult anyone and would appreciate the same respect. Maybe we could have an intelligent debate instead of name calling. And what up Gregor. Tridumbverate rules!
One other point how is it "ego" if I really believe that Jesus is the only way ,as He said Himself, how is it having a huge "ego" to tell others about the amazing, wonderful, and loving sacrifice Jesus made for them. Just asking
Don't mind Har, Tom. He gets a little feisty. :-)
Jesus' two greatest commandments were love God and love others. His message was that the Kingdom of God is at hand. Come join Him in a better way of life. I find it hard to believe that God would banish someone from His presence who lived this out, whether they claimed to be a Christian or not. And I don't know where the cut off would be, if there is one. I'm not God and I don't claim to know His thoughts.
I called it a cliche because even though it's a Bible verse, it gets thrown around so much that it has become cliche.
Can you please point me to the verse where the Bible claims to be an authority? I'm not certain I know which one you are talking about and I'd like to know before I continue our discussion.
Thanks!
the lady asked for room to share her beliefs...that's where you missed the point tom...this wasn't an invitation for you to pounce on her theology or ignite a theological debate...it's nice that you're holding tightly to your propositions...please allow others the freedom to roam on their own blog
No problem Lauren. The main section I would give you is 2 Timothy 3:13-17 and 2 Tim 4:1-5. It needs to be longer sections like this to keep the verses in their context. Also if this is an improper place for a discussion such as this I am sorry. I have to admit I am not up on "blog" etiquette, I am sadly not big on computers. So Lauren you can feel free to email me at cardinalu2@yahoo.com and anyone else for that matter. I do ask that it would be kept as a discussion and not a time to hurl insults.
Lest there be confusion, it's not like Tom is some complete stranger. He's a good friend of both Sheryl and myself. I highly doubt his intent was to pounce on anything and I wouldn't think Sheryl is as offended over his comments as others seem to be.
I also don't see anything wrong with having that discussion here (no blog ettiquette was broken that I'm aware of), but that's just my take.
I'm gonna have to side with Tom on the logical point about Christ dying on the cross and whether or not God is cruel. Besides the whole bit in the Bible about how "none can come to the Father except through Me" (because I don't know who does or doesn't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God around here... I do, but I guess the wording on that can be a little iffy too... that's for another post), I really don't think that logic allows for a person to say "I'm a follower of Christ, believe He was the son of God believer in His death and resurrection, believer in His teachings, etc." and then turn around and say "but I don't think He's the only way to Heaven." Now, I WILL say that spouting out some canned prayer in front of a piece of wood is not your only way to Heaven. I have to say that I don't really think that there's a formula, per-sey, or at least not some formulaic prayer that someone has to repeat and then they've got their God-card. While I do think there are specific necessities to being a Christ-follower or a Christian or "saved" or whatever, I don't think there is a set of hard-fast rules to that. There are a few definites, and a few greys. I know folk who can pinpoint the exact time they first dedicated their lives to Christ, and I know folk who can't remember, but know that they're given over, y'know?
I don't know if that's what Sheryl meant by that or not, but I do have to disagree with Lauren's take on the whole buddhist thing... although only from a Christian perspective (meaning, this argument has nothing to do with someone who doesn't profess to be a Christian). What would be the point of Him dying on a cross if there was another way?
~Crystal
Wow. Great comments, the ones I had time to read. Couple of quick things... One, I'm involved in something that is basically taking up ALL of my time this week, so really no time to respond to any of your comments much. And two, I definitely don't mind the discussion here at all - let it continue... just try to play nice! :)
Oh yeah - and I will definitely read all the comments and respond more when the week is over! :)
apologies to tom if i overreacted...but i still think he missed the point, the spirit, the intent, whatever...here's something to ponder...what if christ's act on the cross was less about redemption and more about showing the way...as in, you can endure all things, even death, and if you perservere, god will take care of you?
That is an interesting idea my question would be where is the basis for saying that? There is Biblical basis to Christ purchasing our redemption on the cross, such as Mark 10:45, 1 Timothy 2:6 and Ephesians 1:7-12 If you do have basis for that I would like to know. By the way this may seem that I disagree with Sheryl on finding God in different places. I do not disagree, of course we can see God in His creation, I just wanted to clarify that. My only disagreement is the mode of salvation which I believe and the Bible states is only through Christ. And hey Sheryl, Davina and I both miss you.
Those who know me know that I like to adopt any opposed view in a discussion, and I'm usually quiet when two sides seem well presented. But... Sheryl asked me to read the blog, so I feel an addition to the conversation is warranted:
I'd like to start by saying that I too believe that God is bigger than the Bible. As C.S. Lewis is want to write, "... he's not safe. He's good. But he's not a tame lion." God will do what He will do, and He sends rain to the wicked and the righteous. He sends reluctant prophets to places that will repent. He also pulled the rug out from under Israel's feet and made Himself a sufficient sacrifice, giving Aaron's succesors a break for a long while.
That said, I'd like to say that I was guilty in my past of taking the box away from God (and putting it on my head). I never considered the possibility that God, as a real being - not a construction of my mind* - would have a personality which He wished to express, and that it might include sitting in the little box that I thought was created by Man until He decided the time was right to spring forth from the box with a great "Surprise! I've been here all along! Now, who's coming with me to the party?"
Remember that freedoms can be restrictions and vice versa (enter ubiqitous analogy of the train free of its tracks that can't move anywhere).
*this belief stemming from a mix of Decartes, Anselm, and a couple assumptions on my part
Those are some interesting ideas. I guess one argument I have is that I don't believe that trusting in the Bible is putting God in a box. I believe that as a loving God He would want to reveal Himself to His creation. And He did that through Jesus and through the written words of the Bible. In philosophy what I see is people blindly groping around trying to find God while all the time He is screaming out Here I am, and I have been here the whole time. So we end up in philosophy creating God in our own image just as it says in Romans 1 all the while He has already shown Himself to us.
riiiight...and the god who is infinite, created a complex universe, heck galaxies, knows no bounds or limits and is beyond comprehension...decided to confine himself to 66 books written by men in ancient times with a limited understanding of the world in which they lived...there could be no revising, editing or adding to any portion thereof, or else the whole would be worthless drivel...sure, I see the logic in that!
First, I call "Strawman Falacy" since that's obviously not what I said.
Second, even if that were what I said, it's no less logical than the opposed viewpoint. My whole point is that saying, "I don't believe in a god that would ever cause harm, or would send people to h-e-double sticks" is possibly limiting to your vision of God (God the being, not God the abstract theory), especially if He does want to limit Himself. Remember, central to the Christian faith is that God surrendered Himself and became mortal flesh. The Source of Life died. He's God, and He can put Himself in whatever box He chooses.
Except that I don't believe they were men with a limited understanding of their world but again as the Word clearly states they were men Lead by the Spirit of God to write. Therefore they don't have a limited understanding they have the wisdom and authority of God Himself when writing the Bible. But I'm sure the usual attack of that being a narrow minded view and so forth will be headed my way, because of course Christianity actually shows there are absolute truths and that is no longer politically correct thinking. We all need to fall in line with the talking heads in movies, tv, and music. Because the whole world can't be wrong can they. Accept that Jesus said narrow is the gate, but I forgot that's scripture so obviously we can't trust that.
One other thing I would like to add. The original point I was trying to make that as Christians or followers of Jesus whatever you want to be called and as far as I can tell at least a few people who have posted identify themselves as such, (and I am not just talking about the people that agreed with me) but as followers of Jesus I see no logical way that you can believe in salvation outside of Christ. If you do then you have essentially created "another Jesus" because the only record we have of Jesus is the one that is in scripture. I know some try to create a false dilemma by somehow pitting Jesus vs. Scripture but Jesus clearly believed in the authority of scripture and so that case cannot be made.
Let me respond to a couple of things on here, and maybe clarify a bit. First, I'm not sure I agree with you about the Bible declaring itself as an authority, Tom. I looked up those passages you mentioned and to me it doesn't really sound like that. Saying that it's "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" isn't quite the same thing in my head as being an authority.
For the record, I do believe that the way to God is through Jesus. BUT - I happen to think that if you see things that way and close yourself to the possibility of finding God in other things (especially since he created the world), that you are putting God in a box. And quite possibly missing out on some things he might like you to see.
That's why I said I don't try to push my ways of believing on someone else. That doesn't mean that I don't share my beliefs with people. I just don't push them on them. Definitely doesn't mean I don't tell them what I believe - especially since I try to make a habit of living it out authentically. I think there's definitely a huge difference in sharing your beliefs with people and pushing your beliefs on them and trying to make them have the same beliefs. I just don't think that it's up to us to determine who's "in" or "out". I think it's detrimental to the cause to have an "us vs them" mentality, which is what that lends itself to.
I don't think what I believe about God and Jesus is much different than Tom or gRegor or anyone else who calls themselves a Christian. There's something I'm learning, though, that's pretty powerful to me. And that is that it's possible for me as a Christian to have a vision that involves living out what the church is about - bringing Jesus to the world - and be able to work with someone who is not a Christian but has a similar vision (yeah, sounds unheard of right? you might be surprised) to accomplish both of our visions and make the world a better place.
I agree with some of the things you say Sheryl, but I would have to disagree with you on the meaning of 2 Tim 3:16 for a few reasons. First the greek word Paul uses in verse 16 is the word Graphe, which means "Holy Scriptures" the greek meaning of the word means that they are authoritative writings. And the he at the end of Graphe designates the source of the scriptures as coming from God. Therefore these are authoritative writings coming from God. and you can look this up in any Greek Lexicon number 1124. Paul’s claim for Scripture’s inspiration matches Old Testament designations for the law and divine prophecies as “God’s word.” Like Paul, Judaism virtually universally accepted the Old Testament as God’s word. Paul reminded Timothy that all Scripture is God-breathed that is, God’s words were given through men superintended by the Holy Spirit so that their writings are without error. This fact was virtually taken for granted by the Jews. Secondly Paul obviously is connecting this in context to 2 Timothy 4:1-5 when his main point is to teach the inspired scriptures for they are the base of sound doctrine and there will come a time when people will turn away from sound doctrine. Therefore sound doctrine = "Holy Scriptures" in vs. 16. And just in case someone trys to attack what Paul is saying by claiming that his words aren't scripture, Peter calls them scripture in 2 Pet 3:15 and 16.
I guess I choose to look at it a bit differently. What I get out of this meaning is that the Bible is holy, important, and from God. I'm definitely not debating that. But I don't see it as a rule book, which is what I'm getting out of the way you're using "authority".
My real point in my post (and I'm not accusing anyone of missing that) was that I don't like seeing people criticizing other people's spiritual journeys, the way I feel mine has been criticized some lately. Don't get so caught up in thinking you've got it right that you miss out on seeing God in ways you never expected to see him.
Sheryl, you may be tired of people questioning your judgement, but even here you are seriously begging the questions. You're discernment for sound doctrine (ooooh wait; even that sounded "modern", but oh, yeah it's biblical* too!) is highly suspect when you reject Jesus' "one-way". And considering how intimate you are in your small church, if they haven't addressed this matter with you, that sounds-like passive approval (or maybe pastoral neglect), and that begs questioning of your choice of church! (Y'all, I'm not saying that it is, in fact, a bad church but- well, just read what I said, and try not to reinterpret my words by what you feel like they: "mean to you.")
I know I'm sounding all angry** and judgmental***, but frankly madam, I give a- hoot, and that's why all this recent stuff is so upsetting. So what if God's way home isn't one of our relativistic/cultic ways? And, what if you wrote a bit of thanks for all your poor, behind the thought-fad/times friends, who voice concerns they see from far off your point-of-view? And just what if there were no hypotheticals, anyway? Can you tell me that?
Wounds from a friend can be trusted,
-Romantic Orthodox
*1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Timothy 6:3, 2 Timothy 4:3, Titus 1:9, Titus 2:1, Hebrews 5:14, 2 Corinthians 13:5, 2 Timothy 2:15
**Ephesians 4:26
***Luke 7:43, John 7:24, Acts 4:19, I Cor. 5:11-13, I Cor. 6:2-5, 1 Corinthians 10:15
interesting discussion you have prompted Sheryl. Otherwise, thanks for the recommendation. I looked into it a little bit and sounds really interesting. Thanks!
ben, if you'd like to discuss sheryl's choice of church or whatever pastoral neglect there may be, you know where to find me.
that is, if you actually care about having some facts to go with your big bowl of ignorance.
1st: Sir, I barely know you. Also, from our brief aquainting, I'm inclined to believe that you are above poisoning wells. So, I'm guessing that by ". . .you know where to find me. that is, if you actually care about having some facts. . ." you didn't mean to imply that: until I converse with you, my concerns are to be considered ill-informed. Maybe there are qualified-others with whom I prefer to speak regarding this matter, and among them: even some of the movement’s critics.
2nd: And besides, my concerns are for my friend. And, heavy-hearted, I have brought them to her, both face to face and on the phone. I should hope such a lady as she knows her own beliefs, and can speak for her own church's faith and practice.
3rd: Personally, I'd consider most any comment bearing holy writ that expresses loyalty to biblical, historic Christianity (namely, by claiming that not many, but only one narrow road leads home) to be something more than just a "big bowl of ignorance."
4th: And how about that? a "big bowl of ignorance?" That coming from both a writer and a church leader, I feel let down, but nevertheless, a sincere thanks for your response.
as with many critics of the emergent conversation, i doubt you have taken the time to actually research it or talk to any of its leaders. and by research i mean, for example, a book written by one of the thinkers of the movement.
and by "you know where to find me," i refer to my blog, or my message board, or the church-cum-cult you seem so intent on disparaging.
(insert a bunch of references that no one will check but will make my position seem biblically based)
--neglectful pastor
Hey Ben - this is one thing I noticed out of your comment: "Maybe there are qualified-others with whom I prefer to speak regarding this matter, and among them: even some of the movement’s critics." Ok, so you've spoken to the movement's critics. Fair enough - but HAVE you spoken to any of the movement's leaders?
and while "wounds from a friend can be trusted" (usually christian-ese for "the bible says i can be an ass"), there are those of us among sheryl's friends who:
1) trust her and her faith, 2) credit her with intelligence and the ability to discern, and 3) walk along side her as she explores things - to be there when she has questions - rather than go off in a huff of self-righteousness and throw bible verses at her.
It seems the conversation has turned to being about me. Disappointing, when we could be talking about God and this so-called box. A few points on the subject of me:
Some people actually read references, at least on occasion, and there is nothing wrong with appearing biblically based when it is the natural effect of being biblically based.
It is not loving to neglect sincere questions and concerns regarding a friend’s faith when you’re persuaded that they need to be addressed.
Sheryl, ryc, I care for you and your beliefs. Need I read others for your beliefs? As I have said, “I should hope such a lady as she knows her own beliefs, and can speak for her own church's faith and practice.” Still, I think that of you.
Mr. Broaddus, friends can relax and be honestly frustrated with each other, and even, God forbid, have spats. But being hardly acquainted with you, decency seemed to require a different tone, so I was very restrained and especially graceful. I hope your leadership status will motivate you to grant me the same respect in the future. I am hardly interested in attempting an intelligent conversation with you that is vulgar and includes these ad hominem assumptions about me and my intentions. This especially considering that, thus far, you have not addressed anything I have brought up. That alone might prompt a raised, questioning eyebrow regarding a church you lead, and it is enough for me know I’m done conversing with you.
Ben - I don't see anywhere where Maurice has spoken for my beliefs. The church you're talking about is his own - I believe he's just speaking about the church.
I have spoken for my own beliefs. That's what the blog is about. Sure, there's more - what I believe about Jesus and the cross, etc. But those beliefs haven't changed since you've known me. It sounds like what you really want is for me to defend my beliefs, and I just don't see a need to do that.
Sheryl, ryc: 1."I don't see anywhere where Maurice has spoken for my beliefs." Ok. Me neither, and where did that come from? 2. "The church you're talking about. . ." Again, I am talking about Sheryl, you, your thoughts. 3. "I believe he's just speaking about the church." Looking back, I believe he's speaking about me, and yet, we've now downgraded to talking about talking! argh! (See above.) 4. "It sounds like what you really want is for me to defend my beliefs, . . ." I've been pretty straight forward, maybe even to a fault, so despite what it may sound like to you, the only thing I've even sorta asked for was a bit of thanks for those who've voiced concerns they see from afar off your point-of-view.
And with that this not-so computer-savy dude respectfully bows-out of this taxing dialogue. Stewardship of time won't allow me to indefinitely continue this conversation, especially when it's turned from being about a cool lady and orthodoxy, to being about me, and seems to be becoming about conversation.
Jude 2,
-Ben
(Jude 2: "Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.") (NIV)
Frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing the "emergent church movement" being used as an excuse to become relativistic in our thinking. Yes, the idea is to re-evaluate our thoughts and perceptions about God... but through use of His Word! Not by picking up cultural vibes for what's PC or reading the latest best-seller by a Christian author; sure, examine and investigate those things, but use the Bible as your measuring line! Everything ought to be weighed on the scales of God's truth (found EXCLUSIVELY in scripture).
And I know, what's popular now (and what has been popular for a while) is many religions being okay. But they can't all be right if they all believe something fundamentally different. Christianity belives that Christ died on the cross, once for all, as a perfect, atoning sacrifice for the sin of all humanity until the end of time. Belief and acceptance of that is the "rule" (if you will) of being a Christian. But there's more to it than that, even. In order to believe that, you must believe that Christ is/was who he said he is/was, and that also means you must believe all else that he has said (for if he was without sin, he could not lie about anything).
So here's what lays other religions to rest, in that regard: John 14:6 "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life. No one comes to the Father but through me." And before you stop reading, let me give you some background on that statement:
The set-up of the temple in Jerusalem included 3 main "courtyards". The main was where all folk could assemble; the second was where the offerings were brought by the people, and the third was the "Holy of Holies" - where a single priest was permitted entrance once a year to offer the sin sacrifice for the people. The doors leading to each of these courtyards had names inscribed above them: The Way lead to the main courtyard, The Truth lead to the courtyard for offerings, and The Life lead into the "Holy of Holies". This was, of course, blasphemy at the time and created quite a stir, but we cannot miss what Jesus was saying. One way, one door - he's it.
Sheryl, and any others working through these ideas, I pray you'll continue to pray and seek God about the ramafications of Jesus' statements on your own thoughts an ideals, and to also continue to seek out the dialogue of trusted family, friends, and clergy as well.
God bless you on your journey.
~K
(friend of Crystal) ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home