Monday, September 09, 2002

My response: a view on God's revelation across cultures I had written : I also wanted to ask: Could  I post the email you sent me  along with the two replies I sent you afterward? I thought  it appropriate that I clear that point up that you called to  my attention. Dave W: I guess it's ok. I look pretty snippy in the msg I sent you, but, what the heck I reply: Not at all, from my view. When I saw your first reply, I was immediately repentant, being so proud as I am of how universal I consider muself to be ---- and how easily I can slide right over and sit at the feet of a guiding spirtual leader of other "traditions" such as Gandhi, who I thought had more "Christian" morals and faith than the vast majority of Christians, or the Buddhist monk Hanh Thich Nhat (who wrote a book , among others, called "Living Buddha, Living Christ". Its' funny (not really), that I have another article that I titled "The Cosmic Christ" that I use to describe what I see as the working of God in all cultures, even those who have not been "mission" targets of Christian missionaries. And , in the context of this discussion we are having, is inappropriately named as it has "Christ" in its name. It's really about how the whole idea of "the Christ" in a Christian setting is one of "God revealing", and that this "revealing" has been in action from the get-go, and that God is in constant effort of "self-revelation", and is engaged EVERYWHERE with ALL people and cultures. In this context, that of the theological relationship between Jewish faith and Christian faith, there is , and should be, a much more intimate relationship, but the refusal of many Christians to understand what I have tried to express (and many others) about how the same truths can be "realized" within the bounds of many "revelations", has made "Christ" the dividing point, rather than the "interpretation (or in some cases, RE-interpretation which leads to life" which I believe Jesus sought, as well as many other "reformers" or "renewal advocates" within Judaism have done throughout the ages). While I believe Jesus was somewhat unique and had a historically and theologically significant perspective and authority, I doubt he had the kind of "new religion" that resulted in mind (particularly as it evolved into such a thouroughly Western and "American" expression). My "theological evolution" quip was, in the same kind of context, an effort to debate an often made "Christian" assumption that other religions must be held to a standard that we do not require of our own: ie. That there be no signs of a conquesting attitude in the Scriptures, and so we must hold ourselves to the light of scrutiny and face the accusations as to why, say, in the book of Joshua, we see a command attributed to God to kill all the inhabitants of a city. I jump to the Christian "later" tradtion because this is the one that should be most authoritative for the Christian audience, not because we can't find answers much earlier, as with the prophetic books or stories of forgiveness and responding and showing compassion to the enemy that we find also in the "Old" testament. Jesus is obviously the authoritative figure in legitimizing any "interpreting" of Hebrew Scriptures in light of a higher ethic---- higher in the sense of being "higher" than the conquesting figure we see in some stories as the land of Canaan was taken--- (and which as I affirmed before, this "higher ethic" came to him from his own Jewish traditions and his explorations of them under the guidance of many teachers------ one story in the Christian gospels speak of how the teachers "marveled" at how well and deep the young Jesus understood). >>>For me it is *the* question that defines the difference between Christianity and Judaism: (generalizing here!) Jewish truth is tribal while Christian truth is universal. Not a conflict of ideas but a conflict of hermeneutics. Much harder to resolve and, frankly, way cool-er. That does sound way-cool, but only promising unless I know more about that. MY first reaction is that you are comparing tribal and universal as the latter is better and that Christians consider themselves "universal"....but I'm not sure at all that I get that message as you meant it------not that I wouldn't understand how you could get that impression, cause I think I do------and the same for the hermeneutical question------ Anyway, I'm gonna blog this stuff and the people I imagine as being my "readers" (since there don't seem to be masses of people coming to view my stuff) will enjoy and appreciate. I appreciate your taking time to respond, and am really glad you got me "churning again" on the issue of just how "universal" or "cross-cultural" the revelation of God can be imagined......it seems to me that the commuinications channels such as the Net can (emphasize CAN) help to promote a more "ecumenical" and "reciprocal appreciation" frame of mind between the world's religious traditions. Dale comment [] 5:21:35 PM     More response from David W. Dale, I understood and appreciated (in both senses) that the message of "Hijacking" was one of tolerance. I've become overly sensitive to a(generalized) Christian assumption that Christianity is a completion of Judaism, but -- and I'm going to flounder trying to express this -- not because I think that this constitutes an anti-Semitism that should be reviled. It can, of course, be the basis of anti-Semitism, but that belief by itself isn't, and I hope I didn't sound like I was accusing you of anything. Rather, I find the issue incredibly rich intellectually. For me it is *the* question that defines the difference between Christianity and Judaism: (generalizing here!) Jewish truth is tribal while Christian truth is universal. Not a conflict of ideas but a conflict of hermeneutics. Much harder to resolve and, frankly, way cool-er. WRT AKMA, you should check my weblog today! :) -- David W. comment [] 6:52:35 AM     David Weinberger Replies David,  I wanted to add that it was obvious to me that you would be  in sympathy with my views, and so I felt reasonably certain  that you would appreciate what I had to say there. I am and I did :) I also  realized that I made another reference to "Old testament" in  my reply recognizing how I had implied what you caught. Just  habit , I guess. FWIW, it was the phrase "theological evolution" that caught my attention. Although, I wanted you to know that my  views on how Jesus was related to God has more to do with  Jesus' own Jewish faith, that didn't just "fall out of the  sky", but was , in large measure, passed on to him. I tend  to think that God speaks to us in and through community, > which, from my theology, is a pretty Hebrew view of  spirtuality as I understand Judaism. Yup. Absolutely key. But not (as I'm sure you know) purely subject to the whims of the community, but rather tied to the text and, more important, to the interpretative tradition and its modes of practice.  I tend to seek a lot of   sociological insight in my quest to better understand what  spirtuality means. I also wanted to ask: Could  I post the email you sent me  along with the two replies I sent you afterward? I thought  it appropriate that I clear that point up that you called to  my attention. I guess it's ok. I look pretty snippy in the msg I sent you, but, what the heck. |A reply from me for this message -- David W. comment [] 6:46:17 AM     I send a second reply right after the other second email David, I wanted to add that it was obvious to me that you would be in sympathy with my views, and so I felt reasonably certain that you woudl appreciate what I had to say there. I also realized that I made another reference to "Old testament" in my reply recognizing how I had implied what you caught. Just habit , I guess. Although, I wanted you to know that my views on how Jesus was related to God has more to do with Jesus' own Jewish faith, that didn't just "fall out of the sky", but was , in large measure, passed on to him. I tend to think that God speaks to us in and through community, which, from my theology, is a pretty Hebrew view of spirtuality as I understand Judaism. I tend to seek a lot of sociological insight in my quest to better understand what spirtuality means. I also wanted to ask: Could I post the email you sent me along with the two replies I sent you afterward? I thought it appropriate that I clear that point up that you called to my attention. Dale comment [] 6:40:21 AM

© Copyright 2003 Dale Lature. Last update: 9/23/2003; 3:09:54 PM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.