How Do You Understand?

Another blogger got me thinking about how we understand the world. I didn't realize when I responded to her that my response was based on different emphasises of the Quadralateral.

Do you understand your faith by doctrine? Do you "take by faith", the doctrines in the creeds, without tearing apart the doctrinal truths to see if they correlate to sicentific inquiry? Or do you understand your faith as a lifestyl with others is lived out within the community of faith? The convictions that bind you together are those that define "your world" and sometimes it clouds your "sight" to see or understand differences in approach to faith, after all, these have given their life to these "commitments" and "values". Or do you think that faith is more about understanding and knowing God?

Doctrine is based on a tradtionalist's view, while lifestyle is an experiential view. Reason upholds a theological view, and Scripture is multivaried, depending on which view is primarily driving "faith".

But, though these views all define different people of faith, there are others that define their faith apart from belief systems, and institutions. These people would be understood as agnostic or atheistic in their belief.

The agnostic holds that though we seek God, we cannot know him, because God is beyond our capacity to understand and grasp. One must live within the contexts that define one's life and understand that all men have sought to understand and explain God, throughout the Ages. These are the scientifically minded, as they re-define God, or explain things in "new ways". The Academy defines the faith of the agnostic, as the Academy helps to keep reason humble, because of the vastness and diversity of human knowledge.

The atheists doesn't seek to understand or define God, as God is irrelvant, in their book, in helping to solve the world's problems. These like to be pragmatic in their approach to life and its problems in this world. They do not like the "sweet by and by", or "pie in the sky" promises or imaginings. But, these can be arrogant in their approach to life when it comes to their own reason, and to people of faith. And this is when problems occur in structuring government or laws that allow diversity of views that don't discriminate as to difference.

The agnostic is really atheistic in practicality because the basis of understanding the world is not faith, but the disciplines. Those that seek to understand "faith concerns" will study the philosophy of religion, or history of traditions, or religious studies, etc. And these will find in their "camp" people of faith and people without faith ( in the traditional sense).

So, how do you understand the world?

Cultural Wars and "Winning the Game"

Yesterday, I heard an interview with Jim Leach on NPR. He is heading up a "humanities" project that wants to educate Amerians on philosophy, history of the U.S., politics, and there may be some other issues that I don't remember. His intent is to bring about a more "peaceful" solution to the present culture wars.

War occurs when there are two opposing views that "collide". Both think they need to "win the game". Both think they are justified and "right". And to win the game, it is believed that it is important to "stay the course" at all costs! But, is this cause worth it? I'm afraid American culture lends itself to the "ideal" of winning at all costs, without considering the ultimate costs to our civil discourse in the public square. We all need to learn to express our views with passion, but without personal attack, understanding that the very expression of political views were won by our Founders garuanteeing that America "wins" when "both sides", win. It is a balancing of power, when we have a "tug of war".

America's culture wars are about political goals, who will win at policy-making, and who will have to live their lives accordingly. These are issues that cannot co-exist peacefully because of their immense diversity and the impact that the "other side" thinks will transpire because of it.

It is unfortunately the case that for the most part, we are a two party system. The nuances of political philosphy are not important to "discover", as muh as maintaining the course of whichever agenda has been appealing. This is why I think that Congressman Leach has a noble purpose.

The conservative side, which believes in free markets and pro-life, have gone so far as to re-create scripture to further and sanction their political views. The political left, on the other hand, believes that the social concern and moral duty of Americans goes beyond their "own doorstep", so to speak. These two views have a vastly different politial philosophy, which certainly cannot co-exist, if one believes that "God" is on "your side". "Winning the game" because all important then, because of the feared consequences of the cultural impact at "home" and the world at large.

These views could be discussed more civilly, if one did not mix "god" into the "pot". But, holiness causes are prone to justify any means in the attempt to defend "God's honor", or "God's purposes", while the left would be more prone to defend the "greater good" for the "world". But, do we really know what the 'greater good" is for the world, really? Both sides sound presumptuous and arrogant, in their own way, whether about understanding "god", or about man having an omniscient and ominpresent view.

Jim Leach was a Republican Congressman from Iowa, so, I would imagine he has some "insight" into the conservative viewpoint. And beause he has been in politics, he understands the left. I wish him well on his journey, as the nation needs this type of "calming" influence.

And Americans need to understand their neighbor, as well as understanding their right to speak.

Men Were and Men Are

Men were created to be free. This was man's natural state. But, man was not satisfied to be free. He must organize and structure his environment to best suit himself, to dominate others, nature and his social environment.

Men are now doomed to government's demands, and limitations upon choice. Men are doomed to serve instead of dominate. This and is the state of slaves under tyrants, dictators, Kings, "gods", systems, governments, laws, and nature, herself. Men are limited by such things.

So, man's need to dominate was his very enslavement. He organizes only to serve himself. He structures to form his understanding, so he can control others. And, so, all men are now enslaved.

When To Be Concerned?

This will be a more personal blog entry, so those uninterested, be forewarned.

Our grandson was born early and was hospitalized before his first year for respiratory problems. His difficulty breathing led to feeding difficulties that resulted in adnoid surgury before his second birthday. Even though he has had a "rough road" in his short lifetime, he is a very pleasant little guy and we are all blessed.

Our daughter is a nurse, so she is more aware of what his development "should" be. This has led to her concerns over his delayed development and her anxiety about his future learning ability. He will be two in November and doesn't really say much of anything. And my daughter pointed out yesterday that he doesn't stack blocks or run without falling down.

My husband and I have enjoyed both of our grandkids and have not been overly concerned for him although he is way behind his bigger sister. Is our lack of concern because we inadvertedly compared him to her and she is functioning way above the norm? Or was our lack of concern a lack of "connection", as sort of "denial"? I don't know how to gauge, but I am glad that he will be having his two year check-up in the next two months. Maybe we can get more answers from his pediatrician. I hope so for all of us.

I tell this little story to make a point. Every individual develops differently, and at their own pace. But, there is some sort of standard in which "normal" development is measured. Is this the case with moral, spiritual or emotional development? If so, when should we expect someone to behave at a post-conventional level? How do we know when someone is morally, spiritually or emotionally handicapped? Do we make the allowances for these people and how do we do so without intruding upon another's "space", patience, and 'peace"?

It seems to me that many conservative religious people are caught up in the "own world", which is separated from the 'real world'. And it leads to much "disgrace" to the religious community. Is this because of "emotional need", "moral immaturity", or "spiritual failure"? I think that there is much that would collaborate that some never develop beyond an "pre-conventional level". Should we be concerned or let these people function in their "little worlds"?

This morning our pastor preached a sermon on "Abraham"'s faith. I checked with my husband to make sure he heard the same and he confirmed what I had understood. Our pastor was calling for a "radicalized faith" that was disrespective of reason, a "jump in the dark". He wanted to encourage people to leave their comfort zones, whether homes, family, etc. to "follow God". He used Hebrews 11, as his text. He promised that those who did would find "greatness". Greatness was not celebrity or fame, but gravity in impacting the world. I cringed because it literalizes a specific understanding of "faith" and it also suggests that faith is most "faithful" when it disregards reason. This view dismisses "reason's" reasons.

None of us want to be "wrong" or be responsible for bringing heartache or damage upon another. This is what our daughter is dealing with in feeling responsble for her son's learning difficulties. When was she to be concerned enough to demand attention, when several attempts were re-buffed by professionals? Should she have demanded irregardless of these professional opinions? Would it have made a difference?

What about our pastor's suggestion about faith? Isn't it cultish to suggest especially to young people to "trust" God and to disregard reason altogether? Should a parent be concerned if a student decides that God has called him to quit school and "do something for God"? Isn't suggesting that this kind of "call" is something that is "more" or "above" another's "common job"? I think this is dangerous and I am concerned. Should I be? Our pastor made a point that Abraham had lied, cheated, and stolen, but he did follow God.

Responsible behavior should be what every young adult increasing demonstrates in his life. Irresponsibilty in the "name of God" has brought much reproach upon Christian faith, the Church, and religion, in general. And I have found that when I have expressed concerns about "radicalized faith" in the past, the "professionals" disregarded my quesitons, as well. Were they being as presumptuous as my grandson's doctors? Will my faith in "faith communities" forever be damaged because of this "oversight"?

All I know is that really listening and hearing others is always hard. But, it is impossible if we have other agendas, like who is next on my appointment book, or minimizing another's situation with platitudes of "better days" ahead. We just never know when our concern will make a powerful difference in another's life. A lack of concern certainly has impacted my daughter, my grandson, and myself.

Theology and Philosophy?

Theology assumes God exists. The question for the theologian is how to defend God in today's world of scientific exploration. Many have given an "apologetic" for the faith, as this is what the Church Fathers did throughout Church history. This is the stance of the theologian; faith in using philosophy to formulate thier particular theological "form". But, is faith in faith viable, really? How do you use reason? Do you depend on experience? I think this is a dangerous stance.

While the theologian assumes God, the philosopher does not. He begins with reason as his resource, but those philosophers who believe in God have faith in reason and seek to explain God within that frame through the disciplines.

Other philosophers, whether agnostic or atheistic, do not believe that God actually exists, but that God is a "function" within society or for the individual. These believe in the development of persons and societies because God is a needed resource for those whose contexts have been "barren".

Agnostics don't really want to defend God, as they are humanists at heart and think that this is the proper focus of life. If God exists, the agnostic believes that God's interaction with the world remains a mystery as we cannot observe God's intervention directly, except through faith.

Atheists believe that God only functions as an illusion in one's mind that is a needed representation of the mind, so development can occur.

Which one are you? Do you begin with faith, assuming God's existance, or do you have faith in reason, as God's gift, and believe that one can ascertain God in whatever one encounters in faith?

Or do you hold God tentatively, because there is no way to "prove" God. God has to be a presuppostion.

Or are you an atheist that believes that "god" is good because he is useful for a purpose?

The God Beyond...

In Old Testament Hebrew literature, God was/is a mystery. His name was so holy or beyond our ability to percieve, that one was not to pronounce His Name. God dwelled behind the "holy of Holies", where the high priest was only able to enter once a year to present atonement for "all the people's sins".

Religion has absolutized their explainations, as we can only speak about God in a metaphor. And in abslutizing the mystery, we have limited the diverse ways in which the explaination can be made, as reason is what we use to explain this world.

Science, on the other hand, does not listen to, acknowledge or think highly of the transcendent because it cannot be studied, taken apart, dissolved into "facts" and applied technocratically to life. Science hinders and limits by defining, as if there is to be an "end to man's discovering". Science also limits mystery, because of its need to define.

Perhaps, in our world of diversity, humans should re-connect God to mystery. And in connecting God to mystery, we acknowledge that we "do Not know or understand everything". But, as we seek understanding (knowledge's application, in wisdom) then, we are seeking "atonement", or At-One-Ment, where God dwells.

This acknowledgement would keep mankind humble in his shaping of reality and society, and would bring about a stance of open discourse, so that our living in the world could be humane.

Religious Terms Have Material Meaning

Religious terms have material meaning, if they are considered "real". In certain Christian circles,
where a separation or holiness message is important, the term "circumcsion of the heart" or "sanctification" is used. Although the term "heart" is used, the emotional reality of pain, is just as painful as Islam's physical circumcision of their girls.

In "Infidel", Hirshi Ali tells in painful detail about her physical circumcision. Muslims believe that 'purity" is of uptmost importance, so to "protect" their young women from intercourse before marriage, they sew up her vagina area, as well as circumcise her clitoris. The circumcision of the clitoris is to "prevent" pleasure in intercourse. "Pleasure" is considered an "evil".

The "protection" of the Christian believer is no different, as the "circumcision of the heart" is considered to be necessary to "purify" motives and desires. God is to be the only desire and pleasure. Just as the cutting away the clitoris, the "sanctified believer" cuts away every pleasure and desire that his heart is set upon, other than God. Both circumcisions forbid a basic human desire; pleasure in this world.

Pleasure in this world is viewed as "evil" and "fallen". The desire of the heart is to be focused only on God's will and purpose. Although I agree that one cannot be addicted to any one pleasure, there is strong question as to the creation order itself in affirming this understanding. Since these believers believe in the "creation order", why did God take the time to create such diversity in the world? Why do we see in color?

In Sunday's sermon, Timothy was used as an example of the "need for circumcision". Timothy is known in the Christian Scriptures as a disciple of Paul. Since he was born of Greek and Jewish parents, tradition tells us that Paul commended his circumcision, so that he could "reach the Jew" with the "gospel".

Hirshi Ali tells about her Somalian "tradition"'s training and her eventual escape from a planned marriage and the struggle she had in the West. Her sheer will-power to overcome such obstacles, both real and otherwise, are inspiring to read. I admire her for her determination, courage and commitment to seek a way out.

There is something sinister about another person determining another's life. In our country, we are not allowed that determination, as we believe in free moral agency. But, this was not the majority's view in our earliest Founding.

The majority held to various religious viewpoints, but the Founders wanted to base our government on freedom first and foremost, as without freedom there is determination. And America is not a caste society, not by man or by God.

"Angels and Demons", Comments and Personal Opinion

My husband and I went to see " Angels and Demons" yesterday. We had heard the story a few years ago on CDs, while on our travels and he enjoyed it so much, he wanted to make sure we saw it before it left our local theatre.

We really enjoyed the movie and I would highly recommend it. It's theme is one that my husband has had interest in all his life, science and religion, but this movie does not ground its message in science fiction, so much as probable real life scenarios of "church history".

It was interesting not only for its content and acting, but because we just were in Rome and were at the very same locations as the film depicted. I think whenever real life experience intersects fiction, the fiction seems to present a "reality" that is confirmed by the person's ability to identify with the 'fiction". This is what is experienced in "conversion", as the stories of Scripture are translated by the person's experience. But conversion is not unlike any identification to other sources of literature that teach human tendencies, and moral dilemmas. Literature is a means of communicating and uniting us, as humans.

Reason is situated within a context of personal history itself and promotes the hermenuetic. On the other hand, those who adhere to a more ideological understanding of "truth", dismiss this aspect of personal experience/history, ignore "other realities", or behave in an irrational manner, because it "fits" within their particular hermeneutic of "truth". (Of course, in human relations, "irrational" is defined within its own context).

The priest in the movie, "Angels and Demons", was trying to protect the Church from science. His "ideological" commitment was not void of personal history in understanding the Church's nurturing influence in his own life. This was his "truth". In trying to protect God and the Church, he became a person who lacked integrity. He thought that science's discoveries had undermined the authority of the Church by undermining the Church's message. He wanted to continue to promote the diconnect between the sacred and the secular, so that the Church and God could continue to remain behind the "veil of faith", without engaging the real world in scientific endeavor.

We all have "commitments". Some of these are not consciously acknowledged, until they are challenged. We should not be upset by challenges, for anyone that seeks after truth, continues to do so, as it is a lifelong endeavor, that has many avenues. We will never come to the end of it.

Questions About Trust

This morning while checking my e-mail, I had gotten a comment on the "A Few Good Men" entry. In responsing to the comment, I suggested that although support systems were important for the young lawyer to pursue justice, that trust was the foundation of receiving the support. That got me thinking...

Trust is earned by someone's belief in what you do, or who you are. Trust cannot be manipulated, as trust is about relationship. Trust is about understanding and accountability. One does not listen to those who have abused, misused, or disregarded the relationship. Relationship has to be mutually edifying for it to be healthy.

Mutuality in relationship is about allowing differences, respecting rights, supporting opportunities, and giving hope. It is the social contract, where there is equal respect and regard for another's life and values.

In all relationships, there is a give and take, at least if there is healthy mutuality. Hierarchal forms of relationship can be healthy as long as there is also respect and encouragement from "both ends", not a demand to rights, but a trust that there will be "a right". Respect is foremost in regards to trust in relationship.

I find that when workers felt their rights were being abused that they sought recourse in just compensation for their work. One wonders now, what just compensation means, when those in other countries will do the work for less. Cultural living standards differ, and the American worker is disadvantaged by his own culture's standard, which has become his own.

While the worker had sought rights and won "justice", the executive has used his power to exploit and use his position and power to maintain even a higher standard of living. There seemed to be an attitude of entitlement on both ends, which built resentment and a lack of mutual respect and trust. Outsourcing jobs was a means to make more profit for the executive to "look good" and to exploit the system he had created, and benefit the stock holders, while the worker's right to work was devalued and undermined., creating an esculating environment between the worker and the boss.

I do not know the solution, but I do know that our globalized economy has exasperated the problems in corporate and private interests. Now, the government gets involved, which compounds the problem and creates a quadmire of beauraucracy that is hard to hold accountable. The citizen cannot be informed because it takes a legal mind to understand. And sometimes I think this is a convienient way to enlarge one's pockets of interests.

There is not to be a separation between a public servant's job and the private citizen's right to know, which is what the "tea parties" have sought to "voice". This is a "voice" for public good and social justice, but there are other "voices" that do not need respect. These are the attitudes of the Taliban or the antagonist. One can have convictions or opinions without oppressing another or demanding that the other agree and behave accordingly. Sometimes when difference is too large to bridge, it is best to allow room, so disagreement and tension is dispelled.

In international relations, negotiation and diplomacy is a tedious job. Cultural divides become widened whenever religions dominant opinions, ideas and convictions. Religion can be dangerous because the religious believe that their view hold "ultimate truth or value" and to disregard it, is to disregard God. The fundamentally inclined do not trust those who do not regard God as the foremost object of desire and focus. It is difficult to negotiate with those whose opinions are underwritten by "god himself".

I find that the religious are the hardest and the most difficult to broaden and engage in "public ways", as the walls are built too high. They feel that the very definition of themselves as religious is threatened by engaging the "secular" world. Trust in life, itself, is not a value to these religious "idealists". They find their comfort in the "next world", where they are promised justice.

Justice should be sought in the here and now, as that is all we really know and have. And American government seeks justice in the here and now in seeking to establish democracy abroad.

Religion Set Itself Apart

Religion is man's attempt to to 'be special" and not just the result of evolutionary "process". Human beings have always attempted to "set themsevles apart" for some "special purpose".

The human need to "be special" could come from many factors, but we all need to be valued in one way or another, unless life itself is devalued by one's culture. What "inspired" people to create a "more meaningful experience" than barbarianism? Some would want to believe that is is because of "god".

"God" has been useful to create meaning to life, give priority of value, and bring about an 'order'. But, these functons of "god" have been based on different authorial sources. The Calvinist based his understanding on supernaturalism or revelatory texts, while the naturalist, liberal, or Catholic bases his understanding on natural law, order and structure, which is based on reason.

The Founders understood man's need for order and structure, but also understood the need for a freedom to express diversity. Diversity or difference is not applauded in caste, or aristocratic systems of government, as these are controlled by the "ruling elite", where change itself is understood in negative ways. Change can happen in a democracy or representative republic by the people's vote, lobbyist, courts, and public dissent through the press, or demonstration.

Religion does not value the individual for the most part, as it affirms conformity, and is threatened by dissent, and questions. Religion, in this sense, is an aristocracy, whether one believes that "God" rules, the cleric/priest, the text, or the congregation. An individual is at the whim of whatever "authority is affirmed".

Absolute Uncertainty

If we only conceive of God because we "need" God, then, that doesn't prove anything about God, so much as us. We are limited and finite, and dependent on many things to survive.

Some believe that God is necessary for "life", and believe in "other worlds", or God's intervention within time...But, do we know this really, or is it just an interpretaion of events? We only see what we look for, in that we "see" God working or "explain things other situations away", And this is what many call "faith", which is really interpretation.

Others say that the only thing that is possible to really know is what science tells us. Therefore, their views do not "see" other scientific ways of understanding the same situation, circumstance, or events. We speak a specific language according to the speicific discipline and many think they address the "whole world" and all things with that specifice and limited knowledge.

People just do not know anything apart from what they place their trust in and whatever they put their trust in is still limited in view of the whole. So, all we know is that we do not know, but in part. This fact alone should cause a humble approach to any problem in the name of our limited view.

Views of Truth continued in Postmodernity

Last night I wrote about three different understandings of truth. Of course this does not exhaust the "theories" concerning truth. Some would not root truth in philosophical terms and ways, but would understand truth in the postmodern sense, as a way of life, in cultural terms. This understanding of truth is a linguistic approach, where words have meanings and is text and culturally bound.

But, last night I suggested three ways of understanding that I think follow historical development of philosophical stances toward truth. The first, correspondence was useful in understand the Middle Ages. The Church, the text and the people represented truth, as they corresponded to a transcentdent realm. This view is held in evangelical and consevative circles where Church and/or text, point back to God.

The second view of truth is the coherent view, which is a scientific understanding. The Modern Age where critical inquiry was useful in determining what was real according to scientific investigation. Evidence found in archeological science supported historical science. These disciplines brought a more comprehensive view of ancient history and culture, which undermined the Church's claims on truth. Just recently the James ossuary which supported the historical Jesus was viewed as fradulant. Other findings show that Christian faith is not spcecial revelation, but one of many attempts by man to understand the transcentdent. The Bible, as understood by conservatives is a text of coherency, but textual criticism shows that Scripture reveals diverse views, peoples, and languages. The text has no coherent meaning, which leaves the believer in the quandary of questions concerning faith.

Pragmatism is the postmodern view, where there is no universal, but only individual understandings. These understandings are cultural understandings and identification factors for the individual. Because of the diversity and fragmentation to universal truth claims, which is highly problematic for conservatives, there has been an attempt to build some understanding of universal truth. Some have fallen back on the text, and "replacement theory", where the Church replaces Israel, as the "covenant people of God". This view understands the Church as mandated to herald the "Kingdom of God" on earth. Questions arise in ethics, where it concerns diversity issues in a modern society. Others, in relying on the text, limit their understanding to the early Church as a way to understand truth. Not understanding fully the early Church's context, these believers try to create "communities of faith". This is the emergent movement. Others have fallen back on theological rendering of the Trinity.

All of these attempts to create a transcendental and universal realm are short-sighted. Whether one creates an "Old Testament People of God" implementing God's Kingdom upon others, like Islam; creating local communities of faith, as the early Church; or create identification factors, such as Trinitarian attempts, all have ethical problems in bringing about an understanding unity in diversity. Postmodernity has attempted to bring about a "new identity" through these means of creating a unified identity, because the Church has an identification crisis.

Where does the Church go from here, as pragmatism is a means to accomplish things on earth, while having no need for the transcendent. Is the transcdent necessary? Some believe, not, as just as long as needs are met in the present, then it doesn't matter about God, the afterlife, or the Church. What do you think? Do you think that the transcendent is necessary? Is the church and if so, what for?

Culture and Chrstian Faith

In First Things today, it was asserted that Christian faith cannot live without culture. This is true, but the question is, what kind of culture, if there is one, or is there a diversity of culture.

Culture represents the values we hold most dearly and those values are the things that we will live and die for. I think that question needs to be asked and answered, "is Christian faith about belief, belonging, or behavior"? Is there a "Christian culture"? And is Christian faith an exclusivist faith or it is just a reflection of culture itself?

I think that tradition is part of culture, which also adheres to religon and religon's "values". Muslims adhere to a strict culture that is defined by their law, which impacts their culture, in dress, and behavior. On the other hand, the West for the most part, has freedom of conviction and conscience in form of worship, which leads to diversity within culture. Is Christian faith about conformity to the Law, as in Muslim culture, or is Christian faith about diversity and freedom of expression?

The Laws that we hold to are the laws that define our identity as they are things that protect our values. Values cannot be uniform, unless one wants to limit a liberal society. A liberal society is based on reason and not "revelational texts", like theocracys are. I think that whenever a government is defined by "god", we have problems, because it lends itself to justify predjuidice and exclusivity, which undermines universal ethical decision-making. Humans, not "god" are the creators of governments, and the humans who lead the government are responsible as to the type of government that exists and how it governs. Therefore, good government is most important and good governement is only as good as it is limited.

The Trinity, God, and the Function of Roles

I found it a little irritating that there was a discussion at Trinity Evangelical about the roles of the Trinity. The discussion was about whether the Son eternally submits to the Father. This view is a complementarian view that would influence how one views male and female roles and functions. Don't people go to great extremes to give credence to what they believe and with not verifiability to boot?

Why do we find that it is necessary to have an authority behind our opinion? Why do we think that a rationale based on our own personal conviction and reasonable explaination is not enough? Who do we want to influence to see our side of the debate and for what reason? Do we really think that some things even matter? How important are the things that we are debating? Some, I'm sure, believe that the eternal destiny of the soul is at stake. I am sorry for them.

Practical matters such as public policy, economics, government, education, national security, international relations, etc. are much more important to be informed about and to discuss because they matter in this life. We don't know about the next life, we only have a belief, that is unprovable.

I remember a time when I was so certain that what I believed was truth for all people and without their coming to understand my way of thinking, people would perish and die without God. I was passionate and committed. But, itis is not a life of rest and peace, but one filled with the responsibility for the world's salvation. The most important aspect on anyone's life was the spiritual, to the extent of denying what the real world even meant. This frame of mind is unhealthy. If God is God, and we are responsible, then I find that being responsible within our own "worlds" is all that one needs to be concerned with. We are not called to take the whole world on, but be faithful in the little that is before us.

I am not interested in Christian faith, but faith, for I believe that God does not see the kind of faith, just the trust of faith. The trust of faith is not some "jump over the moon" to prove one's faith, but a quiet rest of "what is" and a "patient diligence" in the present about what is in front of you. Great visions are not necessary, for it is the widow's mite and the prostitute's worship that meant more to God than all the Pharisees and Sadducees did all together! I find that it is in being and affirming life for oneself and others that one finds life.

So, it is not about the Trinity, or God, or the functions and roles of male and female, but a response to the grace that is given in life in the present

What Kind of God?

Mankind tries to understand God by developing different ways of worship. Some confine their understanding to a text, others to a tradition's "wisdom", while others have given up hoping to understand the transcendent, for the present problems are too demanding for them to take the time.

What is the Christian response to such diversity?

Christians should embrace diversity, as Jesus life and message did not limit or confine his ministry to the understandings of either text or tradition. This means that the Christian message should be about humanity, not God. Man is made in God's image and Christians and Jews were commanded to make no other graven image...That means that the face of man is the face of God. That does not mean that God's face is individually defined, but must be seen within the faces of all of humanity and its multiverse ways of understanding God.

Christianiy needs to define itself on humanity, and humanities' giftings in every area of life. The problem of a universal Christian faith, is that there is opporsition from those who define their faith along the lines of traditional or conservative understandings and feel a universal call to the Church would diminish the Church's distinctiveness. This has always happened within Chruch History. What do you propose in seeking to unify diversity? Surely, you don't propose conformity, do you?