The last post I referred you to "An Evening of Kent" his blog for rants and raves which discussed how the educated religious might relate to those who are not interested in nuance in their theology. But Kent has a more scholarly -- and definitely reverent -- blog "Towards a Fuller Understanding of God" which is the focus of my posting today.
Kent's thesis is that the Magi were Zoroastrian scholars and that they too were privileged to have the Divine revealed to them, which brought them to Bethlehem to find the Holy Family. They were not "kings" and perhaps not truly astrologers in the contemporary sense. They received revelation from the Divine. He also notes that (from a Christian perspective) that it is possible that portions of God's truth may have been revealed to people throughout history in all places and that the role of Jesus is to bring it all together.
As a Christian, I don't quibble much with the conclusion that Jesus uniquely and profoundly embodies heavenly Truth. But, I continue to be drawn to the conclusion that God is so unknowable and so beyond human comprehension, that it could be possible that many faiths -- including Christianity -- have a true, yet incomplete understanding. That we must take the whole sum of theology throughout history to begin to understand the nature of God.This idea bothers a lot of Christians. We believe Jesus is right. But we inaccurately come to the converse conclusion: that pagans are all wrong. Pagans are not entirely wrong. They are just wrong enough for us to need to hear from Jesus. Many things they get right. There’s a great deal of Buddhism that is exactly right; a great deal of ancient Greek philosophy that accurately depicts the world; and a whole lot of Zoroastrianism that properly describes God.
How, if they’re pagans, could they possibly have arrived at the truth? Well, it’s not too hard to figure: All truth is God’s truth; all truth comes from God. They got it from God. “But they’re pagans.” Yes, they are. So what? They still got it from God.
It is a vast task -- which is my point. We cannot hope to understand all revelation, which is why we must be humble when it comes to God. If we say "All truth is God's truth," then we can't expect to either own truth or own God.
In a Facebook exchange with Kent regarding his "Evening of Kent" posting, I said
One of the most difficult parts of any [all] religion is recognizing that some - maybe only the few - relish the uncertainty of faith that leads to both self discovery and the discovery of the Divine. But that others - perhaps most - turn to religion for certainty and safety, and that it might not be God's way to deny them the emotional and spiritual security they crave.Kent replied:
Personally, I believe anyone who LIKES the uncertainty has something seriously wrong with them. [emphasis added] I know far too many religious anarchists who "don't believe in organized religion," but never think about the fact that "organized religion" is an oxymoron. Religion MEANS organized spirituality. Unorganized spirituality feels good, but is ultimately ... Read Moremeaningless.Yes, I like uncertainity. When I yield to it, it gives me peace. That is a portion of the truth revealed through Buddhism.
You're right, though: The chaos in the universe is meant to propel us towards order. That'd be the Divine. But because He's hard to grasp, far too many folks settle for religion—whether it's our rituals or our belief-system—and religion is no more stable than the chaos. We're only deluding ourselves when we think so.
Footnote: Zoroastrians are still around today. Take a read of Kent's piece on the influence of this ancient religion on Judaism and then also do some additional reading. Famous modern Zoroastrian: Freddy Mercury from the rock band Queen.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment