Christianity and 5th Discipline LO9398

Dick Wolff (dickwolff@patrol.i-way.co.uk)
Fri, 23 Aug 96 11:33:45 GMT

Replying to LO9225 (Clyde Howell) --

> If you look carefully at an individual's characterization of God,
> you will find
> some elements of father, mother, or significant others in that
> individual's life. An over-bearing parent who exercises a great
> deal
> of influence in an individual's life will typically yield a God who
> is to be feared...

Undoubtedly that is often true, but there are enough exceptions
to rule out the idea that 'God' is mere 'projection'.

> I believe that a pretty good argument can bemade that experience
> with
> God, faith, defining God, are all VERY personal, very indivdiual
> experiences. My problems with religions in general, and
> Christianity
> specifically, is the all-too-eager efforts to define God for me ...
> according to someone ELSE's experience.

There's a big difference between 'personal' and 'individualistic'.
As I suggested, experience of God *has* to be personal.

But the word 'God' itself clearly implies 'that which is true for all
things all of the time'. If you talk about very personal individual
experiences you *may* be talking about 'God', but unless that
experience is recognisable by others as an experience of Ultimate
Truth it may be mere dangerous delusion. Serial killer Peter Sutcliffe
murdered thirteen women here because 'God' told him to. So relativising
'God' carries its own dangers..

My problems with the individualistic approach to life is the all-too-eager
efforts to undermine serious religious discourse by which human beings,
*together*, seek to learn what God (Ultimate Truth) is like. 'God' is not a
variable (and therefore socially meaningless) word for individuals to
deploy as they see fit.

Yes, there is great danger that human power structures define 'God' for
(and against) other people. Relativising/subjectivising the meaning of
the word may only exacerbate that. If we insist that 'God' means 'that
which is true for all things all of the time', God has a habit of
breaking down self-defining human systems. Holding to the concept of
God is a fundamental necessity for a Learning Organization.

> My point is simply this: Whether God exists or not, whether God is
> loving or punitive, whether Christianity is the answer to our
> problems
> rather than Hindu or Buddhism, or Islam ... these are very personal
> questions. They cannot be decided, nor IMO SHOULD they ge decided,
> for
> one person by another person or a group.

To which I say : these beliefs about the nature of Ultimate Reality
absolutely cannot be decided by an individual. They absolutely must
be decided through mutual commitment to dialogue, each party speaking
out of a genuine commitment and experience of God.

That is why this thread is important in discussion about Learning
Organizations. A Learning Organization needs its learning to be
orbiting around what, ultimately, is real. The search for ultimate
truth is the deep root of all truly creative learning. I have been
a bit concerned that some of the discussions imply that you can draw
neat lines around the LO in question, as if outside realities can be
ignored.

I have carefully not said that one group can "decide" what God is like
for another group. Without the perspective of the other group, they
may be wrong! I *have* said that the thing they are agreeing or disagreeing
about is 'that which is true for all things all of the time'

> personal experience with God has shown me that there are MANY ways
> to
> experience oneness with that which we call God or Spirit, or Fred,
> or
> whatever. The name is immaterial.

Sorry, the name is of critical importance, and is a fundamental part
of the discussion. You cannot separate language off from reality so
easily. Hindu faith speaks of "Brahman" - but I wouldn't presume to tell
a Hindu that what s/he understands by that is what I mean when I use
the word 'God'. It may take a lifetime of learning simply to understand
what s/he means by the word "Brahman". That learning will be enhanced if
I have a personal (but not individualistic) understanding of what *I*
mean by "God".

> so many will quickly tell you
> that unless you profess to believe what we believe and DO what we
> DO,
> you are lost. That is a contradiction in message, plain and simple.

I agree. I'm sorry it's been your experience. It's very rarely been
mine, and even when it has, the people concerned have had no worldly
power over me.

> Are we so arrogant that we can conclusively know what God had
> in
> mind all along, simply because we didn't experience...

The whole point was that an individual cannot conclusively know, but
neither can we avoid the discomfort of disagreement about the most
fundamental truth every human being sooner or later has to address by
saying (in effect) "whatever works for you". To say that Ultimate
Reality is "what works for me" is to set self up as the sole knower
of Truth - the height of arrogance! In order to avoid this, you then
suggest that Ultimate Reality is *also* "whatever works for you. That
sounds like humility, but actually means one of two things. Either :

a. we're not talking about Ultimate Reality, but personal religious
experience or something.

b. We are arguing that Ultimate Reality is as many-faced as there
have been people on the planet (and probably therefore a fairly
pointless subject for discussion).

Since *I'm* trying to talk about something that is neither of these, I
experience this as 'Closed Thinking'.

If a. and b. are what we are talking about, then this discussion does not
belong here, and could usefully terminate. However, see my para above,
in which I argue for its relevance.

-- 
Revd Dick Wolff
Mission Enabler to the Wessex Province of the United 
Reformed Church
Tel : +44 1865 511798
Fax : +44 1865 310769
e-mail : dickwolff@patrol.i-way.co.uk

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>