Why I'm Willing to Relativize God, but Not You

The Future of Christianity in a Global Age, Part 5

ANNOUNCEMENT:

We Have a New Progressive Christian Community on Discord!

Paid membership now comes with exclusive access to an online community with…

~ Conversation ~
~ Video Chats ~
~ Direct Messaging ~
~ Shared Exploration ~
~ A Growing Library of Resources ~

This endeavor is an important part of my income. If you find value in what I offer, please consider becoming a paid member of the newsletter and live online community. However, if you genuinely can’t afford a subscription, just hit the reply button and let me know. I will give you a free 3-month paid subscription, no questions asked.

An ancient Rabbi once asked his pupils how they could tell when night had ended and the day was on its way back.

"Could it be," asked one student, "when you can see an animal in the distance and tell whether it is a sheep or a dog?"

"No," answered the rabbi.

"Could it be," asked another, "when you can look at a tree in the distance and tell whether it is a fig tree or a peach tree?"

"No," answered the rabbi.

"Well, then what is it?" his pupils demanded.

"It is when you look on the face of any woman or man and see that she or he is your sister or brother. Because if you cannot do this, then no matter what time it is, it is still night.

—Thelma Hall, Too Deep for Words, p. 55 (reformatted)

Back and forth. Back and forth.

When I’m thinking about what to write, I pace. This time, it was in my kitchen.

I knew what my upcoming article needed to say, but the opening eluded me. I was stuck. I didn’t know how to start.

Then, out of nowhere, an old memory surfaced, something buried in my childhood for decades.

I could see it hanging on the wall of my childhood bedroom. A poster entitled “The Golden Rule”. But it wasn’t just the Christian version. It also listed how other religions expressed it.

I had to find it again. I looked it up and found this version. I love that it even includes the Native American and Sacred Earth traditions.

• Buddhism: Hurt not others with that which pains yourself.

• Christianity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

• Hinduism: Treat others as you would yourself be treated.

• Islam: Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you.

• Judaism: What you yourself hate, do unto no man.

• Native American: Live in harmony, for we are all related.

• Sacred Earth: Do as you will, as long as you harm no one.

I find it it interesting that they all say the same thing, despite the fact that…

• religions are all cultural constructs

• religions promote different God-concepts

• all individuals who participate in any religion carries a God-concept unique to them

Last week, I shared that I am willing to go where many theologians interested in interfaith dialogue aren’t: I’m willing to relativize God.

And, when you look at those bullet points, it seems clear to me that religions inherently relativize God. Yet, somehow, the various versions of the Golden Rule show that they still share something that offers common ground for dialogue: A strong sense of shared humanity.

Oh, the humanity of it all

The TV series Lost said it perfectly: “Live together, die alone.” I can’t think of a better line to sum up the human condition.

Like all animals, human beings are wired to survive. One of the ways we survive is by gathering in tribes. After all, safety in numbers. Plus, pooling resources and working together makes us stronger.

So, everybody wants to be a part of a tribe. And having a secure position in that tribe requires fitting in. The better we fit in, the less likely we are to get kicked out. In fact, when it comes to securing a position within a tribe, the more one’s identity conforms to that of tribal expectations, the better off one is.

But none of us ever fully fits in. There are parts of us all that just don’t. And those parts that don’t fit (whether qualities we have or qualities we lack) lead to misalignment with the tribal identity. This isn’t safe, so we bury those non-conforming parts of ourselves in our subconscious, where they become our shadow.

So, we’re divided, inside and out. On the inside, we have a sense of identity (our ego) which helps us fit in, and we have our marginalized selves (our unconscious shadow) that we pretend doesn’t exist. On the outside, we have various identities gathering and forming into various tribes that don’t always get along.

The human condition is permeated by this drive to survive which manifests in a desire to ensure safety by joining a tribe, which includes othering that which doesn’t belong to the tribal identity.

This dynamic runs parallel to another dynamic that not only reflects but also fulfills the human condition.

---

💡Remember, free subscribers receive the full email upon release. That means you still have access to it even after it goes behind a paywall. 😉

---

Human growth and development

Newborns process their world in a very simplistic way. As they grow and develop into adults, their major brain development continues until around age 25. But, that doesn't mean that the maturation process stops there.

From childhood on, it appears that human beings engage in a process of identity expansion. At first, we identify with our immediate family. Then extended family. Then we identify with friends and communities. So on, and so forth.

This identity expansion is critically tied to all the other ways that we grow and mature. It affects our moral reasoning, our behaviors, and even our very perceptions themselves. In other words, this expansion of identity affects everything we are and everything we are becoming.

As we engage in this process of identity expansion, we do so both on the inside and the outside.

On the inside, as we expand our identity to include the parts of ourselves that we have buried in our shadows, we are learning to love and accept ourselves just as we are. We recognize the value that we bring to this world by just existing. We come to terms with what it means to be a human being and find joy in it.

And on the outside we grow in our ability to identify with other human beings. We cease to see those people as “those people”. And those with whom we identify become a part of our tribe. So as we grow, our tribal identity becomes bigger and bigger. Eventually it has the potential to encompass all of humanity, at which point we see all others as sisters and brothers.

As we grow in our ability to identify with “the other" (both internally and externally), our empathy grows, and in turn we become more compassionate.

So, all human beings seem to have been placed upon this trajectory from birth. I'm on it. You are on it. The neighbor down the street is on it. But how far will we go with it? Well, that’s largely up to us.

Postmodern culture is experiencing a meaning crisis.

Why have we lost sight of Meaning?
Is there any hope of getting it back?
Better yet, is the loss of Meaning really a bad thing?

If you long for a path forward, my theology book Drinking from an Empty Glass: Living Out of a Meaningless Spirituality is the book you’re looking for.

Our common ground

While this process of development goes farther in some people than it does in others, my emphasis today is on the fact that it is a common process to us all. This process is an important part of what it means to be human. And, what I personally find interesting about it is that it is an expression of our common drive to survive. In the end, when the process is fulfilled, it brings all people together in a shared sense of family.

Through time, we’ve formed tribes. We’ve created cultures, which develop from shared stories. And from those shared stories, cultures have birthed religions.

Those shared religious narratives came into being to speak to and through the lived experience of those in the culture. So, it's not surprising that all of those religions have different ultimate concerns and pursue different religious ends.

But what all religions share is the same common human experience, because all religions were created by and for humans.

So, our common ground is the human condition, and the goal we all share and have self-interest in is survival.

This is not a theological interpretation.

This is a natural and observable one.

At the end of the day…

We are all human beings wired to survive. That includes being wired to expand our tribal identities and bring together the widest possible tribe so we can thrive as a species.

That is our common ground. And that needs to become the basis for our interfaith dialogue.

How does theology come into this?

When I look at this expansion of identity—this expansion of consciousness—I interpret it as a Divine movement. This discernment flows from my theology.

If there is any word that stands above others in my theology it is the word “kenosis”. I see kenosis as the emptying of oneself into the other for the sake of the other. And in my personal theology, God is this Kenotic Dynamic. Or, to use the more popular term we have for this kenotic dynamic, God is Love.

So, when I see people giving of themselves to others for the sake of others, I perceive that as God manifesting in that moment. Or, to put in another way, God is incarnating as love enfleshed.

According to my theological interpretation, then, this expansion of consciousness—this increased ability to identify with others and therefore act compassionately toward them—is the work of God in this world.

And, here’s the point of all this…

This is my personal theological interpretation of the human condition. But, such an interpretation is not necessary.

The human condition remains the human condition regardless of my theological interpretation. Others are allowed to interpret the human condition however they want. But, my theological interpretation of the human condition—my interpretation of the human condition in light of my vision of Ultimacy that comes from and speaks to my personal story—is Authoritative for me, while it remains relative to me.

Shifting the role of theology

When I relativize my vision of Ultimacy (“God”), the role of my theology dramatically shifts. It no longer functions as it does for others.

If you look closely, all the other frameworks use theology in the same way: Theology is an external frame within which the interfaith dialogue happens. Regardless of whether we are looking at exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, or perspectival pluralism, the theological structure transcends the dialogue in order to house the dialogue. And the structure of that space is determined by where they draw the line for what they are willing to relativize.

• For the exclusivist, the dialogue happens within the accepted framework of the Bible and the churches that read it their way

• For the inclusivist, the conversation happens within the context of a universalized Christ

• For the pluralist, a shared vision of ultimate destination frames the conversation.

• For the perspectival pluralist, a conception of God creates the space for the conversation.

Here, radical theological pluralism is distinctly different. According to my understanding, theology does not serve to establish a frame—or common ground—for the conversation.

Rather than framing and binding the dialogue from the outside as the other theological approaches do, radical theological pluralism shifts to the inside of the conversation to empower interpretation and discernment as we move forward.

The new religious end

The religious end for radical theological pluralism is a vital, thriving humanity that contributes to a vital, thriving universe. And the path forward is the evolution of consciousness that expands one's tribal identity to include all others, thus effectively negating all other tribal identities, including that of religion. This is my theological interpretation of the human condition, where we as humans are meant to go, and how we as humans are meant to get there.

For better or worse, not all religious perspectives share that religious end as their goal. Some religious perspectives are all about religious supremacism and the domination of others. The very nature of their religious end is antithetical to my own, even if they share the same Christian religious tradition. It’s important for me to recognize and accept that.

Meanwhile, it’s just as important to recognize and accept that there are those who do indeed share that same religious end of a vital, thriving human family. Many of them are Christians like myself. Yet, others come from different religions.

Whether they are Christians, Hindus, druids, Wiccans, atheists, or any other group, they have a strong sense that we are all extensions of one human body. Regardless of religious background, this shared sense of humanity and shared goal gives us a common mission. In a sense, we are all part of the same tribe. Our spiritual unity enables us to pool our resources and work together.

Not everyone is a good fit for partnership

Radical theological pluralism is realistic and practical. Sure, I would like to be an idealist and say that ultimately we're all trying to do the same thing. But I know we aren't.

This theological approach recognizes that not everybody is ready to participate in a mission of human flourishing. More than that, it recognizes that the goals of certain groups actively seek to undermine that mission.

• Christian Nationalism

• Religious terrorists

• Social political groups fueled by religion (such as the KKK)

Every single one of those tribes (and other tribes like them) knowingly seek to eliminate a common sense of humanity by asserting religious supremacist doctrines. Their goal is not the unification of the body of humanity. Rather, their goal is an intentional attempt at rending the body of humanity limb from limb.

Their theology, policies, and behavior are all active threats to the well-being of the human family.

By what authority?

Earlier in the series, I identified a major problem with the relativistic worldview. It is impossible to either stand for something or against something. In order to claim that something is “right” or “wrong” for anyone other than oneself, there has to be some form of appeal to transcendent authority—an authority beyond one's self and others. And if God is relative to a person, God can't be that Transcendent Authority.

But, if the human experience becomes the common ground, then…

The health and well-being of humanity becomes the transcendent authority we need.

This new criteria becomes the basis for speaking truth to power and saying “yes” or “no” to controversial issues.

“Yes” to…

• LGBTQAI+ inclusion

• Racial justice

• Gender equality

• Economic justice

…because each and every single one of those is about improving the quality of life for human beings without diminishing the quality of life of other human beings.

“No” to…

• Economic inequality

• Gender inequality

• Institutionalized racism

• Marginalization of LGBTQAI+ people

• Religious supremacism

…because each and every one of those improves the quality of life for certain groups at the expense of the quality of life of others.

Sure, there will be those who cry that they are being hurt by those things I stand for. For example, many who oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally have said that it would diminish the integrity of their own heterosexual marriages. But the truth is it does not. The only people who can diminish the integrity of a marriage is the people who are involved in that marriage.

Or, what about using preferred pronouns for people who are transgender. Is it really that hard to identify people according to their preference? Consider this…

My legal name is “Vernon Alfred McGuffee II”, but I go by the nickname “Bo”, which I've had almost my entire life. “Bo” is not my legal name. “Bo” is not even a derivative of my legal name. "In fact, “Bo” has absolutely nothing to do with my legal name. Yet, not once in my 56 years on this planet has anyone refused to call me “Bo” because that's not my legally assigned name. No one seems to mind.

It turns out that it’s really not that hard to accommodate another person's self-identifying preference. That's just simple courtesy and respect for other human beings whose ability to self-identify affirms their value while not hurting anyone in any way.

Or, what about this hot topic…

It’s safe to say that Christian Nationalism is not about human flourishing. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear them argue otherwise, but the bottom line is that they have clearly identified they want to institutionalize policies that marginalize groups and destroy lives. They only promote the flourishing of their own tribe, and that is achieved at the expense of others. They are actively promote tribalism—a primary agent of domination and death in our world today. So, by leaning into the common goal of human flourishing, we have the transcendent authority to say “no” to Christian Nationalism and the evils it seeks to bring into this world.

The authority to say “yes” to life-enriching policies and activities and “no” to life-threatening policies and activities does not come from one's personal truth, but flows from the experience of being human itself. The humanity of us all is the transcendent authority we need to guide us on the path of not just surviving, but also thriving as a species.

The power (and difficulty) of human boundaries

I remember sitting at the kitchen table with my mom as she explained American liberty to me. She said, “Your liberty ends where another person’s liberty begins.” In other words, you are free to live your life however you want…until it has an adverse effect on someone else’s life.

That is the clearest explanation of healthy boundaries that I’ve ever heard.

When deciding whether boundaries are appropriate to a situation, we can always ask ourselves, "Does this promote the liberty of one at the expense of another?”

When something threatens the humanity of others, we have the human authority to say, “No, you don’t get to treat people like that.” Along with that comes the right to establish boundaries to protect our common humanity from harm.

Let’s be real, we are surrounded by people who are racist, bigoted, demeaning, and destructive. All of that is dangerous to our shared humanity. Those who engage in such behavior need strong boundaries.

But we also know that establishing boundaries can be tricky. When we feel angry or defensive, it is easy to use “establishing boundaries” as an excuse to exact vengeance or do harm. While we establish boundaries and enforce them, we have to remember that those who need boundaries are no less human than we or their potential victims are.

And here’s something else that can make establishing boundaries difficult…

From what I've seen, those who require such boundaries generally don’t understand why they are necessary. They tend to see them as an attack, as a form of oppression.

It seems genuinely hard for them to understand that they are truly free to believe or do whatever they want…as long as they do not act upon their ideologies in a way that can harm others.

“Looking for a gentle spiritual rhythm?

Come practice Lectio Divina with us online: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Sundays at 7pm CST.”

This event is free and open to the public.

Understanding the threat

As a science-based, force free dog trainer, the most important lesson I have learned in the profession is that threat begets threat, hostility begets hostility, aggression begets aggression.

I know how tempting it is to respond aggressively toward systems, policies, and behaviors that promote dominance and destruction. It's natural to want to react and lash out. Human beings are wired to survive. When we feel threatened, we feel justified in responding in kind. After all, “They started it!”

The temptation is real.

But I also know that if we respond threateningly to those who threaten the health and well-being of our common humanity, we are most likely to trigger a more aggressive reaction. This only escalates a vicious cycle of defensive hostility. It creates an “us vs them” dynamic.

So it’s important not to return the negative energy directed at us or others with more negativity. Instead, we want to take the negativity into ourselves, transform it, and return it as positive energy.

Rather than making the aggressors feel threatened, we want to help them feel heard, valued, and loved. We want to help them feel safe and secure. After all, the more safe and secure someone feels, the less likely they are to react negatively toward others. The more likely they are to leave others alone to live their lives in peace.

So, once we’ve established boundaries, we want to engage in a way that invites antagonists to share fully in our common humanity. This can help them to heal, to reconcile with what it means for them to be human and have a place within the wider human family.

This, I believe, is a key insight into how we can promote human flourishing in a time like ours.

And that leads me to…

Where I draw the line

At this point, as I’ve talked about “antagonizers” and “people who threaten our common humanity”, it may sound like I am dividing humanity into an “us vs them” dynamic. But I am not. If I did, I would be promoting another form of tribalism.

The key to understanding tribalism is the dehumanization of the other. The reason people can behave in cruel ways is because they see others as somehow less than human, as somehow not deserving of the same treatment that they deserve as a “real human being”™.

What I’m doing is actually the opposite of tribalism. Here’s the crux of my position…

The continuing expansion of one's consciousness is a natural human dynamic designed to promote the experience of shared humanity that eventually erodes primary tribal identities.

Within this dynamic, bounded tribal identities come into being as part of the process. Everybody starts at the beginning with an extremely limited ability to identify with others. From there, we begin to develop and expand our identities in concentric circles. Some people mature more than others, so they are able to identify with more people than those who have not yet matured to that extent.

That means it's natural for people to have a limited sense of identification with the other. So, while those who promote tribalism may be acting in ways that threaten our common humanity, they are also expressing a significant part of our common humanity. They just tend to have harder tribal boundaries and are more fearful of otherness because of where they are in their development, which leads to then behaving more aggressively.

This is why I am not promoting in any way, shape, or form an “us vs them” tribalistic dynamic.

In my earlier article, I talked about how other theologies relate Christianity to different religions. And I identified where they draw the line that they are not willing to cross when it comes to relativizing religious symbols.

• Exclusivists refuse to relativize anything

• Inclusivists refuse to relativize Christ

• Pluralists refuse to relativize the religious end

• Perspectival pluralists refuse to relativize God

With my radical theological pluralism, I am willing to relativize all of those. And, I believe that the most important move we need to make today in our multi-religious world is that last one: relativizing God.

This may make some readers wonder…

“If he’s willing to relativize God, does that mean he’s not willing to draw a line anywhere?”

Nope. Quite the contrary. I actually draw a hard line.

And, this is where I draw it…

I refuse to relativize humanity.

Indeed the relativization of humanity is what tribalism is all about. It is the way of domination and destruction. And to make such a move would be to choose to walk a path that threatens the health and well-being of our entire species.

The heart of my proposal

Pluralism can mean many things to many people. Maybe my version isn’t new. Maybe some will even say, “Well, duh.” But I have not heard this proposed elsewhere, and I want to put it on the table in a coherent way.

But what I want to highlight here is the significance of what happens when you relativize God.

Before relativizing God, theology functions from the outside of a dialogue as a frame within which participation happens. After relativizing God, theology emerges from within the dialogue as a tool for discernment.

This move shifts theology from being the centering principle of the conversation to the participatory margins. It ceases to be the authority that gives permission for dialogue, and instead becomes one interpretation guiding the participation of those who uphold it during the dialogue, and it grows with the dialogue

By relativizing God, radical theological pluralism allows the other to be radically other and completely free from theological imperialism while at the same time empowering an active participation in a common humanity.

Final thoughts

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts and insights you've picked up through the years. I'm especially interested in hearing from anyone who has read Mikel Burley’s A Radical Pluralist Philosophy of Religion: Cross-Cultural, Multireligious, Interdisciplinary. As I mentioned before, I have not read that book, but it sounds like he has already gone in this direction with his “radical pluralism”.

Share in the comments and keep this conversation going!

Peace, Bo
www.evolvingchristianfaith.net

PS: If you found this article valuable, please hit the "like" button and restack it. The more likes and restacks I have, the more likely others are to discover and benefit from it.

PPS: If you are wondering how you can work with me, all the options are right here.

Do you find inspiration in these newsletters but don’t want to commit to a paid membership? Consider the option to…

Seeking Deeper Meaning in Life?

If you want to work through a process of intentional spiritual growth so you can become who you were truly meant to be, check out my 49-Day Spiritual Growth Journal.

Credits

• Thanks to DALL-E for the cover art

Amazon Affiliate

• I am an Amazon Affiliate and use affiliate links in my articles. That means I may get a small kickback if you decide to purchase something after going through one of my links. Shopping on Amazon through my links is a great way for you to support my work and mission, and it doesn’t cost you anything extra.