Theology Matters

Creation of Adam, by Michelangelo at the Sistine Chapel

Hugh Hewitt has created a new blog called 'One True God Blog', with a five strong mix of well respected theologians, authors, a pastor-author, a Philosophy Professor, and a Professor of World Literature, covering the political spectrum, and promising to provide what the Bloggosphere has been craving for; some good old theology discussions. Looking forward to joining in the discussions Hugh. Well done!

"The content of the participants' posts is everything I had hoped for and expected, and we are working out the format." he said this weekend on his own blog.

Hugh introduces the Blog:

" The first question should be: Why? The answer is because theology matters. A lot. I have asked these five excellent minds to ponder occasional questions from a layman that the layman thinks would be of interest to many more layman. I have discovered after 15 years in broadcast journalism that such questions and the answers they elicit are of great interest to the general public.

You should read this blog more like a discussion board than a traditional blog. The questions are listed below, and over in the Categories section under "Hugh's Questions." Each question is its own category, with the responses listed in the order they were posted, like a discussion board. "

The Crucifiction of Saint Peter, by Caravaggio, in The Cerasi Chapel, Santa Maria del Popola, Rome

Kenny Pierce's take on Hewitt's second question: The Fear of Suffering, highlighting America's fear of the subject, One True God Blog dealing with ruminations on the difficulty Hugh has in finding liberal participants, and a gateway into the discussion of underlying religious metaphors, and an Old Essay on Human suffering, dealing with how the Passion of Christ revolutionizes the theology of suffering and helps heal the core atheist complaint about theodicy, which is emotional.

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, by Caravaggio, in Neues Palais, Potsdam

Updates from Hugh:

Powerpundit approves of the approach:

"Hugh Hewitt is running a fascinating new blog called OneTrueGodBlog. I ran into the site while doing some research, after seeing the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Bookmark this blog/discussion board if you are interested in a serious Christian theological discussion among some highly qualified individuals. Hugh asks the questions and the contributors respond with individual posts similar to permalinked blog posts.

Hugh's first question is "whether demons exist?" Being Roman Catholic myself, the answer to that question is obviously yes."

The Deposition, by Caravaggio, in Pinacoteca Vaticana in Rome

Update 2 from Hugh:
OneClearCall posts before the OneTrueGodBlog participants get out of the blocks:

"The most recent topic is "Suffering" and how Holy Scripture applies to both those directly affected by the Gulf Coast hurricanes and those who are far from the storm's harm."

The Death of The Virgin, by Caravaggio, in The Louvre

Update 3 from Hugh:
Mark Daniels has more.:

"Hugh Hewitt has posed two provocative questions to the theologians who regularly contribute to his newest blog"

As does the Baroness

Read the comments below, which are in themselves essays on the subject. Kenny and North by Northwest thrash out the subject., and I weigh in on an e-mail  forwarded to Hugh via one of his readers.

Publius Rendezvous says : The approach taken by Hewitt is quite simply outstanding.

Comments

[Farianto]

This is a good site with a good picture ..
Can you send this kind of image to me.. ?
I'll make it as wallpaper in my Church service program.
Thanks.
GBU.

[patrick brown]

it's a very nice website you're having here. right circle will destroy tournament without any questions: http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/rent/ , when Tournament Create Gnome Hope standard, collective, lazy nothing comparative to bad , to Make Girl you should be very Faithful when corner forecast table play

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

>
Why their viewpoints have to be dogmatic and found to be validated by FACT at all times. Why they can't be questioned or why they can't accept that others hold differing views from their own. Why do they view pondering as a threat.
>

IMHO, it's not really an issue of Fact. It's an issue of personality or of self-worth.

I'll suggest two different subjects to think about.

1. Each one of us has certain fundamental core beliefs that we have built our lives on -- we may not know what they are and may not even be aware that we believe them, but they are part of who we are. If we were to realize that they were false, that would change so much about our lives that we would come out the other side as a different person. If somebody, therefore, challenges those beliefs, it feels to us like an attack on who we are, and we respond as though personally attacked rather than as intellectually challenged -- we respond with fear rather than with curiosity. Hope that makes sense.

Since each of us has different core beliefs, something that is a matter of curiosity and open-mindedness and chillin'-ness for you could be a core belief for me. In that case if you question my belief out of calm curiosity, you may be baffled by the intensity and defensiveness of my response. You just have to remember that there are other subjects on which you would yourself react with intense defensiveness, because they go to the root of who you are.

2. Most arguments or discussions or whatever you want to call them only pretend to be about facts. The facts are a pretext; the real issue is the people.

Consider this question: if you and I disagree, and when we talk it over you wind up proving that I am 100% wrong and you are 100% right, which of us won?

In ordinary life we usually act as though you had won in this situation. But think about it: which one of us has learned something? Which one of us is better off now than he was before the conversation? Which one of us has actually gotten any good out of the conversation?

I myself use the words "argument," "debate" and "discussion" rather idiosyncratically, to help myself keep straight what kind of conversation I'm in.

A. In an argument, each person is trying to prove that other person is a jerk. Usually both parties succeed. An argument is about morality -- which is why in an argument both sides usually wind up angry, since each side gets accused of behaving immorally. The winner is the one who in the end gets to say, "You jerk." So you can see that an argument is really about the people, even though it pretends to be about the facts.

B. In a debate, either each person is trying to get his own way, or else each person is trying to prove that he's smarter than the other person. The winner is either the person who gets his own way, or else the person who in the end gets to say, "You moron." So you can see that a debate also is really about the people, even though it pretends to be about the facts. You can also see how easily a debate can turn into an argument.

3. In a discussion, each person is trying to figure out the truth. If together you wind up at the truth, you win. So you can see that a discussion, unlike an argument or a debate, is genuinely about the facts.

When you see people angry, you are witnessing an argument, not a discussion, and it's really about the people, not about the facts. I'll let you guys think about what that says about the whole Miers kerfuffle, on which I have had time neither to post nor (sorry, Alexandra) to comment.

[North by Northwest]

Jim - just my kind of sentiment. Now, wouldn't it be great if we could figure out what education, upbringing etc, in other words, what sociological conditions made you together with most other commentators on this blog so chilled. And, more importantly, what made so many others out there NOT so chilled. Why their viewpoints have to be dogmatic and found to be validated by FACT at all times. Why they can't be questioned or why they can't accept that others hold differing views from their own. Why do they view pondering as a threat.

When all is said and done, in all these discussions, I think that ultimately, I am probably hoping to gain some insight from everyone's point-of-view to this question. Maybe, because it is so alien to me to have to be right in my point-of-view, in my belief system.

[Alexandra]

You say it so nicely Jim:

"You belong right where you are, in the classroom of life"

Yes, that feels right.

[Jim R]

Alexandra,

You belong right where you are, in the classroom of life.

I think the the prpose of the inexplicable is to make us ponder. What we ponder is up to us. Some want to ponder why, some what, some how, some who.

Some, like me, just like to ponder, and wonder, and wander. Sit under the apple tree, drink lemondade and watch the clouds, ponder the inexplicable.

Jimr

[Alexandra]

Jim,

Why do we have this incessant need to explain everything, philosophize about everything. Why could we just simply not say, that there are some things which we will never be able to explain, such as the creation time, which quite obviously would not be in terms of six (earth) days. Surely we must know that these are matters which, no matter how much philosophized about cannot in the end be fully grasped with the limitations of the human mind.

You know, I have experienced things in my life which simply cannot be explained away in a science classroom or a philosophy classroom, or perhaps even in the traditional religious classroom, so I simply store them away deep down inside me where my faith lies, and where some parts of the existence of a being far different to anything we as humans can intellectualize about, can inhabit the conscious mind. If I attempted to discuss these experiences under a philosophy microscope, I would most probably be swiftly laughed out of that environment.

Humans have a need, and that includes geniuses like Galileo, to explain everything: “..it is up to us to figure it out...” Why? Why do we have to figure it out? There is a certain snobbism amongst intellectuals who have to philosophize ad nauseam. If you cannot explain it how does it exist? It is very difficult for a person like me, because I know it does exist, I have seen and felt and experienced the inexplicable. So what classroom do I go to Jim?

[Jim R]

In reference to whether I.D. vs. evolution is right. I like how Galileo put it. "God created it, it is up to us to figure out how." We have seen to many times where the church put forth a "scientific theory" only to have it proven wrong by science later. The world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. I think it is important to regard the creation story not as a literal Six (earth/human) Day FACT, but as a longer term work in progress.

I personally do not think that philosophy and religion belong in the science classroom. I think they belong in the philosophy classroom.

[Kenny Pierce]

Diane,

That's exactly the quotation I had in mind; thank you very much.

[Diane]

Here is the longer quote from GK Chesterton: “If a literal interpretation is really and flatly contradicted by an obvious fact, why then we can only say that the literal interpretation must be a false interpretation. But the fact must really be an obvious fact. And unfortunately, nineteenth century scientists were just as ready to jump to the conclusion that any guess about nature was an obvious fact, as were seventeenth-century sectarians to jump to the conclusion that any guess about Scripture was the obvious explanation. Thus, private theories about what the Bible ought to mean, and premature theories about what the world ought to mean, have met in loud and widely advertised controversy, especially in the Victorian time; and this clumsy collision of two very impatient forms of ignorance was known as the quarrel of Science and Religion.”
My experience that assumptions are too often asserted as facts.
One of the problem my kids have had in the public schools is that any exploration outside of Darwinism is ridiculed by their teachers. And so I have told my kids of my discussions with a number of astrophysicists who were all convinced of some sort of intelligent design because the further they explored, the more patterns they discovered. The deeper one explores both the mysteries of science and religion, the richer the terrain.
As to rituals, a wise older woman told me when my two were tiny that as parents are in large part responsible for their memories so I have been mindful of the rituals we observe within the family. At church, they enrich our walk in faith throughout the liturgical year.

[North by Northwest]

Semanticleo,

"Proper control is an internal surrender to the guidance founded on scripture, not a deference of personal judgment to the whims or fancy of another.

I think that is a very clear description of how to avoid the pitfalls of 'fundamentalism' - it however also hightlights the need for the need of being 'grounded' within oneself. Imagine how little this means to an insecure person. And that's when one has to hope that the 'whims or fancy', to carry your words along, of the 'instructor' are devoid of any self-gratifying motives but pure in the effort to shepheard the person on its way to experiencing a whole new dimension of confidence through the surrender to Jesus Christ.

Kenny,

Exactly - in fact you are so right to add the 'little rituals' to the all-important equation. And the more consistency a family is able to maintain, the more confident the littl'uns become.

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

>
I also believe, that such 'formal' rituals are an important precursor for rituals helping to strengthen family bonds on a day-to-day basis, such as the Friday night family dinner in preparation of the Jewish Sabbath or the Christians' Sunday lunch, to stay alive and remain meaningful.
>

Boy, you're hitting a nerve there. That is by far the worst thing about my having taken a job that gets the bills paid but keeps me away from home except on the weekends -- my family builds their routines without me.

My wife and several of her friends whose husbands also had road-warrier jobs, used to talk about "re-entry syndrome" -- where the husband/daddy comes back home and messes everything up 'cause he doesn't know how "we" do things. And of course "how we do things" is referring mostly to the little rituals that keep everybody working together as a family.

[Semanticleo]

NbyNW;
1) the own personal one; the personal perspective and its effect on one's own self and immediate family

(2) the 'guardian' one; the guardian perspective carrying the burden of preservation, status-control and applicability accross the field.

These two vantage points seem to the the axis upon which this discussion is based.

1) I could call the 'inner directed' life.
2) I might call the 'outer directed'.
Many code words come to mind with the description you provide, no the least of which is; control,

I think this is where organized religious movements feel their 'responsibility' the most. Yes, we are saved by grace, not by works. However the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (In bearing fruit in the believer)inspires those infused with its power to perform works. The works are not the mechanisms that save us from the sins of Adam, but they become indistinguishable from the Grace of God because we want to develop the fruits of the spirit.

Yes, there are guardians within the Christian Congregation. But as Paul's many letters to the early christians revealed these (Episkopos) are men trained in the model of Christ to be 'innocent as doves, yet cautious as serpents' They shepherd the flock and protect it from the spiritual wolves who would prey on the innocent.

But mostly, spiritual growth is inner directed, though outwardly facilitated by congregating with others of like faith. Proper control is an internal surrender to the guidance founded on scripture, not a deference of personal judgment to the whims or fancy of another.

But that does not even begin to address how one's faith should be defended at law so that all be required to conform. Many will argue the case for that as well. I will not.

[north by northwest]

Semanticleo,

"I truly believe it is a mistake, for those who believe in the Genesis account of man's creation, to oppose science by virtue of the law. [...] His was a spiritual world that had almost no relevence to the world men dominated."

I think I hear you, although I can imagine how this belief could send members of quite a number of orthodox factions, if not also their mainstream counterparts, of both the Christian and Jewish Faiths into fits of outrage...

I suspect, the reason for such outrage ultimately might lie in the need to defend status and doctrine as supposed to allowing the 'enriching-personal-experience-faith-can-have-on-our-lives' quality of Religion to take centerstage. But what a slippery slope; what if misunderstood; what if hijacked by the 'Therapy-oriented' purists? How to pass it on, as religious ceremonies would by definition be stripped of most traditional rituals. I believe we need more ritual in our lives rather than less. But for ritual to be credible, it needs doctrine. I also believe, that such 'formal' rituals are an important precursor for rituals helping to strengthen family bonds on a day-to-day basis, such as the Friday night family dinner in preparation of the Jewish Sabbath or the Christians' Sunday lunch, to stay alive and remain meaningful. And it seems to me that our society needs those more urgently than ever to repair what Kenny's friend above put so succinctly as the loss of the connection with Grace

"The problem with Reformation Protestantism is that it reacted very strongly against the medieval Catholic heresy of salvation by right action and ritual, but it overreacted and replaced that heresy with its own heresy of salvation by right belief. [...] But it is by grace that we are saved, not by good works -- and not by good beliefs, either. [...] Medieval Catholicism emphasized the works so much that the common people on the cathedral kneelers lost their connection with grace; modern fundamentalism emphasizes the belief so much that the common people in the pew lose their connection with grace."

And Kenny,

"I just tell my kids that bigoted dogmatism is the inevitable refuge of people (whether religious or not) who lack the courage to face honestly a significant challenge to their worldview"

This is exactly the kind of message, if internalized, that will make this world a better place, but which parents will only be able to successfully pass on if a child is brought up being confident, which in most cases is a direct function of having been blessed with experiencing a consistent and loving family-life, rich in communal rituals.

It's circular and interdependent.

Plus, in a lot of these debates, one needs to bear in mind, that there are two very distinct vantage points:

(1) the own personal one; the personal perspective and its effect on one's own self and immediate family

(2) the 'guardian' one; the guardian perspective carrying the burden of preservation, status-control and applicability accross the field.

[Kenny Pierce]

I don't have handy my copy of G. K. Chesterton's St. Thomas Aquinas, but he has the perfect quote to cover this whole controversy. I don't see any reason to think that Genesis was ever intended as a scientific account, and therefore think attempts to teach six-day creationism (which I devoutly hope is not the same thing as "intelligent design") are ludicrously bad theology. But then the religious fervor with which certain scientists attempt to maintain the orthodox purity of evolution-by-random-chance-without-design is also pretty ludicrous. I wish I could remember GKC's exact words, but he talks about the argument between questionable theories about what the Bible means and similarly questionable rushings to scientific judgement, and concludes, "...and this loud and noisy quarrel between two very impatient forms of ignorance is known as the War between Science and Religion."

I just tell my kids that bigoted dogmatism is the inevitable refuge of people (whether religious or not) who lack the courage to face honestly a significant challenge to their worldviews; and they can find bigoted dogmatism either in the pulpit with Jimmy Swaggert, or else on PBS with old Carl Sagan reruns, or else in a thousand other places. It just depends on where they care to search for it. My own suspicion is that the court case in question will be a battle between two camps of narrow-minded people both of whom are in dire need of being thwacked soundly and repeatedly with herrings; but it is only a suspicion, not an opinion, because I genuinely haven't bothered to find out what it is that "intelligent design" is supposed to refer to. Nor am I likely to bother anytime soon -- I have no dog in that hunt. If I'm going to fight about public schools, I'm going to wage war at a much deeper level; and that's just not a fight I'm up for at the moment.

[Semanticleo]

I tried your link and found it behind a fire wall.

I have heard rumblings about this contemporary revisit to the Scopes Trial as it seems to be characterized.

I truly beleive it is a mistake, for those who believe in the Genesis account of man's creation, to oppose science by virtue of the law. This really springs from two sources.

One is the notion that such actions display a contradiction for the role of a believer, as a follower of Christ.

He did not oppose Roman law, though it conflicted with the law of Moses. He formed no activist group to establish civil rights for Jews. Undertook to influence no governors or kings or heads of state to better the condition of his people.

His was a spiritual world that had almost no relevence to the world men dominated.

Secondly, there is the fossil record. That is what is being debated with 'intelligent design' as the competing scientific paradigm. This is a mistake simply because there is no reason for a person of faith to find a scientific explanation for the world God has made. Natural curiosity would compel any of us to want to know what science is behind God's words; Let there be light! But is the scientific acumen to understand the mechanism behind a mystic manifestation of God essential to the belief. Not for a person of faith.

Thanks for asking

Semanticleo

[North by Northwest]

Semanticleo;

"It's seems to be a supposition based on logical assumtion, which probably is the only answer."

This prompted me to ask what your thoughts were on the Dover trial, or as Australian's 'The Age' put it: "Darwin's theory subjected to monkey trial"

RELIGION and science have clashed in a drab Pennsylvania court room over a test case that could decide how evolution is taught in America's state schools.

The civil trial, triggered last year by a classroom battle, marks the beginning of the first major legal assault on evolution science in 18 years. It also represents the first legal test of "intelligent design", the belief that life on Earth is too complex to be explained by random genetic mutation and therefore a guiding force must be involved.

In Monday's court hearings, supporters argued "intelligent design" does not stipulate what that guiding force might be, and is therefore not a religion.

Its opponents derided it as a mere repackaging of creationism, the religious dogma that God brought life into being in its present form a few thousand years ago.

[Semanticleo]

Alexandra/Kenny

Kenny's post appeared miraculously as I posted my own.

I think I understand the Church position on the issue
based upon your comments. It's seems to be a supposition based on logical assumtion, which probably is the only answer

[Semanticleo]

Alexandra;

Again, I ask, was the excrutiatingly painful death essential; or was death itself enough?

I understand the dramatic effect of a drawn-out and tortuous death which facilitated the glory of the resurrection. But was it necessary?

[Kenny Pierce]

Semanticleo,

I think most Christian soteriology would hold that Jesus had to "fulfill" (that is, carry out completely all the implications of) Scripture, including Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, etc. Also, I personally think there's another element. We live in a world where people are allowed to inflict unspeakably horrific torture upon each other. If God really intended to "play by His own rules" (Dorothy Sayers), then He couldn't very well cop out by taking a quick and painless road out. Several places in the New Testament talk of how Christ shared our suffering. He apparently had to drink humanity's cup to the dregs.

Of course, why His suffering was necessary is a matter of theological speculation. But that the suffering He went through was necessary can be deduced from the following data:

1. He died the moment He chose to. ("Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.")

2. He waited to die until He could say, "It is finished."

3. He desperately wanted to avoid the suffering and underwent it only because the Father's will was implacable on that point (the Garden of Gethsemane).

It must therefore have been the Father's will for Jesus to undergo all the suffering He underwent; and the moment the Father said, "Okay, that's enough," Jesus chose to die. But why exactly that much suffering -- no more and no less -- was necessary...forever a mystery, I presume.

[Alexandra]

You see, in the old Testament God both favors and punishes.

The core teaching of all Christianity, i.e. non-exclusive to the Catholic Church, is that through the suffering and subsequent death on the cross, Jesus Christ assumed responsibility for all mankind's sins, past, present and, most importantly, future eternal. In so doing, he redeems mankind; absolves all from guilt.

So, whilst God was merely testing Isaac's faith and obedience, and therefore able to let him off the hook in the final moment, Jesus Christ had to go through with it. Because, and this is key (!), the emphasis is not so much on how Jesus Christ suffered and died, but much more on his subsequent Resurrection!

Christianity believes, that Jesus Christ was quite literally demonstrating to all believers how each and everyone would be equally resurrected from the dead and join him in Paradise.

But as you'd rightfully suspect, there's no such thing as a free lunch. In order to qualify, one has to submit oneself to Jesus Christ; allow him to be one's Lord and Master. Serve him, obey his commandments and, most importantly, spread the word; the good news of a forgiving God - no sin too grave, if born again and from then on faithful to the end.

A quick and un-ceremonial death wouldn't have paved the way for a spectacular Resurrection. This is why Easter Sunday, during which Christianity celebrates Christ's Resurrection, is the most important date in the Christian calendar.

This is why the wonderful picture of the viscerally charged painting of the "Incredulity of St. Thomas" as well as the famous 'doubting Thomas' (a person who is skeptical and refuses to believe something without proof) takes centre stage in the Christian teaching: You have to believe. In fact, many go further and insist, that believing is not good enough. You have to know (an important distinction also all too familiar in the teachings of Judaism).

[Semanticleo]

Alexandra;

I'm sure it was a pain but to your visitors gain

The images have great resolution and therefore, have impact.

Although there is but apocryphal evidence of the manner of Peter's death, it would seem consistent with the violent deaths of most of the disciples as supported by scripture.

Let me ask you; (not being familiar with Catholic teaching) was is necessary that Christ's death be so excrutiatingly painful? Or would his death (as Abraham intended to sacrfice Isaac; quickly and as pain-free as possible) alone have been sufficient to satisfy the Divine requirement?

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

Wow. I don't know what to say. What a powerful "essay" those works of art are, in this context...wow.

What you do with graphic elements is just simply unbelievable.

Is there any way to adjust the format of your main page so that at least the Crucifixion of Peter shows up? I hate for people who don't expand the post to miss the impact...plus I think the initial impact of that visual makes casual visitors much more likely to expand the post.

I'm awed.

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

I think the single most insightful thing I've ever heard said about real fundamentalists (that is, hard-shell Southern Baptists, Church of Christ, etc. -- folks I grew up with and continue to love and in many ways admire) came from a former Episcopalian priest, now a convert to Orthodoxy.

We were sitting around talking one day when Rich observed, "The problem with Reformation Protestantism is that it reacted very strongly against the medieval Catholic heresy of salvation by right action and ritual, but it overreacted and replaced that heresy with its own heresy of salvation by right belief. So what I mean when I speak of a 'fundamentalist' is this: if a person has been raised to believe that he is going to get into heaven because he believes the right things about the Bible, and then you tell him some of his beliefs about the Bible are wrong, he subconsciously thinks you're telling him he's going to hell. And he reacts emotionally accordingly -- very defensively. But it is by grace that we are saved, not by good works -- and not by good beliefs, either. You believe there is one God? Good! So do the demons -- and they tremble. Medieval Catholicism emphasized the works so much that the common people on the cathedral kneelers lost their connection with grace; modern fundamentalism emphasizes the belief so much that the common people in the pew lose their connection with grace."

I grew up with fundamentalists and I love and admire them very much...but Rich was dead-on.

[North by Northwest]

Your approach is very promising in helping to reach common ground, providing of course there is a wish, or more to the point, ability to seek common ground.

And religion certainly fails to deliver when predominantly thought of as Therapeutic, but equally when over-rationalized; a trap Truth-oriented sometimes seem to be caught up in. The problem of adequately communicating is compounded by the in my experience dramatically varying degrees of 'awareness'. And attempting to characterize and/or quantify awareness is hopeless in the case of divergence and obsolete in the case convergence.

The evolutionary process of awareness-creation seems akin to most life cycles: from total dependancy at infant stage to extensive social interaction to wandering to establishment of authority and culminating in deliberate and knowing withdrawl.

At the end it is about each and everyones personal dialogue with God. In my opinion, Scripture is there to help us stay the course. It is a wonderful support tool, which however at times is in danger of being turned in itself into a golden calf. But for the cleric facing all ages in keeping with the life cycle analogy (or awareness levels), this is of course a most perilous proposition as the aforementioned cycle requires at varying degrees certainty and truth.

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

I'm going to have to dig out an old e-mail that a friend sent me back when I posted my initial musings on the subject...he said -- and I think quite rightly -- that religion at its best meets the needs of the Family-oriented, and the needs of the Truth-oriented, and the needs of the Therapy-oriented; and so that perhaps the various metaphors had originally been constructed around these core human needs. I think he's probably right. Furthermore, in one of the older posts I tried to explain that most people don't live in one exclusively...it's sort of like the Love Languages concept. Most of us have a dominant metaphor, but we also tend to have a secondary metaphor as well. There's a significant difference in flavor between a Family-oriented person whose strong secondary metaphor is Truth, and a Family-oriented person whose strong secondary metaphor is Therapy. And I'm sure there are a lot of people (probably including yourself) whose secondary metaphor is almost as strong as their primary, much as in the Meyers-Briggs scheme a person could be, say, an XNFP rather than an INFP or ENFP, because they fall smack in the middle of the spectrum between introverted and extroverted.

I mean the metaphor scheme mostly as a way to analyze communication patterns between people who are in conflict with each other over religion. It seems to work remarkably well, but I only came up with it a few months ago and can't point to lots of experience using it.

Insofar as which metaphor is "right" -- well, I think they're all useful, but that the Truth one is the most fundamental...and I think that simply because I think Jesus is the most reliable guide to what God actually wants (at the risk of begging the question in the very act of formulating it), and Jesus clearly and explicitly set the Truth orientation up as primary over both the Therapy orientation (those for whom their false religion was "working" are the "healthy" whom Jesus sarcastically pretends "need no doctor") and the Family orientation ("anyone who does not hate his father and mother is not worthy of me"). In making religion a purely Therapeutic activity, I think American liberal religion is guilty of putting second things first, and thus manages to lose both the first things and the second things. But the fact that a given perspective/metaphor should not be primary, doesn't mean that it isn't valuable or even (in its proper place) necessary.

[North by Northwest]

Kenny, This was a real treat to have read your post. During the past 3-4 years I have been struggling to get a handle on this very issue. Joining prayer-groups, morning or otherwise and similar gatherings never allowed this kind of 'dialogue' to develop. My many attempts were always side-stepped with the reiteration of quite obviously dogmatic answers - both from liberals and conservative. From the outset, the very issue was for both camps a non-starter and usually resulted in offers of support and help for the aimlessly wandering sheep. Thank you for this sound explanation.

Now that I have a firm understanding of the conflict however, I must confess, that I am curiously at ease with either camps 'reality'. I guess I won't enjoy the warm feeling that is usually accompanied by the certainty of 'belonging'.

[Kenny Pierce]

Drew, Alexandra,

Actually, the core disagreement between liberalism and conservativism is that liberalism feels that you go to religion for the same reason you go to a therapist, while conservativism feels that you approach religion the same way you approach science. That is, to a liberal what matters is whether your religion gives you the results you're looking for, while to a conservative what matters is whether the things your religion teaches are actually true. It's not a disagreement about facts, actually; it's a clash of metaphor. I won't fill up your comment section, Alexandra; I posted thoughts at Redneck Peril and linked from there to a couple of much deeper and fuller explanation of the concepts.

[Drew Barton]

The problem with the One True God issue is always that of Tolerance.

And I notice that the Panel of Experts over at OTGB are mostly Evangelicals. Now, although most haven't agreed on one definition for Evangelicals, Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in California -- and arguably the nation's most influential evangelical pastor -- says evangelicals are united by three characteristics: "They believe that the Bible is literally God's Word, (they believe) that Jesus Christ is God...and (they believe) that we have a responsibility to pass this good news on to other people."

So in that sense, how could you call it anything other than One True God Blog. That is the Evangelical's core belief. It would be disingenuous to say otherwise. Plus, and in keeping with Rick Warren's statement, that there is a responsibility to pass the good news on to other people, the One True God Blog is as close as one could get to fulfilling this responsibility. I congratulate Hugh Hewitt and the panel members for acting on their beliefs in this way.

[Alexandra]

In an update Hugh Hewitt tells us about an e-mail he had received from a reader who had forwarded her pastor's response to Hugh's search for a liberal theologian:

Hi J_,

Thanks for sending me this link. Interesting premise he [Hewitt] has for this Blog. The "One True God Blog" is a bit difficult though J_. It is in mainstream church conversation a bit of a "shock" phrase and for many of us -- and truly, many of my liberal friends would not consider me all that much of a liberal--- that phrase "One true God" is a code word for judgemental, exclusive, religion. Wars done in support of Jesus Christ-- the crusades for instance. Fighting about issues of religion and government -- which are interesting, but in a world where religion is used by oppressive regimes to bring forth their agendas, it's hard to want to engage with this type of image."

This is challenging. And full of potholes. A minefield in fact. Or is it? The important part is of course: "... in a world where religion is used by oppressive regimes to bring forth their agendas, it's hard to want to engage with this type of image..." So, the name 'One True God Blog' conjures up a vision of 'Oppression'? It places the new Blog firmly in the company of repressive regimes like the one governing Iran, does it? Come on!

What is wrong to proclaim one's belief in 'One True God', if in fact the mere name can be construed to be such a 'proclamation'? The only wrong, it seems to me, is to use force and/or oppression to 'convert' those who do not share any given regime's beliefs. So why then finish the e-mail to Hugh's reader with this URGENT WARNING:

".... I would urge you to look at a couple of "liberal" Blogs and see if they might be interested in engaging in this conversation."

Well, Hugh, I guess what the Pastor is saying to your reader is, that the jury is out; that the onus of proof is on you to show that the 'One True God Blog' (OTGB) is not a 'call to arms for the next Christian Crusade' and an invitation for using brute force to promote the 'evangelical agenda'. Furthermore, an encouragement to seek out 'liberal' Blogs for more qualified 'guidance' on this issue.... Really?

[North by Northwest]

Over at One Clear Call, I read 'The Mystery of Suffering', which is a wonderfully inspiring post by the way, and thought that the two comments posted there really brought home why blogs like OTGB (good idea Drew) can add so much to our daily lives:

[Drew Barton]

I've just read the panel at One True God Blog (OTGB). Impressive line up.

[Marie]

I don't usually comment, but a quick thank you to Alexandra for the inspiring link.

[North by Northwest]

"... theology matters. A lot."

Amen

"... from a layman that the layman thinks would be of interest to many more layman. [...] such questions and the answers they elicit are of great interest to the general public.

Thank you Alexandra for pointing this most promising Blog out to me. It is truly a subject close to my own heart. Especially as I am missing now since 7 years my every morning exchanges with two very special priests after morning prayer. Not long, maybe 10-15 minutes tops, but far reaching in scope and meaning. I have found that morning prayer combined with these quick exchanges seemed to brighten my vision for the rest of the day - and I mean literally my vision; colors seemed more intense, lights brighter and my step seemed just that much more light-footed. But, as all good things must come to an end, Father Christopher retired and Father William was assigned to a different Parish and eventually I moved too.

So, I wanted to share this with you, and let you know that I look forward to reading Hugh Hewitt's 'One True God Blog'.

[Alexandra]

With pleasure Semanticleo, those are the exchanges I very much look forward to.

As for your comment on my other post, your observation is quite astute and visionary. Life and views, should always remain open to profound examination and are by definition a work in progress. This is why I love the opportunity Hugh Hewitt gives with his new 'One True God Blog'. Members of my family have died for upholding that very belief in freedom of thought. I wasn't kidding when I said it before (LOL). Thanks for taking the time to pop by, and you are welcome back anytime for "a less volatile, and gender-free" exchange. You'll find things a little calmer here at All Things Beautiful! You can chill and be your true self.

[Semanticleo]

I must say your site is a visual feast to these old eyes. Doubt I would volunteer for another verbal joust, unless it was a less volatile, and gender-free subject