A denomination that believes in an unknown "higher power" (rather than the god of the old testament?

[raw83]

I can see an issue with Christianity today, and it doesn't seem like anyone is really paying much attention to it... it's about the beliefs of Christians on God. What I've found is that many weekly churchgoers say things like "We don't know what the nature of God is." or "God is love." or "God is mysterious and we can't understand him" or "All religions worship worship the same god and don't realize it", or in other words... many people that consider themselves devout and Christian don't even believe in the god of the old testament.

So has anyone thought about creating a progressive Christian denomination that says "There is a higher power, but we don't know what that higher power is."? So essentially... there's been almost no progressive theology... even the most politically liberal denominations say that you have to believe in the god of the old testament to be Christian (even though many devout Christians don't truly believe in that god). I think THIS is the problem with Christianity today, and if nothing changes then the U.S. may end up like the U.K. where almost none of the youth are religious. Someone might come back with "Well, there's the Unitarian Universalists!", but they don't have any concrete beliefs and are mostly made up of atheists/agnostics...

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

God is Holy, completely Holy, everything He does will be right. If that is not what is taught, you need a new church group.

To be in the Freemasons you must believe in higher power or Supreme being, google it.

 

[Albion]

I can see an issue with Christianity today, and it doesn't seem like anyone is really paying much attention to it... it's about the beliefs of Christians on God. What I've found is that many weekly churchgoers say things like "We don't know what the nature of God is." or "God is love." or "God is mysterious and we can't understand him" or "All religions worship worship the same god and don't realize it", or in other words... many people that consider themselves devout and Christian don't even believe in the god of the old testament.

It may be that you misunderstand the meaning behind those statements, all of which seem to me to be defensible from an Christian POV. Of course, people do fail sometimes to communicate complicated ideas entirely well, which is more a problem with language skills, not theology.

It is indeed the case that everything about God is not within our ability to know with our human capabilities, and that seems to me to be the gist of those statements. All this will be revealed after death. However, he has revealed important facts about his nature and those facts give us what is necessary to know now. There's nothing in that which amounts to throwing up one's hands and saying that "who knows?" to the matter of the existence of God and other facts about him, his will for us, etc.

So has anyone thought about creating a progressive Christian denomination that says "There is a higher power, but we don't know what that higher power is."? So essentially... there's been almost no progressive theology...Someone might come back with "Well, there's the Unitarian Universalists!", but they don't have any concrete beliefs and are mostly made up of atheists/agnostics...

I think it would be more correct to say that they don't have a single set of beliefs that are acceptable. But what you called "progressive Christianity" certainly predominates. Otherwise, no, there is no denomination that would insist upon the doctrine that "We don't know if there's a God or not." If there were such a religious society it certainly would not qualify as a "Christian" one.

 

[Albion]

God is Holy, completely Holy, everything He does will be right. If that is not what is taught, you need a new church group.

To be in the Freemasons you must believe in higher power or Supreme being, google it.

Whoa. To be a Mason, you must believe in ONE GOD and in the immortality of the soul.

The requirement is NOT that you believe that there must be something above this life but there's no way of knowing what that higher power is.

And Masonry isn't a church or a religion, anyway, which is what our friend is looking for.

 

[Silmarien]

So essentially... there's been almost no progressive theology... even the most politically liberal denominations say that you have to believe in the god of the old testament to be Christian (even though many devout Christians don't truly believe in that god).

There is a ton of progressive theology out there. I'm not really sure what it means to believe in the God of the Old Testament, though, since Christianity has historically treated the Old Testament like a concealed revelation and often taken a more symbolic or mystical approach to it. Some modern denominations will insist upon a literal reading of it, but the liberal ones certainly won't.

 

[1213]

...So has anyone thought about creating a progressive Christian denomination that says "There is a higher power, but we don't know what that higher power is."? ...

I wouldn’t call it Christian, because:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
John 10:27

I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."
John 18:37

We are of God. He who knows God listens to us. He who is not of God doesn't listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God, and knows God. He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:6-8

"If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

 

[Stagnate77]

So has anyone thought about creating a progressive Christian denomination that says "There is a higher power, but we don't know what that higher power is."?

There are people who call themselves "Christian" and don't believe in the Christian god? How does that work? Is that not agnosticism?

 

[Albion]

That's an important point you made there, Silmarien. The fact is that there are "progressives" within a number of mainline denominations. They just co-exist with more conventional Christians.

The Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ undeniably fall into that category. I should think that our friend ought to give them serious consideration.

 

[Ken Rank]

I can see an issue with Christianity today, and it doesn't seem like anyone is really paying much attention to it... it's about the beliefs of Christians on God. What I've found is that many weekly churchgoers say things like "We don't know what the nature of God is." or "God is love." or "God is mysterious and we can't understand him" or "All religions worship worship the same god and don't realize it", or in other words... many people that consider themselves devout and Christian don't even believe in the god of the old testament.

So has anyone thought about creating a progressive Christian denomination that says "There is a higher power, but we don't know what that higher power is."? So essentially... there's been almost no progressive theology... even the most politically liberal denominations say that you have to believe in the god of the old testament to be Christian (even though many devout Christians don't truly believe in that god). I think THIS is the problem with Christianity today, and if nothing changes then the U.S. may end up like the U.K. where almost none of the youth are religious. Someone might come back with "Well, there's the Unitarian Universalists!", but they don't have any concrete beliefs and are mostly made up of atheists/agnostics...

What we have is a changing god. The god of the OT is cruel, mean and angry... like an ogre. The God of the NT is love, peace and joy... and so this is how we reconcile the bible. The problem is... it's the same ONE God. And what we need to do is understand why He might have gotten angry or accept that if He doesn't change that He is still about Law and always was about Grace. Without bringing harmony to both sides of the book... we are free to recreate "God" in any image we want.

 

[inquiring mind]

God isn’t limited to the Old Testament time frame. The entire Bible, Old and New Testament, reveals His nature (a loving relationship between the Father, Son, Holy Spirit... and us). And, Jesus was as progressive as you can get. In fact, what God did in Jesus was radical change from what He had done in the past. Dedicate your time to studying His word and you’ll find the higher power.

 

[Stagnate77]

What we have is a changing god. The god of the OT is cruel, mean and angry... like an ogre. The God of the NT is love, peace and joy... and so this is how we reconcile the bible. The problem is... it's the same ONE God. And what we need to do is understand why He might have gotten angry or accept that if He doesn't change that He is still about Law and always was about Grace. Without bringing harmony to both sides of the book... we are free to recreate "God" in any image we want

Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstand what you are saying, but I thought the bible says that god is unchanging. I always thought that He was rough in the Old Testament partly because He needed to set an example for us. Tough love is still love. If we recreate the image of "god" any way we want, then doesn't that mean that some of us are believing a lie?

 

[raw83]

"God is real" sounds like a true statement. "Yahweh is real" sounds false.

Nowhere is the Bible does the word "God" appear, yet just about everyone uses it to refer to the Christian god (which like I described above... many people have an ambiguous view of).

If you want to see what I mean... try an experiment... ask someone around you these two questions...

Is God real? (they'll probably say yes assuming that person is a theist)

then...

Is Yahweh real? (and see what they do here)

Basically, what I'm getting at is that we're all mixed up how we view God (Well, you all might not be, but the general public is). Consider this... what if there is a higher power but it isn't the one whose actions are described in the old testament? If this is true, then "God is real" still stands as true since "God" has multiple definitions (pantheism, theism, deism, etc.) and could still be referring to this unknown "higher power".

By progressive theology, I don't mean politically progressive, but theologically progressive... i.e. that a higher power exists but we don't know for sure if it's the old testament god. Currently, no Christian denominations believe this. Even the most (politically) liberal denominations such as Episcopalians say that you MUST believe in the god of the old testament to be Christian.

 

[Albion]

By progressive theology, I don't mean politically progressive, but theologically progressive... i.e. that a higher power exists but we don't know for sure if it's the old testament god. Currently, no Christian denominations believe this. Even the most (politically) liberal denominations such as Episcopalians say that you MUST believe in the god of the old testament to be Christian.

Well, that latter part is not true.

There are statements of belief that the churches have produced, of course, but the church you just cited there has members whom I know personally who are avowedly and publicly pagans and Buddhists and such. The church doesn't seem to mind.

I know that there are quite a few who are not that but do describe themselves as adherents of 'Progressive Christianity,' by which they might not mean exactly what you're speaking of but do mean a movement associated with Bishop John Spong.

 

[Stagnate77]

"God is real" sounds like a true statement. "Yahweh is real" sounds false.

Nowhere is the Bible does the word "God" appear, yet just about everyone uses it to refer to the Christian god (which like I described above... many people have an ambiguous view of).

If you want to see what I mean... try an experiment... ask someone around you these two questions...

Is God real? (they'll probably say yes assuming that person is a theist)

then...

Is Yahweh real? (and see what they do here)

Basically, what I'm getting at is that we're all mixed up how we view God (Well, you all might not be, but the general public is). Consider this... what if there is a higher power but it isn't the one whose actions are described in the old testament? If this is true, then "God is real" still stands as true since "God" has multiple definitions (pantheism, theism, deism, etc.) and could still be referring to this unknown "higher power".

By progressive theology, I don't mean politically progressive, but theologically progressive... i.e. that a higher power exists but we don't know for sure if it's the old testament god. Currently, no Christian denominations believe this. Even the most (politically) liberal denominations such as Episcopalians say that you MUST believe in the god of the old testament to be Christian.

I guess you're right. Albeit, many people do believe in "Yahweh" they just don' know His name. I would imagine that if you believe in a higher power but aren't sure if it' the god of the old testament, then technically, you can't be a denomination of Christianity. Or maybe I just don't understand what you're saying. The word "god" doesn't appear in the bible at all, if it's not English.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

They tried your idea about 1900 years ago, it was called Gnosticism. The problem with it of course is that by saying there is a God greater than the Old Testament's you are denying the Old Testament and thus also denying the New so you cease to be a Christian.

 

[Silmarien]

By progressive theology, I don't mean politically progressive, but theologically progressive... i.e. that a higher power exists but we don't know for sure if it's the old testament god. Currently, no Christian denominations believe this. Even the most (politically) liberal denominations such as Episcopalians say that you MUST believe in the god of the old testament to be Christian.

I attend an Episcopal church. I haven't officially joined, but I'm unaware of any such requirement and we do interpret the Old Testament relatively liberally. It's very normal within Mainline Protestantism to view the Old Testament as somewhat clouded by cultural influences, so I'm not sure where the line would be drawn between believing and not believing in the God of the Old Testament.

Your comments make it look like you're questioning far more than just the Old Testament, since the New Testament is not exactly compatible with pantheism or deism either. There are theologians, particularly within Episcopalianism, like John Spong or Marcus Borg, who do question just about every aspect Christian theology, without being kicked out for it. If an entire denomination did this, however, they would by definition cease to be Christian--this is what happened with the Unitarians and Universalists.

 

[Ken Rank]

Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstand what you are saying, but I thought the bible says that god is unchanging. I always thought that He was rough in the Old Testament partly because He needed to set an example for us. Tough love is still love. If we recreate the image of "god" any way we want, then doesn't that mean that some of us are believing a lie?

I believe, and I could be wrong, that it is our perception that causes us to come away with that view. The Hebrew word for grace/mercy appears far more times in the OT than it does in the NT. But beyond that, I can show you examples of grace starting in the garden that we generally don't see as grace because we are taught to separate the books (OT/NT). And in doing so, we tend to separate the character attributes of a God that does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and forever and thus is just as much about law today as He was at Sinai... and just as much about grace in the life of Joseph (or Adam) as He is today through messiah toward us. It's just perception....

 

[FireDragon76]

You don't absolutely have to believe in the Old Testament as revealing the character of God, but you do have to believe that Jesus does reveal that character. There are certainly liberal Christians that take that tone. And it's not completely at odds with the approach my denomination takes. We are not focused primarily on the Old Testament, though I do think it is important to point out that we do see it revealing God's character, when properly understood: we understand it through the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.

But you can't be a Christian if you deny that Jesus doesn't have anything to do with God's character. We are not Unitarians, and it would be intellectually dishonest to confuse the two.

 

[Ken Rank]

You don't absolutely have to believe in the Old Testament as revealing the character of God, but you do have to believe that Jesus does reveal that character. There are certainly liberal Christians that take that tone. And it's not completely at odds with the approach my denomination makes. We are not focused primarily on the Old Testament, though I do think it is important to point out that we do see it revealing God's character, when properly understood: we understand it through the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.

But you can't be a Christian if you deny that Jesus doesn't have anything to do with God's character. We are not Unitarians, and it would be intellectually dishonest to confuse the two.

It is true that Yeshua was the walking embodiment of God's character and therefore... if we see Yeshua separate in character from how we perceive God to be in the OT... then the lens through which we read needs to be taken off and dusted or something. As for the OT itself, this is simple for me... more than 1/3rd of the NT is either a direct quote or an inference from the OT... one third. What is the NT if one removes 1/3rd from it? It would make no sense... we know that much.

Blessings.

 

[pilgrimage]

I believe, and I could be wrong, that it is our perception that causes us to come away with that view. The Hebrew word for grace/mercy appears far more times in the OT than it does in the NT. But beyond that, I can show you examples of grace starting in the garden that we generally don't see as grace because we are taught to separate the books (OT/NT). And in doing so, we tend to separate the character attributes of a God that does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and forever and thus is just as much about law today as He was at Sinai... and just as much about grace in the life of Joseph (or Adam) as He is today through messiah toward us. It's just perception....

Mercy and grace have similar meanings but they're not the same thing.
1 Timothy 1:2
To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Timothy 1:2
To Timothy, my dear son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hebrews 4:16
Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

2 John 1:3
Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, will be with us in truth and love.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is true that Yeshua was the walking embodiment of God's character and therefore... if we see Yeshua separate in character from how we perceive God to be in the OT... then the lens through which we read needs to be taken off and dusted or something. As for the OT itself, this is simple for me... more than 1/3rd of the NT is either a direct quote or an inference from the OT... one third. What is the NT if one removes 1/3rd from it? It would make no sense... we know that much.

Blessings.

I would not want the OT to be a stumbling block for this person, or any person, to hearing the Gospel, given their current level of understanding. The OT is much more difficult to understand in its cultural context. It's like the meat vs. milk metaphor in the pastoral epistles in the NT.

This really isn't about me wanting to resurrect Marcionism or anti-Semitic readings of the Bible but it's important for me as a Lutheran to keep the focus Christocentric. In the OT that requires a degree of allegorization and/or contextualization at times, which is a more sophisticated way of thinking about the Bible than many fundamentalist-style readings permit.

One thing I do appreciate is that our denomination's main publishing house creates little explanatory blurbs before the lectionary readings. This is especially helpful for Old Testament passages and especially prophetic texts.