Rather than posting an extremely long comment, I’ve decided another post would be better. You can reach my first post here, and Trevor’s article here.

I think it is important to note that I do not take issue with Trevor’s entire article. Indeed, there are many positive things about it that I think are excellent challenges regarding how some Christians can tend to get wrapped up in a legalistic pharisaical way of living. My guess is that Trevor and I firmly agree on this area—legalism is why “religion” (not God) can suck.

Though a good amount of Trev’s postulations connect positively with me, there are a few substantial specifics with which I take issue. I’ll post the lines/ideas that bother me and then comment after them so observers (of which there are apparently a lot) can better see possible core philosophical differences.

Many people follow the Way of Jesus their whole lives and don’t even know it. Being a Christian is doing so intentionally. The Way of Jesus, then, is not an exclusive path - negating other modes of life or religiosity. People in other religions and lifestyles very often follow this Way better than we Christians do.

This area of thought is extremely convoluted, and it is important too, for it speaks directly to how we handle evangelism in other cultures. How do we share with Muslims who are monotheistic and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Is their God the same God as our God? Why or why not? What about Hindus, whose religion and culture are inextricably intertwined? The reason Jainists and Buddhists are not Hindus is because their beliefs entail a departure from traditional Hindu culture (it’s not the actual doctrine that separates them—you can be a monotheist, an atheist, or a pantheist and still be a Hindu). What about Taoists whose entire philosophy has to do with love and submission? “Conquering with tranquility” is their maxim—through submission, through loving and allowing the something else to “win” one finds true victory. Of course this too, sounds very attractive to Christians; yet is it sufficient, dare we claim that the way of the Taoist (Tao actually means “the way”) is the way of Christ (though, albeit in ignorance) and really “all that matters?”

So I have laid out the complexity of the issue; my problem with Trevor’s paragraph cited above is that he seems to be claiming the Way may be followed in ignorance, and that really all that Christianity is, is a name—Jesus is the arbitrary symbol for an ontological “way” that may be just as easily referred to as “Moksha,” or “Tao,” or perhaps “Nirvana.” Just as Buddhism negates aspects of Hinduism, it is indelibly true that Christianity does, and at times must negate other forms of religiosity; and even if it does not negate, it will entail addition.

Let us move on to the other issues:

Seeing the God-Light in every human (and even non-human). (in the second bulleted point)

While it is true that humanity was created in the image of God, it is equally true that that image was shattered in the fall—the lamp of the “God-Light” is broken, and though it can be restored, it does not naturally burn bright—this is the miracle of Christ, a supernatural restoration to the beginning natural state; being brought to life. Of course, I do affirm that people have value, but this is not because they have the “God-Light.” There are a host of other valid reasons to affirm the value of humanity without claiming that everyone already has God’s light burning brightly in them; perhaps even the potential to have such a light would be enough.

Perhaps the ambiguous nature of Trev’s phraseology is responsible; for the idea of non-humans possessing a ubiquitous “God-Light” is confusing. There are different philosophers who have postulated regarding the “Soulishness” of all things; Spinoza argued that we are all specific modifications of one universal substance, which he calls God. If Trev is arguing in this direction (and it appears he is judging from later passages), there are strong ramifications in nearly every area of Christian doctrine.

Returning sight to the Blind -Helping people “wake up” and see the Kingdom of God that is already “spread out upon the earth although people don’t see it.”

Christian understanding of the Kingdom of God is something vitally important to the way we understand our mission and identity on earth. The Kingdom of God is at hand; it is here, but not yet. It is important to avoid two fallacies. If the Kingdom is fully “here in totality,” we become externally nihilist—for one look around suffices to show the oft times horrendous state of affairs the world is in. Does this mean that the Kingdom is merely an internal Kingdom? (it’s not, but of course that sort of theology leads to that conclusion). If the Kingdom is fully “not yet,” hope for real change in the world (and in self) disappears. The Kingdom is not “spread out upon the earth,” but it is “at hand.”

Led by the Spirit of God -This entails tuning into the Spirit of God that is present in every human being and in Creation (consider a suggestion that the Holy Spirit may not have been sent on Pentecost, rather recognized on Pentecost). This Spirit is endowed with Wisdom and always suggests “the highest good.”

This thinking is perhaps the most blatantly antagonistic part of the entire essay. I’ve already commented on it strongly at the conclusion of my opening post. Perhaps this would be a good place to expound upon some of the ramifications that this philosophy entails. If the Spirit of God is present in every human being in a sort of Universal way, it is quite likely that following “the way” doesn’t even matter. Grace becomes extended universally to everything without any need for acceptance. Belief and action become meaningless, for “he can not deny himself.” Of course, the idea of a universally present Spirit “endowed with wisdom” that always suggests “the highest good” is evidently false (hence the need to bring compassion and healing to a broken and selfish world).

In conclusion, it appears as if Trevor’s philosophy is built upon the shaky foundation of Universalism, and as such, must be rejected. Those who are familiar with Derrida might easily picture his “web of meaning” (which he says has no center [God]) as the God that Trev seems to be describing. God is not the pervasive web, he is the ontological word through which meaning is found and decoded. He is truth; and he is not Universal.