the highest source (well second ;)

If the previous blog were to be accepted as profound, it would need to be opened up to academics and philosophers alike. I sent this to the most authoritative source I know—John Shelby Spong, and received this reply:

Dear Mark:
Thanks for your letter. Your argument is as good as any. It is not new. It responds to the question why is there something and not nothing.
In the last analysis whether there is God or not doesn't really matter. The real question is: does this God relate to me?
My best,
John S. Spong

The latter part of this reply alludes to what Bonhoeffer recognised (where so many religious people fail to) that anything we say about God is subjective. We cannot capture and fully embrace God. Our words point to and our images interact with God, but our words and our images are products of our world and our cultural realities. They are not objective and they will not endure forever. So therefore we must ask ourselves ‘who is God for us today?’ and ‘how does this God relate to me personally’. The former part of his reply however adds a certain amount of validity to my statement and subsequently gives further strength to my conviction.

So even though I believe all religion to be ultimately man-made, I treat God as axiom and Jesus as simply one of the many doorways to that God—like a candle inside a multicoloured lantern, everyone looks through a particular colour, but the candle is always there. Ultimately, we must learn that in respect to the different religions out there, it is not by which road we travel, but how we conduct ourselves on the road we choose to take that is crucial. To suggest otherwise is to continue to play outdated religious games.

My mind is my own church  - Thomas Paine