[fatherman]

That was beautiful, Jack.

[soma]

I sing that camp song as a chant

We are one in the spirit we are one in the Lord
again but higher
and they'll know we're God's children by our love by our love
and they'll know we're God's children by our love

Chant starts again

[McKenna]

fatherman, on Feb 9 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

I'm not trying to pick on you, Jim, but I'm going to use your label for a second.



I don't know what's in your heart, but I know what's in my heart when I say something like this: Fear. Fear of being perceived as something that I am not. This is not a statement of faith. It is, in fact, the opposite.

We either need to abandon Christianity or claim it. If we claim it, we have an opportunity to witness an authentic Christianity (loving, compassionate, peaceful, giving, inclusive). It is more powerful to be FOR something than to be AGAINST something.

What are we for? If our faith is simply based on what we're against, then aren't we letting other people define our faith?

You make a very good point. I can definitely see Jim's point of view on this and I am guilty of the same idea. Despite my recent attraction to Christianity I've been afraid to label myself as such, less because of the supposed political implications than the spiritual ones. I do not want people thinking I believe something I don't, because I don't accept a lot of "traditional" Christianity.

Yet at the same time, you're right; we have a choice between abandoning Christianity or claiming it. Kind of similar to the idea presented by the title of Spong's (I think?) book, Christianity Must Change or Die, or something along those lines.

How do we claim Christianity, though? How does one go about doing this? Especially when the fundamentalist voices are so much louder...

[Jim R]

When we speak we want to adequately communicate the desired message. In my rural community stating that I am a Christian means I am a right wing, pro-life Republican, who hates everybody that doesn't share my political point of view, that I judge and condemn everyone that doesn't share the specific tenets of my faith,and that I don't want science taught in the school, etc. That is not who I am and that is not the message I want to communicate. Language at that point has failed.

(Conversly when I am on this site or other progressive Christian sites, like "Crossleft", where I post frequently, I can say "I am a Chrisitan" and the message I wish to communicate is understood. )

If and when the subject comes up I want to communicate that I have a different view of spirituality and I am a Christian who does not share those above mentioned attributes.The statements "I am a follower of Christ" or "I am a progressive non-traditional Christian" more closely relays the message I want to convey for the population as a whole.

If Jack or anyone else wants to stick soley to "I am a Christian" and let me people figure it out from there thats fine. If they feel they are reclaiming Christianity in some way, have at it.

As I mentioned in a previous post, saying "I am a Christian" ends a conversation at a time when I don't want to end the conversation. I want to spark the conversation, like Jesus Christ himself I want to call people to a path of personal transformation and change.If the conversation is over as soon as I say "I am a Christian" thats not what I want to do.

I hope the day comes when saying "I am a Christian" means I love God, I love my neighbor, I forgive seven times seventy, I walk the path of peace, I leaving the judging to God, etc. At his point it time it doesn't mean that in my community or in our society at large. Reality is that Christians with those attributes often don't speak up . We need to speak up and I agree with Jack and the idea that we need to reclaim Christianity. If there is no conversation, then there is no change, if there is no change, then we don't reclaim Chrisitianity.

[Jim R]

I am going to tell a story to illustrate a point as someone I admire did about 2.000 years ago.

About 10 or so years ago I supervised a Social Work program. At that time I was not only the supervisor but the only man working out of that office. The other Social Workers and Nurses were female. Two young female Social Workers came in from home visits on a hot summer day and I said "Wow, you two look really hot"! They both giggled nervously and seemed embarrased. I thought this was a strange reaction to so benign a comment.

Before the end of the day the word was out that I was a no good sexist pig and was making sexually inappropriate comments to women. I wanted to get to the bottom of it really quick before trouble started.As a career civil servant for many different agencies I had pretty much mastered the art of not saying or doing anything that might be construed as sexist or racist. I had gotten to the point I didn't even compliment anyone on a nice dress or new hair style.

As you might have figured out, it was about the "hot" comment. "Hot" meaning sexy, was just begining to emerge about then as slang for sexy. (At least in my rural area, probably before that in Cal and other cool places.) I didn't have a clue that "hot" meant sexy.

When I made that comment I literally meant that they looked "hot" as a result of the warm summer day. I was 100% percent correct in my usage of the language and had committed no wrong. However, because of the young female Social Workers perception of the language I had not commmunicated the message I wished. I was even looking at possible trouble. After some explanantion and a CONVERSATION, they realized that I was really not a very with it guy,or tuned in to the latest slang venacular. So for the future, they now knew what I meant when I said "Wow, you look hot".

How does this relate to the conversation here? Until the public is educated that "Christian" means comapssionate, tolerant, non-judgemental, loving, peacerul, etc and not the opposite, we are going to have to have a CONVERSATION to make ourselves understood.

[MOW]

One of the things that makes it difficult for Progressive Christians to be heard, is that the media seems more comfortable with Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity . I'll give an example.

Several years ago there was a show on PBS called "Affluenza". The program dealt with the issue of consumerism and materialism in our culture. During the show, there were many interviews with different people giving their views on this subject. They even interviewed Kalle Lasn of Adbusters magazine. However when the show wanted to show a "Christian " perspective on this subject they interviewed somebody from James Dobson's "Focus on the Family " group.

I did see Bishop Shelby Spong on the Tavis Smiley show one night . It was ,however, on at 11:30 at night on PBS.


MOW

This post has been edited by MOW: 25 March 2007 - 09:39 PM

[Cynthia]

MOW - Agreed! I'd like to see Wallis, McLaren, Borg or others on talk shows... but they don't see commercials. They, being Christian in the sense Jim hopes for, would be gentle and non-inflamatory in their comments.

Jim - I live in a mid-size metro area, but experience the same definitions. There are progressives here, but they tend to be quiet in the face of overwhelming scorn from the more conservative folks. The sad part is that many conservatives who have abstract thought (or whose children do) experience severe crises of faith and doubt linked to literal interpretation. They seem to be unaware that alternatives for thinking people exist.... with Jesus.

I think this is beginning to change. People seem to be more open to emerging theology. May God hear our prayers.

[MOW]

Hi Cynthia.
I was quite suprised to see Bishop Spong on the Tavis Smiley show. I was just flipping channels when I saw him.
In one of his books, Spong , relates how a fundamentalist woman had contacted him. She told him she was praying that he die in a plane crash. He wondered if he should alert future pilots .
It's amazing the woman gave no thought to the pilots,stewardesses, passengers etc who would have been effected by her prayer.


MOW

[mystictrek]

Jim R, on Mar 24 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

When we speak we want to adequately communicate the desired message. In my rural community stating that I am a Christian means I am a right wing, pro-life Republican, who hates everybody that doesn't share my political point of view, that I judge and condemn everyone that doesn't share the specific tenets of my faith,and that I don't want science taught in the school, etc. That is not who I am and that is not the message I want to communicate. Language at that point has failed.

This is worthy of memorization and constant use in many conversations. As a substitute for your "in my rural community," I will simply say "In many places today."

Thank you for these thoughts.

[October's Autumn]

Jim R, on Feb 13 2007, 03:17 PM, said:

Actually, the quote that Fatherman started this thread with, "I'm a follower of Christ, but I am not sure if that is compatible with being a Christian"is pretty clever and says the same thing as my " I am a progressive non-tradtional Chrisitan" in a less intellectual sounding way.

Well said. I was just going to agree but I think your further explanation of it is a way of saying "I am..." is more complete!

[McKenna]

MOW, on Mar 25 2007, 10:36 PM, said:

One of the things that makes it difficult for Progressive Christians to be heard, is that the media seems more comfortable with Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity . I'll give an example.

Several years ago there was a show on PBS called "Affluenza". The program dealt with the issue of consumerism and materialism in our culture. During the show, there were many interviews with different people giving their views on this subject. They even interviewed Kalle Lasn of Adbusters magazine. However when the show wanted to show a "Christian " perspective on this subject they interviewed somebody from James Dobson's "Focus on the Family " group.

I did see Bishop Shelby Spong on the Tavis Smiley show one night . It was ,however, on at 11:30 at night on PBS.
MOW

I've heard statistics about how often liberal vs. conservative Christianity is represented in the media. I seem to remember it being something like 3x more often for conservatives (although I'm really not sure - I can't find the exact statistic anywhere). Whatever the number was, I was actually surprised by how low it was - it seems to me that practically anytime I hear Christianity discussed in the media, or the "Christian perspective" is given, it's the conservatives. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell - these are the names that seem to show up the most.

The problem is that liberal and progressive Christians don't seem to be as organized or have major organizations (unlike the Religious Right, with the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, etc.), and therefore don't really have specific leaders. Maybe that's incorrect, but it's the impression I've gotten. Why do we seem to be so disorganized?

[DHatcherE]

Jack Twist, on Feb 13 2007, 07:45 PM, said:

I am a Christian and take total identification with that. The term Christianity is fine by me.
I am also a citizen of the US and thus an American by common usage. I certainly do not embrace everything that the US has done or is doing or everything that is connected to being an American but I am what I am.

That goes with any identification I have.

I am a father, a grandfather, a pastor, a male, a Chicago White Sox fan. Doesn't mean I approve of everything anyone who wears those names has done, or that I approved of throwing the 1919 World Series.

I see myself as part of the other which to me is a whole lot more comfortable than trying to define myself against others, i.e. " I am a Christian but not like them."

VERY nicely put Mr. Twist!

[DHatcherE]

McKenna, on Aug 22 2007, 09:33 PM, said:

The problem is that liberal and progressive Christians don't seem to be as organized or have major organizations (unlike the Religious Right, with the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, etc.), and therefore don't really have specific leaders. Maybe that's incorrect, but it's the impression I've gotten. Why do we seem to be so disorganized?

Very true, due in large part to the wide array of convictions and our lack of ability to "put on a happy face" and go along with the crowd. We have journeyed, questioned, denied and are comfortable with that BUT as a result we are VERY hard to organize into a solid group.

We lack "unit cohesiveness" (thank you, thank you - military term there).

[McKenna]

DHatcherE, on Aug 23 2007, 09:27 AM, said:

Very true, due in large part to the wide array of convictions and our lack of ability to "put on a happy face" and go along with the crowd. We have journeyed, questioned, denied and are comfortable with that BUT as a result we are VERY hard to organize into a solid group.

We lack "unit cohesiveness" (thank you, thank you - military term there).

That's a good point. It's a lot easier to organize people who already share a lot of beliefs.

But I think we do, at a certain point, need to learn how to organize on common ground. I think progressive/liberal Christians DO have a lot of common ground with each other - for example, I'd say most all of us would say that poverty is a major moral issue. If they can build organizations around "their" "moral" issues, why do we have so much trouble doing the same?

[Ted Michael Morgan]

"When people ask me if I'm a Christian, I say "I'm a follower of Christ, and I'm not sure if that's compatible with Christianity."

A few years ago, I got to share lunch with Professor Scott along with several other people. I very much liked him. I think that I understand his quotation. It makes sense to me.

Attached File(s)

•  1_MoMA_2001_A_15.jpg (122.2K)
  Number of downloads: 5

[Russ]

Being a 'Christian' is a self-chosen identifier that, unfortunately, has become associated with behavior, values, and attitudes that are completely alien to the Teachings of Jesus. The most visible and vocal have access to the media and self-declared Christians who use Christianity as a weapon and cover have had their fair share of coverage. What isn't covered are the various 'Christianities'. There is no single 'Christianity', but instead a spectrum. When a maniac gunman killed schoolchildren in Nickel Mine, PA, we got to see Christianity in action via the Amish community. The Amish forgave the killer, embraced the man's family, and immediately turned to their Faith for healing and guidance. Mother Theresa was a Christian, for example. That needs to be starkly contrasted with other groups that use the Faith as a cover for their anti-social, anti-human, and archaic politics. Quakers have a saying...'Let your life speak'. By letting our lives and actions, what we do rather than what we say, speak for us, our Guiding will become recognizable. We do not have to wear a sign around our necks to announce our Christianity....our lives and actions will do that for us.

[jerryb]

fatherman, on Feb 9 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

Of course, there is always just saying "I'm a Christian" and then living out as Christly a life as one can live. The witness might change people's notions about what a Christian might be.

I'm not trying to pick on you, Jim, but I'm going to use your label for a second.



I don't know what's in your heart, but I know what's in my heart when I say something like this: Fear. Fear of being perceived as something that I am not. This is not a statement of faith. It is, in fact, the opposite.

We either need to abandon Christianity or claim it. If we claim it, we have an opportunity to witness an authentic Christianity (loving, compassionate, peaceful, giving, inclusive). It is more powerful to be FOR something than to be AGAINST something.

What are we for? If our faith is simply based on what we're against, then aren't we letting other people define our faith?

[Russ]

This is an important discussion because it reduces the idea of Christianity to basic definitions depending upon one's own understanding. If one defines being a Christian as 'believing in Jesus', what does that mean? Believing what in Jesus? A key definition for for conservative/evangelical Christians is that a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Saviour. Perhaps being a Christian is in believing in the 'risen Christ' as Lord and Saviour as a Methodist friend and pastor would announce from the pulpit. Or perhaps being a Christian means believing that Jesus is the son of God, one part of the Holy Trinity, whom God gave to us to die for our sins. Personally, I find these definitions to be second-hand reasons for believing in something that has not been personally experienced by the believer. This allows people to declare themselves to be Christians and then go about their lives unchanged. Worshiping Jesus Christ does nothing more than turn Jesus into an object. This tends to put God in a second-class position when the focus of faith is put on Jesus using the Trinity as the entity that makes it okay. Jesus is also God so when we worship Jesus, we're also worshiping God, right? So, being a Christian has everything to do with acceptance and belief of second-hand information, but nothing to do with personal transformation, searching, wrestling with our own selves, etc. This shifts completely when we view Jesus as a teacher, mystic, a Citizen in the Kingdom of God, and an example of how we should be and live as Children of God. Jesus no longer becomes an object of worship, but becomes a Guide for our own lives. William Penn, the foundational American Quaker, once said that living like Christ is to be a Christian. Anyone can believe, but not everyone can follow The Way. That is the challenge of Jesus and the definition of Christianity.

[mystictrek]

I am glad this string has been resurrected because I believe this question is critical.

I am 60 years old, baptized a Presbyterian in 1947 and ordained a Presbyterian Minister in 1975. It has been heartbreaking to see Christianity become a dirty word but I would have to say that I now consider it a dirty word! When I hear the word "Christian", I immediately have a negative image of the one who uses the word and the popular movement now described by that word.

This string is motivating me to be more bold in asking people what they mean when they say "Christian".

[davidk]

Jim R, on Mar 24 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

In my rural community stating that I am a Christian means I am a right wing, pro-life Republican, who hates everybody that doesn't share my political point of view, that I judge and condemn everyone that doesn't share the specific tenets of my faith,and that I don't want science taught in the school, etc.

Wow, your community thinks if you are a Christian, you are right-wing, hateful, judgmental, condemning and anti-intellectual. With that perspective, they sound very progressive and liberal. (I don't believe that is what you intended for it to say.)

I suppose the simplest question to best define a Christian in Christianity is: Did Christ come as a man (in the flesh)? One's Christianity is determined by one's answer to this question alone. 'Yes' or 'No'. No explanation is needed.

We could argue the fine points to no avail. This gives a universal answer from which to discuss the details.