[October's Autumn]

Quote

Autumn-
PLAYING dumb?

Yes, when you act like you don't know what someone is talking about... you aren't stupid...

Quote

I do have a question here, when you said;"We do, after all, create God in our own image." I can't tell whether it was facetious or not. I hope it is.

No, your understanding of who God is comes directly from who you are, you've created God in your own image. You have a need for retaliation therefore your god has a need for retaliation. You need to be favored therefore your god favors you.


I've ignored the rest of your non-response because it is pointless to continue discussing any of it.

[davidk]

"PLAYING dumb?"It's hard to relay a question like that properly in type. Basically, I was saying; I am already dumb, I don't need to pretend.

October, on Mar 12 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

I've ignored the rest of your non-response because it is pointless to continue discussing any of it.

How do you discuss a 'non-response'?

October, on Mar 12 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

...your understanding of who God is comes directly from who you are, you've created God in your own image. You have a need for retaliation therefore your god has a need for retaliation. You need to be favored therefore your god favors you.

My understanding of who God is comes directly from who He said He was. I believe we are who God said we are, created in His image. God has no need for retaliation therefore I have no need for retaliation. God favors those who seek to be favored by Him.

God will not find favor in those not willing to seek His favor by being obedient to His Word. The nations who seek to destroy Israel are not seeking favor from God. They ignore God and will not be favored. They carry the burden of the innocent victims.

McKenna, on Mar 11 2008, 01:22 AM, said:

...while non-Christians are not favored because they "reject the keys" by being "disobedient" and therefore go to Hell.

God offers His favor to us. If we believe in Jesus Christ, the name of God's only begotten Son, we are not judged. Those who don't believe are judged already, because they did not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jesus said He is the light and the truth, but some men have loved the darkness rather than love the light. Because they don't love the Son of God their deeds are evil. So, those that practice the truth (Jesus is the Son of God)) come to the light. Those that don't, won't.
At the risk of being rude, I'll repeat the following:
God is soveriegn and He has given man free will. He has the authority to offer us this gift of eternal Grace (favor) and we have the authority to either accept His gift, or reject it. He gives us the choice, explains it, demonstrates it, promises the results, we decide. It is the consequence of our decision on His gift that will determine our reward.

[Wayseer]

Because they don't love the Son of God their deeds are evil. So, those that practice the truth (Jesus is the Son of God)) come to the light. Those that don't, won't.

I not only find this post offensive, divisive and arrogant, it is also a grand display of ignorance - it demostrates that the author fails to understand that GOD, of which he presumes to know so much, is not contained by his intellectualisations.

It is sad that those who make such uninformed claims about GOD display such a poverty knowledge that says more about them than it does about GOD.

[October's Autumn]

davidk, on Mar 13 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

"PLAYING dumb?"It's hard to relay a question like that properly in type. Basically, I was saying; I am already dumb, I don't need to pretend.

You are hardly dumb.

Quote

My understanding of who God is comes directly from who He said He was. ... God has no need for retaliation therefore I have no need for retaliation.

Really? People who claim to hear the voice of God are generally thought to be "crazy" and end up being treated. What is hell, in your understanding, but retaliation for not believing in God/Jesus? You may not use those words but by how you describe why someone is going to hell it is nothing but a playground "if you don't like me, I don't like you" mentality. Or worse "You don't like me, so you are going to miserable for eternity"

BTW, just because you can define "eternity" doesn't mean you actually comprehend it! Comprehension goes to a completely different level.

PS thank you for using quotes.

[Cynthia]

Wayseer, on Mar 13 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

Because they don't love the Son of God their deeds are evil. So, those that practice the truth (Jesus is the Son of God)) come to the light. Those that don't, won't.

I not only find this post offensive, divisive and arrogant, it is also a grand display of ignorance - it demostrates that the author fails to understand that GOD, of which he presumes to know so much, is not contained by his intellectualisations.

It is sad that those who make such uninformed claims about GOD display such a poverty knowledge that says more about them than it does about GOD.

Good point Wayseer. I agree and am reminded of the Buddhist saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". That's the fun of spiritual intellectual pursuit - just when you think you've got it all nailed down, you know beyond a doubt that you are wrong!

[David]

Wayseer, on Mar 13 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

Because they don't love the Son of God their deeds are evil. So, those that practice the truth (Jesus is the Son of God)) come to the light. Those that don't, won't.

I not only find this post offensive, divisive and arrogant, it is also a grand display of ignorance - it demostrates that the author fails to understand that GOD, of which he presumes to know so much, is not contained by his intellectualisations.

It is sad that those who make such uninformed claims about GOD display such a poverty knowledge that says more about them than it does about GOD.

Wayseer,

You have posted the following elsewhere:

“There is a danger in any new movement of repeating the mistakes of the past - more often through association rather than by design. It would be disappointing should PC follow the traditional Church and develop, for whatever reason, a doctrine or dogmatics by whatever name. I do not see PC as exclusive - therefore no boundaries - that is - none, zip, zero. Scary? - well Jesus set no boundaries to his Love - that's should be our example.”

I would like to ask you to relate this comment to how the Center for Progressive Christianity should respond to the Church of DavidK. DavidK does represent quite a number of people and provides us with a live symbol for that group. I am interested in the topic of inclusion/exclusion because of my interest in ecclesiology and because I think that the topic of inclusion/exclusion is a most difficult topic for progressives.

DavidK does not “scare” me. But DavidK does present a challenge to the Center for Progressive Christianity as to how to relate “boundaries” to the Church of DavidK. So I would like to ask you to relate your “no boundaries” approach to several levels of The Center for Progressive Christianity.

The Center for Progressive Christianity operates on several levels. Obviously there is this level, the Message Board. This Board can operate successfully with few or no boundaries. As I watch the activity on the Board it seems like the only boundary that has been agreed upon is that when someone is “disrespectful” they do not receive a response or they receive a negative response with a strong request to change their behavior. I would consider that “boundary keeping”. Would you like to eliminate that boundary?

On another level TCPC operates the internet site. There are several parts to that operation each coming with some “boundaries”. One part of the operation is the maintaining of a list of church affiliates. Here is the “boundary” related to affiliates:

“By affiliating or renewing your affiliation with TCPC and listing your group in the directory, your organization agrees to extend a particular form of welcome to those who seek to be a part of it. This form of welcome is outlined in TCPC's 8 Points - TCPC's working "definition" of Progressive Christianity. This doesn't mean, of course, that you all must agree with every detail of the wording, but just that you and your community can affirm the underlying principles. You are even free to reword them in a way that makes sense for your group. But, before affiliating or reaffiliating, we ask that you talk over the Points with people in your organization, especially those with decision-making authority.”

Would you eliminate this “boundary making” and invite all the Churches of DavidK to become affiliates?

TCPC has a mission statement and has the 8 Points which I will not repeat here. Would you eliminate the boundaries created by the mission statement and the 8 points and have a mission statement that would state that the TCPC has “no boundaries”?

The TCPC is providing content for us to read about Progressive Christianity. Obviously there are boundaries to that content. We don’t have much from the Church of DavidK in that content. Would you want to change this?

The TCPC has leadership. Would you open that leadership to DavidK so there are few or no boundaries to that leadership?

I note that your response to DavidK and by implication the Church of DavidK, relies upon lifting up what you see as “offensive, divisive and arrogant” and noting “that the author fails to understand that GOD, of which he presumes to know so much, is not contained by his intellectualizations”. I see this as an attempt to create a boundary around what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in your mind. I have noted your comments about the lack of reality supporting the individualness of existence. Yet without social boundaries we are left with this kind of individual boundary making based upon what we understand to be God (in your terms doctrine or dogma). “Doing Church” is all about social boundaries based upon understanding or "failing to understand GOD". How do you want to “do Church” and how do you want the Center for Progressive Christianity to help you do this? Without social boundaries related to understanding or "failing to understand GOD" can we have any social groups and would we not be left with just this Message Board in your “boundary less” world?

By the way I do not agree that Jesus did not get involved in social boundaries or that Jesus did not have a theology that guided his view of justice which is all about the creation of and maintaining of social boundaries. The kingdom of Caesar was based upon different social boundaries than the Kingdom Jesus saw but the Kingdom that Jesus saw had justice related consequences. For one, I would suggest that the Great White Buffalo has yet to see “the light” when he only will recognize a marriage between a man and a woman. Same sex marriage does not mean “love without boundaries”. It is still based upon social boundaries with obviously what I think to be a more correct “doctrine” or “dogma” in your terms. Does the Center for Progressive Christianity have a role here in creating “good doctrine”?

And, finally, to get back on topic, the whole Middle East question that this discussion started with is about boundary making. Should not our religious vision have something to say about this kind of boundary making? Can we not say that the vision that sees the pain and problems of both sides is a better vision than the vision of DavidK and should we not therefore attempt to create a boundary around the Church of DavidK so that he does not do more harm than has already been done?
Can the Center for Progressive Christianity help do this?

This post has been edited by David: 14 March 2008 - 11:21 AM

[Wayseer]

David - why bring this topic us here? I posted to another thread which has nothing to do with here but was addressed to the administrators. I would have imaged if you have some difficulty with any perceived ambiguities you would have raised such in the initial thread.

But as you have raised the matter here I will endeavour to address you concerns.

The most deliberting effect of taking posts out of context is that readers are not aware of the initial context. What I was talking about is the aspect of dogma and doctrine - not what one call 'acceptable behaviour'.

David's inference in this post here is that I am advocating that there should be no boundaries to human behaviour. I have not indicated as such nor would I wish as much. What you are suggesting David is that I am advocating that child abuse should not be resisted, that murder and rape be turned a blind eye, that graft and corruption become acceptable means of accumulating wealth. Which is all but a delberate misreading of that particular post.

But let me cut to the chase.

.... without social boundaries we are left with this kind of individual boundary making based upon what we understand to be God ...

So what's the problem? Either one is progessive or one is traditional - one is moving forward or locked into the past. The institutionalised Church has been locked into the doctrine and dogma of the past. The result is a series of out of date creeds and laws that have no reality in the 21st Century. What you are in fact asking me to do is to suspend my rational mind, to lock up logic and suspend my intelligence. As one of the delegates to the recent climate change conference in Bali said to the US - If you don't want to be part of the answer get out of the way and let those who are concerned proceed - or words to that effect. If the Church won't move, individuals will. The Church, whether liberal, traditional or progressive will be bypassed.

Whether you accept the church of DavidK or not is your call. Personally I feel some empathy for him and his position - I was once there myself. Fortunately I chose to grow up. David K can do the same - that's his call.

Without social boundaries related to understanding or "failing to understand GOD" can we have any social groups and would we not be left with just this Message Board in your “boundary less” world?

What a great idea.

Where we are going now is uncharted territory - the Church has not had the courage - individuals have. The result will enevitably lead towards the tendency to form some tribal affiliations as in the past but I think this time it might be different. What will we do will all those empty churces? They can't all be turned into museums!

I can disagree with David K - he can disagree with me - we don't have to play at some 'love-in' which is nothing but hyprocricy anyway. David K has points to make, as do others, but when such points are repetitive acts of past abuses committed by the Church I have to hold up my hand. Whether anyone takes any notice is another matter.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 14 March 2008 - 07:48 PM

[David]

I’m sorry if you do not see the relationship between your “no boundary” posting and this thread.

You seem to have only one vision of the Church. That vision seems to be based upon a Church which requires that you check your mind at the door, come in and repeat the Nicene Creed and then try to somehow apply that to what really matters. You seem to say that it is not possible to have a Progressive Christian Church.

I would disagree. I would encourage you to do some research. For one example check out Christ Community Church in Spring Lake Michigan. They have a wonderful internet site. Please visit it. I do not think they will be “bypassed” by individuals even as progressive as you are. I think they will have more impact upon the world than you as an individual will have. They have a "dogma" and a "doctrine" that is inclusive but also would exclude the likes of DavidK.

It is just not "my call" as to whether to accept or reject the Church of DavidK. DavidK is a symbol of a serious social movement that affects among other things the Middle East conflict. It is "your call" whether to respond only as an individual on a message board or attempt to respond to a social movement with another social movement. I would hope that we all will be able to eventually find places like the Christ Community Church and I would reject that it is a "great idea" to be just left with this message board in a "boundry less" world.

[Wayseer]

David - I'm nor sure where you are going in this. However, I will try to respond in a constructive way.

It would seem you know something of the church according to Davidk of which I am ignorant. DavidK is a symbol of a serious social movement that affects among other things the Middle East conflict. Perhaps you might share that knowledge. As far as I am concerned I take what Davidk, you or anyone else on this board may say on face value and endeavour to repond in an honest a manner as I am able.

I googled the site you recommended and the first hit was, interestingly, Christ Community Church is Brisbane, Australia - about 350 kilometers from where I live. This is the Church's philosophy -

We Believe...

that the Bible is the written Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is our infallible and divine authority in all matters of faith and life.

Well .... I think you see what I mean about being fettered by ignorance, if not lies.

However, I narrowed the search and came up with the site - one which I already have in my bookmarks as it so happens. Notice the difference in philosophy -

We live together in awe of Life, connected by a sense of mystery that many call God.

Inclusive grace moves us to embrace all with unconditional love and gracious acceptance, celebrating ethnicity, gender, age and sexual orientation.

Christ Community is a diverse, creative community in background, in faith perspective, in public expression; a blending of all the great spiritual traditions.

Christ Community finds a window to God in the face of Jesus and also in the quest and insight of other faiths; seeking dialogue and mutual enrichment in our pluralistic world.

We strive for greater justice and peace in the world inspired by Jesus and social activists through the centuries who challenged the status quo,

We seek to be the change we wish to see in the world, respecting earth’s patterns, and honoring wellness in its many forms.

Christ Community is a community of open mind and warm heart, valuing the progressive unfolding of theology, where all are encouraged to honor their minds live their questions and embrace inner peace.

We invite all to join us in this exciting adventure of humanity.

There is no 'we believe' here - I don't read any imposed 'boundaries' in this philosophy. Rather, what I read is an openness that invites all who wish to enter - there is no restriction. On that point you may well be right - such a church could lead the way forward. As Chesterton once said; it's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it's that Christianity has never been serioulsy tried in the first place (or words to that effect).

Of course, those like Davidk would run a mile from this church - such an expression of freedom threatens their own philosophy to such an extent that they could only respond in hate. But, as I suggest, that his choice.

My concern is that dogma and doctrine are constructed to stop the perceived threat that DavidK lookalikes impose on established order. This is what the institutionalised Church did - stopped anyone with a slightly different point of view from being part of the Church. They were extradordingly effective. We are now only breaking out of that repressive past.

I don't know what part of the world in which you live but in my part I live in a spiritual desert. Yes, there are small oasis here and there but they are far apart and the cost of travel, at least for me, is all but prohibitive. So, for the moment at least, there is only me. It is from sites such as this I get sustainance and a sense of a community, far flung as it may be.

I don't think we are all that far apart David. Then again, perhaps I'm more like Davidk than I care to admit - seeking responses means that I'm not totally alone - that there are others with similar experiences - and that helps.

[October's Autumn]

Okay, so I'm agreeing with both of you so I'm having problems understanding what the conflict is...

[David]

Wayseer,

Thank you for your constructive response!!

Since we are progressives I am sure we are not that far apart. Thank you for quoting the “doctrine” of Christ Community Church in Michigan as opposed to the more traditional church “doctrine”. Although the content is much different I do not think that the “form” or the essential nature of what a “doctrine” is differs. Adding “We believe” to “We live together in awe of Life, connected by a sense of mystery that many call God” does not make it more or less of a “doctrine”.

You raise the issue of “freedom”. Is that your main objection to “doctrine”? Freedom itself is a “doctrine” that is very important to “boundary making”. Those that do not allow “freedom of belief” are divided by a huge boundary from those that do. I would argue that we do not want to be “boundary less” when it comes to freedom. I want the protection of that boundary.

But as important as freedom is to all progressives just being “free” to believe is not enough to sustain any community. More “boundaries” are needed. Each of the statements from the Church in Michigan is another attempt to speak to “boundary creation” and the attempt to create community.

This “boundary creation” is not only a passive process (let the DavidK’s choose not to come). It is an active process that invites certain people to come through the door. There is a active “restriction” here. DavidK would be “restricted” if not physically removed if he tried to change the mission of the Church in Michigan. DavidK, with such a different mission, is a threat to the “established order” of the Church in Michigan. DavidK would not have the same “freedom” in the Michigan church as he would have in the other church. But because the church in Michigan does seem to have a strong sense of mission I’m sure they are not concerned about any threat from DavidK. That security is related to their boundaries.

Yes there will be a much wider “difference in belief” in each of the Christ Churches that you have noted. But that I would argue is a product of “boundary making”. Each Christ Church consciously thought about the kind of religious thinking they wanted in their building. Each Church created a “doctrine” that reflected what they wanted. This is the same process that I tried to lift up to you with The Center for Progressive Christianity. This is why I reacted to your “boundary less” wish for TCPC. I did it within this thread to tie the discussion to DavidK.

I also raised the objection in the Middle East discussion which raises the importance of boundaries. The same religious thinking should go on as “boundary creation” happens in the Middle East. The Middle East is never going to be a place where just being “free” to believe what you want is going to solve the major problems. Boundaries have to and will be made based upon more than "freedom of belief". The freedom to believe in hateful, destructive doctrine needs to be replaced by belief in a more pluralistic doctrine. Those that can not do this need to be isolated by boundaries so that they can not do any more damage.

So “where I am going with this” has to do with where Progressive Christianity is going. I think we need to raise to our consciousness the importance of boundary making, the limits of “freedom” as a sole doctrine and the possibility that we really can have a Progressive Christian Church that will have major consequences for our world and just not a message board.

This post has been edited by David: 15 March 2008 - 10:58 AM

[David]

Wayseer, on Mar 14 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

I don't know what part of the world in which you live but in my part I live in a spiritual desert. Yes, there are small oasis here and there but they are far apart and the cost of travel, at least for me, is all but prohibitive. So, for the moment at least, there is only me. It is from sites such as this I get sustainance and a sense of a community, far flung as it may be.

In this sense we are "in the same place" in a spiritual desert. I am also an "exile" in the desert with only an oasis here and there. Nothing like the Church in Michigan. I also get much from the internet. Perhaps finding the Church in Michigan on the internet only fuels my hope for the Church everywhere. I hope it comes soon for all of us.

This post has been edited by David: 15 March 2008 - 10:48 AM

[October's Autumn]

If I may add to David's comments about boundaries...

Boundaries are extremely important in human relationships. When two people in a relationship (adults, parent-child, etc.) we call them "enmeshed." I think I've seen what Wayseer is concerned about and what David is talking about. When I went to the local UU the boundaries were similar to what Wayseer was concerned about. I was very uncomfortable there and it took me a while to figure out why. When I started at the local UCC I experienced the kind of boundaries David is talking about. I eventually figured out the difference. At the UCC I was free to journey and follow as I was lead. I wasn't required to hold a certain set of beliefs in order to be "in." Every time a new member joined the church the lead clergy would say that our church will forever change because you are here! People range in beliefs and there is even a Jewish person who is a member of our congregation. He was drawn because of two things (that I know of) 1) extravagant welcome -- he could still identify and be Jewish, and 2) our commitment to social action. Even if he were drawn to the social action he would not have joined had he not been able to still be Jewish (ie if he had to convert). My understanding is that they changed the liturgy under which he joined.

My experience at the UU is that there was a sort of litmus test. It wasn't planned but it was there. I didn't last long in that congregation because I didn't feel like I could grow.

[davidk]

David,
The 'Church of DavidK'? Flattering, but hardly apropriate.
You're right, no need to fear me. Fear God. The beginning of knowledge is the fear of God. The definition of 'fear' as used here is: 'a profound reverence and awe". Is God safe? NO, but He's good."

Quote

"...the Kingdom that Jesus saw had justice related consequences."

I spoke along those lines in my last post. Be careful, for by truthfully saying there could be 'consequences', it has been considered by some to be “offensive, divisive and arrogant”.

Quote

"the Great White Buffalo has yet to see 'the light'...”

You may certainly disagree with TGWB, but you'd better provide your evidence, or you will be considered arbitrarily disrespectful.

Quote

The freedom to believe in hateful, destructive doctrine needs to be replaced by belief in a more pluralistic doctrine. Those that can not do this need to be isolated by boundaries so that they can not do any more damage.

I heard Stalin, or was it Lenin; no, it was Mao tse Tung; well, it might have been Hitler or Kim Jong Il or Castro, speak in not so different terms about people they suppressed and excluded from their 'perfect' world. Although somewhat facetious, I am wanting to drive home a point of this language being a 'slippery slope' you do not want to go down.

Lastly, I have stated very simply, and factually that the Arab-muslims wish not a coexistence with, but an annihilation of Israel. There are individual exceptions. I have emphatically stated the innocents of both sides need to be saved. The harm of the innocent, comes from willfully ignoring these facts, and then responding irresponsibly.

Wayseer,

Quote

"It is sad that those who make such uninformed claims about GOD display such a poverty knowledge..."

It's sad you didn't recognize my statement was a paraphrase of Jesus own words, recorded by His disciple John (an eyewitness and companion to Jesus Himself) in John 3:16-21. No one with any intellectual integrity considers that John was a man with a poverty of knowledge of Jesus.

A church where:

Quote

There is no 'we believe'... those like Davidk would run a mile from this church - such an expression of freedom threatens their own philosophy to such an extent that they could only respond in hate.

Neither your premise nor your answer is rational. How does one believe in the printed belief philosophy of a church that has no belief? This also strains to be rationally understood. I can agree that you live in a spritual desert.

Progressive thought is not inherently correct because it is "NEW AND IMPROVED". I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "If you do not know your past, you will be doomed to repeat it." Man is basically unchanged. The only difference between ancient man and man now is; now we have TV's and Air-conditioners.
All our conditions are common to all men, ever since the beginning. Our questions and answers really are pretty constant. I suppose the only real difference might be; 'modern' man uses less than classical logic.

Autumn,
When one 'reads',... one can 'hear' the author. Like, can you hear me? Does this mean we both need treatment?
Surely, by now, my epistemological religious base in the Bible should be well known by now. And that I, aside from anyone else on this site, believe it is God's propositional and truthful communication to man. Regardless, it can be read. You and I can 'hear' what the author is saying.

If a drowning man is offered the hand of a rescuer, and the drowning man refuses to take it and drowns, is it retaliation on the part of the rescuer that the man drowns? There are no other considerations.

Cynthia,
Good to hear from you, it's been a awhile. This is a most profound statement,

Quote

"just when you think you've got it all nailed down, you know beyond a doubt that you are wrong!"

That is precisely why we cannot depend on ourselves as a source of knowledge. Jean Paul Sarte said no finite point (such as man) has any meaning unless it has an infinite reference point (such as God). To which, academic philosophers still adhere.
*Parentheses added


I don't pretend to know where or how or why any of you know about Jesus or God. Perhaps it is from ancient Roman historical texts, perhaps it is from the Bible. I don't know. If you are open to explaining where and how you have obtained your knowledge of Jesus, it would open the way to more profound and reliable discussions. Rationally, anyone counting on God's love must be able to point to that information as coming from God. Otherwise, there is no reasonable reference for God or His love.

As Cynthia's remark implies, we need a reference point beyond ourselves to find the answers.

[David]

October, on Mar 15 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

If I may add to David's comments about boundaries...

Boundaries are extremely important in human relationships. When two people in a relationship (adults, parent-child, etc.) we call them "enmeshed." I think I've seen what Wayseer is concerned about and what David is talking about. When I went to the local UU the boundaries were similar to what Wayseer was concerned about. I was very uncomfortable there and it took me a while to figure out why. When I started at the local UCC I experienced the kind of boundaries David is talking about. I eventually figured out the difference. At the UCC I was free to journey and follow as I was lead. I wasn't required to hold a certain set of beliefs in order to be "in." Every time a new member joined the church the lead clergy would say that our church will forever change because you are here! People range in beliefs and there is even a Jewish person who is a member of our congregation. He was drawn because of two things (that I know of) 1) extravagant welcome -- he could still identify and be Jewish, and 2) our commitment to social action. Even if he were drawn to the social action he would not have joined had he not been able to still be Jewish (ie if he had to convert). My understanding is that they changed the liturgy under which he joined.

My experience at the UU is that there was a sort of litmus test. It wasn't planned but it was there. I didn't last long in that congregation because I didn't feel like I could grow.

Very well put. Thank you. I have had similar experiences going back/forth between UU and other congregations such as UCC.
I love the idea of having a "mission" of "extravagant welcome" and lifting up that people in relationship within boundaries is not a "static" thing--it can be "dynamic". If your "mission" is to be inclusive the "dynamic" is something to be grateful for and learn from. But people are "secure" in doing that because the "mission" and "boundaries" are understood and reinforced.

This post has been edited by David: 15 March 2008 - 04:23 PM

[Wayseer]

David thank you for your thoughtful post.

I think we have some difference if definitions. I see 'doctrine/dogma' as set statement from which little or no deviation is sanctioned. Whereas 'philosophy' is a search for knowledge and, by definition, therefore fluid - one is static the other creative. I therefore see doctrine as static as if anything is static it is not moving and certainly it is not creative.

So let's talk about 'freedom'. Does freedom mean the absence of boundaries? I find I cannot subscribe to that notion in every situation - freedom very much depends on the situation. Should I allow a child to excerise its freedom and run onto a road in front of fast moving traffic - I think not. Should I allow a teenager top exercise their freedom not to attend school - again, I think not. Should I allow that teenager to voice their concerns about some problem at the school - indeed. As such, I do exercise my right to establish boundaries. Jesus did the same.

Dogma/doctrine does not allow me that 'freedom' - my thinking is done for me by someone else. You write - I would argue that we do not want to be “boundary less” when it comes to freedom. I want the protection of that boundary. But that does not mean that I want someone to ride shotgun for me on those boundaries - I will maintain them myself. I want control over them because such boundaries will inevitably shift either over time or across situations - I don't want to be overuled by some boundary rider.

But as important as freedom is to all progressives just being “free” to believe is not enough to sustain any community. More “boundaries” are needed.

... which seems to me to be contradictory - you want freedom yet more boundaries. I don't follow. Maybe you have something specific in mind.

Each Christ Church consciously thought about the kind of religious thinking they wanted in their building. Each Church created a “doctrine” that reflected what they wanted.

Which is what I am questioning. - how can one be progressive when one erects fences all over the place? (to be continued)

[David]

Thank you for your clarification.
I agree that in part it may be a matter of definition.
I do not see "doctrine" as static/unchanging or having to come from an authority source external to the participants.
I would use "doctrine" as the "agreed philosophy" of the group.
That can change over time and to me can be most dynamic.
If the word doctrine is only used in the way you have defined it then I agree we do not want doctrines.
I'm not sure that this takes us to agreement but we may be a bit closer.
Maybe I have caused us to stray too far from the Middle East here.
Want to start a new thread?

[Wayseer]

(Continued) - (Just realised David you made a post as I was compiling this - so there may be some cross-over)

From what I can glean from your post it seems that you are advocating some form of 'progressive' institution which has the power to effect change. Indeed, institutions are effective such instruments but history informs us that institutions inevitably become dominating to the point where individual freedom is submerged for the sake of the institution.

You also ignore, apparently, the work of Archbishop Spong who, individually, has challenged the institution of the established Church - alone and all but unaided. It has been his example of individual courage to challenge the power of the collective that marks him as someone rather special. Individuals are important - Jesus being the prime example.

The freedom to believe in hateful, destructive doctrine needs to be replaced by belief in a more pluralistic doctrine. Those that can not do this need to be isolated by boundaries so that they can not do any more damage.

That is always a danger - you're never sure of the outcome - such is the human condition. But such condition has enabled the continuing work of creation - even the 'bad' bits aid us in making choices - we know what 'not to choose.

I think we need to raise to our consciousness the importance of boundary making, the limits of “freedom” as a sole doctrine and the possibility that we really can have a Progressive Christian Church that will have major consequences for our world and just not a message board.

That universal approach will only succeed if individuals are given the freedom to make choices - not by some imposed doctrine proclaiming 'freedom'. I have accepted that such a stance is scary and fraught with danger. The point I make is that any other way has been worked and found wanting. Christianty has not really been tried.

I just came from church - I walked out. They were singing 'When I survey the Wonderous Cross' forgetting that the cross is empty. I felt a deep sadness - these people just love being the victim. Actually I felt like kicking over a few fences right there and then but they would not have understood. They would rather cling to their poverty deomonstrating that misery by giving the paltry sum of $3 per week to the work of the church.

The awful thing about it all is that in all probability I would have been singing along with them had I not met Spong.

David - the internet maybe as good as it gets for the moment - well, at least you and I have met - I happen to think that is a good thing.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 15 March 2008 - 07:19 PM

[Wayseer]

Davidk writes - How does one believe in the printed belief philosophy of a church that has no belief?

... and that's what terrifies you - freedom.

[October's Autumn]

Quote

You also ignore, apparently, the work of Archbishop Spong who, individually, has challenged the institution of the established Church - alone and all but unaided. It has been his example of individual courage to challenge the power of the collective that marks him as someone rather special. Individuals are important - Jesus being the prime example.

My 4th graders have been studying Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. They were surprised when I explained to them that the event of her getting arrested was planned. I had to explain to them that history does not get made by an individual but rather a group of people working together purposefully. Had she simply been arrested for not moving it would have not likely done anything except get her an arrest record. It was because people knew what would likely happen when she did that they were forearmed in their peaceful and effective battle. Although some make to make it look like one person can change the world, it actually takes a group of people working together purposefully and deliberately.

If you read Spong's book " Liberating the Gospels" in his preface he says this very thing. He has not taken on the church "alone and all but unaided." He has had mentors and others working with him. Spong understands the importance of community and he understands that because of his position he is in the best place to be a voice for thousands if not millions of people. Spong speaks of one in particular who calls himself a non-aggressive atheist who's writings and then relationship completely changed Spong's thinking. Likewise, Jesus did not make changes by himself. In fact, had it not been for Paul he wouldn't have likely been remembered except with the other Jewish Sects from that time, times before, and times since which came and went. In fact the idea of individuality, as we now in western society, would have been entirely alien to Jesus, and probably offensive.

One person only changes the world for the worse, those seeking their 15 minutes of fame through infamy.