[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I'm interested in trying this. Is it too late to join in? Where are you in the book?

[minsocal]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Apr 7 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

I'm interested in trying this. Is it too late to join in? Where are you in the book?

It's early, we are just into the introduction and chapter one. I think anyone here would welcome you, I certainly would.

Myron

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

[

I guess my main concern about what Randy has written is this: We tend to throw our trash out. When something no longer works for us or is obsolete, it ends up on the garbage dump. I no longer have the 8-track player that I owned in high school. And my stereo doesn't even have a casette deck on it. In fact, while it still has a CD-player, it can play music right off a memory stick. Things change. That's progress (hopefully). But I'm a little concerned that if we just "throw out" older common sense and theology in light of newer understandings, do we lose something?

And, ultimately, won't our own common sense will be obsolete one day. Will future generations consider us to be "primitives" or "ignorants" as ascribe most of what we now hold to as superstition? Is there a way to "honor" past paradigms and consider them to still be sacred while admitting that 1) they no longer work for us and 2) what works for us now will not for our descendants?



bill
[/quote]

I have just completed reading the intro and chapter 1. The writer and I are definitely on the same page with regard to the idea that the Bible-times worldview has become a stumbling block to many who would possibly embrace the teachings of Jesus.

The term "common sense" is a loaded term for me, personally, in much the same way as "truth." I like the idea of using "wisdom" instead of truth, and I think "worldview" is less loaded than common sense.

I have had many conversations with an evangelical friend about throwing out things from the Bible. I believe it should be done prayerfully, with caution and respect, and conversation with other people who are trying to sort this out, too. Almost every Bible reader decides that some sayings from the Bible no longer apply. (button-wearing, head coverings, etc). However, I have personally found that instead of throwing out things, it is best to understand the historical context of them (the world-view) and figure out how that might apply today. Some of the scripture passages I have most wanted to throw out ("don't worry, the flowers don't") have actually become some of the most helpful and cherished to me when I take the nugget of wisdom and update the worldview. The nuggets of wisdom are what is sacred. This baby is too important for me to throw out with the bath water because often it runs counter-intuitive to my common sense (what I would do without Biblical guidance).

Last fall, I tried to engage the tcpc message board in picking out the nuggets of wisdom we agree on, the teachings of Jesus that we follow. I found that there was some overlap, but that each of us is in a unique place to accept or reject particular teachings of Jesus. Each teaching of Jesus affects us very personally. IMO, this points to the complexity and wonder of God -- that God connects with each of us individually in our own way and time. However, it makes it difficult to develop a "Progressive Christianity" curriculum, which I was attempting to do.... :-) Believing there is only one correct way to interpret the Bible makes some things simpler, doesn't it?

I certainly hope the current worldview will become outdated someday. By and large, fear is still running this world. A perfect example is that my church (United Methodist) leaders were unable to agree to recognize/perform gay marriages at our last annual conference. Racial biases still exist. We still disagree about when life becomes life and whether assisted suicide is okay. I could go on and on, but I embrace the idea that my ideas are not the final ones in the history of human thought. My ideas about God are imperfect, but I am on a lifelong journey, a quest, to follow Jesus and reflect God's glory to the best of my abilities.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

[ Where I differ from many on this board is in the value of inherited characteristics passed on from generation to generation by our DNA. Antonio Damasio, a highly regarded neuroscientist, sees "wisdom" in the very structure and function of the evolved human brain. This is exactly what Jung claimed.

Myron
[/quote]

This is quite an encouraging idea. I had never heard it before. I am definitely trying to pass down "wisdom" gleaned from my life to my children by teaching them. I have watched the video "What the BLEEP do we know?", about intentionally rewiring pathways and evolving our brain responses to stimuli. It would be nice if we could pass down our individually evolved brain to future generations, but I don't think that's what you are saying...

Sometimes, because of what the media focus on, it is easy to see the world as getting greedier and more self-centered than ever before. I believe it is imperative to find a way to share the relevant teachings of Jesus, without the premodern worldview reoadblocks, in order to keep society evolving as a whole toward compassion and love.

[billmc]

Hi AITNOP. I’d echo Myron and say I’d enjoy having you join our conversation also!

>>The writer and I are definitely on the same page with regard to the idea that the Bible-times worldview has become a stumbling block to many who would possibly embrace the teachings of Jesus.

That became a crisis of faith in my own life a few years ago. I greatly admired the teachings of Jesus (all except the hell stuff – another subject for another time) but I couldn’t get past a lot of the other stuff taught as “eternal truth” in the Bible. And in the setting I was in, it was a big no-no to remove the other stuff or to elevate Jesus’ teachings. After all, the Bible was, in that paradigm, “God’s words.”

>>However, I have personally found that instead of throwing out things, it is best to understand the historical context of them (the world-view) and figure out how that might apply today.

This seems wise to me. In fact, if I was to design some kind of “Progressive Christianity for Dummies” curriculum (ha ha), I’d take the same approach – focus on Jesus’ teachings in their historical context and then only give suggestions/options of how they might apply today.

>>Last fall, I tried to engage the tcpc message board in picking out the nuggets of wisdom we agree on, the teachings of Jesus that we follow. I found that there was some overlap, but that each of us is in a unique place to accept or reject particular teachings of Jesus. Each teaching of Jesus affects us very personally.

So true. Commonality…but diversity. And while I tend to harp on getting back to the teachings of Jesus, I am also the first to admit that Jesus did not give the same exact message to every person he encountered. He seemed to tailor his teachings to his particular audiences or conversations.

>>However, it makes it difficult to develop a "Progressive Christianity" curriculum, which I was attempting to do.... :-) Believing there is only one correct way to interpret the Bible makes some things simpler, doesn't it?

Yes, simpler, but also less colorful and less expressive of the beauty, richness, and variety that is in God’s universe, ourselves, and even in our scriptures. Keep thinking about this though. I think it would be helpful to some.

>>but I embrace the idea that my ideas are not the final ones in the history of human thought. My ideas about God are imperfect, but I am on a lifelong journey, a quest, to follow Jesus and reflect God's glory to the best of my abilities.

And I think that is what Randy is getting at also. He knows that common sense or “worldview” will change. But the rest of his book, as Myron has shared with us, is about what “flickers of Jesus” or “wisdom of the ages” is worth maintaining and preserving. It is a humbling and daunting task to try to determine that on any level, as you discovered with trying to find common denominators for your curriculum. But as has been said, these things become seeds for future generations. And they can bloom in our own generation amongst those of us who want to grow.

I look forward to hearing more from you, my friend.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I sent a message to the webmaster, asking them to put a link to this book discussion on the main page. I'd like to get more people involved! What great fun!

I also put it on the facebook page, but nobody has responded so far....

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"In fact, if I was to design some kind of “Progressive Christianity for Dummies” curriculum (ha ha), I’d take the same approach – focus on Jesus’ teachings in their historical context and then only give suggestions/options of how they might apply today."

As I mentioned in a separate forum, the group that has been trying to get our "contemporary" worship service going is now going to start sometimes reaching out in community service projects and sometimes go offsite to engage anyone interested in dialogue about issues all of us encounter in life and discuss options for dealing with those issues in faith. So, rather than curriculum, I'll be developing conversation topics, but I'll keep this good idea in mind! Thanks!

BTW, can you design "Progressive Christianity for Dummies?" I'll buy it! :-)

[billmc]

Any other thoughts for discussion on Intro and Chapter 1, folks?

If not, we can proceed to Chapter 2 where Randy talks about how we approach the Bible. I'm hoping we'll have some really good discussions about this one.

BTW, do we want to keep this entire book discussion in one thread, or create a different thread for every chapter (or two or three chapters)?

bill

[JosephM]

Ghapter 2 seems to me to be a most excellent and logical presentation of what the Bible is which makes it easy for any one who may be open-minded to understand. In my experience, A hard core literalist won't get past the first 2 paragraphs before writing it off as propaganda from the devil.

One thing i really appreciated was that Ross in this Chapter used the words Jesus the Christ which uses Christ as a title rather than a name. That is the way it has been revealed to me yet I have not seen others use it that way until now.

Although I authored a book with the same conclusions from a different perspective, kudos to Ross for a most excellent job of getting across his points.

Love Joseph

[minsocal]

Chapter 2: The Bible

I am in agreement with Ross, at least in principle. Various books of the Bible appear to have different purposes. In a previous post I noted that Leviticus is intended to define and preserve a distinctly Hebrew identity. Thus, Leviticus would help us know Jesus who, as I understand it, was a relatively conservative Jew. The Song of Solomon is yet another example. It is important to progressives as it signals a life affirming view of human nature. Many of my Hebrew friends understand this very well. Place the Song of Solomon in contrast to some of the disputed letters of Paul and you get an idea of what I mean.

Again, I tend to avoid the use of the word "truth" in discusssing religion and spiritualty. It might be that I have linked "truth" with "literalism". For me, the critical turn in Ross' perspective is this:

"There are four serious problems with Biblical literalism: (1) it denies the centrality of Christ; (2) it requires a concept of divine inspiration that denies the authors’ humanity; (3) it requires that we believe that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says; and (4) it stands in opposition to faith in God. Certainly the Biblical literalists do not intend all of these. But this is where their misdirected devotion and their misguided efforts for security lead them."

My intent is to tie my opening comments with this quote. The Song of Solomon, as life affirming, speaks to "the humanity of the author". I will need to think this through a bit more and add another post or two.

Myron

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I haven't read Chapter 2 yet, but my sense is that at some point you want a new blog for a new section, just in case people want to join the discussion later, or there are too many themes to talk about.

Your decision... I'll get back after I've read Chap. 2

Janet

[billmc]

JosephM, on Apr 8 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

One thing i really appreciated was that Ross in this Chapter used the words Jesus the Christ which uses Christ as a title rather than a name. That is the way it has been revealed to me yet I have not seen others use it that way until now.

Yeah, I kinda like that designation also, Joseph. It brings out the flavor of "Jesus, the Anointed One" rather than making some claim about deity or humanity.

bill

[billmc]

minsocal, on Apr 8 2009, 10:24 AM, said:

Place the Song of Solomon in contrast to some of the disputed letters of Paul and you get an idea of what I mean.

Would you care to elaborate a little more on this, Myron? I'm not sure I understand what you are pointing to.

Thanks,
bill

[billmc]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Apr 8 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

I haven't read Chapter 2 yet, but my sense is that at some point you want a new blog for a new section, just in case people want to join the discussion later, or there are too many themes to talk about.

Your decision... I'll get back after I've read Chap. 2

Feel free to take your time, Janet. We're in no hurry.

I do wish we could create a sub-forum for book discussions. That way we could have a separate thread for each chapter. As it stands right now, yes, we can post separate threads for each chapter but it would tend to clutter up the "Book Discussions" forum. But as Ross' chapters are topical/thematic, I'd hate to have 45 pages of posts on one thread to try to get through the book.

Perhaps, at this point unless someone has a better suggestion, we can divide the threads up into 3 or 4 chapter threads.

bill

[billmc]

Chapter 2

Hope you folks don't mind, but I'm going to jump to the very end of the chapter and post this excerpt that really resonated with me:

What then is the Bible? A common sense answer would be that it is a collection of books written by people who, like we, were people of their times, and who like we were capable of misunderstandings and mistakes as well as great insights. And they were, like we, struggling with the meaning of their faith and with their understanding of God in the midst of triumph and defeat, happiness and despair, stability and chaos. We find that our own faith is informed and inspired by their struggles and faithfulness. And since one of our aims in approaching the rich and diverse resources of this book is to understand it better, then we will want to know how these writings came about, and what the authors originally meant, and how they were affected by the beliefs and events of their times. To do this we will welcome all the tools that are available to us to help shed light on the Bible: studies of archeology, ancient history and customs, and other Near Eastern religions, as well as the various types of Biblical "criticism" that can inform us about the background, development, and meaning of the text itself.

This still leaves unanswered the question of Biblical authority. For Christians the answer to this depends upon the role and the authority that we ascribe to Jesus of Nazareth. In fact the primary question is not about the authority of the Bible but about the authority of Jesus the Christ.

Randy says a mouthful here, and so much of it screams "FREEDOM" to me. I have to be honest, for most of my life I "worshipped" the Bible. I didn't bow down to it or offer animal sacrifices to it, but I considered it to be "God's words". And the more I read it, the more I was disturbed about what it said about God, what it said about us, and what it said about some kind of plan of redemption. I was faced with "believe all of it or believe none of it" and I eventually threw all my Bibles out in the trash, I was so pissed.

But the heart of what Ross writes in the paragraph above came to me through progressive and emerging Christians and I'm so glad that it did. Now I can value my Bible without worshipping it. And I have the freedom to incorporate what speaks to me and to leave the rest as history or, in some cases, what not to do.

bill

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Chapter 2: I was freed from the notion that all we know about God is in the Bible when I was fairly young. I agree wholeheartedly with the author in his conclusions about how to faithfully approach the Bible. I didn't think all of his arguments against the literalists were airtight, but I agree with where he ended up.

Interestingly, my first knowledge that the Bible doesn't paint a complete picture of God today was related to the issue of slavery, and I found that extremely freeing to think that maybe the Bible doesn't have the whole picture on women's roles, either.

Too bad the canon is closed! I believe humanity continues to learn about God and that many of today's inspired writings contain as much wisdom as Biblical writing. I kind of wish Jesus had been a writer... :-)

I will be looking forward to reading further, as I felt the author was wary of individuals interpreting the Bible as they like. I'm aware of the dangers, but I really believe that the Bible speaks personally and uniquely to each of us, and sometimes the Bible means different things to me at different places on my life journey.

The following statement was also intriguing. Even though I LOVE Jesus, I have some hangups about the Christ title...
"In fact the primary question is not about the authority of the Bible but about the authority of Jesus the Christ."

[minsocal]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 8 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Would you care to elaborate a little more on this, Myron? I'm not sure I understand what you are pointing to.

Thanks,
bill

Bill,

When I tell people where I first discovered the background to the Song of Solomon they are sometimes shocked. It is from a textbook written by David Schnarch on human sexuality. What is astounding about this work is that chapter ten is entirely devoted spirituality. Yes, that's correct. I contains a lenghty analysis of the differences between what we would call fundamantalist and progressive religious sects, not just Christian but Buddhist and Hindu as well.

The Song of Solomon is considered by some Jews to be the holiest book in the Bible. This traces back to the time when Christian Jews broke from the Jewish community. This was a traumatic event for the Jewish community. The Rabbi who guided the Jews through this time declared that the Song of Solomon was the holiest book in the Bible. Legend has it that he was the last person to see the face of God and live. The point here is that the Song of Solomon is a celebration of life and human nature. It is life affirming, which has been found to be a common characteristic of religious sects that tend to call themselves progressive.

Some of Paul's letters point to a very negative view of human nature. This life negating view tends to show up in religious sects we would call fundamentalist. As I have stated on another thread, some of the letters attributed to Paul appear to have been written to discredit his otherwise radical egalitiarianism. In other words, the world was not quite ready for the message of radical egalitarianism found in the teachings of Jesus and even the letters of Paul. Thus, the message was changed to make it more acceptable at the time. This is the point Whitehead made about the nature of progress.

Here we are today, still struggling with issues of egalitarianism and human sexuality. One view holds that the "fall" in the Garden of Eden was sexual, but the Song of Solomon directly contradicts that view. How we view our own human nature makes a very big difference in how we interpret the stories of the Bible.

The perspective I find most appealing is neutral in regards to "nature". We have the capacity to do evil, we have the capacity to do good. Apparently, that is the choice God gave us and that then is what must be understood. Would there be Wisdom without the need for choice?

Myron

[minsocal]

Now that I understand the meaning of "thank you for the conversation", i bow out.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Myron,
I'm confused about the bowing out. I'm very tired, so maybe I missed something. I was enjoying your posts, so I hope you're not really leaving! Have you read How Good Do We Have to Be? by Harold Kushner? It is very much along the same lines that you are pointing out -- how the Adam and Eve story is not as much about punishment as it is about the birth of free will.

Should we move on to Chapter 3, or does anyone have more on Chapter 2?

[billmc]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Now that I understand the meaning of "thank you for the conversation", i bow out.

Myron, there is no need or desire for you to "bow out." I'm not aware that I said "thank you for the conversation" to you. I did say it to Davidk because we had reached an impass in our discussion where he wanted me to agree with him on a point (in which I did not agree) and he refused to let it go. I tried, at least 2 times, to move the conversation forward and he would not. But we have not done that here in this thread, have we?

So please, let's continue.

BTW, I found what you had to say about the Song of Solomon to be interesting. Have you ever read "Sex God" by Rob Bell?

bill