[rivanna]

Billmc,

I cannot identify with recovering fundamentalists (or Pentacostal or Charismatic)…but I have read John Spong, who also went from one extreme to another, first taking everything literally then throwing it all out, and having to come up with a new perspective on scripture. Does his writing speak to you at all?
It is sad when a person lets their intellect get in the way of an earlier heartfelt connection to God. My suggestion would be that instead of complaining that there aren’t any miracles these days, you simply talk to God…tell God (or Jesus) what you feel-- what is hurting you, what you lost, what you need – open your heart and mind as you would to a trusted close friend, or just talk to yourself without judging or trying to change anything.
Somewhat like the Elijah passage where he discovers that God was not to be found in a whirlwind or earthquake or bonfire--he ends up hearing God as a “still small voice” within, instead.

[minsocal]

David, on May 20 2009, 06:41 AM, said:

The process of deconstruction can go in several directions. One direction is what I have been trying to point towards. That direction leads to the experience and knowledge of what can only be called God. The knowing of that God was described so well by Joseph when he said “Faith and trust is deeper than belief or correct action. To me, Faith is not the same as belief. Faith seems to me to be more of a 'knowing' that comes from a deeper place than the thinking mind”. My point is that this is the “deeper foundation for faith”. It is relational in nature. It is a “intra subject/object experience”. It is a dynamic between knowing and Being where Being can not be “known” outside the experience. It can not be “known” without passion. There is the experience of the whole in every part that is greater than the sum of the parts. As Grampawombat pointed out it is based upon "learning by doing"---it is in the doing that it is known. There are many ways to approach this.

But the process of deconstruction can also lead to the post modern skepticism that would deny the reality of God. The most we can hope for is correct belief and/or correct action. Any word that tries to describe a depth beyond this is a meaningless word because there is no reality to God.

The problem which now lies before Progressive Christianity is that it may fall into the Unitarian Universalist trap which is there because of deconstruction which led to post modern skepticism. Within the UU world there is nothing to build upon except correct belief and/or correct action. Obviously both are tremendously important. UU people are extremely committed and exemplary people. But they lack the “deeper foundation for faith”.

So this is my premise. Progressive Christianity must decide which direction to go. If it is decided to build upon the “deeper foundation of faith” then it will certainly look much different than the UU world. However, the problem is that UU people make up much of the Progressive Christian audience. You can see this split within the Jesus Seminar. You have Borg and Spong on one side of that split and you have many others on the other side.

So the question is can we build after deconstruction? And what will it look like?

I know of very few who have addressed the issue of what "progress" means since the era of Whitehead and his peers. I'll venture this much. Some of the old will be retained. Derrida, the source of the term "deconstruction" in postmodern philosophy, did an about face late in his career and said we need to return to "the grand texts" of the past. I'm not sure these days whether "postmodern" changed anything. It seems to be fading fast.

[David]

minsocal, on May 20 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

I know of very few who have addressed the issue of what "progress" means since the era of Whitehead and his peers. I'll venture this much. Some of the old will be retained. Derrida, the source of the term "deconstruction" in postmodern philosophy, did an about face late in his career and said we need to return to "the grand texts" of the past. I'm not sure these days whether "postmodern" changed anything. It seems to be fading fast.

The Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley is overun by it. Probably the majority of the Jesus Seminar are post modern skeptics. Certainly the UU world is full of it and UU has advertised itself as one of the few growing denominations. I'm not sure where you see it fading.

But that is not the important point. What I am trying to say is that the process of deconstruction can lead to a form of post modern skepticism or to some kind of reconstruction based upon a "deeper foundation for faith".

Deconstruction/post modern skepticism perhaps did not "change" you and somehow you now discount it so that you can see "some of the old" being retained. That's great, but ask Bill if it "changed anything" for him. What do you say to those who like Bill seem be looking around after the deconstruction process? Bill's passionate honesty moved me to start this thread. What do you say to him?

This post has been edited by David: 20 May 2009 - 11:44 AM

[minsocal]

David, on May 20 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

The Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley is overun by it. Probably the majority of the Jesus Seminar are post modern skeptics. Certainly the UU world is full of it and UU has advertised itself as one of the few growing denominations. I'm not sure where you see it fading.

But that is not the important point. What I am trying to say is that the process of deconstruction can lead to a form of post modern skepticism or to some kind of reconstruction based upon a "deeper foundation for faith".

Deconstruction/post modern skepticism perhaps did not "change" you and somehow you now discount it so that you can see "some of the old" being retained. That's great, but ask Bill if it "changed anything" for him. What do you say to those who like Bill seem be looking around after the deconstruction process? Bill's passionate honesty moved me to start this thread. What do you say to him?

There is an ample supply of ideas old and new. There is no aboslute need for deconstruction in the first place. Sure, academia went nuts on the idea and is now retreating. That is how academia works. In my profession, behaviorism reigned for 25 years and then gave way to cognitivism which is now giving way to emotionalism, and so on. It could be that in a few years deconstructionism will be nothing more than a footnote.

I have heard Progressives say that the Jesus Seminar has gone too far. I think it has. There is always a lead-lag problem with trends. Ideas move from one discipline to another over time and fade in roughly the same pattern. I have already seen the fade of postmodernism in art and philosophy. Postmodernism never really took root in psychology, the trends there were in the opposite direction.

What could I say to Bill? Forget the experts and forget about deconctructionism. When it comes to faith there are no necessary and sufficient conditions.

The art of progress always has, and always will retain a ground from the past into the future. Anything else would be pure chaos. Look for the middle ground. Ideas from the past that were not yet ready for acceptance can emerge into the spotlight. The radical message of egalitarianism some find in the Bible might finally reach social acceptance. But, not by itself. What message are YOU willing to back?

And that is my point. Derrida discovered late in his career that he had perhaps made a mistake. It happens with great thinkers as they mature. They launch a popular trend they cannot stop even if they wanted to.

[sonoman]

I never went through any "deconstruction" of my Christian beliefs because I didn't have any. I wasn't a Christian, not even a believer in God before God stepped into my life and loaded me with so much spiritual vision that it would take me several lifetimes to figure it all out. My point here is that perhaps trying to intellectualize a spiritual process doesn't work. One cannot construct a theology by intellectual means. It has to be received in spirit for there to be spiritual validity.

I could say here that looking at what is actually coming about "naturally" would be more constructive to reorganizing one's lost trust in biblical authority. There is a new Gospel and a new Christian theology brought the old fashioned way, by divine revelation. Perhaps it's time to move forward past the End Times of Abrahamic religious conceptualization and embrace the new aeon.

[David]

minsocal, on May 20 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

What could I say to Bill? Forget the experts and forget about deconctructionism. When it comes to faith there are no necessary and sufficient conditions.

I would have to hear more. This sounds like a post modern conclusion.

Could you speak to my questions that I have used in an attempt to form this discussion? Is there anything deeper than correct belief or correct action? What do you think of the “deeper foundation for faith” that I have tried to describe?

This post has been edited by David: 20 May 2009 - 01:24 PM

[David]

sonoman, on May 20 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

There is a new Gospel and a new Christian theology brought the old fashioned way, by divine revelation. Perhaps it's time to move forward past the End Times of Abrahamic religious conceptualization and embrace the new aeon.

You are in a protected area. You are not in the debate area.

Please read the rules: This area is for general, supportive discussion about progressive Christianity or related ideas. If you find that your views with regard to Christianity differ significantly from those that you encounter here, please do not use this area to challenge, debate or provoke.

Please explain to me how this post is appropriate given this rule. Given that you have already rejected Progressive Christianity please explain why you would consider posting in the protected area.

This post has been edited by David: 20 May 2009 - 01:22 PM

[minsocal]

David, on May 20 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I would have to hear more. This sounds like a post modern conclusion.

Could you speak to my questions that have attempted to form this discussion? Is there anything deeper than correct belief or correct action? What do you think of the “deeper foundation for faith” that I have tried to describe (obviously without success because it can not be put into words).

Take the issue to debate and dialogue, I'll answer you there.

[David]

minsocal, on May 20 2009, 11:23 AM, said:

Take the issue to debate and dialogue, I'll answer you there.

I have no interest in starting a new thread. I like how this one is going. I appreciate the fact that I can suggest that DavidK and others not bring challenges to this area. It is my understanding that you can disagree within this thread as long as you are generally supportive of Progressive Christianity. I hope you will reconsider responding. If you do not want to however that is ok.

This post has been edited by David: 20 May 2009 - 01:31 PM

[minsocal]

David, on May 20 2009, 11:27 AM, said:

I have no interest in starting a new thread. I like how this one is going. You can disagree here within this thread. But if you do not want to respond then that's ok.

Post # 15.

"Thank you for your responses. Minsocal: I agree with your comments ... "

[David]

minsocal, on May 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

IMO, what is deeper depends on the individual personality. "Deeper" is not single sourced when it comes to human beings. If it is your nature to find "depth" in the external world. So be it. If it is your nature to find "depth" in your internal world, so be it. Both have found the same depth.

I will suggest this interpretation as I find it resonant with my own personality:

“The deep is tehom, the Hebrew for ocean, for depth as saltwatery first stuff of the universe; for depth as a dimension; and for chaos (Keller, 1999).” Chaos or tehom is that which resists a status quo order (Keller, 1999)."

I agree the "same depth" is found in the "external" world as well as the "internal" world. It is the same depth. And I agree that "depth" is not "single sourced". I have tried to point out a few examples but there are obviously many, many more. I also agree that this is not static; it resists a status quo order.

This post has been edited by David: 20 May 2009 - 01:41 PM

[minsocal]

David, on May 20 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

I agree the "same depth" is found in the "external" world as well as the "internal" world. It is the same depth. And I agree that "depth" is not "single sourced". I have tried to point out a few examples but there are obviously many, many more. I also agree that this is not static; it resists a status quo order.

The source I cited (Keller) is very interesting. She states that men have a fear of "depth", what she calls tehomophobia. She goes on to state that "depth" will be not be obtained until women have full access to the process of change. I agree.

[minsocal]

sonoman, on May 20 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

If Progressive Christianity needs protection then perhaps it's time to rethink the paradigm. Please note the "perhaps" meaning a suggestion. David, you seem to be fearful that Progressive Christianity will somehow be sullied or made moot by criticism raised by non-Progressives. Why be so defensive if you think Progressive Christianity is A-OK? I made what I consider a highly relevant point to this topic, namely that without divine revelation there is nothing new in Christian theology, only the intellectualization of traditional Christianity's failure to give adequate meaning for many modern Christian believers. If necessary, I will take this point to the Debate boards but really, it belongs in this discussion unless Progressive Christianity devolves to become the restricted membership of a special interest clique.

The board provides for two different discussion areas. Just look upwards to "guidelines" on your webpage.

"This area is for general, supportive discussion about progressive Christianity or related ideas. If you find that your views with regard to Christianity differ significantly from those that you encounter here, please do not use this area to challenge, debate or provoke."

As I see it, if parties refuse to take differences to the debate and dialogue area, then discussion ends. When I find my views significantly different from the thread, I'll suggest moving to debate and dialogue. Otherwise I am forced to agree with points that are not even made explicit. I am asked to make points that may, or may not agree, with with an unknown stance. Anyway, I have better things to do.

[JosephM]

Sonomon,

After clarification of the problem you had with your understanding of Point 2 of TCPC do you still have a problem with Point 2. If so, david is correct but I have not made that prejudgement that you do not fall under the PC umbrella which is quite large. So , do you feel that you fit under that umbrella of points now. Do you have any conflicts with our TCPC points at this time Yes or No?
If no you may post here and your post was acceptable
If yes then it is not . and you know not to post in this section.
OK. No hard feelings either way.

Thanks Joseph

Merged response.....

sonoman said:

Joseph,

I have no problem with those 8 points.

sonoman

[minsocal]

David, on May 20 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I would have to hear more. This sounds like a post modern conclusion. for faith” that I have tried to describe?

No, it's source is from those who oppose postmodernism. In fact, it predates postmodernism. The issue has to do with individual differences. Faith is a psychological state and no individual psychological state has necessary and sufficient conditions. I suppose, for some, "faith" can be an intellectual enterprise, in which case the rules of "faith" could be worked out by logic. Even then, there must be a "condition of satisfaction" that is an individual psychological state. If we discard "true" and "false" as the condition of satisfaction, we have an interesting picture. Instead, insert an emotion as the condition of satisfaction (this is what usually happens). Perhaps there is a sense of joy associated with faith, or elation, or ... ? To proceed into "depth" is almost always to proceed into emotion and intuition. This is a core assumption of Process Theology.

Postmodernism of the kind you have been exposed to seems to have failed. I think it failed simply because it offers nothing other than "destruction". This was not the original intent when the concept was first developed. If you look at the Eight Points you see what I think represents a reaction in opposition to postmodernism. In their current form, they are positive "we are" statments rather than negative "we are not" statements. I am not sure about this, but I think this was deliberate. This parallels a shift in psychology that is still taking place. The emphasis has shifted from the the study of what makes us "abnormal" to a more positive perspective of what makes us "normal". And, guess what, spirituality is back in psychology.

P.S. It was Nietzsche who first discussed the "necessary and sufficient" issue in modern times.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

The something deeper, in my opinion, is Love. Jesus said that we are to Love God with everything we have and love our neighbors as ourselves. From that everything else follows. This is how we reflect God's glory. It may seem like "right action," but it is more complicated than that. Being human involves many hard decisions. How do I "Give to everyone who asks?" "Love my enemies?"
"Who is my neighbor?" A lifetime can be spent figuring out how to relect God's glory through perfect Love.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I remember reading Spong's "Resurrection, Myth or Reality" years ago and thinking that Spong's conclusions were too weak for men to die for (to be martyred).

Since then, I've tried to figure out for myself which teachings of Jesus do I try to follow. What progression do I see in man's understanding of God within the Bible and how have we continued to grow in that understanding since Biblical times? Jesus is the spirit-friend who encourages me to be more than I am.

[minsocal]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on May 21 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

The something deeper, in my opinion, is Love. Jesus said that we are to Love God with everything we have and love our neighbors as ourselves. From that everything else follows. This is how we reflect God's glory. It may seem like "right action," but it is more complicated than that. Being human involves many hard decisions. How do I "Give to everyone who asks?" "Love my enemies?"
"Who is my neighbor?" A lifetime can be spent figuring out how to relect God's glory through perfect Love.

You have captured the essence of asking the hard questions. Love, as Whitehead said, "is just a bit amoral". You are right, IMO, it takes a lifetime.

[JosephM]

David's Post here moved to Complaint to TCPC under admin area.

Joseph

[David]

minsocal, on May 21 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

No, it's source is from those who oppose postmodernism. In fact, it predates postmodernism. The issue has to do with individual differences. Faith is a psychological state and no individual psychological state has necessary and sufficient conditions. I suppose, for some, "faith" can be an intellectual enterprise, in which case the rules of "faith" could be worked out by logic. Even then, there must be a "condition of satisfaction" that is an individual psychological state. If we discard "true" and "false" as the condition of satisfaction, we have an interesting picture. Instead, insert an emotion as the condition of satisfaction (this is what usually happens). Perhaps there is a sense of joy associated with faith, or elation, or ... ? To proceed into "depth" is almost always to proceed into emotion and intuition. This is a core assumption of Process Theology.

Postmodernism of the kind you have been exposed to seems to have failed. I think it failed simply because it offers nothing other than "destruction". This was not the original intent when the concept was first developed. If you look at the Eight Points you see what I think represents a reaction in opposition to postmodernism. In their current form, they are positive "we are" statments rather than negative "we are not" statements. I am not sure about this, but I think this was deliberate. This parallels a shift in psychology that is still taking place. The emphasis has shifted from the the study of what makes us "abnormal" to a more positive perspective of what makes us "normal". And, guess what, spirituality is back in psychology.

P.S. It was Nietzsche who first discussed the "necessary and sufficient" issue in modern times.

Minsocal,

I will not be posting on the primary focus of this thread until Sonomon is able to check in but I thought I would send a quick note to you.

It seems to me that I look at postmodernism from a theological point of view and you approach it more from the field of psychology. I found your comment from that point of view interesting.

I see the move in theology towards postmodernism as a move from theological language to the language of psychology, anthropology and sociology. So I could see how there was not a comparable shift in the field of psychology. In theology the conversation went from Tillich to Jung. But it moved past Jung so that the important questions were “contained” by individual context (I see no evidence of even Whitehead being discussed much on holy hill anymore—but I’m not there as much as I used to be).

David