Just What Is Progressive Christianity To You ?

[JosephM]

This thread post was moved to debate and dialog as this is not the place to dispute others. It is a thread to share your view of what progressive Christianity is to you. There are no wrong answers. See opening post  #1 for clarification

JosephM (as Admin)

[TheTechnician]

PC is to me a path to faith where I get to hold on to the all inclusive values taught by my hippie parents while exploring God's love through humanity. Ours is not to judge or condemn. Ours is to explore and love. Many "legacy" systems of Christianity appose the message much of the Bible is trying to convey. PC is a way to merge faith with modern science, sociology and life experience. I think it is not what you believe, who to or where you pray, just that you have faith and a moral compass. I want to do good things and be a better person, so I take those lessons and apply them to my life in a modern interpretation. I'd say maybe I've got it all wrong, but that defies the whole PC thing, doesn't it?

[Elen1107]

To me, PC means a wide range of things to a wide range of people.

Lately I've been thinking of myself as a pre-Constantinian Christian, (as well as a pre-canonization Christian).

Just trying to get, or "tune into" the Spirits of JC, God/Higher Power/Great Spirit etc. , and what's called the Holy Spirit.

Even according to the New Testament, that's what the first generations of Christians were doing. . . They didn't have a/the book.

[JosephM]

Thread split off to "Discussing PC" as this thread is not for the purpose of discussion .  It is a pinned thread for member posts to state what PC means to them so new members or visitors can get an idea of what PC means  to its members. There should be no responses in this thread other than a like if you like what is posted or a thank you or welcome.  Discussions wanted on any posts here should start another thread .

JosephM (as Admin)

[irreverance]

I see progressive Christianity as an approach to Christianity that takes seriously developments in the world around us. We don't prioritize tradition over insight. Yet, we don't simply accept new insights without critical thought. 

[PaulS]

On 1/30/2021 at 4:58 AM, irreverance said:

Great discussion all! Alas, but it appears (see above) that we're in the wrong place for it.

Is there any way we can transfer this awesome chat over to this thread so we can continue? I don't know if it's possible to move individual posts.  

Thanks for pointing that out, Irreverance.  I have now transferred those posts across to the more appropriate thread - Discussing PC

 

 

Cheers, Paul.

 

[PinkAzalea]

I don't know much about "PC"    yet but there seems to be low activity here and I want to help change that, so anybody who happens by will see more recent posts.  

So I'm jumping in with a mostly-uninformed opinion.  What Progressive Christianity means to me right now is the possibility of a religion I can really get into.  While I was raised a Christian and while I sometimes believe in God and even Jesus, there are many things about Christianity that just don't add up for me.   Maybe here people look at those things and if necessary discard them. 

It also means the possibility of finding people I can connect with, who don't for instance feel the deep and abiding guilt that many online Christians seem to have, and think I should have too.  I'm hoping for people who also don't think they have all the answers.  A pastor once told me to beware of people who think they have all the answers.  

So what Progressive Christianity means to me right now is the hope of something I can follow without lying to myself, and a way to connect with people who also want that.  

 

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by PinkAzalea

[David Sundaram]

Although it aspires as well as it pro-claims itself to be non'sect'arian, my quibble with PC as a group-movement is the same as the one I have with other existing versions (group movements) of 'Christianity', which is that it doesn't (IMO) truly (fully?) embrace and further explore the deeper (IMO) truths and wisdom-teachings which Jesus's actual sayings convey, or that it only does so selectively, to 'suit' particular 'flag-waiving' groupie predilections, generally speaking.

Here, as elsewhere, I find self-proclaimed 'Christian' understandings of what the word 'soul' references, for example in Jesus's statement “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man  profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”, to be nebulous if not totally absent.

Let me ask PCs here, what do you make of Jesus's references to 'reincarnation' and 'eternal life' - life continuing beyond' the scope of our present personal bodies? Jesus clearly stated "

Here is an excerpt from my treatise titled "What Did Jesus Really Mean?"to stimulate further thought and (possible) discussion in this regard:

"Even in the case of relatively educated populations today, because of self  imposed ‘blindness’ stemming from their desire to belong to a group-sponsored tradition and corollary wish to not ‘rock the boat’ in this regard, the vast majority of self-identified ‘Christians’ still don’t ‘see’ that the passage: “His disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias [the Greek transliteration of the name Elijah] must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”  (Matthew  17:10-13) clearly indicates that Jesus personally ‘saw’ John the Baptist as having been the (prophesied) reincarnation of Elias. And, because they haven’t read and so haven’t thought about what’s been clearly stated in historical accounts pertaining to early developments in Christianity as a social movement for the same reason, said ‘Christians’ remain unaware of the fact that, like Jesus, many of early Christianity’s members (Origen being just one prominent example) also embraced the idea of reincarnation and understood it to reference a phenomenal aspect of Life’s process. So ‘Christians’ generally still continue to ignore and dismiss the implications of the fact that belief in reincarnation was only declared to be 'anathema' by the Fifth General Council of the Church in 553  C.E. in the course of the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy’s ongoing quest to establish itself as a centralized, “Souls have only one ‘chance’ of getting into ‘Heaven’ and that is by way of giving absolute credence to what we say the truth pertaining to Jesus and his teachings is and unquestioningly obeying our edicts in said regard during their (presumptively, then) one and only earthly life  ” dictatorial authority."

The Apostle Paul also (clearly IMO) thought in terms of 'reincarnation' (repeated earthly soul-embodiments) being a fact of Life. What else could his speaking of a 'better' resurrection in "others were tortured, not accepting deliverance;  that they might obtain a better resurrection" (Hebrews 11:35) reference. Do you think he meant that some (afterlife) 'heavens' were 'better' to live in than others???

I have many other quibbles with what I perceive to the 'superficial' (at best) grasp most people here (and elsewhere!) seem to have regarding what Jesus actually said. But let me leave you with another excerpt from my treatise to stimulate deeper consideration in this regard, as well as suggest that if peeps want to move themselves as well as 'Christianity' in a really 'progressive' way, it would be best if (re)read and more deeply ponder what's actually implied in the compendium of Jesus's statements (not just other's Jesus-as-a-Santa-Claus-figure 'press' releases).

"Many, thinking that being unconditionally ‘kind’ and/or unreservedly ‘generous’ in relation to others was what Jesus advocated in the ‘name’ of Universal Love, don’t realize that his ‘turn the other cheek’, ‘give him your shirt also’ and ‘walk an extra mile if and when compelled to walk’ statements (see Mathew 5:39-41) shrewdly coached physiosocially ‘powerless’ people to psychospiritually embarrass and thereby (hopefully, at least) prick the conscience of those who were being unconscionably coercive and exploitative, because of the fact that they would invite and likely incur further abuse if they overtly attempted to ‘resist’ such treatment. His endorsement of the use of ‘embarrassment’ and ‘showing people up’ (for the abusers that they are!) as tactics in service of the cause of All-encompassing Love is especially apparent in his suggestion that folks take off and give their shirts (also!) to anyone who sued them for and were being awarded their coats (for non-payment of debt, etc.), because men in his culture just wore (long) shirts, without any other ‘underwear’, beneath their (long) coats, such that they would ‘flash’ and ‘moon’ (i.e. expose their genitals and asses 😮 to) their persecutors by so doing!"

[tariki]

Just to say (as I am one of the few still here, for good or ill) that I'm not actually a PC. The then big chief here, Joseph, knowing that I was harmless (😄) allowed me to post wherever I wanted although the rules state that we must subscribe to the 8 points. 

 

Actually, I think I am still a moderator of the "Other Wisdom Traditions" section, but given the sheer lack of interest there, I'm not unduly troubled...😀

[David Sundaram]

1 hour ago, tariki said:

Just to say (as I am one of the few still here, for good or ill) that I'm not actually a PC.

My 'sense' is that, like many PC's, you are not (yet) appreciative of the full significance of Jesus's sayings/teachings, which is fine since we are all co-journeying parts of what the Apostle Paul referenced as 'the body of Christ' in any case. I myself am (now) in the world (hence here as well) to explicate and (re)sound Jesus's call: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world., which 'kingdom' includes states of mind and heart which (IMO) extend well beyond the parameters of personal happiness and well-being which is (generally) the 'highest' goal of 'therapy'.

[tariki]

20 minutes ago, David Sundaram said:

My 'sense' is that, like many PC's, you are not (yet) appreciative of the full significance of Jesus's sayings/teachings....

Who is? Meanings are infinite. 

Here is Wei Wu Wei, the famous English gentleman racehorse owner, speaking of a saying from the Gospel of Thomas (no, not canonical, but who decided what is, or was, or will be?)

It is interesting to note that in the recently discovered collection of sayings of Jesus there is one in which he formally adjured His disciples to divest themselves of all their 'garments'. It is understandable that such a statement should have been omitted by those later compilers who had no idea what such a requirement could mean. But to us it should be a commonplace. As far back as Chuang-tse we find the story of the old monk who, in despair of knowing enlightenment before he died, went to see Lao-tse. On arrival Lao-tse came out to meet him, welcomed him, but told him to leave his followers and his baggage outside the gate, for otherwise he would not be admitted. The old man had no followers, and no baggage, but he understood, went in and found his fulfilment.

🙂

[tariki]

28 minutes ago, David Sundaram said:

... which is (generally) the 'highest' goal of 'therapy'.

Who is speaking of "therapy"?

“So this holy life, bhikkhus, does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.”

(Majjhima Nikaya 29:7)

 

Or, "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"

[David Sundaram]

2 hours ago, tariki said:

Who is speaking of "therapy"?

You yourself, Derek. If not talk 'therapy', then the chemical kind.

In the Cut and Paste thread, you said: "Back on medication, which helped. And life resumed. Then early this year, feeling "cured" and wondering if I actually needed the medication I was on (paroxetine) , without consulting anyone, I began to cut down. And cut down. All went well for about six weeks, I was down to half a tablet every two days. Felt fine. Then it hit. The next 8 weeks or so were the worst of my life. The NHS crisis helpline. The Samaritans. Other organisations. At one point I simply froze and said: I need help......I meant I would need to be sectioned, taken away. But my dear wife simply thought I was asking for help getting a couple of carrier bags to my daughter's house and then collecting our two grandchildren from school. She said to ring a mate, who would drive me there. I did, he was available, he hung around for a few hours, we talked, I opened my heart a bit. He is a good mate. I just might owe him my life, who knows just how bad it can get. Good friends just might be the Dharma personified.

I'm now back on medication. I've actually had face to face consultations with my GP. But my days are varied. The anxiety or whatever it is shifts and changes like a fog, lifting and dropping back - not like it has always been before, a great weight that simply engulfs you all the time."

You also said: "... But I do find rambling on therapeutic. It helps."

[David Sundaram]

2 hours ago, tariki said:

Who is? Meanings are infinite. 

Here is Wei Wu Wei, the famous English gentleman racehorse owner, speaking of a saying from the Gospel of Thomas (no, not canonical, but who decided what is, or was, or will be?)

It is interesting to note that in the recently discovered collection of sayings of Jesus there is one in which he formally adjured His disciples to divest themselves of all their 'garments'. It is understandable that such a statement should have been omitted by those later compilers who had no idea what such a requirement could mean. But to us it should be a commonplace. As far back as Chuang-tse we find the story of the old monk who, in despair of knowing enlightenment before he died, went to see Lao-tse. On arrival Lao-tse came out to meet him, welcomed him, but told him to leave his followers and his baggage outside the gate, for otherwise he would not be admitted. The old man had no followers, and no baggage, but he understood, went in and found his fulfilment.

🙂

Yes, I can 'see' how this makes sense to you and others. Though Jesus may indeed have said something like that, it is clear to me that he also made other statements pertaining to entering 'the kingdom of Heaven' which had nothing to do with 'simply' 'dropping' one's baggage and/or 'followers'.

IMO, your above post proves the 'point' I made about many PC's who (again, IMO) 'selectively' overlook specific sayings/teachings contained in the New Testament gospels, presumably to 'suit' their own your own 'tastes' as you do yours here.

I suggest you try actually relating to my verbalizations if you want to have a meaning-full con-verse-ation with me instead of 'simply' (one-sidedly!) asserting your (chosen) views.

It is OK if you don't wish to do so - I just want to 'highlight' what you are doing - in my view, that is.

[tariki]

12 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

You yourself, Derek. If not talk 'therapy', then the chemical kind.

In the Cut and Paste thread, you said: "Back on medication, which helped. And life resumed. Then early this year, feeling "cured" and wondering if I actually needed the medication I was on (paroxetine) , without consulting anyone, I began to cut down. And cut down. All went well for about six weeks, I was down to half a tablet every two days. Felt fine. Then it hit. The next 8 weeks or so were the worst of my life. The NHS crisis helpline. The Samaritans. Other organisations. At one point I simply froze and said: I need help......I meant I would need to be sectioned, taken away. But my dear wife simply thought I was asking for help getting a couple of carrier bags to my daughter's house and then collecting our two grandchildren from school. She said to ring a mate, who would drive me there. I did, he was available, he hung around for a few hours, we talked, I opened my heart a bit. He is a good mate. I just might owe him my life, who knows just how bad it can get. Good friends just might be the Dharma personified.

I'm now back on medication. I've actually had face to face consultations with my GP. But my days are varied. The anxiety or whatever it is shifts and changes like a fog, lifting and dropping back - not like it has always been before, a great weight that simply engulfs you all the time."

You also said: "... But I do find rambling on therapeutic. It helps."

I also said that I was speaking from a particular perspective, and that there are other perspectives.

Regarding "therapy" I was simply saying that as far as I am concerned "therapy" is not any sort of "answer" as such.

We all need to strive to see the entire context of any set of words. But obviously I have been unclear.

These things could be sorted in double quick time over a pint of ale in a tavern. Which is a rather good context, although I am now teetotal. 

🙂

 

[tariki]

12 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

I suggest you try actually relating to my verbalizations if you want to have a meaning-full con-verse-ation with me instead of 'simply' (one-sidedly!) asserting your (chosen) views.

 

Without seeking to be rude, I would suggest that you try to do much the same. 

You really need to drop a bit of baggage, if not all of it. From my perspective.

Once again, I am a Pure Land Buddhist (if we must use labels) 

You obviously seek to engage in some sort of debate. I accept that this is a discussion forum, but really I seek no such thing. But I gave up seeking to "relate" to all the various sayings of Jesus long ago (I have in fact read the entire NT about 7 times, and also many commentaries by various theologians, academics etc etc) His sayings are, in my opinion, in the context of his life and his relationships, as recorded. Extracting them from such a context only leads to formulas and theologies, inquistions and conflict. 

You are welcome to engage in such debate and conversations, but not with me. 

Thank you.

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by tariki
Clarity

[David Sundaram]

3 hours ago, tariki said:

I accept that this is a discussion forum, but really I seek no such thing. But I gave up seeking to "relate" to all the various sayings of Jesus long ago.

You are welcome to engage in such debate and conversations, but not with me.

We have no 'common' ground then.

[David Sundaram]

4 hours ago, tariki said:

These things could be sorted in double quick time over a pint of ale in a tavern.

I think not.

[romansh]

5 hours ago, tariki said:

These things could be sorted in double quick time over a pint of ale in a tavern.

This is an offer I would jump at. Being presumptuous that you might extend the offer.  

[tariki]

47 minutes ago, romansh said:

This is an offer I would jump at. Being presumptuous that you might extend the offer.  

If you offered to buy the round you would be most welcome.

😀

[tariki]

2 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

I think not.

I simply meant in the context of "clarity" of expression, not anything else. 

Thanks

[tariki]

2 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

We have no 'common' ground then.

Oh, there is. But we all need to drop our baggage.

Thomas Merton:-

And the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless, it is beyond words, and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept. Not that we discover a new unity. We discover an older unity. My dear brothers [and sisters], we are already one. But we imagine that we are not. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are.

Sincerely, all the best.

 

[David Sundaram]

39 minutes ago, tariki said:

Oh, there is. But we all need to drop our baggage.

Thomas Merton:-

And the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless, it is beyond words, and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept. Not that we discover a new unity. We discover an older unity. My dear brothers [and sisters], we are already one. But we imagine that we are not. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are.

Sincerely, all the best.

One man's baggage is another man's BS. Backatcha and bye-bye, Derek. 

[harmonicat]

On 2/2/2020 at 9:39 AM, JosephM said:

This thread post was moved to debate and dialog as this is not the place to dispute others. It is a thread to share your view of what progressive Christianity is to you. There are no wrong answers. See opening post  #1 for clarification

JosephM (as Admin)

In a nutshell this is how I view it for me. I come from being raised Catholic then going from one denomination to another over the last 50 or so years. And having been a deacon, Trustee, and filled in as 'the fellowship' leader during a vacancy for 9 months.

So, for me it's just a basic transition from all the hardcore doctrines of the Christian 'church'.  They can hardly agree on anything among themselves anyway. Now I certainly lean to a more universal salvation way of understanding things.  Like so many others say, "Christianity is simply another path up the mountain of God."  I now believe that may well be true.

I just can't believe that a just and loving God would condemn an entire group of people of a different culture and religion than mine, who strive to live a good life to an eternity of fiery torment for a vapor's worth of life.