WindDancer

A progressive christian devotional book...what a fabulous idea! Frederick Buechner's, Listening to Your Life Daily Meditations, is pretty good. But it's not quite like "My Utmost for His Highest." Online for the weekly lectionary, I go to textweek.com and Dylan's Lectionary Blog.

Theo-Maniac - "stand-alone commentary" HarperCollins and Oxford commentaries are available separately, if you want to go that route, but that can get a little "spendy" unless you can get them from the library. I bought the HarperCollins study bible for $8.00 at a bargain books store. Oxford especially has a whole series of the books, which you can probably find digging around at Amazon. A few links to get started: Oxford Commentary HarperCollins Commentary I'm also interested in the emergent or postmodern angle (aka McLaren, etc) and I do have a book wish list on Bible study that I can post if you are interested. Since I haven't read them yet, I can't really recommend, though. I'm a big fan of Marcus Borg's books and really can't offer anything more/better/similar to that. I'd be thrilled to find more, but haven't been able to. About study Bibles being "bad." Well, some are more what I call devotional with a specific bent to them. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as you are aware that the study Bible is coming from a specific denominational segment of Christianity. It is not a bad thing to be aware of the various viewpoints. The study Bibles like Oxford, HarperCollins and the others mentioned specifically for liberal/progressive are more historical-critical than devotional. More on the technical side and can actually seem dry if what you want is a devotional Bible. I have the NIV Life Application Bible--Gasp!--with it's conservative Evangelical devotional comments, and I happen to like it. I just know where it's coming from is all. Actually, I have a bunch of different Bibles. I'm sort of a collector. One more thing: I have Raymond Brown's Intro to NT and highly recommend that. He is middle of the road Jesus Scholar, so more conservative than Borg and Brown is from the Catholic tradition. But I love the way he writes--very thorough and presents the various views on different issues. Again, it's more of a scholarly technical historical-critical view, though. New Interpreters Study Bible noted. Thanks Aletheia.

I had to redo my meaning of communion or eucharist after I realized that Jesus was not a literal sacrifice for sins and of course that belief is part of communion. What I did is create my own communion ritual. I'm not saying others should do that, just that it was important to me to keep that sacramental practice, yet not as most churches do it. It has been important for me to find new ways to reinvest in the area of loss.

One of my visits to the United Methodist church included observing a baby baptism. It wasn't presented as washing away of sins. It was about that individual being welcomed into the church family and the family's and sponsor's commitment to raise the child in the Christian tradition. I really liked the way the ceremony was presented. Just another example of how actually visiting a church can help overcome misunderstandings, fears, prejudices etc. There is only so much a person can learn on the outside looking in. About JW's and Mormon's not being viewed as Christian. That bugs me too. Because it shows the emphasis on "correct" beliefs as the criteria for being Christian. I'd look more at the dysfunctional life-diminishing behavior that is so damaging and can happen in any faith community. Other Christian denominations are not immune to that, just because they have the "correct" beliefs.

Theo-Maniac - I don't know about the "new believers" aspect, but I do know the study Bibles considered more progressive/liberal. All available in NRSV. Cambridge Annotated Study Bible HarperCollins Study Bible New Oxford Annotated Bible I have the HarperCollins and I like it. But I would say that it's more oriented towards the modern day scholarship aspect than a new believe aspect. It doesn't explain christian terms. It does explain who wrote what when and meanings of original words,etc.

Hi Jason, Have you tried googling on "emergent" rathan than "progressive" "house churches?" I think some of the "emergent" Christians groups are into that. Might find more support/info/resources that way. For example, here's a place I found by googling on the topic. http://sojourner.typepad.com/ Just a thought. Maybe you've been there, done that already.

Have ya ever been to the ship of fools website? It's a fun place to visit. They have a mystery worshipper section where people write about their church experiences. You can sort it by just USA churches. Check out their discussion forum too. They have funny names for their discussion areas. Like one area is called "Hell - asbestos underwear recommended." des - Hymnals are interesting to look through! I have a Lutheran hymnal. Lots of stuff in there. Sometimes hymnals can be found for pennies at second hand stores, used book stores, garage sales, etc. Bibles too.

I was raised Lutheran--baptized, confirmed there. A Lutheran service is more like a Presbyterian or a United Church of Christ service. Not at all like Catholics or Episcopalians. A liturgy is not a big ritualistic thing. It's just some simple words said or sung by the pastor and then the congregation responds. Not a biggie. The bulletin is the print out of the service so you know what songs they will sing, etc. and can follow along and participate as you feel comfortable doing. Lutherans have communion once a month. Episcopalians call it the Eucharist and have it every service.

The quote was from: http://www.godspell.org.uk/2004/10/eternal...gelessness.html What a great website! Huston Smith book, The World's Relgions, says that if Taoism sounds very much like Zen, it should; for Buddhism processed through Taoism became Zen. (pg 216)

I visited several different churches in my area and there really is no substitute for personally visiting each church. That will tell you more than anybody's personal opinion or any web page can convey. I found that just walking into a church I could pick up the spirit of the group. It is quite the experience. I know that might be scary or uncomfortable for some, but it really isn't all that difficult. Churches do try to make it easy for newbies to come to the service and be able to follow along. Here's what I did: I got a list of Protestant churches from religioustolerance.org ranging from conservative to liberal and started with the most liberal. I compared that with a phonebook church listing and then checked the internet to see if the church had a website. The church websites will usually give you the time of the Sunday service and more. I also drove by the place ahead of time. Think of it as an adventure. No, I never found a church, but I learned a lot in the process. Conservative to Liberal List of Churches: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi3.htm Assemblies of God (the most conservative) Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod Church of the Nazarene Southern Baptist Convention Churches of Christ Presbyterian Church in the United States * American Baptist Churches in the USA Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America * United Methodist Church Episcopal Church United Church of Christ. (the most liberal) Note the differences: Southern Baptist is more conservative than American Baptist. Missouri Synod Lutheran is more conservative than ELCA. Presbyterian vs United Presbyterian. Churches of Christ vs United Church of Christ. The word "Evangelical" in ELCA is misleading if you ask me as that has the more liberal Lutheran churches. In the phonebook, the Evangelical churches are a separate listing and not under the Lutheran section at all. Unitarian Universalist may or may not be Christian. Quakers might be a liberal group to try too. More Links: Conservative & Liberal "Wings" In Protestant Christianity: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi.htm Families of Christian Denominations in North America: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm

BroRog - Suchoki book noted and good to know that Mesle is an atheist. Are you process theology then? Pssst Lily, over on the other panentheism thread when Panta told me to research "initial aim" I found this Cobb article, which was supposed to be a "very simple definition" ha ha. After I got done reading it I thought it sounded like a bunch of scholarly verbosity for develop and follow your intuition. Shakti Gawain (new thought) does a much better job on the topic of intuition. Now I wasn't going to say that on this board, cuz I thought I'd get flak for it, but you brought me out of the closet on that one. And BTW, I'm still interested in chatting about Tarot. I thought Heirophant symbolized tradition, rules of culture, comformity? des, for some reason "beyond my understanding" I am obsessed with this whole panentheism/god concept stuff. I think somehow I am working out something critical in my relationship with God. I used to be obsessed with the adam and eve story too once I realized it was not literal history. But eventually it somehow felt answered and I got over that obsession. There isn't a panentheism for dummies book, but there is a philosophy for dummies book and I have it. It wouldn't help with this discussion, but it does make me laugh. For example, on Descartes (substance ontology guy) it says "in his last few years he was mostly captivated by the problem of how to keep is hair from turning gray." pg 329 Or Hegel (dialectical) it says: "Hegel is also thought by many to have been very confused. For some reason, this is not incompatible with philosophical renown." pg 331 There have been a few really important things I've learned from this discussion. 1. Panentheism is an umbrella term 2. One of Clayton's papers gave me a way to envision how God acts in the world 3. Cobb's "initial aim" is very similar to my ideas on "intuition." Panta, thanks for validating that Clayton's views are somewhat different than the mainstream process philosophical thought. I thought that was so and on more points than were mentioned. Aletheia - I think you will click with Clayton if you read his papers. My guess is that he might be closer to where you are at than open theism. I don't think open theism is under the panentheism umbrella. I don't know anything about monism, but skimming over your posts on it (info overload again, sorry) it sounds similar to yin/yang Taoism and that interests me. FredP - You said you are a supernaturalist in a different way than the typical supernatural interventionist. I'd like to hear more about that. I believe that modern supernatural theism is a distortion of classical theism and I'm thinking you are hitting on that very point. "Ontologically prior to nature" -- I'll have to go back over the posts and see if you explained what you mean by that. Are you classical theism, not open theism then? And if you actually read all of that, thanks for listening!

This is definitely NOT panentheism 101! But I'm listening and trying to glean what I can from the conversation. Yeah, FredP, what are ya anyways. panentheist?, not process, classical?, ?? I might try the Mesle book then, thanks Panta. "Process Buddhist" ? - My take on that is Buddhists are nontheists and wouldn't even be having the same conversation. Since panentheism #4 is included in the Wikipedia criteria for process, therefore you could not be a process christian without also being panentheist. Technically from the criteria stated in Wikipedia a person could be panentheist but not process. I've been reading more of Clayton's Papers from ctr4process.org site. I do like Clayton better than what I've read of Cobb, Peacocke, Griffin. I still suspect that Clayton is more panentheist than process and/or that he may be a *form* of process that's different than Cobb, etc. But if you asked me to nail that down I couldn't tell ya. The following is From Clayton paper: "The Panentheistic Turn in Christian Theology: Dialog #2" ThePanenetheisticTurninXtianTheology2.pdf God cannot vs God does not. Panentheist Clayton, who Panta says is process, definitely says that God does not. (page 6) I'm not fully understanding the substance ontology versus event ontology issues. Clayton mentions a few reasons to object to substance ontology 1) wouldn't allow for the everything in God yet separate concept and 2) views on power. (page 2) The following from Clayton paper: "Panentheist Internalism: Living within the Presence of the Trinitarian God" PanentheistInternalism.pdf Clayton's views on divine action (page 6) 1) Since everything is in God, then every event in the world is a divine act. Using the world as God's body analogy, he calls this autonomic divine action, like the breathing and blood circulation that our bodies carry out without conscious direction 2) But in other cases God chooses to exercise a conscious influence on events, (intentional divine action) similar to the intentional actions we engage in. Also read: "The Case for Christian panentheism" TheCaseforXtianPanentheism1.pdf Oh, and I really like the one I mentioned previously, "Can Liberals Still Believe that God (Literally) Does Anything?" CanLiberalsStillBelieve.pdf I'd love it if someone else would read these papers and tell me what you think of them. They'd be good discussion material as they are credible, available to everyone for free, and accessible enough for the average panentheism 101 person.

I didn't think I was asking the same questions as you did, Aletheia, in the other panentheism thread. I was questioning the use of the term "nonprocess panentheism" more than it's definition, thinking that if there was such a thing as nonprocess panentheism it probably was not called that. Because Borg had said: "process panentheism, a primoridal panentheism, Tillichian panentheism, etc." That metalibrary link referring to "nonprocess" panentheism must have been the rare exception. But then Panta said: "Process New Thought, Process Buddhism, Process Mysticism, Process Panentheism" in the other panentheism thread, so maybe I *am* trying to figure out what makes those all "process" too as opposed to just plain New Thought, Buddhism etc. Fred mentioned Wilber's magic (pre-rational) versus paradox (post-rational). Earl (other panentheism thread) and Aletheia mentioned transrational. I was thinking that this is similar to Borg's pre-critical naivete, critical, post-critical naivete stages. Also James Fowler's stages of faith. Panta (christology thread) thought "ineffable" was a cop-out. I remembered Hicks didn't like that word either. He preferred "transcategorical" defined as "beyond the range of our human systems of concepts or mental categories." Process Theology: A Basic Introduction, by C. Robert Mesle, John B., Jr. Cobb is supposed to be a lay person's intro to PT. Is anybody familiar with that book and would they recommend it? Aletheia was talking about the definition of "transcendent" in the other panentheism thread. Since I know you have the book, Borg touched on that in God We Never Knew: Aletheia mentioned the difficulty in trying to describe experiences of God. William James did exactly that in his classic "Varieties of Religious Experience" which is out of copyright so the full book is available online.

I pulled out "The God We Never Knew" book and reviewed some of it. Yeah, it's been years since I first read that book too. And at the time I was REALLY clueless. I can tell by my notes. It is an excellent panentheism 101 book. Take a look at this, Aletheia, sounds like what you've already said (the "umbrella" part anyways). Pg 33 "Panentheism as a root concept for thinking about God is a broad umbrella that encompasses a variety of more specific theological positions. Within it I include all concepts of the sacred that strongly affirm both the transcendence and immanence of God." [My note: Yes, "transcendence" and "immanence" needs to be defined.] If you read more, plus footnotes etc, you'll find some terms Borg says have the same underlying concept as panentheism. =========== Page 30, footnote 2: John Macquarrie's "dialectical theism" David Griffin's "naturalistic theism" "dipolar theism" Page 51, footnote 4: As I [borg] use the term, panentheism includes all forms of dialectical theism, including theological positions as diverse as process theology, Huston Smith's "primordial tradition," Tillich's understanding of God as "the ground of being"... One may thus speak of process panentheism, a primoridal panentheism, Tillichian panentheism, etc. =========== While this is throwing out a lot terms we might not be familiar with, it is good to know that these terms are closely associated with panentheism. QUESTION: What would make a panentheism nonprocess instead of process? Is there such a thing or would it be called something else?

About the circle within the circle etc metaphors. All metaphors are limited, inadequate, technically incorrect. But we do need some way to think about God. Simplified ones, at first, do help shift our thinking. Marcus Borg uses the circle within a circle metaphor: God We Never Knew book, page 51, footnote 2. "Of course these diagrams cannot be taken literally. It does not make sense to think of either the universe of God as having borders, as the ovals suggest." We all can't take giant leaps to the other side. We get there step by step. When a person can break down complexed ideas, and explain them simply, that, to me, indicates the person knows the subject well.

Panta (Don) - Thanks for making me laugh. I needed that. I'll google on "Initial Aim" and see what kind of deep blankety blank I can get into. I'd revisit the prayer conversation and answer those questions if you want to dialogue. I agree about the hidden assumptions. I'd like to hear about the hidden assumptions you see there. Maybe I just want people to talk straight and get to the point FIRST and THEN IF it sounds interesting I'll "philosophize" and "intellectualize" it. I'm too tired otherwise. Aletheia - I still like ya. Don't worry about it.

cynthia - I think you are referring to the CS Lewis' "Discarded Image" quotes in chapter 4 which is on worldviews? The point being that our worldview changes. Medieval to modern to postmodern (or emergent). Why? Because of advances in science for one thing. We know things we didn't know before and this changes our understanding of the way the world is. Like a domino effect--one change leads to another, and another. Marcus Borg defines "worldview" as our image of reality--our image or picture or understanding of what is real and what is possible (HOC pg 62). If you want to get more complicated, Panta in the panentheism thread mentioned "a shared worldview with its own metaphysical (ontological, epistemological, and cosmological) understanding." We are emerging out of modernism and are adjusting our beliefs--on a world scale not just individually. First there is deconstruction eventually leading to reconstruction. Changing worldviews is a paradigm shift. See the Intro pg xi of NKOC. "When a paradigm shift occurs, the whole frame of reference changes. Fundamental assumptions undergo transformation, with consequent alterations of all the rules and standards by which inquiry or conversation can occur. A new paradigm signals the emergence of a new worldview-new ways of seeing, interpreting, and making sense of the world and life." Weaving The New Creation, by James Fowler, pg 19 This is probably the single most important thing I learned from McLaren's book--understanding the worldview change and how it is affecting Christianity. HUGE piece of the puzzle for me.

aletheia quoted me as saying: "I don't know who believes what. But I don't even care anymore ... Thing is I can't find others who believe this way--except may you, now." Ah...rewind the tape. I said: "Rereading this thread, I'm REALLY confused about God's existence outside the universe, cuz there has been so many contradictions, I don't know who believes what. But I don't even care anymore." I don't know who believes what--about God's existence outside the universe. And I don't care anymore either, so no biggie. I said: "Clayton's paper I read is more accessible than his books and really does answer it for me. Thing is I can't find others who believe this way--except may you, now." This pertains to Clayton's views on God's action. Panta indicated similar views.

des, hee hee I love it! Okie dokie, now. Pan-EN-theism Everything-IN-God AND God is MORE than everything. The more part is important. More later.

Thanks for all your posts, Panta. Rereading this thread, I'm REALLY confused about God's existence outside the universe, cuz there has been so many contradictions, I don't know who believes what. But I don't even care anymore. I do care about how God acts in the world. I've read some Cobb, Griffin, Peacocke, Clayton, then there is Borg's panentheism book too. Borg is about the only one truly accessible to the general public kind of person. But he is really vague about what God actually does. I've plowed thru countless websites, talked to hundreds of people online. I've been doing this for years already, Panta. Did you ever comment about prayer in the Borg's Book thread? When I asked if God actually does anything or not, the consensus of everyone was basically no, he doesn't do anything. Maybe people just get too hung up on God being an supernatural interventionist or God doesn't do anything at all dicotomy. I just can't find people who talk about a God that acts other than the interventionist type. Clayton's paper I read is more accessible than his books and really does answer it for me. Thing is I can't find others who believe this way--except may you, now. If you know of any group discussions that do discuss the topic, please tell me. I need to spend more time at that ctr4process website. Thanks for hanging in there with this cranky burned out person over here.

Fred - Good stuff on Jesus being the way. So where you diverge from the Jesus Seminar is in believing that Jesus became God when he died on the cross? Is that what you mean by "laying aside his human nature"? And are you saying that experience is/was unique to Jesus? Blessed Easter to you too, Fred. "Christ the Lord is risen today, A-lle-lu-ia!" I love that hymn.

Panta - Yeah, I noticed Clayton's footnote mentioned a *form* of process theism in the *nontechnical* sense of the term. ??? When I say that I believe in a God that acts and that God would still exist if the world no longer was, people tell me that is *not* process theology. When I read Clayton, he also sounds like he has the same view that I do. That metalibrary website confirmed this. It's been a while since I was last at the ctr4process website, and I don't think Clayton was there then. There is a discussion area now too. I do find Clayton helpful in thinking about how God acts in the world, which is really all that matters to me. Aletheia - I apologize if you were offended. I'm so cranky and burned out I really shouldn't even be talking theology, but I get sucked in if I read the posts. And OMG, especially panentheism, which is like my pet topic. Anyway, sorry. I like to listen to your ideas and certainly wouldn't want to stifle them. Des - I'll probably never progress out of panentheism 101, and I've been studying that sucker for like years already. Mostly, I just bang my head against the wall in frustration and confusion at all the conflicting information out there.

I'm briefly popping in to say that I just read Clayton's paper: Can Liberals Still Believe That God (Literally) Does Anything? Well, Alleluia! Exactly what I was looking for and it's GOOD! Mentions a conference that took place in nov 01 so it is more current than the books I have. I don't think it's different info, but it is much easier reading that his books are. Thanks Panta. I haven't read your latest posts yet, but will do that later.

panta wrote: "Why does the Metalibrary site list Phil Clayton as a non-process panentheist? He's about as much a process thinker as you can get!" Then we don't have the same definition of process. As I mentioned, I think nonprocess vs process panentheism boils down to God's Agency (how God acts in/on the world) and God's existence outside *A* universe. I don't want to get into open theism vs process theology because that comes packed with other issues that either aren't issues for me one way or the other or I don't agree with them. God's Agency is what I'm really interested in, and I think perhaps you and Aletheia already bounced the ball back and forth enough for me to know your views on that. I was already familiar with ctr4process website. I will take a look at Clayton's online papers as some may be more current than his two books I already have and read. In Clayton's _God and Contemporary Science_ (c. 1997) he says in his conclusions page 264: "At the same time, God also transcends the world and will exist long after the physical universe has ceased." As far as I can tell Clayton did NOT differentiate between THIS vs A universe. Yes, it's possible that I'm misunderstanding him. It's pretty difficult to pull out a quote from such a weighty book filled with all kinds of qualifying statements. But I provide the specific reference for whoever wants to research this further and get the full context of the quote. The other Clayton book I have _The Problem of God in Modern Thought_ is c. 2000, so shouldn't be terribly out of date with his current ideas. Aletheia said: "I imagine you could have an open view of God and not be a panentheist." Ah, wait a minute, rewind the tape. You said earlier: "I don't think open theism and panentheism are on a "line" where you are more one than the other. Like process philosphy fits within the umbrella of panentheism, so does open view." Aletheia, are you now saying some open views are panentheistic and some are not or are you retracting your first statement or am I not understanding you? des wrote: "I think I'll need that PhD to understand it." That's becoming one of my pet peeves. The typical strategies are: 1. Ignore the poster altogether 2. Get it as inaccessible as possible by using really loaded terms that have several definitions, interpretations 3. Pick someone really obscure for a reference 4. Information overload--here read 50 pages of scholarly verbosity 5. Bring in lots of other side issues so the conversation gets sidetracked 5. Use words that imply how stupid opposing views are 6. I'm too busy I've been there done that so many times in so many ways with so many different people that I just got burned out and had to quit intellectualizing everything to death and go hug trees. I don't have to "figure out" hugging trees.

Boy, I think this is the best conversation I've had on panENthesim yet. Thanks gang. I'm not all that interested in process vs open. I am VERY interested in nonprocess panENtheism vs open. I heard Aletheia say that open theism fits within the umbrella of panENtheism. That I will have to chew on. That might be one of the key pieces of the puzzle I was missing. Panta--would you agree with that? I wouldn't have issues with creation out of chaos. But maybe I don't really get all the issues involved in that either. I know it took me a long time to understand the many implications of panENtheism and I'm still probably ignorant of a lot of it. Here's that Meta library link. Clayton is nonprocess panENtheism and as far as I can tell he still believes in a God that acts and would exist without the world. I have two of his books, but don't ask to explain the guy. Oh yeah, I've sampled Peacocke books too, a little bit of McFague. If I remember correctly Peacocke had a creation story that I liked a lot and I might have that in my notes.