Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Carl

  • Rank
    New Member
  1. Hello Dwight, Welcome here! I'm a United Methodist Minister serving in Indiana. Glad to have you on this forum!
  2. Welcome here! good to have you! A book suggestion for you Shane Claiborne's book "Irresistable Revolution" From reading your post, I think you will enjoy it.
  3. There are many theological conservatives who are political moderates or liberals, the first example I think of is Jimmy Carter. So naturally, one may be a theological liberal, and a political moderate or conservative and still be taken seriously. After all - we are all on our own journeys in this life. Lables are so limiting sometimes... I highly recomend the book "Irresistable Revolution" by Shawn Claiborne Shawn is a theological conservative and teaches a new political/economic system based on Biblical Christianity. It is a very interesting book.
  4. James - I did not say that gender discrimination was "OK", I said that the texts needed to be understood in their cultural contexts. Humanity is in the process of growing. Norms and values are changing as we grow. What used to be unacceptable is now acceptable, because we have evolved, grown and progressed. People are much more enlightened today, than they were 1500 years ago. Recognizing that the Bible contains many instances of bias or descrimination is NOT to say that discrimiation was/is a good thing. It is to say however, that it was a reality because at that point (during the life of St. Paul for example) largely because humanity had not progressed far enough to recognize the reality of gender equality. That is a part of reality. Think of it as looking at a map of the world from the 1700s.....It may be the best map that a cartographer of that era was capeable of drawing... but today, we have progressed more, and can draw better maps. That doesn't mean that we are offended by the old map, rather it means that we respect it for what it was, and we continue to progress. I use the Scriptures, together with Tradition, Reason and Experience to discern how God would have me live. Reason and Experience are filters which help remove some of the cultural bias of the text from the formation of modern dogma. You also say this: I would say that God calls people BY equiping them. We have different understandings of what it means to be "called by God", therefore we will not be able to come to an agreement about WHO is called.
  5. I am not offended by that text at all. I recognize it for what it is, a piece of writing from a given person, to a given audience in a given culture, at a given time. Just because St. Paul says those things - does not mean that they are necesairly to be followed to the letter today. I am not offended by this text because I understand and view it through its historical and cultural context. I would be offended if a person used these texts to justify gender discrimination today. Also - As pointed out above - I don't feel that woman are MORE qualified to lead a church than a man is. I feel both genders are EQUALLY qualified to follow the call of God in their lives, including calls to ministerial leadership. As noted above, St. Paul did commend many woman church leaders of his day. Also, many scholars understand St. Paul's words quoted above to be a specific instruction to a particular church that was having problems with women disrupting their worship services - not as a prohibition on their work in ministry. So even many people that do feel the need to take all of Paul's comments literally today have accepted woman in pastoral leadership with that Biblical justification.
  6. Welcome Ted - CTS is my favorite seminary here in the Hoosier State - hope you enjoyed ur time there. Welcome to the board! Carl
  7. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are both very subjective. Today's conservative was yesterday's liberal - as the issues and ways of thinking change. Also a liberal in one denomination will be considered a conservative in another. While most people today would identify me as both a theological and a political liberal, an identity that I do fully embrace, I prefer to self identify as a progressive for two main reasons: 1. I think that the term "Progressive Christian" communicates the idea that I view the realm of God as a developing process that is always growing and expanding, instead of an unchanging institution that should be the same forever. My attraction to Process Theology is affirmed by the term "Progressive" as there is a process to progression. Although, one certainly does not need to embrace Process Thought to be a Progressive Christian. 2. The term "progressiveā€ has less political connotation than the term "liberal". When people hear the word "liberal" their minds fill with images, some good - some bad - some accurate - some inaccurate. When I say "progressive" people keep more of an open mind about what I have to say, thus I am able to communicate with fewer barriers, which is generally a very good thing.
  8. Hello Flow (from both Atticus and I ) I understand the points you are making. They are very valid. I never meant to question your acceptance/view of GLBT persons, I am aware from other interactions with you on this board, that you and I are on the same page there. I'm sorry if my responce didn't make that clear enough. This is an issue that is very, very personal to me, and because of my personal realities, I may be overly sensitive about it. Sometimes my hyper sensitivity on this issue (the result of many negative experiences with religious structures/leaders on this topic) leads me to be more guarded about anything that looks potentially damaging, than may be necessairy at times. Thank you very much for taking the time to write your second post clairifying the points you were making. If I had one wish it would be that the Church would stop fighting with oneanother and just focus on showing the love of Jesus. - I'm sure that is a concept that we can all agree on !
  9. very cool! Thanks so much! Carl
  10. I'm a little uncomfortable with that analogy. Comparing homosexual orientation to alcoholism, macular degeneration, or diabetes susceptibility seems to imply that homosexual orientation is akin to an inherent problem in life that some people suffer from. While I do think that science is teaching us that some of us are "naturally" homosexual, it seems that a better way to understand these lessons is to embrace a person's sexual orientation as a part of God's design for that person in creation. I do not believe that homosexuality should be viewed as an affliction, but rather embraced as a part of a person's divinely created identity. Just as God has made some of us male and some of us female, some of us with light skin and some of us with dark skin, some of us tall and some of us short, God also made some of us to be attracted to people of the same gender, some of us to be attracted to people of the other gender, and some of us to be attracted to persons of both genders. I believe that all parts of our identity bring glory to God when used to their natural potential for life affirming goodness. Using analogies of genetic illnesses when talking about sexual orientation reminds me of the days when homosexuality was a diagnosable mental illness. Today, psychiatry is much more enlightened. And so, we as people of faith should be as well. I don't think that the post I origionally quoted was intended to be anything but supportive toward our LGBT sisters and brothers, but I felt compelled to make the above point in all respect and love
  11. I just finished reading Carter's book "Our Endangered Values" - in it he does a great job of describing that denomination's move to the right, both theologically and to a much greater degree politically. An above post says that Carter has a "progressive world view" - - - - after reading the book, it is very clear that he is theologically quite conservative, although politically a moderate. It is true though, that Carter may have a more progressive theological view that an extreemist like say, Pat Robertson.... but that is hardly a bench mark! A great point Carter makes in that book is that one can theologically be a conservative, while at the same time be moderate or even liberal in one's political views.
  12. I am looking for a good book that discusses/describes the Moral Influence View of the Atonement. Ideally, I would like to find one that addresses Abelard's ideas and then expands on them with newer scholarship, and applies these ideas to contemporary Christian life. So far, I have not been able to find a book that does this. If you know of one, please e-mail me at carlandatticus@yahoo.com as I don't get to check this board as often as I like. Thanks so very much! Carl
  13. I am an ENFJ This test also says I'm a slight extrovert - my Meyer's Briggs test said the same thing when I took it a few years back. Personally, I'm not sure if im an extrovert or an introvert, so I guess that is accurate. I think I am a pretty middle of the road type guy on every one of these points. You are: slightly expressed extrovert moderately expressed intuitive personality slightly expressed feeling personality moderately expressed judging personality
  14. Great News!! The Heartworm treatments are over! Atticus is now on his monthly preventative pill. He will have a test in 6 months to make sure that he is clean, but the Vet thinks he is fine. Exercize restriction is done - so now we can walk again! Thanks to everyone who prayed and thought about Atticus.
  15. I can't begin to address the thoughts presented in your post in detail. Here are few things to clarify however. . . 1. Most of the apocolyptic liturature in our Bible is influenced heavily by the non-cannonical book of Enoch. This explains many of the rather "odd" descriptions of the end of time events that appear throughout our Bible today. 2. Christians began to worship on the First Day of the week - as early as the period recorded in the New Testament because that is the "Lord's Day" - the day that tradition tells us Christ rose from the grave. As Christianity evolved beyond the Jewish community - this practice was one of the several that helped seperate it from its parent Judiasm. It has nothing to do with worshiping the "sun". 3. Jan 6 is the day of Epiphany. The Church historically celebrated the Incarnation on Epiphany. Christ's mass was a day generally set apart to celebrate the entire reality of Christ - not only his birth (incarnation). This tradition changed as Western society began to celebrte Christmas strongly - frankly in large part due to the writings of Charles Dickens. As Christmas celebrations evolved to focus more and more on Christ's BIRTH - It seemed very redundant to celebrate the Incarnation only a few days later. So, a new tradition was born - that of celebrating the visit of the Magi on Epiphany. When the Church was setting the day for Christ's mass - they were influenced by the pagan ceremonies that were on the calander around the time of December 25. They were seeking ways to make conversion to Christianity as practical as possible for the natives of Europe. 4. While I personally had a hard time figuring out what the Statue of Liberty has to do with the rest of your post - you are correct that the Statue of Liberty is based on the figure of a light bearer. This symbol is frequently used in Freemasonry to represent illumination, understanding and growth. I am certain that the symbolism of "light" is common in many faith traditons.
  • Create New...