David

Dutch, Your post added to mine without necessarily agreeing with all I said. Thank you. The kind of community that I am talking about is organic. From those types of communities we are helped in learning who we are. Bill, I continue to appreciate your struggle with all of this. To me it is obviously a struggle and it makes me hurt inside sometimes. One thing I think that needs to be done is to take TCPC off of its pedestal. I’m not sure that anyone at TCPC tried to get on this pedestal and perhaps the pedestal is not real for many folks. TCPC is a very small group that has been given a very important name. However folks like Borg, Spong and Funk do not include the eight points in any of their books or writings that I can see. So when it comes to trying to figure out what progressive Christianity may be I would suggest that we not give too much weight to TCPC and certainly less weight to this forum as I have tried to point out with this post. Although many churches are affiliates of TCPC I have not found evidence that many churches use the eight points in their mission statements or statements of belief (most often they seem to provide a link to the TCPC website on a list of favorite websites). So I think that some of your comments speak to that observation. As far as visions from those who are ultimately concerned about Christian context I again would suggest Funk. I did not explain who Funk was. Robert (Bob) Funk was the founder of the Jesus Seminar. Without Funk there would be no public Spong or public Borg. I think his book “Honest to Jesus” (not Honest to God) is helpful. I think that for progressive Christians we need to look to Funk, Borg, Spong, Armstrong and ? Bill, as you have noted we seem to be at a point of needing reconstruction and not deconstruction. I know you think that Borg is better at this. I am not so sure. I first met Borg when he was promoting his classic “Jesus, a New Vision”. I sat with him at lunch and asked him what difference his new vision of Jesus would make in how we would do Church. He replied that he had no idea. I think he is much better with Christian education versus worship. The real heroes in my mind for progressive Christianity are those pastors out there is a daily struggle in those organic communities trying to make a difference. The fact that none of those pastors post here speaks volumes to me.

Paul, I am not sure there is anything that I could say that would change your opinion about what I intended to say, so I won't. Maybe I have helped you in some way to confirm what you think. This forum can do that. David

George, I am sorry if my continued presence bothers you. Folks come and go as their spirit moves. I intend on coming back if Tillich again becomes a focus and I may see some specific thing I would like to talk about. But at present I do not intend on being active anymore. I had a teacher who said that most folks have a few things that they say in many different ways. I think that if you look at different folks you will see common themes that they talk about in several different ways. If you agree with those themes it may not seem to you that those folks are repeating themselves. David

Paul, I would not want to try to persuade you that this is not the place for you or for anyone else for that matter who has found comfort in this place. If you have read that into my post please forgive any part that I played in that. Please also do not assume that I require “strict guidelines”. If you have not been a part of the kind of Christian community that I am talking about then you may not be able to understand. Please understand a main point of mine is that it is the communities that we are a part of that help shape who we are as individuals. We obviously disagree about the nature of Christian community if you feel that it can be held together based upon only the eight points or that it can come close to being contained within a forum environment such as this. What I would hope for within a forum such as this would be signs pointing towards the nature of Christian community that I am talking about. I do not see that. Others may be able to see more than I do. Peace to all. Cheers to you. David

Funk's book is called "Honest to Jesus", not "Honest to God". John A. T. Robinson was the author of the classic "Honest to God". My apologies to both Funk and Robinson.

Just to recap: I embrace the teaching of Jesus because of its intrinsic philosophical value; particularly as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount / Plain. I often seek to emulate that philosophy in my own life. I do not, however, believe in propitiation for sin, resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, etc. Is I am or is I ain't - a Christian? NORM You have gotten to the heart of the matter Norm. I see that you saw that I said goodbye and asked me a question in my absence. Let me not leave without further speaking to your question. I have suggested that people look to the history of UU and learn. There you will find a Christian history, which became a rejection of Christianity. However the organization retained Christian names. Imagine what we may have had today if this had not happened. We may have been able to develop Unitarian and Universalist groups that would provide a response to what I consider the greatest threats to Christianity: the Atonement and Selective Salvation. If this had happened I would argue that we would not even need what has become called Progressive Christianity. We would need an organization to fulfill the function now performed by UU. We would need a place for people to go who are spiritual but not religious. We would need places for those folks, humanists and all others to meet in an common space. What is happening now I think is that the spiritual but not religious folks (and others) are taking progressive Christianity down the same well worn path taken by UU. I don’t see why that is necessary since we have UU doing a much better job performing that function. Why duplicate what UU is doing especially since TCPC organizationally is just not prepared to compete with UU? So what if you wanted to know whether you were a Unitarian or a Universalist? You would not get very far going to a UU group. The people who control the names are no longer interested in the question. They think that they have “progressed” beyond any need to be involved with the question of what Unitarian or Universalists may be. Their mission is now is for the spiritual but not religious folks as well as to humanists and many other self-identifications. I have suggested that self-identification is a complex process that involves the society/community and the individual self. When you are talking about self-identification as a Christian that means that you are talking about a self who is working that out within a community that calls itself Christian and ultimately cares about Christian context. So who within progressive Christianity ultimately cares about Christian context? Probably the best suggestion that I have is that you read Funk’s chapter “Jesus for a new age” in his book “Honest to God” where he states “Contrary to some popular expectations, Jesus for a new age does not mean Jesus for crystals and channeling, for auras and chakras, meditation and yoga, astrology and harmonic convergences, or even holistic medicine, although Jesus may have some significance for some or all of those things. What I have in mind by a ‘new age’ is something quite different, though not entirely unrelated”. Funk then goes on to provide a vision for Christian context/community based upon the best of Biblical scholarship and progressive Christian theology. If you agree with Funk then I think there is a good indication that you would like to self-identify as a Christian but you really need a community to help you do that. There are some communities who are trying to live out such a vision. For them the Christian context is a reflection of ultimate caring about what it means to be Christian. But for many and for most who post here there is either a lack of such concern or there are folks who live “in exile” as Spong puts it or there are those who reject the need for community. Those who reject the need for community I think are the least likely persons to be able to answer your question. I am suggesting that your question about your self-identity as a Christian can only be answered within the context of a community who ultimately cares about the Christian context. The problem of course is that there is not now an abundance of that community trying to live out Funk/Spong/Borg’s vision. That is why it seems to me that so many people feel they have to answer your question on their own but I just don’t see that working real well. I am suggesting that perhaps you have come to the wrong place to ask your question. So bottom line here is my response to your question. Without community I cannot really answer your question. I don’t find that community here and so I cannot answer your question here. To me it is like asking you what it means to be a Jew outside your Jewish community. We have ecumenical spaces to attempt that but it seems to me those chairs at the table are occupied by communities and not individuals. Of course we can all meet at your pub and have great discussions also. Those however usually don't last beyond a wonderful evening. David This thread was moved unchanged from Debate and Dialog area by JosephM( as Moderator) 5-13-2012

George, Just a minor point which believe me is minor for me. The rule here was going off topic and I think Norm was the one that brought us off topic and we all followed. I was the one however that was chastised. You prove my major point. The community/society has an important and essential stake in the process. That process has a lot to do with inclusion/exclusion Who are you going to include and who are you going to exclude. Having a strong sense of mission is the best way to do that. Having “ground rules” as you say is another way to include/exclude and I have no quarrel with that. Keep working on this process of inclusion/exclusion. It is hard and you folks who accept the moderator function should be patted on the back more often than you are. Peace and best wishes to you all. David

I keep running up against Joseph the moderator. Best if I just return to silence.

George, Thank you for allowing me some slack here to get to where we can both agree that self definition is a complicated mix of society and individual self. Obviously the next step is to ask how that applies to Christianity and self definition of being a Christian. That is a complicated mix of society and individual self. On the society side we have a whole complex of things to consider and the same goes for on the individual side. It just seems to me that within the progressive "community" there is a tendency to deny any part for the community. Particular values such as acceptance are both derived and practiced within a complex mixture of society and individuals trying to define themselves within that society or community. Liberals have a tendency to overlook how the community/society is essential to the process of course unless you are that island that I talked about. David

Thank you George. That was like pulling teeth. My point obviously is that self definition is a complicated mix of society and individual self. If we can agree on that then we can discuss what may be less absurd and preposterous.

Let me take one question at a time. If I claim to be the President what is the difference between saying that I am not the President and saying I don't meet the definition of being President?

Dutch, If I claim to be the President what is the difference between saying I am not the President and saying I don’t meet the definition of being President? If I say I am not a criminal because I shot someone does not society have the right to say my self definition is wrong? Once we agree on some standard where society is more important than the individual then we can also talk about where the individual does have an absolute right that can not be touched by society. David

Hi Norm, You are setting me up, right? Read above: if I say you are not a Christian I get banned (but what is gained/what is lost since I will be returning to silence). But I guess I am glad that a Jew asked this question because I can say you are not a Jew and not get banned. If you are in the arena of self definition you will soon learn that self definition is not entirely up to the self. If I define myself as the President of the US I soon learn that they do not let me in the White House. If I define myself as a charmed Elf that is ok as long as I do not want to get into the society of charmed Elfs. If I define myself as a Jew that is ok as long as I don’t want to attend that orthodox temple. But you want to be a Christian and of course that is where it gets real sensitive around here. Here you obviously can say that a divine stanger gave you a divine revelation and you are Christian by right of that revelation. You come here and declare that you are Christian and that same divine revelation told you that you had no problem with the eight points but you were here to tell us what those eight points really meant. You would be accepted of course unless you broke rules that were more important than the eight points which include not saying that I am not a Christian or repeating over and over and over and over that you thought that you were right and I was wrong. You see self definition can be up to the self only if you live on your own private island and control every little aspect of yourself. But once you realize that you are part of a community you will find that self definition is not entirely up to the self and even though that self wants everyone else to accept you at face value that society of charmed Elfs is not necessarily going to agree with you. If you have no concern for that society and are only using the Elf name because it pleases your selfdom then you may coexist to the extent that the society lets you. Apply that to being a Jew and then come back and let’s talk again. David

George, If you can not explain it then it seems to me that it is not a guideline that is generally understood within our society. Raven, DavidK was a certainly not a progressive. He was however one of the more civil fundamentalists that I have come across. If you are publicly progressive then you are going to draw the attention of the fundamentalists. Rather than kicking them off of a forum that is sensitive to progressives I would suggest that we learn how to respond to them in civil conversation. That is going to involve a theological position that fundamentalists take and that is that progressives can not be Christians. To make a difference between whether that is a general comment or associated with one person makes little difference to me. But obviously I am wrong according to this forum David

As I understand the guideline is that you can say generally that progressives can not be Christian as long as you phrase it in such a way that it is a general assertion as to what a religion encompasses. But you cannot say to an individual progressive who self identifies as a progressive that he/she is not a Christian. Is that correct?

I think that civility within our society can recognize the difference between being critical of someone’s character and critical comments directed to members. As I remember one point of contention was whether it was allowed to say that another person was not a Christian. DavidK was famous for this. But I never found that DavidK was critical of anyone’s character. He was stating a theological position. His position was that progressives could not be Christian. So he would in conversation with progressives state that he did not think they were Christian. DavidK did not know anything about the characters of persons he was talking to. He was stating a general theological position and talking to individual persons. I always found him to be civil but certainly critical. I think you can do both and most of our society works on that basis.

Hi Dutch, By the way I really appreciate your contributions. Thank you. One reason I don’t come back is that I think the battle that I care about is lost here. If you look at my past posts (some of which I am proud of and some of which I am not) I hope you will see someone who really cares about the future of progressive Christianity. Honestly, I have had relationships with all those “stripes” that you talk about and I wish them all well. However, I guess it has always been my hope that this was a place special for progressive Christians. Instead it has become a place special for all those “stripes”. I guess I wonder why this does not become a UU website. UU, in spite of my comments, is a great organization and has a lot of experience with bringing under one roof all of the “stripes”. I think UU is really the best place for Lawton and company. Another reason that I don’t come back is a real friction that I have with Joseph. You also can see that in my history here. I try to think that this friction has to do with reason number one but I suspect there is more going on than that. As far as Bill is concerned I see someone who has been all over the ballpark and still wants to play the game. I look forward to his next development. I would suggest that you be as patient with him as you obviously are with a lot of other folks. If you truly feel that Bill has hindered the journeys of other persons then I hope that there is some civil way to say that. There seems to be a culture here that we should not be critical of each other. I have never understood that. I don’t think many participants here really know others personally so really we are talking in general even though we are talking with an individual. Having said that I certainly support that anything that is said has be said in a civil manner. I don’t think that you need to support that position with anything except the best that is within our culture. You don’t have to agree with any particular religious position to expect the best of civility. Well that turned out to be much longer than it should be. David

I had to think for a while to understand why Joseph the moderator was responding. It may be because my post may be read as saying that Joseph the moderator is seen by me as following the Lawton path. Let me correct any misunderstanding. I do not think that Joseph in his official position has given any indication of a mission that is contrary to the positions of the sponsors of this website. Joseph the moderator is correct that my responses are in response to posts from Joseph the member and hopefully Joseph the member can respond or not respond as he feels is appropriate. I hope that clears up any confusion.

My point is based more on history and the present time. My argument is based upon the history of UU and the present realities as symbolized by Lawton and Joseph. We can all hope for a better future.

Well I have not been active but I don’t understand this response to Bill. Dutch were you not the one that just posted the unqualified welcome with no expectations? Joesph clearly indicates a mission for this website if not the sponsors of this website that tends towards the UU so Bill’s observation is right on. I know the UU world well having graduated from a UU seminary. Anyone who is interested in the potential future of progressive Christianity should look at the history of UU. UU started out as being Christian. Unfortunately they did not change their Christian names (Unitarian/Universalist) when they took that fork in the road and “progressed” to humanism. Lawton has clearly taken the same fork in the road with every indication that he thinks he is a pioneer. Been there, done that. He is not a pioneer. Joseph reflects the same lack of concern about the future of Christianity that Lawton has displayed. Joseph gives the impression that he has “progressed” beyond any need for Christian context. Been there, done that. This is a well worn path. The basic question in my mind is who are you going to include and who are you going to exclude. Clearly Dutch you would seem more comfortable without Bill here unless Bill changes. This is the typical UU problem. The UU folks say that we do not want to include/exclude based upon what you believe but instead based upon how you act (actions are more important than belief). I suspect you have heard that here before. Been there/done that. Nothing new. Well worn path. Look at UU and learn. What happens in this environment is that instead of including/excluding based upon a strong sense of mission the process is based upon personality. Strong personalities are the gatekeepers. The same actions are interpreted differently according to personality. Actions are contextual within a complicated structure. You just can’t objectively evaluate actions. Progressives should know that the world is largely subjective. So when personalities rather than a strong sense of mission dominate then that accentuates the already difficult subjective problem. The argument seems to be that the eight points should be more inclusive. Been there/done that. Look at UU and learn. The most inclusive group in any town is always one of the more smaller groups. Personalities can not control large groups so the group tends to the level of effective control. Bill is right on. You all are looking at UU in the face but you don’t seem to see it because you think you are pioneers. Sorry. Been there/done that.

Bill, I have walked with you at times on your spiritual journey. I have always appreciated your passionate honesty. I hope that I have not overstated my vision of God in this discussion that you started. That was not my intent in joining this discussion. If anyone wants to know more about Tillich/my theology they can look at that thread. The nice thing about the God word for progressive Christians is that there is no consensus on what the God word means nor whether any such understanding can be equated with the God word. There perhaps is more agreement as to what the God word does not mean. At any rate, I think a real loss here with the eight points is that ability to use one word that progressive Christians understand means different things to different people. Thanks for starting this discussion. Best wishes, David

Norm, I am very interested in seeing whether you see any bridge here between the word that can not be spoken in the Jewish tradition and my suggestion that Christianity needs a similar word. Can we apply this same process to being Jewish? How many Jews would want to substitute the word Sacred for Yahweh? How many temples would not want to have Yahweh used in telling people what it meant to be Jewish? If you can see the problem from a Jewish point of view can you see the problem from a Christian point of view? Thanks, David

Harry, I like “Life Force” and I like your explanation of it. If I was going to make a list of words that relate to the word God I would want to include your words. This would be a very long list for me. One problem with the eight points as now defined is that they have made this a short list of words in lieu of the word God which has been used by many progressive Christians as a substitute for the long list. I think that many progressive Christians use the word God with a recognition that it is a symbol word for the indescribable. David

Joseph, This response seems consistent with the response that I received from Ian Lawton’s group. They saw no future for themselves inherently related to the future of Christianity. Spong once took a personal interest in this group when they called themselves Progressive Christians. I hear Spong as being committed to the future of Christianity arguing passionately for reformation. Lawton’s mission now is obviously much different. This raises a much wider issue than the use of the word God. This wider issue has to do with the mission of the supporters of this forum and the mission of this forum to the extent that the forum has a different mission. Although Spong is on the pages within this forum I don’t see Spong’s passion for the Christian Church and its future within this forum. I see much more evidence of the path that Lawton has taken. Lawton took the position that "nothing is lost" when he took that fork in the road. For those who share Spong's passion for the Christian Church and its future much would be lost. One can certainly either agree with Lawton or Spong or neither and still have a relationship with the living God. What is at stake is the Christian Church and the future of Christianity. I am wondering how many people think that this adds up to "not much".

Joseph, You have said that the word God is “no longer a word that cannot be described because many PC’s do not share in its given definition through use”. Furthermore you say that “PC here does not want words that through teachings and programming of members have made it (the word God) not an abstract symbol but more a symbol that points to something more concrete that takes on the image of a man and the attributes of humans”. It sure sounds to me like you are saying that the word God does not work anymore for you and the sponsors of this forum. So I don’t understand “Nobody is saying that the word God doesn’t work for them”. If you mean that nobody is saying that they do not use the God word then certainly I agree. If you mean that the sponsors of the eight points and the use of them to administer this forum is not related to the God word then I would disagree. The lack of the God word in the eight points seems to be related to the conclusion that the word God is not working as you have described. In response to your PS: You have offered that it is my choice to feel excluded by this website. If you are talking about the debate section then I understand. But it is clear that this forum defines being a Progressive Christian as being a person who agrees with the eight points and that if you do not agree with the eight points you can not post as a Progressive Christian. So when I consider myself a Progressive Christian but cannot post as a Progressive Christian because I do not agree where does the exclusion come from? Certainly I make the choice as to whether to agree with the eight points or not but you/TCPC provide the eight points to which I am responding. To say that the process of inclusion/exclusion is only based upon the response is not ok when you do not accept responsibility for your part of the process. I have argued elsewhere that the inclusion/exclusion process is a necessary process. A mission statement is the best way to include/exclude. So I don’t bemoan the exclusion according to the current eight points for TCPC as long as you acknowledge your part in the process.