Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?

[MOW]

One of the things that makes it difficult for Progressive Christians to be heard, is that the media seems more comfortable with Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity . I'll give an example.

 

Several years ago there was a show on PBS called "Affluenza". The program dealt with the issue of consumerism and materialism in our culture. During the show, there were many interviews with different people giving their views on this subject. They even interviewed Kalle Lasn of Adbusters magazine. However when the show wanted to show a "Christian " perspective on this subject they interviewed somebody from James Dobson's "Focus on the Family " group.

 

I did see Bishop Shelby Spong on the Tavis Smiley show one night . It was ,however, on at 11:30 at night on PBS.

 

 

MOW

[Cynthia]

MOW - Agreed! I'd like to see Wallis, McLaren, Borg or others on talk shows... but they don't see commercials. They, being Christian in the sense Jim hopes for, would be gentle and non-inflamatory in their comments.

 

Jim - I live in a mid-size metro area, but experience the same definitions. There are progressives here, but they tend to be quiet in the face of overwhelming scorn from the more conservative folks. The sad part is that many conservatives who have abstract thought (or whose children do) experience severe crises of faith and doubt linked to literal interpretation. They seem to be unaware that alternatives for thinking people exist.... with Jesus.

 

I think this is beginning to change. People seem to be more open to emerging theology. May God hear our prayers.

[MOW]

Hi Cynthia.

I was quite suprised to see Bishop Spong on the Tavis Smiley show. I was just flipping channels when I saw him.

In one of his books, Spong , relates how a fundamentalist woman had contacted him. She told him she was praying that he die in a plane crash. He wondered if he should alert future pilots .

It's amazing the woman gave no thought to the pilots,stewardesses, passengers etc who would have been effected by her prayer.

 

 

MOW

[mystictrek]

When we speak we want to adequately communicate the desired message. In my rural community stating that I am a Christian means I am a right wing, pro-life Republican, who hates everybody that doesn't share my political point of view, that I judge and condemn everyone that doesn't share the specific tenets of my faith,and that I don't want science taught in the school, etc. That is not who I am and that is not the message I want to communicate. Language at that point has failed.

 

This is worthy of memorization and constant use in many conversations. As a substitute for your "in my rural community," I will simply say "In many places today."

 

Thank you for these thoughts.

[October's Autumn]

Actually, the quote that Fatherman started this thread with, "I'm a follower of Christ, but I am not sure if that is compatible with being a Christian"is pretty clever and says the same thing as my " I am a progressive non-tradtional Chrisitan" in a less intellectual sounding way.

 

 

Well said. I was just going to agree but I think your further explanation of it is a way of saying "I am..." is more complete!

[McKenna]

One of the things that makes it difficult for Progressive Christians to be heard, is that the media seems more comfortable with Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity . I'll give an example.

 

Several years ago there was a show on PBS called "Affluenza". The program dealt with the issue of consumerism and materialism in our culture. During the show, there were many interviews with different people giving their views on this subject. They even interviewed Kalle Lasn of Adbusters magazine. However when the show wanted to show a "Christian " perspective on this subject they interviewed somebody from James Dobson's "Focus on the Family " group.

 

I did see Bishop Shelby Spong on the Tavis Smiley show one night . It was ,however, on at 11:30 at night on PBS.

MOW

 

I've heard statistics about how often liberal vs. conservative Christianity is represented in the media. I seem to remember it being something like 3x more often for conservatives (although I'm really not sure - I can't find the exact statistic anywhere). Whatever the number was, I was actually surprised by how low it was - it seems to me that practically anytime I hear Christianity discussed in the media, or the "Christian perspective" is given, it's the conservatives. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell - these are the names that seem to show up the most.

 

The problem is that liberal and progressive Christians don't seem to be as organized or have major organizations (unlike the Religious Right, with the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, etc.), and therefore don't really have specific leaders. Maybe that's incorrect, but it's the impression I've gotten. Why do we seem to be so disorganized?

[DHatcherE]

I am a Christian and take total identification with that. The term Christianity is fine by me.

I am also a citizen of the US and thus an American by common usage. I certainly do not embrace everything that the US has done or is doing or everything that is connected to being an American but I am what I am.

 

That goes with any identification I have.

 

I am a father, a grandfather, a pastor, a male, a Chicago White Sox fan. Doesn't mean I approve of everything anyone who wears those names has done, or that I approved of throwing the 1919 World Series.

 

I see myself as part of the other which to me is a whole lot more comfortable than trying to define myself against others, i.e. " I am a Christian but not like them."

 

VERY nicely put Mr. Twist!

[DHatcherE]

The problem is that liberal and progressive Christians don't seem to be as organized or have major organizations (unlike the Religious Right, with the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, etc.), and therefore don't really have specific leaders. Maybe that's incorrect, but it's the impression I've gotten. Why do we seem to be so disorganized?

 

Very true, due in large part to the wide array of convictions and our lack of ability to "put on a happy face" and go along with the crowd. We have journeyed, questioned, denied and are comfortable with that BUT as a result we are VERY hard to organize into a solid group.

 

We lack "unit cohesiveness" (thank you, thank you - military term there).

[McKenna]

Very true, due in large part to the wide array of convictions and our lack of ability to "put on a happy face" and go along with the crowd. We have journeyed, questioned, denied and are comfortable with that BUT as a result we are VERY hard to organize into a solid group.

 

We lack "unit cohesiveness" (thank you, thank you - military term there).

 

That's a good point. It's a lot easier to organize people who already share a lot of beliefs.

 

But I think we do, at a certain point, need to learn how to organize on common ground. I think progressive/liberal Christians DO have a lot of common ground with each other - for example, I'd say most all of us would say that poverty is a major moral issue. If they can build organizations around "their" "moral" issues, why do we have so much trouble doing the same?

[Ted Michael Morgan]

"When people ask me if I'm a Christian, I say "I'm a follower of Christ, and I'm not sure if that's compatible with Christianity."

 

A few years ago, I got to share lunch with Professor Scott along with several other people. I very much liked him. I think that I understand his quotation. It makes sense to me.

[Quaker Way]

Being a 'Christian' is a self-chosen identifier that, unfortunately, has become associated with behavior, values, and attitudes that are completely alien to the Teachings of Jesus. The most visible and vocal have access to the media and self-declared Christians who use Christianity as a weapon and cover have had their fair share of coverage. What isn't covered are the various 'Christianities'. There is no single 'Christianity', but instead a spectrum. When a maniac gunman killed schoolchildren in Nickel Mine, PA, we got to see Christianity in action via the Amish community. The Amish forgave the killer, embraced the man's family, and immediately turned to their Faith for healing and guidance. Mother Theresa was a Christian, for example. That needs to be starkly contrasted with other groups that use the Faith as a cover for their anti-social, anti-human, and archaic politics. Quakers have a saying...'Let your life speak'. By letting our lives and actions, what we do rather than what we say, speak for us, our Guiding will become recognizable. We do not have to wear a sign around our necks to announce our Christianity....our lives and actions will do that for us.

[jerryb]

Of course, there is always just saying "I'm a Christian" and then living out as Christly a life as one can live. The witness might change people's notions about what a Christian might be.

 

I'm not trying to pick on you, Jim, but I'm going to use your label for a second.

 

 

 

I don't know what's in your heart, but I know what's in my heart when I say something like this: Fear. Fear of being perceived as something that I am not. This is not a statement of faith. It is, in fact, the opposite.

 

We either need to abandon Christianity or claim it. If we claim it, we have an opportunity to witness an authentic Christianity (loving, compassionate, peaceful, giving, inclusive). It is more powerful to be FOR something than to be AGAINST something.

 

What are we for? If our faith is simply based on what we're against, then aren't we letting other people define our faith?

[Quaker Way]

This is an important discussion because it reduces the idea of Christianity to basic definitions depending upon one's own understanding. If one defines being a Christian as 'believing in Jesus', what does that mean? Believing what in Jesus? A key definition for for conservative/evangelical Christians is that a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Saviour. Perhaps being a Christian is in believing in the 'risen Christ' as Lord and Saviour as a Methodist friend and pastor would announce from the pulpit. Or perhaps being a Christian means believing that Jesus is the son of God, one part of the Holy Trinity, whom God gave to us to die for our sins. Personally, I find these definitions to be second-hand reasons for believing in something that has not been personally experienced by the believer. This allows people to declare themselves to be Christians and then go about their lives unchanged. Worshiping Jesus Christ does nothing more than turn Jesus into an object. This tends to put God in a second-class position when the focus of faith is put on Jesus using the Trinity as the entity that makes it okay. Jesus is also God so when we worship Jesus, we're also worshiping God, right? So, being a Christian has everything to do with acceptance and belief of second-hand information, but nothing to do with personal transformation, searching, wrestling with our own selves, etc. This shifts completely when we view Jesus as a teacher, mystic, a Citizen in the Kingdom of God, and an example of how we should be and live as Children of God. Jesus no longer becomes an object of worship, but becomes a Guide for our own lives. William Penn, the foundational American Quaker, once said that living like Christ is to be a Christian. Anyone can believe, but not everyone can follow The Way. That is the challenge of Jesus and the definition of Christianity.

[mystictrek]

I am glad this string has been resurrected because I believe this question is critical.

 

I am 60 years old, baptized a Presbyterian in 1947 and ordained a Presbyterian Minister in 1975. It has been heartbreaking to see Christianity become a dirty word but I would have to say that I now consider it a dirty word! When I hear the word "Christian", I immediately have a negative image of the one who uses the word and the popular movement now described by that word.

 

This string is motivating me to be more bold in asking people what they mean when they say "Christian".

[davidk]

In my rural community stating that I am a Christian means I am a right wing, pro-life Republican, who hates everybody that doesn't share my political point of view, that I judge and condemn everyone that doesn't share the specific tenets of my faith,and that I don't want science taught in the school, etc.

Wow, your community thinks if you are a Christian, you are right-wing, hateful, judgmental, condemning and anti-intellectual. With that perspective, they sound very progressive and liberal. (I don't believe that is what you intended for it to say.)

 

I suppose the simplest question to best define a Christian in Christianity is: Did Christ come as a man (in the flesh)? One's Christianity is determined by one's answer to this question alone. 'Yes' or 'No'. No explanation is needed.

 

We could argue the fine points to no avail. This gives a universal answer from which to discuss the details.

[October's Autumn]

Being a Christian (Follower of the anointed one) has nothing to do with what one believes, it has to do with what one DOES.

[davidk]

Being a Christian (Follower of the anointed one) has nothing to do with what one believes, it has to do with what one DOES.

 

Autumn,

 

I'm not certain you thought this one completely through. Because, based on this confession, you act before thinking. And really, we both know this is an impossiblity. The brain works first, the action is determined and then behavior follows. Our mindset, world view, philosophy, determines the way we interpret the world and ultimately how we behave in it.

 

What 'eyeglass' do you use to see the world through. We could try and explain all the fine details of how we see the world, but what is our 'bottom line'? What single bit, one universal truth, shapes the whole foundation of our thought, philosophy, world view?

 

We can start with an answer to this question. Did Christ come as a man (in the flesh)? 'Yes' or 'No'. It is not a trick question, but does require a bit of thought. Shouldn't take long. Just an honest answer is all. It's a personal choice and it determines how you

wish to behave, because you'll know why.

 

Do you have any question whose answer would, perhaps, better determine the foundation of a Christian philosophy?

[October's Autumn]

Thinking and believing are hardly the same thing.

 

t is a matter of orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy. Again, it is not what you believe, it is what you do.

[davidk]

Thinking and believing are hardly the same thing.

 

t is a matter of orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy. Again, it is not what you believe, it is what you do.

 

Illogical. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy both require thinking first. Orthopraxy is practicing orthodoxy. You cannot practice what you have first not believed (recognized, accepted) you should do. Belief requires thinking. You have a philosophy, it is thinking about what you reasonably believe to be true. I can only assume you think about it, you are not a machine.

 

Can you feed the hungry without believing you should and deciding to first?

 

You're avoiding the real question. Did Christ come as a man (in the flesh)?

 

Mystictrek? Russ? Jerryb?

[October's Autumn]

Main Entry:

1thinking

Function:

noun

Date:

14th century

 

1: the action of using one's mind to produce thoughts

 

 

Main Entry:

be·lieve

Pronunciation:

\bə-ˈlēv\

Function:

verb

Inflected Form(s):

be·lieved; be·liev·ing

 

intransitive verb1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>transitive verb1 a: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>2: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon>

 

As I said: believing is not the same thing as thinking.

 

 

orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy!

 

I don't care what you believe in or don't believe in. I care what you DO!

[David]

You're avoiding the real question. Did Christ come as a man (in the flesh)?

 

DavidK,

 

You have a tendency to ask questions that imply the answer you are looking for. In this case you seem to want an answer in the form that will fit well into the myth of the virgin birth which produced a god-like being that you are calling the Christ. A liberal/progressive approach would be to look around history to see if there are any clues of explanation, and if so, what does that tell us. What was the cosmology of the time? Why was it important to be "the son of god"? Is it possible that the followers of Jesus created the god/man myth and not Jesus himself? How would you know this?

 

(The following is taken from “Born Divine, The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God", by Robert J. Miller)

 

Alexander the Great died in 323 BCE. The story of his birth goes like this: “Now prior to the night they were to be united as husband and wife in the bridal suite, the bride had a dream. There was a peal of thunder and a bolt of lightning struck her womb….when she sent Alexander off to war, she revealed to him the secret of his conception and instructed him to aim only for things worthy of his birth.” Scholars tell us that the bolt of lightening was a symbol of Zeus, the supreme god in the Greek pantheon. Her dream means that Zeus impregnated her and that her child will have Zeus-like qualities.

 

Augustus Ceasar was born in 63 BCE. The story of his birth goes like this: “Attia (the mother of Augustus) emphatically asserted that her child had been fathered by Apollo. She said that once, while she was sleeping in his temple, she thought she had intercourse with a snake, and that because of this she had given birth at the end of her term. Before her child came to the light of day, she dreamed that her womb was lifted to the heavens and spread out over all the earth. That same night her husband Octavius thought that the sun rose from between her thighs.”

 

Plato. Both sides of his family claimed descent from the great god Poseidon.

 

The stories go on, but you get the idea. So yes, the divine during this time in history did come in the flesh. However, obviously cosmology was much different then. I have no doubt that Jesus and the people he lived with thought the earth was flat and that people thought that gods impregnated women making many "sons of god". I don't think that Jesus thought that these things were important enough to talk about. I think that the followers of Jesus started to think that it was important to talk about a "son of god" even as they continued to think the world was flat. I guess I keep coming back to “how do you know what you think you know”. If I understand you correctly you want to get your theology correct before you ask important epistemological questions. Just understand that you are talking to many people who do not think this way. When we start from such different places I am not sure we can talk much at all. I keep saying I will never argue with a fundamentalist. What am I doing here?

[Cynthia]

. I keep saying I will never argue with a fundamentalist. What am I doing here?

 

 

David - LOL

[McKenna]

Illogical. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy both require thinking first. Orthopraxy is practicing orthodoxy. You cannot practice what you have first not believed (recognized, accepted) you should do. Belief requires thinking. You have a philosophy, it is thinking about what you reasonably believe to be true. I can only assume you think about it, you are not a machine.

 

Can you feed the hungry without believing you should and deciding to first?

 

I think you're completely misunderstanding OA. She never said not to think - you were the one who substituted "thinking" for "believing" into her argument. I also expect she didn't mean beliefs as in "believing you should feed the hungry," but more like believing Jesus was born of a virgin, or something else theological. What I think OA meant (correct me if I'm wrong OA) is that being a Christian shouldn't be about believing the correct things, as if there's a checklist of things you need to believe to be considered a Christian; it's about what you do with those beliefs. In other words, it can't be all talk, no action.

 

If that is indeed what she meant - then I don't see how what you're saying at all relates to her point.

[October's Autumn]

Exactly, McKenna! You said it better than I could of! Thanks

[fatherman]

I would like to add a thought to this thread.

 

Concerning Doing vs. Belief:

 

My Beliefs may very well make me a Christian.

 

My Actions will determine if I am Christly.

 

As I'm sure we would agree, there are many Christly non-Christians and many non-Christly Christians.

 

This makes me think of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. The ones considered by Jesus to be righteous are the ones who fed the hungry, etc. The goats may very well have kept all the right beliefs and laws, but the sheep (unknowingly) embodied the right spirit (compassion, love, service). They were not even trying to serve Christ, and yet they received eternal life.