Common Sense Christianity

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I sent a message to the webmaster, asking them to put a link to this book discussion on the main page. I'd like to get more people involved! What great fun!

 

I also put it on the facebook page, but nobody has responded so far....

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"In fact, if I was to design some kind of “Progressive Christianity for Dummies” curriculum (ha ha), I’d take the same approach – focus on Jesus’ teachings in their historical context and then only give suggestions/options of how they might apply today."

 

As I mentioned in a separate forum, the group that has been trying to get our "contemporary" worship service going is now going to start sometimes reaching out in community service projects and sometimes go offsite to engage anyone interested in dialogue about issues all of us encounter in life and discuss options for dealing with those issues in faith. So, rather than curriculum, I'll be developing conversation topics, but I'll keep this good idea in mind! Thanks!

 

BTW, can you design "Progressive Christianity for Dummies?" I'll buy it! :-)

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Any other thoughts for discussion on Intro and Chapter 1, folks?

 

If not, we can proceed to Chapter 2 where Randy talks about how we approach the Bible. I'm hoping we'll have some really good discussions about this one.

 

BTW, do we want to keep this entire book discussion in one thread, or create a different thread for every chapter (or two or three chapters)?

 

bill

[JosephM]

Ghapter 2 seems to me to be a most excellent and logical presentation of what the Bible is which makes it easy for any one who may be open-minded to understand. In my experience, A hard core literalist won't get past the first 2 paragraphs before writing it off as propaganda from the devil.

 

One thing i really appreciated was that Ross in this Chapter used the words Jesus the Christ which uses Christ as a title rather than a name. That is the way it has been revealed to me yet I have not seen others use it that way until now.

 

Although I authored a book with the same conclusions from a different perspective, kudos to Ross for a most excellent job of getting across his points.

 

Love Joseph

[minsocal]

Chapter 2: The Bible

 

I am in agreement with Ross, at least in principle. Various books of the Bible appear to have different purposes. In a previous post I noted that Leviticus is intended to define and preserve a distinctly Hebrew identity. Thus, Leviticus would help us know Jesus who, as I understand it, was a relatively conservative Jew. The Song of Solomon is yet another example. It is important to progressives as it signals a life affirming view of human nature. Many of my Hebrew friends understand this very well. Place the Song of Solomon in contrast to some of the disputed letters of Paul and you get an idea of what I mean.

 

Again, I tend to avoid the use of the word "truth" in discusssing religion and spiritualty. It might be that I have linked "truth" with "literalism". For me, the critical turn in Ross' perspective is this:

 

"There are four serious problems with Biblical literalism: (1) it denies the centrality of Christ; (2) it requires a concept of divine inspiration that denies the authors’ humanity; (3) it requires that we believe that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says; and (4) it stands in opposition to faith in God. Certainly the Biblical literalists do not intend all of these. But this is where their misdirected devotion and their misguided efforts for security lead them."

 

My intent is to tie my opening comments with this quote. The Song of Solomon, as life affirming, speaks to "the humanity of the author". I will need to think this through a bit more and add another post or two.

 

Myron

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I haven't read Chapter 2 yet, but my sense is that at some point you want a new blog for a new section, just in case people want to join the discussion later, or there are too many themes to talk about.

 

Your decision... I'll get back after I've read Chap. 2

 

Janet

[Guest wayfarer2k]

One thing i really appreciated was that Ross in this Chapter used the words Jesus the Christ which uses Christ as a title rather than a name. That is the way it has been revealed to me yet I have not seen others use it that way until now.

 

Yeah, I kinda like that designation also, Joseph. It brings out the flavor of "Jesus, the Anointed One" rather than making some claim about deity or humanity.

 

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Place the Song of Solomon in contrast to some of the disputed letters of Paul and you get an idea of what I mean.

 

Would you care to elaborate a little more on this, Myron? I'm not sure I understand what you are pointing to.

 

Thanks,

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

I haven't read Chapter 2 yet, but my sense is that at some point you want a new blog for a new section, just in case people want to join the discussion later, or there are too many themes to talk about.

 

Your decision... I'll get back after I've read Chap. 2

 

Feel free to take your time, Janet. We're in no hurry.

 

I do wish we could create a sub-forum for book discussions. That way we could have a separate thread for each chapter. As it stands right now, yes, we can post separate threads for each chapter but it would tend to clutter up the "Book Discussions" forum. But as Ross' chapters are topical/thematic, I'd hate to have 45 pages of posts on one thread to try to get through the book.

 

Perhaps, at this point unless someone has a better suggestion, we can divide the threads up into 3 or 4 chapter threads.

 

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Chapter 2

 

Hope you folks don't mind, but I'm going to jump to the very end of the chapter and post this excerpt that really resonated with me:

 

What then is the Bible? A common sense answer would be that it is a collection of books written by people who, like we, were people of their times, and who like we were capable of misunderstandings and mistakes as well as great insights. And they were, like we, struggling with the meaning of their faith and with their understanding of God in the midst of triumph and defeat, happiness and despair, stability and chaos. We find that our own faith is informed and inspired by their struggles and faithfulness. And since one of our aims in approaching the rich and diverse resources of this book is to understand it better, then we will want to know how these writings came about, and what the authors originally meant, and how they were affected by the beliefs and events of their times. To do this we will welcome all the tools that are available to us to help shed light on the Bible: studies of archeology, ancient history and customs, and other Near Eastern religions, as well as the various types of Biblical "criticism" that can inform us about the background, development, and meaning of the text itself.

 

This still leaves unanswered the question of Biblical authority. For Christians the answer to this depends upon the role and the authority that we ascribe to Jesus of Nazareth. In fact the primary question is not about the authority of the Bible but about the authority of Jesus the Christ.

 

Randy says a mouthful here, and so much of it screams "FREEDOM" to me. I have to be honest, for most of my life I "worshipped" the Bible. I didn't bow down to it or offer animal sacrifices to it, but I considered it to be "God's words". And the more I read it, the more I was disturbed about what it said about God, what it said about us, and what it said about some kind of plan of redemption. I was faced with "believe all of it or believe none of it" and I eventually threw all my Bibles out in the trash, I was so pissed.

 

But the heart of what Ross writes in the paragraph above came to me through progressive and emerging Christians and I'm so glad that it did. Now I can value my Bible without worshipping it. And I have the freedom to incorporate what speaks to me and to leave the rest as history or, in some cases, what not to do.

 

bill

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Chapter 2: I was freed from the notion that all we know about God is in the Bible when I was fairly young. I agree wholeheartedly with the author in his conclusions about how to faithfully approach the Bible. I didn't think all of his arguments against the literalists were airtight, but I agree with where he ended up.

 

Interestingly, my first knowledge that the Bible doesn't paint a complete picture of God today was related to the issue of slavery, and I found that extremely freeing to think that maybe the Bible doesn't have the whole picture on women's roles, either.

 

Too bad the canon is closed! I believe humanity continues to learn about God and that many of today's inspired writings contain as much wisdom as Biblical writing. I kind of wish Jesus had been a writer... :-)

 

I will be looking forward to reading further, as I felt the author was wary of individuals interpreting the Bible as they like. I'm aware of the dangers, but I really believe that the Bible speaks personally and uniquely to each of us, and sometimes the Bible means different things to me at different places on my life journey.

 

The following statement was also intriguing. Even though I LOVE Jesus, I have some hangups about the Christ title...

"In fact the primary question is not about the authority of the Bible but about the authority of Jesus the Christ."

[minsocal]

Would you care to elaborate a little more on this, Myron? I'm not sure I understand what you are pointing to.

 

Thanks,

bill

 

Bill,

 

When I tell people where I first discovered the background to the Song of Solomon they are sometimes shocked. It is from a textbook written by David Schnarch on human sexuality. What is astounding about this work is that chapter ten is entirely devoted spirituality. Yes, that's correct. I contains a lenghty analysis of the differences between what we would call fundamantalist and progressive religious sects, not just Christian but Buddhist and Hindu as well.

 

The Song of Solomon is considered by some Jews to be the holiest book in the Bible. This traces back to the time when Christian Jews broke from the Jewish community. This was a traumatic event for the Jewish community. The Rabbi who guided the Jews through this time declared that the Song of Solomon was the holiest book in the Bible. Legend has it that he was the last person to see the face of God and live. The point here is that the Song of Solomon is a celebration of life and human nature. It is life affirming, which has been found to be a common characteristic of religious sects that tend to call themselves progressive.

 

Some of Paul's letters point to a very negative view of human nature. This life negating view tends to show up in religious sects we would call fundamentalist. As I have stated on another thread, some of the letters attributed to Paul appear to have been written to discredit his otherwise radical egalitiarianism. In other words, the world was not quite ready for the message of radical egalitarianism found in the teachings of Jesus and even the letters of Paul. Thus, the message was changed to make it more acceptable at the time. This is the point Whitehead made about the nature of progress.

 

Here we are today, still struggling with issues of egalitarianism and human sexuality. One view holds that the "fall" in the Garden of Eden was sexual, but the Song of Solomon directly contradicts that view. How we view our own human nature makes a very big difference in how we interpret the stories of the Bible.

 

The perspective I find most appealing is neutral in regards to "nature". We have the capacity to do evil, we have the capacity to do good. Apparently, that is the choice God gave us and that then is what must be understood. Would there be Wisdom without the need for choice?

 

Myron

[minsocal]

Now that I understand the meaning of "thank you for the conversation", i bow out.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Myron,

I'm confused about the bowing out. I'm very tired, so maybe I missed something. I was enjoying your posts, so I hope you're not really leaving! Have you read How Good Do We Have to Be? by Harold Kushner? It is very much along the same lines that you are pointing out -- how the Adam and Eve story is not as much about punishment as it is about the birth of free will.

 

Should we move on to Chapter 3, or does anyone have more on Chapter 2?

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Now that I understand the meaning of "thank you for the conversation", i bow out.

 

Myron, there is no need or desire for you to "bow out." I'm not aware that I said "thank you for the conversation" to you. I did say it to Davidk because we had reached an impass in our discussion where he wanted me to agree with him on a point (in which I did not agree) and he refused to let it go. I tried, at least 2 times, to move the conversation forward and he would not. But we have not done that here in this thread, have we?

 

So please, let's continue.

 

BTW, I found what you had to say about the Song of Solomon to be interesting. Have you ever read "Sex God" by Rob Bell?

 

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Myron,

I'm confused about the bowing out. I'm very tired, so maybe I missed something. I was enjoying your posts, so I hope you're not really leaving! Have you read How Good Do We Have to Be? by Harold Kushner? It is very much along the same lines that you are pointing out -- how the Adam and Eve story is not as much about punishment as it is about the birth of free will.

 

Should we move on to Chapter 3, or does anyone have more on Chapter 2?

 

Sounds like another good read I'll have to add to my stack, Janet! Thanks!

 

We can move on if you like.

 

bill

[minsocal]

Myron, there is no need or desire for you to "bow out." I'm not aware that I said "thank you for the conversation" to you. I did say it to Davidk because we had reached an impass in our discussion where he wanted me to agree with him on a point (in which I did not agree) and he refused to let it go. I tried, at least 2 times, to move the conversation forward and he would not. But we have not done that here in this thread, have we?

 

So please, let's continue.

 

BTW, I found what you had to say about the Song of Solomon to be interesting. Have you ever read "Sex God" by Rob Bell?

 

bill

 

I bowed out because dialogue here ends up being personal ... a quest for dominace, a will to power. I have no interests there. None!

 

minsocal

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

The message board is back up! Is anyone still interested in talking about chapter 3?

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I've struggled with this issue before, and I was greatly influenced by reading Kushner's "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People." I am much more comfortable with a God who is with us in our response to troubles instead of one that causes/allows troubles for reasons we don't understand.

 

I can see how people look back on their troubles and say, "I am a better person because of them, so maybe God sent that suffering so I could learn something." Indeed, I believe God can help us learn from troubles and often gives us the strength to do so, when on our own we would have given up.

 

Following is one of my favorite quotes of the chapter:

 

"For one, we seem to have the feeling that well-being is normal, that it is to be expected. No matter how often we may speak of counting our blessings, we usually do take them for granted. Though we would deny it, we feel that life "owes" us well-being and even happiness. Therefore suffering is felt as unfair and unjust, and our question of "Why?" takes on a moral tone that seeks an answer that would show us purpose and justice."

 

I do not deny that there is SERIOUS suffering in life. Right now I know some people who are REALLY going through it. But some of us make a big deal of the little things. Are you familiar with the song by Darryl Worley – Sounds Like Life to Me? The lyrics follow...

 

 

 

Got a call last night from an old friend’s wife

Said I hate to bother you

Johnny Ray fell off the wagon

He’s been gone all afternoon

I know my buddy so I drove to Skully’s

And found him at the bar

I say hey man, what’s going on

He said I don’t know where to start

 

Sarah’s old car’s about to fall apart

And the washer quit last week

We had to put momma in the nursing home

And the baby’s cutting teeth

I didn’t get much work this week

And I got bills to pay

I said I know this ain’t what you wanna hear

But it’s what I’m gonna say

 

[Chorus:]

Sounds like life to me it ain’t no fantasy

It’s just a common case of everyday reality

Man I know it’s tough but you gotta suck it up

To hear you talk you’re caught up in some tragedy

It sounds like life to me

 

Well his face turned red and he shook his head

He said you don’t understand

Three kids and a wife depend on me

And I’m just one man

To top it off I just found out

That Sarah’s 2 months late

I said hey bartender set us up a round

We need to celebrate

 

[:Chorus:]

Sounds like life to me plain old destiny

Yeah the only thing for certain is uncertainty

You gotta hold on tight just enjoy the ride

Get used to all this unpredictability

Sounds like life

 

Man I know it’s tough but you gotta suck it up

To hear you talk you’re caught up in some tragedy

Sounds like life to me

Sounds like life

[JosephM]

AllInTheNameOfProgress,

Thanks for the lyrics. Haven't heard that one before. Feel free to continue your take on the next chapters of the book. Billmc (wayfarer2k) is away for awhile but I hope to see him back soon. I'm sure others will join in.

 

Love Joseph

[Guest billmc]

Sounds like life to me

Sounds like life

 

That's a good song, Janet. It has, to me, "real" lyrics. It also brought to my mind James Taylor's song, "Secret O' Life".

 

Alot of your excerpt grabbed my attention also, Janet. I grew up with an interpretation of Christianity and of God/Jesus where it was all about deliverance or being "saved". God was the Great Deliverer, a Mighty Fortress (protections), a Shelter in the Time of Storm, the Rock of Ages -- all images that implied that God's purpose or function was to protect us from harm, to shelter us from the harsh realities of life, to deliver us from the hardships of human existence and experience. Jesus was similarly portrayed as the Great Shepherd (who protects the flock), the Savior (who, of course, saves), the Messiah (who was expected to deliver God's people from evil), and other images that called to mind a divine Someone whose purpose was to protect us and shelter us from life.

 

But as I studied the Bible more thoroughly and as the experiences of my life opened my eyes, I've come to see that these images of God and Jesus, while powerful, just don't stand up to the overall testimonies of the scriptures or to the experiences of real life. Jesus said that in this world we would have trouble. And the testimony of many people in the Bible is that they suffered and died, that they were, in fact, not delivered as they hoped and prayed.

 

So my view is slowly shifting to be more like what you said, God and Jesus as companions in the sufferings, not delivers from them. It's my feeling that the question that really lies behind, "Why does God allow people to suffer?" is really, "Why I am alone in this?" Suffering screams to us that we are indeed alone. "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" But the testimonies of the New Testament scriptures is that God is always with us, even if it seems or feels like he is distant and uninvolved.

 

Nevertheless, having a bent toward practicality, I still can't help but wonder, "What different does it make to have a companion in the suffering rather than a deliverer from it?" Being human, I would rather have a deliver. But I've lived long enough and seen enough suffering to know that God simply doesn't "come through" like we often expect him to, saving the day for us. People that most impress me -- people like Bonhoeffer, Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandhi, Mother Theresa, Saint Patrick -- were not those who were "victorious in Christ" with God showing up to rescue them from suffering, but, rather, they endured suffering -- not for their own sins, but for the sake of the oppressed that they chose to be associated with.

 

It's for this reason that I wish Christianity would give up the language of deliverance and "saving". I would rather that it embrace the language of empowerment, of companionship, of faithfulness to the suffering. Such wishes on my part are, most likely, just wishful thinking. But if Christians stopped portraying God as their divine "Genie in a bottle", maybe more Christians would not be so easily shaken when hardships come and Jesus fails to show up as their personal Lone Ranger.

 

bill mc

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"What different does it make to have a companion in the suffering rather than a deliverer from it?"

 

Good question! For me, it is because God calls me to be greater than I am. Left alone, I would wallow in self pity. God gives the strength, wisdom, energy to deal with the suffering.

 

I have struggled long with the "salvation/deliverer" language for the same reason. Jesus saves me by setting me free from old destructive patterns in my life. Often times Jesus delivers me by helping me turn enemies into friends or at least civil relations.

 

My brother in law is in chronic pain at age 48. He thinks God has either abandoned him or is punishing him. His wife is forwarding every one of those spiritual emails, looking for good luck and doesn't understand why God isn't healing her husband. They are trying everything they can!! I forwarded some of Chapter 3 to them, and I hope it provides some comfort. Redefining life in the midst of tragedy just sucks!! My heart goes out.

[Guest billmc]

Left alone, I would wallow in self pity. God gives the strength, wisdom, energy to deal with the suffering. Jesus saves me by setting me free from old destructive patterns in my life.

 

This makes sense to me, Janet - that Jesus delivers us, not by changing our circumstances, but by changing us. Often, when Christians are praying for "God's will to be done", they seem to be saying, "Well, God, whatever the circumstance, I'll just try to accept it as Your will and get through it." Or we pray that God will change the circumstance and leave us unchanged when maybe he wants to leave the circumstance unchanged and change us.

 

On one hand, people could say this is all just a copout because, in reality, God doesn't "show up" and save the day, therefore proving that he doesn't exist. There is a semi-popular book called "The God Who Wasn't There" that tries to make the case that the "interventionist God" does come through for us on behalf of our prayers and struggles and, therefore, God is just a figment of our imaginations.

 

While I have known people who have become bitter because God didn't show up, I have also known people who have become better because of their trials and sufferings. I wouldn't be comfortable making any hard, fast rules as to why some become bitter and some become better, but I can't help but think that it has something to do with the kind of God that we envision and the expectations we have of him. Those who expect nothing are seldom disappointed. Ha ha!

 

Obviously, I'm still perhaps wrestling and pondering all this stuff myself. Not because I have really suffered (because I haven't) but because the question of theodicy seems to be an important one to the postmodern generation who wonders why a good God would let people suffer. I don't think there is a magic bullet answer to this question, but I do think that maybe SOME of the suffering is a result, not of God's failure to intervene, but of our failure to.

 

bill mc

[JosephM]

Suffering is always an interesting concept with widely different opinions on why we suffer. The way I see it is quite different than most so the view is my own and just for consideration. There was a time when I got sick or experienced pain, I suffered. When I didn't get my way, I suffered. When I experienced a loss, I suffered. Well now, nothing has really changed , I occasionally get sick and I still have pain from time to time and over the last year I had a great loss of retirement money in the stock market and lost both my parents. I now unconditionally accept what life brings me and no longer have a sense of suffering. I accept what is and if it is in my power to change it I do and if not, I am not distressed nor do I experience mental anguish unless of course I choose to resist and refuse to accept my situation.

 

To me, suffering is a subjective decision. To a poor and hungry person a bowl of plain rice is a real treat. To a rich person who is used to an elegant dinner and deserts, getting just plain rice for dinner is suffering.

 

In my view, undesirable things happen to everyone but if one is able to look at all things with equanimity and considering all things that happen to him as an acceptable part of the moment, trusting his being to his very source of life (God), there is no suffering for him/her. Now many people may say then how will change take place with this attitude? To me, accepting the moment doesn't preclude change from taking place but rather puts one on a path of no mind resistance for what is, so one can get on and think clearly to rectify the situation if possible. I am of course not advocating indifference to the suffering of others which some can construe this to mean but merely pointing out that effective and positive lasting change can only come from the calmness of mind that comes from acceptance and non resistance to the reality of the problem that exists now.

 

Out of this acceptance, wisdom comes and suffering ( the bearing of pain or distress on ones part) disappears. It is recorded Jesus said , "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." I believe that trials and pain may continue as long as we are here in this world but in that 'rest' there is no mental bearing of pain or distress or it would not be called rest.

 

Just a view to consider,

Joseph

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Both your replies gave me new insights. Bill, changing (lowering) my expectations of people and situations has resulted in much new peace in my life. Joseph, the explanation of how suffering disappears was fascinating. At first it sounded like eastern philosopy to me, so I really appreciated the link to Jesus' teachings.

 

Should we rush on to Chapter 4, or do we want to discuss Chapter 3 more?