Jump to content

What Is Progressive Christianity?


FredP

Recommended Posts

I certainly have no problem saying anyone is who says he is. So darby, are you are progressive?
:-)

 

In love, grace, mercy, racial/economic diversity, reaching out to the "least of these", etc.....YES :D

(BTW, you know it's my desire that these issues not be "progressive" issues, but just plain ole' Christian issues)

 

But in fairness to any newcomers, in theology/doctrine, compared to most on this board, no, I would not ever be called progressive.

Edited by darby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But as I've made abundantly clear in other places, I share your concern with the progressive reduction of Jesus and Christianity to merely human categories,

 

and Peacemover wrote:

I guess what I am wrestling with at the moment is the apparent movement by Borg, Crossan, Spong and others away from acknowledging Jesus as Son of God and Messiah, toward just referring to him as "Jesus of Nazareth" or as a "Jewish mystic" in the same way that Gandhi, or Buddha or Muhammed were mystics and great faith leaders.

 

 

Yes, this is the stone I keep bruising myself upon too. On the one hand I find the *humanity* of Jesus key to understanding the transformational/mystical elements of the Christian tradition, while finding the understanding of the *Divinity* of Jesus as crucial to understanding the first. In other words, I favor a movement away from either Jesus was a "Jewish mystic" OR Jesus is the "Son of God" and a movement toward embracing both as true and realizing a *third* reality; a paradoxical reality created within the intersection of both. The Church appears to be stuck at this crossroads. Do we take the "Jesus is a Jewish mystic and therefore only a man" position or do we take the "Jesus is the Son of God and therefore very God" position? There seems to be great resistance to realizing both as equally true and equally vital to understanding the Christian tradition. The problem seems to hinge upon whether or not we believe that mortal man can become immortal and what that might mean.

 

Personally, I can not find "a place to lay my head" within either a "Jesus is a Jewish mystic" or a "Jesus is God" Church. In my opinion, both of these positions are incomplete. It is in the two combined that a *third* way presents itself and puts to rest any debate regarding either the humanity of Jesus or the Divinity of Jesus. It is my conviction that Jesus was both man and divine. If you try and separate the two realities, the whole tradition falls apart, in my opinion. If Jesus was only a man, then the mystical/magical, transformational aspects of the tradition are lost and the emphasis is placed on "social activism and reform". If Jesus is God then the mystical/magical, transformational aspects of the tradition are also lost and the emphasis is placed on obedience and worship of God without any real hopes of becoming "like Him".

 

To me, the *Cross* as symbol, demonstrates the two "realities" intersecting, and reveals the *third* way which appears at this point. The vertical pole symbolizes our union with God, and the horizontal pole symbolizes our humanity and what occurs between the two, or where the two meet, IS the mystery.

 

I am concerned that the movement of Progressive Christianity seems to be away from the Divinity of Jesus Christ and toward Jesus the mystic, social reformer and holy man. I understand why this is happening but I can not support it.

 

What I and others here are suggesting in seeing Jesus as both God and Man is difficult to teach because it is a mystery. It can only be experienced, not explained or made sensible to those whose minds are locked into an either/or mode of understanding. So, it is more expedient to choose between one or the other. But it is my heartfelt conviction that the vitality of the Christian tradition is found in not choosing between the two, but in holding the two realities in creative tension as One.

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I and others here are suggesting in seeing Jesus as both God and Man is difficult to teach because it is a mystery. It can only be experienced, not explained or made sensible to those whose minds are locked into an either/or mode of understanding. So, it is more expedient to choose between one or the other. But it is my heartfelt conviction that the vitality of the Christian tradition is found in not choosing between the two, but in holding the two realities in creative tension as One.

This is the very struggle that fueled the first 400 years of Christian thought. :) It's rare for a modern person to feel it so intensely. Modernity often castigates early Christian theology for closing the book on this discussion, when in many ways it was orthodox theology that had the courage to insist on this paradox in the face of a laundry list of other more rational "solutions."

 

Of course, "Progressive Christianity" as it stands, does fall into a noble tradition of questioning this claim. IMO, the question has yielded fruit, just as it did in earlier times, in the form of teasing apart various aspects of what the Divinity of Jesus Christ really entails. Does it entail that Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by a divinely engineered superstrand of DNA? I'm inclined to say not. But a rejection of that needn't necessarily entail a rejection of Divinity: just a refinement of its meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that orthodox Christianity of those first few centuries often came up with what they thought were the right words to describe this mystery, and then insisted on subscription to those words. One of the problems for later Christians is that the common meaning of the words changes, and it is even more significant if the language of those words is not your language. Later generations of "orthodox" Christians have often continued to insist on subscription to the same words, although the words now fail to communicate to most people the mystery that the authors felt was so well captured by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that orthodox Christianity of those first few centuries often came up with what they thought were the right words to describe this mystery, and then insisted on subscription to those words.  One of the problems for later Christians is that the common meaning of the words changes, and it is even more significant if the language of those words is not your language.  Later generations of "orthodox" Christians have often continued to insist on subscription to the same words, although the words now fail to communicate to most people the mystery that the authors felt was so well captured by them.

Yes, absolutely. I wouldn't be here otherwise. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>In love, grace, mercy, racial/economic diversity, reaching out to the "least of these", etc.....YES :D

(BTW, you know it's my desire that these issues not be "progressive" issues, but just plain ole' Christian issues)

 

Darby, that would be a great thread, what do we all agree on? I'll start that later. Back now, back to work.

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I and others here are suggesting in seeing Jesus as both God and Man is difficult to teach because it is a mystery. It can only be experienced, not explained or made sensible to those whose minds are locked into an either/or mode of understanding. So, it is more expedient to choose between one or the other. But it is my heartfelt conviction that the vitality of the Christian tradition is found in not choosing between the two, but in holding the two realities in creative tension as One.

This is the very struggle that fueled the first 400 years of Christian thought. :) It's rare for a modern person to feel it so intensely. Modernity often castigates early Christian theology for closing the book on this discussion, when in many ways it was orthodox theology that had the courage to insist on this paradox in the face of a laundry list of other more rational "solutions."

 

Of course, "Progressive Christianity" as it stands, does fall into a noble tradition of questioning this claim. IMO, the question has yielded fruit, just as it did in earlier times, in the form of teasing apart various aspects of what the Divinity of Jesus Christ really entails. Does it entail that Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by a divinely engineered superstrand of DNA? I'm inclined to say not. But a rejection of that needn't necessarily entail a rejection of Divinity: just a refinement of its meaning.

 

Hmm. This may be an over-simplification, but it is my understanding that the "struggle that fueled the first 400 years of Christian thought" was whether or not Jesus was "Very God" or not. There were those who claimed that Jesus was God Incarnate (and its my understanding that this was the orthodox position) and those who claimed that Jesus was a man who became one with God or divinized (and its my understanding that this became the heretical position), which is closer to what I (and of course many others) propose. But yes, you are right, this argument has been going on from the beginning.

 

In a previous post I wrote: To me, the *Cross* as symbol, demonstrates the two "realities" intersecting, and reveals the *third* way which appears at this point. The vertical pole symbolizes our union with God, and the horizontal pole symbolizes our humanity and what occurs between the two, or where the two meet, IS the mystery.

 

There is a principle called the Principle of Polarity which may help to explain what I mean by a "third way". The Principle of Polarity states that "anything in the universe can be understood, in magical terms, as an energy relationship between two opposed forces, resulting in a third, balanced force." The "two opposed forces" in this case would be "flesh and Spirit" or "heaven and earth" or "humanity and divinity". The *Cross* as symbol, as I mentioned previously, shows the "the two opposed forces" in tension which creates a third, balanced force, which we know as the Self, the Son, or the Christ.

 

Hopefully that clarifies a bit what I am trying to say. There is much more to it all of course...but until we agree that in some way Jesus was both a son of man and a Son of God, and that this paradox is key to the message or goal or Word of God in Christ, there is no point in going much deeper in.

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. This may be an over-simplification, but it is my understanding that the "struggle that fueled the first 400 years of Christian thought" was whether or not Jesus was "Very God" or not.  There were those who claimed that Jesus was God Incarnate (and its my understanding that this was the orthodox position) and those who claimed that Jesus was a man who became one with God or divinized (and its my understanding that this became the heretical position), which is closer to what I (and of course many others) propose. But yes, you are right, this argument has been going on from the beginning.

I think it's an oversimplification to say that the argument was between the two rival views you mention. There were so many rival views, that even I have a hard time keeping track, and I consider myself to be fairly well-versed on the subject. :) Furthermore, the idea of Jesus as God Incarnate can be elucidated in so many ways, and is probably not adequately elucidated in any form we've yet to come up with. (In all fairness, much of the problem lies with the doctrine's reliance on Greek and Latin philosophical forms which have themselves been under scrutiny for the better part of a millennium. But that hasn't stopped one contemporary scholar from trying to argue the classical view in terms of philosophy of mind/cognitive science. Anyway...) All this makes the matter much more complex than a rivalry between two competing Christological theories.

 

In a previous post I wrote: To me, the *Cross* as symbol, demonstrates the two "realities" intersecting, and reveals the *third* way which appears at this point. The vertical pole symbolizes our union with God, and the horizontal pole symbolizes our humanity and what occurs between the two, or where the two meet, IS the mystery.

Definitely. You REALLY need to read those Jung essays!

 

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(In all fairness, much of the problem lies with the doctrine's reliance on Greek and Latin philosophical forms which have themselves been under scrutiny for the better part of a millennium.  But that hasn't stopped one contemporary scholar from trying to argue the classical view in terms of philosophy of mind/cognitive science.  Anyway...)
All this makes the matter much more complex than a rivalry between two competing Christological theories.
[

 

You REALLY need to read those Jung essays!

 

...and you really need to read Peter Kingsley's "Reality".

 

What is the "classical view"? and how would you state it in terms of "philosophy of mind/cognitive science? and I know that the matter is much more complex than a rivalry between two competing Christological theories. I know.

 

I have a more vague knowledge of these "complexities" because I am not a formal scholar...and what I mean by "vague" is that I follow my nose and not a course outline...so, I know to look at ancient Greece and Hellenized Greek philosophical forms in order to better understand what it may have meant for a mortal man to become immortal...but I don't always know where to look or how to begin...if you can imagine this problem. The reason that I take the time to offer this *apology* is so that you, Fred, will understand that while I usually know what you are talking about...I don't always understand the language you are using to say it and so can not respond in kind.

 

And the Jung essays? I probably would benefit from reading Jung again. Twenty years ago (has it been that long already?) I was an avid reader of everything "Jungian" and there is no doubt that his influence is still present in my thoughts...but I am largely unconscious of them now and seldom make direct reference to Jungian thought anymore. Problem is I haven't even caught up with the "Progressive" Christian reading list. I've not read Crossan, or Borg, or Wright or any of these guys. In fact, I've read very few specifically Christian books in the last several years. Most of my reading, to be blunt, has been on the Western Mysteries and the occult during the last ten years...much of it Kabbalah and Tarot focused. During the last two I spent a great deal of time studying various Pagan Reconstructions. All of these influences swarm and swirl within my head. At any rate, as I've said before, all of these influences only served to root me more firmly within a Christian "orientation".

 

 

It's amazing that we can talk at all, isn't it? or is it?

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were those who claimed that Jesus was God Incarnate (and its my understanding that this was the orthodox position) and those who claimed that Jesus was a man who became one with God or divinized (and its my understanding that this became the heretical position), which is closer to what I (and of course many others) propose. But yes, you are right, this argument has been going on from the beginning.

 

In a previous post I wrote: To me, the *Cross* as symbol, demonstrates the two "realities" intersecting, and reveals the *third* way which appears at this point. The vertical pole symbolizes our union with God, and the horizontal pole symbolizes our humanity and what occurs between the two, or where the two meet, IS the mystery.

 

There is a principle called the Principle of Polarity which may help to explain what I mean by a "third way". The Principle of Polarity states that "anything in the universe can be understood, in magical terms, as an energy relationship between two opposed forces, resulting in a third, balanced force." The "two opposed forces" in this case would be "flesh and Spirit" or "heaven and earth" or "humanity and divinity". The *Cross* as symbol, as I mentioned previously, shows the "the two opposed forces" in tension which creates a third, balanced force, which we know as the Self, the Son, or the Christ.

 

Hopefully that clarifies a bit what I am trying to say. There is much more to it all of course...but until we agree that in some way Jesus was both a son of man and a Son of God, and that this paradox is key to the message or goal or Word of God in Christ, there is no point in going much deeper in.

 

Boy did those words give me a big "A-HA!" moment.

 

If Jesus was God who became man then he would be God/Man.

 

If Jesus was Man who became God then he would be Man/God.

 

Polarity either way. The same, ultimately, either way.

 

I said in another thread a while back, not sure which one now, that I wondered whether Jesus and God's "relationship" was not a Trinity, but a Duality (a polarity), which together is ONE balanced being. (I've talked about duality in unity in other threads too, such as the panentheism one, but not in this context of Jesus and God.)

 

What I meant was - Jesus/Holy Spirit = God (the Godhead, the Ultimate). And actually, in this metaphor, there is still a Trinity! Whoo hoo! B)

 

Everything keeps coming back to a "dialectic" whole or a "dipolar" whole, like yin/yang. The cross, of course, is a much more appropriate Christian symbol for this "thesis / antithesis / synthesis" than yin/yang, but I do LOVE circles. The vertical bar is DIVINITY, the horizontal bar is MORTALITY, and the whole cross is the synthesis of "God/Man".

 

God/man for God. God/man for Jesus. God/man for us. Cool. :P

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jesus was God who became man then he would be God/Man.

 

If Jesus was Man who became God then he would be Man/God.

 

Polarity either way. The same, ultimately, either way.

 

I said in another thread a while back, not sure which one now, that I wondered whether Jesus and God's "relationship" was not a Trinity, but a Duality (a polarity), which together is ONE balanced being. (I've talked about duality in unity in other threads too, such as the panentheism one, but not in this context of Jesus and God.)

 

What I meant was - Jesus/Holy Spirit = God (the Godhead, the Ultimate). And actually, in this metaphor, there is still a Trinity! Whoo hoo!  B)

 

Everything keeps coming back to a "dialectic" whole or a "dipolar" whole, like yin/yang. The cross, of course, is a much more appropriate Christian symbol for this "thesis / antithesis / synthesis" than yin/yang, but I do LOVE circles. The vertical bar is DIVINITY, the horizontal bar is MORTALITY, and the whole cross is the synthesis of "God/Man".

 

God/man for God. God/man for Jesus. God/man for us. Cool.  :P

 

I see what you are saying Aletheia, but what I am thinking is a bit different. It's not so much that man becomes God or God becomes man, but that the *meeting* of the two produces a *third* becoming. Just as individuals receive characteristics of both parents and yet can not be said to be the parents and are distinct from them, so too does the meeting or union of God and man create Offspring or Sons who are of both natures and yet can not be said to be very God or merely man, but a synthesis or union of the two.

 

We may be saying the same thing really, but I want to emphasis that I don't believe that man becomes God or that God became man, but that God and Man met in Christ (or the Self) and a "new creation" or the Sons of God, are the result. This "new creation" mediates between heaven and earth; mediates the Divine Will through to manifestation.

 

...much more could be said, but i'm getting bleary-eyed. See you all tomorrow.

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned, I found the "deconstruction" process largely frustrating, overly abrasive, and seemingly incongruent with the self-proclaimed inclusivity of progressive Christianity at least INITIALLY (i.e. replacing one set of rules, traditions and code words with another, perhaps newer, or more modern set of rules, traditions, and code words).

 

Hi John. I am interested to know what in the "deconstruction" process you found "seemingly incongruent with the self-proclaimed inclusivity of progressive Christianity". You suggest that the replacing of one set of rules etc with "newer" or more "modern" rules etc. is somehow incongruent with inclusivity. How would you define an inclusive Christianity? Are you suggesting that an inclusive Progressive Christianity would be without "rules, traditions and code words"? If so, how do you define or distinguish a Christian tradition as distinct from other traditions?

 

I'm working to understand what people mean by the word "inclusive". I find social inclusivity pretty straight forward, but I'm getting stumped on what you guys mean by doctrinal inclusivity. How do we envision a distinct Christian tradition that is also inclusive of other traditions? How would this flesh out?

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried so hard to write a post for this thread to further clarify what I mean in my previous post. I've erased it three times. :lol:

 

I have a "metaphysical idea" as to "why we are here and the meaning of life" and I'm looking for that idea to exist within Christianity. Thing is - I think it DOES exist within Christianity and that someone, somewhere, has fleshed it out and written about it. :rolleyes:

 

* Was Jesus "just" a man (like us) who became Divine, perhaps like other humans have (Buddha, etc ...)? And if so, why them? Was it what they did, how they lived? If Jesus was a man, "adopted" or divinized by God - WHY? Is our hope to be "adopted"? If so, how? Does this "adoption" change the adoptee, perhaps in a "born again" way? (See next thought.)

 

* Was Jesus half man and half Divine, born of a human mother but "fathered" by God, making him different from us, and unique? If so, what does that mean for us? (An idea - Jesus, in this scenario, was born of God's spirit. Human DNA+God's spirit = Jesus Christ. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant by being "born again"? Even though God didn't "beget" us in our mothers' wombs, perhaps God's spirit can "beget" us outstide of the womb and change us?" In this scenario, Jesus is unique in how he was born, but we become like Jesus through being "born again" and adopted.)

 

* Was Jesus God incarnate, making him WAY different from us, and unique? If so, what does that mean for us? Did God choose to come to earth to live as a human and to experience firsthand our problems, without the benefit of omnipotence?

 

All three suppositions have both a positive side and a negative side.

 

Fred - Do you consider all this on topic, part of what it means to be a progressive Christian, or would you like a new thread started?

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been editing and re-editing a post all morning myself. :) Something more for the "Put on your Philosophy Cap" section. Your post deals with Christology stuff, so probably pertains to my Progressive Christology thread. I'm kicking around the idea of starting a thread on the Trinity. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything keeps coming back to a "dialectic" whole or a "dipolar" whole, like yin/yang. The cross, of course, is a much more appropriate Christian symbol for this "thesis / antithesis / synthesis" than yin/yang, but I do LOVE circles. The vertical bar is DIVINITY, the horizontal bar is MORTALITY, and the whole cross is the synthesis of "God/Man".

The yin/yang is a Trinity symbol: the synthesizing member is the circle itself, which gives the yin and yang their form and relationship. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! Yes yes yes. :lol:

 

Like I said in the sentence right before that one - Jesus and the Holy Spirit being the "polarity" with God as the unity that contains all three. (I know it's not a complete analogy, but I'm trying here! :P ) I also said something similar on the Heart of Christianity thread about yin/yang not being TWO, but ONE.

 

A few months back, when I was philosophizing so much, as I daydreamed, contemplated and pondered "the nature of God and reality" :rolleyes: I came to the view of God, metaphysical reality and material reality as "duality in Unity". Microcosm to macrocosm.

 

Then one day it hit me - yin/yang: It's one, no it's two, no wait, it's three! All are true! It's three in one! I GET IT now.

 

I'd always pictured the Trinity as a "triptych", which of course never made any sense to me. I always thought "How can they be three and still be one ... yada yada yada." Now I get it! Whoo hoo! ;) And now, thanks to Lily :D I can look at a cross and see the same thing (although I'd probably not appreciate it so deeply without the insight I gained from the yin/yang symbol).

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very interesting and lively dialogue seems to be emerging here.

 

I would like to respond to one of the earlier observations that was brought up, if I may:

 

Des wrote:

 

I think Borg's comments about this are quite apt. IF you take some of it as literal and some of it as metaphorical you are left with the unenviable position of trying to figure out which you see as literal and which you see as metaphorical. And then you are left with why you conveniently chose one text over another as literal or metaphorical.

 

I agree about this observation for the most part; my point was that I think Borg rushes too quickly to declaring scripture metaphorical. Certainly there are many rich metaphors contained within scripture, but it is not ALL metaphor.

 

Similiarly, scripture is not literal, absolute, historical truth, nor was it ever intended to be read as such, I believe. Scripture is a collection of personal accounts, occasional letters, and stories that were undoubtedly written by many different authors, in many different contexts at many different times.

 

So I do not believe it is a matter of "trying to figure out which you see as literal and which you see as metaphorical" any more than it is a matter of just making a blanket declaration that scripture is a metaphorical human product written by and for an ancient community, as Borg seems to strongly assert in what I have read and heard of him. It is not that simple.

 

I really like Crossan's writings in this regard, because he digs into the textual literary criticism aspect of it and wrestles with these questions, whereas Borg just seems to write it all off as metaphor and continue to spin his whole new paradigm vision, all the while essentially denying or at least sharply discounting the divinity of Jesus.

 

I have some major issues with this approach, but I am exploring these claims with an open (but not empty) mind.

Edited by peacemover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing that we can talk at all, isn't it? or is it?

In my threaded view of the topic, I completely missed your reply, and am sorry for not getting to it sooner.

 

All I know is, you probably have no idea how much I value your contribution to everything I say. I'm not looking for anyone to be coming from the same history and set of concepts I employ; I only hope that I occasionally drop an idea or two here and there that gets peoples' wheels turning. My mode of doing that (especially in the Debate section -- which I should have moved this dialogue to sooner :)) is typically to break things down conceptually as far as I can, and attempt to lay out every ramification I can think of. That's the methodology I use to destroy and rebuild my own ideas, so why not punish everyone else with it. ;) (I think there's probably some Devil's Advocate in there too: on an Orthodoxy board, I'd probably be trumping up liberal theology a lot more.)

 

Anyway, I'm sorry if I've said anything to offend or frustrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not looking for anyone to be coming from the same history and set of concepts I employ; I only hope that I occasionally drop an idea or two here and there that gets peoples' wheels turning.  My mode of doing that (especially in the Debate section -- which I should have moved this dialogue to sooner :)) is typically to break things down conceptually as far as I can, and attempt to lay out every ramification I can think of.  That's the methodology I use to destroy and rebuild my own ideas, so why not punish everyone else with it. ;)  (I think there's probably some Devil's Advocate in there too: on an Orthodoxy board, I'd probably be trumping up liberal theology a lot more.)

 

Anyway, I'm sorry if I've said anything to offend or frustrate.

 

You've never offended me. frustrate? well, yeah, but that's only because I'm bursting at the seams with things to say that I feel ill-equipped to say...and the "devils advocate" thing? I do that too. B)

 

I'm thrilled to have your company Fred...and am very excited about some of the ideas we are tossing...

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

As I see it, the "8 Points" is a political statement, not a theological one. It doesn't underwrite a particular theological point of view: it explicitly creates an open space where (among other things) dialogue, discussion, and debate on issues of meaning, spirituality, theology, etc. are encouraged. This very forum stands as a realization of that open space -- a symbol of what Progressive Christianity stands for -- and should, I think, be defended as such. Just as we're free either to argue with, or to ignore, the people who cross our paths in the "real" world, we're free to do so here as well. But I think it's important to distinguish between Progressive Christianity as a particular understanding and approach to Christianity, and Progressive Christianity as an openness to the many ways of understanding and approaching Christianity.

 

Maybe this terminology confusion has been in the background all along. Naturally, every person here has "a particular approach to Christianity," and naturally, every person here will find someone else here who disagrees with this or that aspect of their approach -- or maybe even comes at the whole enterprise from a completely different angle. These differences are important, and should not be glossed over in any kind of sentimental sloppiness. But the 8 Points as a political statement brings us together in our differences, to guide and illuminate each other along our way, not to draw lines and boxes around each other. I think that's the key.

 

I think any attempt to define a particular progressive theological position is bound to become passe and stale after any amount of time. The 8 Points avoids this problem by refusing to do it. "Progressive" and "Conservative" are not opposites, neither are "Progressive" and "Liberal" synonyms. I call myself a progressive Christian because it gives me a place to stand, from which I can selectively criticize or adopt the many partial and incomplete conclusions of both liberalism and traditional Christianity. As such, I expect to make plenty of enemies on both sides of the divide. :) But hopefully also, plenty of friends.

 

Peace,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Progressive Christianity as an openness to the many ways of understanding and approaching Christianity."

 

Excellent distinction! As always, you find an eloquence to express thoughts that escape me! :) I would see the above as the most important element of progressive christianity, to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
"Progressive Christianity as an openness to the many ways of understanding and approaching Christianity."

 

Excellent distinction!  As always, you find an eloquence to express thoughts that escape me!  :)  I would see the above as the most important element of progressive christianity, to me.

It appears that we have explored the meaning of the eight points at some length and agree that they are, of necessity, a basic set of political statements that define the "mission" of this "thing" that we are all interested in.

On the oft chance that we all agree that language is a process of symbolic interpretation and understanding, how about some of us taking a stab at interpreting the eight symbols that appear on the web page, and to me, directly relate to the spiritual foundations of this "thing" that has attracted us all to it.

I for one don't believe that it is a coincidence that there are eight symbols, and eight points. In today's world we are increasingly led to search for and to understand the meanings of such "coincidences". I'm fairly sure that Jung, at least, would urge us to pursue this.

Most of the symbols are ancient iconography and carry somewhat different meanings to the viewer depending upon the context in which they are viewed.

For example, the spiral symbol is generally thought to be symbolic of the constant turning of, sun, light, the primal life force. But, in some circumstances it can also connote death It appears in many of the primitive pictographs and rock art in the world's desert regions. And yet it also appears on a rock in the middle of an 8,000 year old burial chamber in Newgrange Ireland,an early agricultural settlement in the British Isles. The rock is placed such that it is only illuminated by the rising sun on the winter solstice,

Any budding Robert Langdons out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned, I found the "deconstruction" process largely frustrating, overly abrasive, and seemingly incongruent with the self-proclaimed inclusivity of progressive Christianity at least INITIALLY (i.e. replacing one set of rules, traditions and code words with another, perhaps newer, or more modern set of rules, traditions, and code words).

 

Hi John. I am interested to know what in the "deconstruction" process you found "seemingly incongruent with the self-proclaimed inclusivity of progressive Christianity". You suggest that the replacing of one set of rules etc with "newer" or more "modern" rules etc. is somehow incongruent with inclusivity. How would you define an inclusive Christianity? Are you suggesting that an inclusive Progressive Christianity would be without "rules, traditions and code words"? If so, how do you define or distinguish a Christian tradition as distinct from other traditions?

 

I'm working to understand what people mean by the word "inclusive". I find social inclusivity pretty straight forward, but I'm getting stumped on what you guys mean by doctrinal inclusivity. How do we envision a distinct Christian tradition that is also inclusive of other traditions? How would this flesh out?

 

 

lily

 

Lily, I was referring to my initial impressions of the "Living the Questions" (LTQ) course with Borg, Crossan, Spong and others that bills itself as "An unapologetically liberal alternative to the ALPHA course."

 

I have completed both courses, and can honestly say that they are two very different courses with very different goals. I think that the designers of LTQ were seeking to cash in on the popularity of the ALPHA course with that hook line, but in fact the two courses are very different and not easily characterized. Incidentally, having completed ALPHA, I would disagree with the dismissive characterization that David Felten and other LTQ organizers have given, by essentially labeling it as an easy-answer, literalist-fundamentalist course. I consider myself quite progressive and did not experience it in that way at all. The materials and discussion in the group I participated in were very open to diverse perspectives with a lively conversation around questions of faith and the person of Christ.

 

My observations about LTQ, as I believe I specified were that INITIALLY, they seem to spend the first 3-4 sessions 'deconstructing' many traditional Christian beliefs, without lifting up any alternative perspectives. This was frustrating, and hard to follow, not because I was salivating for easy answers, but because I did not initially find their deconstructive dismissals of orthodox Christianity convincing.

 

The format of those initial sessions seemed anything but inclusive, unless of course the participant is already on board with an extremely liberal faith perspective that denies the validity of the atonement, and views virtually everything in scripture as metaphorical instructions to an ancient community.

 

I connected most with what Crossan, Ammerman, Cobb and Hauerwas shared. Some of the clips of Borg and Spong, and a few others though almost seemed to mock anyone who believed scripture is somehow God's inspired Word, or that prayer is efficacious for instance...

 

That hardly seemed inclusive or respectful, to me, of people struggling to come to grips with the more liberal branch of progressive Christianity.

 

Once we got through those first 3-4 sessions, and the progressive perspective was actually unpacked in some detail, (beyond all the deconstruction of orthodox Christianity), then the sessions seemed more insightful, inclusive and invigorating.

 

I think they may want to revamp the initial sessions, though to be more balanced in their approach. There was also significant attrition in our group- it fell from 18 in the beginning down to 6 by the 3rd week. Some of this is normal, and some of it is also how it is presented- I thought the facilitator did an excellent job, but those first few sessions just seemed a little rough for some with their force feedings of what progressive Christianity is NOT about...

 

Just my opinion...

 

Otherwise it was great and very insightful...

 

Peace,

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service