What Is Progressive Christianity?

[peacemover]

Those first few sessions of LTQ, in my opinion, did not seem to me to be congruent with at least part of "point 4" of the "eight points":

 

Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to):  believers and agnostics, conventional Christians and questioning skeptics...

 

 

Just my opinion...

 

Again, otherwise I found the course to be very stimuatling and insightful...

 

Peace,

 

John

[October's Autumn]

8. Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege.

 

I think I agree, although I'm not sure what is really meant by "renunciation of privilege".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It means exactly what it says: Americans, particularly white and middle to upper class have privlege, renounce that it the same way Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler to give away all he had to the poor then follow him.

[AletheiaRivers]

So privilege = money or possesions only?

[October's Autumn]

So privilege = money or possesions only?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Only? I'm sure if I spent some time on it I could come up with others

[AletheiaRivers]

LOL! Sorry, I was just being cheeky.

 

My point is that "privilege" is a relative term. Someone who lives in a cardboard box may feel that someone who lives in a wooden packing crate is privileged. Someone who lives in a wooden packing crate may feel that someone who lives in a car is privileged.

 

I know there has to be a cut off point, but where should we draw the line? At what point can what I have be objectively defined as being privileged?

 

I live from check to check, BUT I'm living in and paying for a home. Should I sell the home and live on the street so that I'm not more privileged than those that do live on the street?

 

Do I need to go "down" to their economic level or should we attempt to bring them "up" to a better economic level?

 

Jesus did say to (to a particular individual) to sell all that he had in order to follow him, but the scriptures also tell us to take care of widows and orphans, etc ... etc ... which is much more easily done with money and resources than without.

 

What it all comes down to is - I don't think point 8 on the list is particularly well thought out or worded.

[flowperson]

I'm not so sure that the term "privileged" as used was referring to comparative economics per se, but rather the "conditions" that inevitably lead to economic disparity if allowed to intensify and continue. We called it the "old boy network" and I believe that the term still applies. You know, country clubs, the men's grill, wednesday afternoons off for businesss-golf talk on the course, that kind of environmental milieu that connotes exclusiveness and exclusion of unwanted participants. Fenced housing enclaves in urban areas would be another example.

I believe that the current disaster news shows this to a tee. Privileged people, that is those who had the wherewithall to flee the disaster, could and did. Those who could not, and did not, didn't and were trapped. This was certainly not any sort of overt conspiracy to eliminate the underprivileged, but the inevitable outcome of a complex system that has been out of balance in certain ways for too long.

This is the set of conditions we arrive at when there has been an unending array of benefits passed on to the privileged by the government and a severe restriction of support by the government for those who are considered underprivileged. It is the end result of political leaders saying one thing and doing the opposite for too long

One could call it class warfare, but we all know that couldn't happen in America.

[AletheiaRivers]

I'm not so sure that the term "privileged" as used was referring to comparative economics per se, but rather the "conditions" that inevitably lead to economic disparity if allowed to intensify and continue.

 

Right, hence my confusion when I originally answered the post back in May - I think the phrase "renunciation of privilege" is ambiguous and perhaps could be worded a bit differently.

 

But how?

[cunninglily]

I'm not so sure that the term "privileged" as used was referring to comparative economics per se, but rather the "conditions" that inevitably lead to economic disparity if allowed to intensify and continue.

 

Right, hence my confusion when I originally answered the post back in May - I think the phrase "renunciation of privilege" is ambiguous and perhaps could be worded a bit differently.

 

But how?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The word "privilege" refers to "an exceptional law for or against any individual or group". Also, any "advantage, favor, or immunity given to some and not to others." An example of this would be to claim religious freedom for yourself and your own religious tradition etc. while denying this freedom to those who believe differently.

 

I agree with Flow. I don't think the 8th Point is referring to economics per se in its use of the word "privilege" either. I think it speaks more to the right of non-Christians or non-mainstream Christians to their own beliefs and religious practices...or, as the case may be, to the right of conservative Christians to theirs. In other words, it discourages the superiority of "progressive Christians" over "conservative Christians" and vice versus, or the favor of "heterosexual Christians" to "homosexual Christians" and so on...

 

lily

[flowperson]

This is, of course, exactly the sort of interpretation that those of a conservative bent fight so vehemently against. This distinction is, I believe. the crux of the matter. The legalized extending of exclusivity to some while denying it to others is why we were advised by Jesus to renounce it. For, it begins a process where, in some focussing event, such as a disaster or war, a cascade of misfortune inevitably befalls the innocent, and most likely, the common people. In real terms it is the never-ending struggle between life and death. And He recognized the key in understanding the process for his Jewish heritage taught Him to always choose life.

Some might argue that to eliminate this feature of chiefs-monarchies- democracies ( the ability of wealth and power to rule over the ruled) is wrong because it is very old and proven to be traditionally sound. It all extends back in time to the first organized communities after the rise of agricultural practices in the near east, South America, and Southeast Asia. And, despite its obvious shortcomings due to the corruptibility of the ruling classes, it has worked in advancing the human race in fits and starts for about 10,000 years or so.

Of course to follow the directive literally would inevitably lead to anarchy, which we all know never works and leads to total destruction. And this is the first argument that conservatives use in order to always steer governing activities to the right. But that too has its drawbacks. It lulls believers into a false sense of security simply because power always insulates itself in some ways from the realities of the world and thus is slower in reacting to real dangers when they occur, as it was last week.

Of course the real trick in such systems is to strike a balance so that the system functions to provide the most benefit to the most people in a timely manner; and, with wisdom. It's going to be interesting to watch the governing structure that we all elected to try to reach some reasonable balancing point. And I'm equally certain that the framers of the precepts that modern democracies were founded upon will be watching from on high (and on low) to see what their ideas have wrought for the future.

Yes, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. There is no doubt that THE MAN was the ultimate rebel. I don't think that he was talking about casinos either.

Edited September 8, 2005 by flowperson