Pc & Fundamentalism Dialogue

[Cynthia]

Well, except for the immediately preceeding post, this has gotten much more interesting! I agree Aletheia - the hard to pin down people appeal to me because, I think, I am in the same boat. If it were all black and white or easy, it wouldn't be interesting! That's one of the reasons I like the dialogue here - in a (usually ) respectful and constructive way - we get to share ideas, thoughts, and conundrums (sp?) about all of The More, the Mystery, the unknowable. Great fun!! Given that, imho, none of us can ever fully KNOW, this type of discussion will always help us to grow. As CS Lewis says, when you start to say "leave well enough alone" you have ceased to grow and are no longer of use to God.

 

Fred - I always enjoy your ultra-conservative, fundamentalist, right-wing, facist posts.... How's the baby???

[peacemover]

Fred you're right about Bonhoeffer being 'hard to pin down,' as you are about the people you mentioned, Altheia. I deeply respect the people you mentioned for the very reason that the work to build bridges rather than increase the divide between liberals and conservatives, so-called. Another that I would add to the list is Jim Wallis.

 

Beach,

 

Your hostile comments, apparently directed toward Cunning Lilly are over the top and entirely out of line. I think you need to do a little soul-searching and apologizing.

 

That sort of juvenile verbal mud-slinging has no place here or anywhere for that matter, except perhaps the couch at your therapist's office.

 

Peace,

 

John

[FredP]

Fred - I always enjoy your ultra-conservative, fundamentalist, right-wing, facist posts....           How's the baby???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh. Well, you know, I write when I can in between KKK meetings.

 

Well, the baby was served his eviction notice today, but he still gets a couple weeks of grace period to get his stuff together and move out. Indications would seem to point to me changing diapers before the weekend is over, but who can say.

[BeachOfEden]

"Beach,Your hostile comments, apparently directed toward Cunning Lilly are over the top and entirely out of line. I think you need to do a little soul-searching and apologizing.That sort of juvenile verbal mud-slinging has no place here or anywhere for that matter, except perhaps the couch at your therapist's office."

 

Dear John, kiss my ass. I am NOT holding the actual creators of TCPC responsible for you people's UnProgressive behavior. Des I hold in high regard. And Ath, being a Progressive XJW I would expect better not to join in on Fred's Fundamental Catholic band wagon. I am resigning from these forums because I don't like the fundamental right turn innerfaith this forum has taken...and again i do not and will not connect the negativity of this forum with the actual creators of TCPC or it's newsletter and I want THEM to know that.

 

I no longer feel free to talk here...so instead I be talking my thoughts on all this to Myspace's Progressive and Liberal Christian forums where they do screened fundies out and where Progressives CAN talk freely withOUT being lectured by the far right.

[FredP]

... Fred's Fundamental Catholic band wagon ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Oh man. That's funny.

[Cynthia]

LMAO

 

kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!

Edited July 28, 2005 by Cynthia

[des]

Sorry I misattributed quotes. It's easy to do. As for mainline Christians even supporting Hitler, I don't think that's really about Liberals or Progressives. We know that even now, many mainlines are not liberal or progressive. And even those that were, well as I said just because you *say* you are from some point of view, doesn't mean you actually will always accurately represent that.

 

AS for Bonhoeffer being hard to pin down. Yeah, as well as current theologians mentioned.

 

As for Fred being a Fundamentalist Catholic?!?!?!!?

 

--des

[FredP]

As for mainline Christians even supporting Hitler, I don't think that's really about Liberals or Progressives. We know that even now, many mainlines are not liberal or progressive. And even those that were, well as I said just because you *say* you are from some point of view, doesn't mean you actually will always accurately represent that.

No, the problem is definitely not intrinstic to being liberal or progressive. Look at the new American xenophobia since 9/11. "Pray For Our Troops" ribbons shamelessly marry conservative religion with conservative politics. Taken individually, people are capable of a phenomenal amount of maturity and empathy for others and their views. But the psychology and sociology of mass movements is frightening. I'm genuinely afraid of where we're going as a culture. I see us taking a path that is similar in many ways to the situation of Germany in the 1930's. Except, where Germany was a civilization with a culturally and philosophically mature history, America still has a very adolescent consciousness, which makes it even more susceptible to xenophobia. Our culture needs people who can cut across the labels and boundaries that confront us, with the sheer power and depth of their convictions, to offer a living alternative. A Bonhoeffer for our generation, if you will.

Edited July 28, 2005 by FredP

[peacemover]

"Pray For Our Troops" ribbons shamelessly marry conservative religion with conservative politics.

 

Yeah, that always gets me when I see all those magnetic ribbons slapped on the back of those SUVs... I think mainstream American culture has been hijacked, not by terrorists, but by Conservative idealogues who have seen 9/11 and the rise in terrorism as the perfect opportunity to diminish civil liberties and seize control of our government through a widespread campaign of fear-mongering.

 

I am concerned also- both about what ultra-conservative politicians and their minions are doing, but also by the incredible lack of vision, and lack of any meaningful response by more progressive and moderate leaders...

 

Jim Wallis articulates this quite well in his book God's Politics. We need more people like Wallis to get involved in politics and get our country back on the road to real progress.

 

Right now, it would seem that Karl Rove and his rightist puppets are having their way with the country, and the American people have fallen for it...

[irreverance]

Yup, it was me who made the comment about liberal theology and Nazis. I think Fred summed up pretty well what I was trying to say in his follow-up post. I should have written something more like "liberal theologians" (which doesn't implicate liberal theology in an of itself, but shows how it, like any other ideology, can become a vital weapon in oppression).

 

A bit of clarity, though. My understanding of Bonhoffer and Tillich is that they don't really speak from theological liberalism. They belong more in the camp of the neo-orthodox (though I heard someone say that that Tillich was more "neo" than "orthodox") with Barth.

[peacemover]

My understanding of Bonhoffer and Tillich is that they don't really speak from theological liberalism.  They belong more in the camp of the neo-orthodox (though I heard someone say that that Tillich was more "neo" than "orthodox") with Barth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interesting discussion...

 

I would have to disagree with the assertion of Tillich being more neo-orthodox than liberal- Tillich clearly carried on the torch of the nineteenth century liberal tradition (influenced by Schleiermacher and others), and added to it a large dose of existentialism, and modern humanism.

 

If you look at the wikipedia entry for Paul Tillich, it really gives a good concise summary of his theology in contrast to Barth and others...

 

Interestingly enough, under the section entitled "opposing views" there is a quote from Hauerwas and Willimon's book Resident Aliens that says of Tillich:

 

Tillich was described as the "last great 19th century theologian" by paleo-orthodox Methodists Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon in their 1989 book Resident Aliens. They contended that Tillich, though brilliant, failed to take seriously the words, work, and person of Jesus Christ, and that Tillich's innovations were little more than a retelling of 19th century Protestant liberal thought.

 

Fascinating... I agree with Hauerwas on much of his writings on pacifism and social justice, but I think his characterization of Tillich is a bit overly simplistic.

 

 

Peace,

 

John

[FredP]

I think pastorally, Tillich may have spoken more as the "last great 19th century theologian," but in terms of his basic theological outlook, he made a very decisive break with the liberal theology of Harnack, Schleiermacher, etc. Reading Vol. I of his Systematic Theology, you almost get the feel that you're reading what Aquinas might have written if he had been born about 600 years later! With orthodoxy, his thought was utterly grounded in God as the Ground of Being -- as the very first logical principle in the universe -- and in the universe as existentially poised between Being and nonbeing. With liberalism, he upheld the primacy of courage: courage to stand and live -- and, of course, to BE -- in light of God's radical affirmation of the world, and of each of us.

 

Ok, I'm a Tillich fan, what can I say. And a Hauerwas fan, to a lesser degree; although I think he goes so far afield in his wholesale rejection of all things liberal, that it seems like he sometimes does it just for shock value.

[des]

I don't have any trouble with "praying for our troops" as long as that includes praying for Iraqis (which in most cases I'm assuming they aren't implying). As most of the victims of the insurgency are Iraqis, they need lots of help! Yes, I think it is in the same line. I don't attribute this to any sort of Christianity but more a misunderstanding of any sort of Christianity. I'm sure that darby, say, could find as many problems in this sort of "theology" as we could.

 

BTW, in saying that some people describe Bonhoeffer as liberal, well that's what I said "some people". I think the description as neo-Orthodox or even "can't pin him down" describe him as well as anything.

 

 

--des

[peacemover]

I don't have any trouble with "praying for our troops" as long as that includes praying for Iraqis (which in most cases I'm assuming they aren't implying).

 

I agree wholeheartedly... I just think that for a lot of people the magnetic ribbons on those shiny new SUVs come across as a blanket endorsement of Bush's unjustified war in Iraq.

 

I pray for our troops, and for the Iraqi people every day... I don't agree with the politics behind the symbol, though.

[AletheiaRivers]

And Ath, being a Progressive XJW I would expect better not to join in on Fred's Fundamental Catholic band wagon.

 

[FredP]

And Ath, being a Progressive XJW I would expect better not to join in on Fred's Fundamental Catholic band wagon.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I defended a Catholic's right to freedom of speech once, so that makes me a fundamentalist Catholic. Makes perfect sense to me!

[AletheiaRivers]

I admit, I am confused.

 

1) I didn't know that you are a "fundamental Catholic"

 

and

 

2) I didn't know that I'm on your "bandwagon".

 

 

Heck, I didn't even know that there WAS a bandwagon.

Edited July 31, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[Cynthia]

LOL - Hey, where are we going???? And why are we in this handbasket

(aka bandwagon)?!?!?!?!

[Guest admin]

Hi Everyone:

 

I've been on vacation, and just checked back in to find this thread. Yikes. Sorry that there was a breakdown in the happy family and that Beach doesn't feel comfortable here any more.

 

Please keep me posted if you have any ideas about ways that I can better moderate or set up the forums. I try to leave you all well enough alone without overmoderating, but as you may have noticed, I have no trouble blocking IP's that are not posting in the spirit of respectful dialogue. As many of you have pointed out, there are several places to go online for more heated fund/prog debate.

 

I think you are right, whoever said this, that we could use some provocative ideas here to motivate in depth discussion. I would really like to get some of the people involved in the network to moderate a topic for a month at a time, etc., or to base discussions around some of the amazing aritcles we have in the tcpc library. When I get back from abroad this fall, I will get to work on this. Or let me know if you know of anyone who might like to guest moderate. We could offer some books or perks or something for their efforts

 

Again, don't ever hesitate to email me right away if there is anything fishy or uncomfortable happening on the boards. I know things get quiet here sometimes, but we are really developing a sweet little community, and I hope we can all meet each other in person someday!

[steve]

Beachofeden, your wish to produce a new forum for Fundamentalist to debate with Progressives, seems to me a bit elitist or at least exclusive. Just as they, most Fundamentalist, exclaim a separation that is necessary to keep the ‘rot’ from getting to them, you seem to wish that we do the same. Are you afraid that they will destroy our Progressive beliefs?

 

For that matter, who is going to decide who is a progressive? What if I am not Progressive enough? I have, more than once, been at odds with others on here that are professing Progressives. Should I be banned from posting or relegated to only posting on certain sites?

 

Being inclusive does not mean only including those who we like to hear from. I have to agree with some on here that I find it nice to hear from Fundies every once in a while. We should not segregate ourselves from each other because we happen to disagree. That is what conversation is.

[des]

Hi Steve,

 

I have gathered that Beach is constantly getting harangued by family members who are JWs. If I had to deal with my sister, who is in Campus Crusade, every day, I think I would have the same issues-- not wanting to defend myself constantly. And there are times when a topic has been taken over (imo, not too many times). I can't say that I have *always* enjoyed it, but I think that to examine your beliefs is useful-- or can be if done constructively (which it usually is).

 

 

I basically agree with what you say though. And I *definitely* agree that the issue of who is progressive or not (at least on the board-- I don't mind discussing what various theologians are--who aren't on the board), well I find the topic distasteful. As far as I'm concerned anyone who wants to say that they are Progressive is, even if that may vary a bit from what I might consider progressive.

 

--des

[steve]

That’s what I mean (thanks des). I am always afraid of being excluded from a community because I don’t feel the same way that they do. Sometimes this is natural; why would I want to join a community that I am apposed to? But at the same time it is very easy to be banished from a group when one does not adhere to all or maybe not understand all of that groups feelings.

 

I am sure that it is hard for many of us to deal with those who are hostile to our beliefs or views, but we can’t exclude them from the conversation. No one should be able to attack someone personally, but everyone should be able to challenge beliefs and views. I think this is not only American, but Biblical.

 

I hope that Beach feels more comfortable and willing to continue the conversation (and debate). But don’t every try and stop others from posing their views. When that happens we are no better than Fundamentalist.

[BeachOfEden]

What about this..what if the debate forum name was changed to "Progressive& Conservative Dialog"?

 

That way those from each camp could discusss differing view points freely and no one from either side is taken off gaurd as to what type of debate or topic type forum it is? The title, "Conservative" is not offensive as "Fundamental" would be..and those from the Progressive AND Conservative camps who enjoy a good challenge to their viewpoints could enjoy innerfaith dialog. It is a more precise discription of what the "debate" is about and both Progressives AND Conservatives could BOTH feel equally welcomed.

 

With the title of the forum SO precise like this..then Progressives who do NOT wish to inferfaith dialog with those of a more conservative view point could simply stick to the regular Progressive Christian forum instead.

[des]

Well, Beach unless it included that line (say "including conservative and progressive dialogue") I wouldn't favor it. It seems limiting. THere are controversial subjects, that are controversial in their own right. For ex. where would you put a discussion on abortion, homosexuality, federal funding, "could you be a progressive and vote Republican?" etc etc. You don't have to be a conservative to disagree on these things. There are even some purely theological subjects. In fact, I might argue that this topic is more on the debate discussion level than a pure discussion level. You are a progressive, and most of us are, and we are disagreeing with you. So it ends up having NOTHING to do with being a progressive or no.

 

I would hope that most conservatives would limit their discussion to the debate section. I think there have been exceptions, where someone had something to add but wasn't really debating and it generally worked out fine.

 

Beach, really, if you want to not pay attention to someone just put them in your "ignore" list.

It really takes about 5 minutes, and imo will save you lots of grief. Yes, you can still read them if quoted but the comments will have a lot less sting. (And yes, I have done this so I know it does work.) It is what it is there for. I think you are making 3 people a lot bigger deal than they really are. It is useful to realize that these people's arguments are NOT usually personal like your own family's are. If you want to complain on a specific problem you can.

 

 

--des

[steve]

I have to agree with des on this Beach. While I understand that it might be desirable for some to only speak with those that they agree, it is contrary to the principals of evangelism, which I, as a progressive, feel is important.

 

I started reading some of the past post on here and I can’t really find anything that is so offensive as to warrant the creation of a new forum for those who wish to bash it out OT style. If it does happen, which I am sure that it does on occasion, one should just ‘ignore’ the source. There are times on other posting sites or forums that I will post and someone will come back with something that is so malicious I will stop the conversation right there.

Just as in physical interaction, when I am assaulted (verbally) I stop talking and move on. I wont be made to engage in conversation that is mean or hurtful, but I will not shrug from conversation that is challenging and engaging.

 

How complex are we to make this message board? Are we going to have a separate section for every possible mind-set, and when a new one is created by a new member, will we then create a new posting for that person?

 

What if this is really a matter of writers style. Many writers, especially those who are not very good writers (like me, not very good), don’t have the skills to push their ideas without sounding like ass holes. They may intend a remark to be very direct and end up sounding as though they feel their conversation partner is an idiot.

I’m with des on this. Maybe we are not really concerned with Progressive/Fundamentalist.

 

As a side note, it surprises me to hear someone, especially a Progressive, say that they don’t want to ‘interfaith’ with others. That anyone, especially progressives, would not want to interfaith only means that they feel they can gain nothing from it. Are they all wise? If so, we aught to have a separate forum for them, so they can inform us of what is right.