NT Wright on women preachers

[Burl]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I take your point about the steps but not sure how much of any dogma has sufficient rational support. 

Also not sure how we would measure or even know if most pCs reject many of the 8 steps.

Why do you say that PC is an Episcopal mission to the unchurched? That is sort of intriguing.

 

The definition of dogma is insufficient rational support.  Compare with doctrine which does.

Bishop Spong was Episcopal and the director is an ordained Episcopal priest.  Obviously from the liberal camp, of course.

[thormas]

9 minutes ago, Burl said:

The definition of dogma is insufficient rational support.  Compare with doctrine which does.

I agree that one can provide a rational or philosophical support for doctrine - yet it is all still belief.

[Elen1107]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

I agree as it seems that Progressive Christianity is all over the place - perhaps that is good but also a bit hard to present to others.

I think that there is something positive about letting the PC movement define itself slowly and naturally and in time.

Perhaps one of the better ways to define it to others is to describe the wide range of ideas and outlooks that are under it's currently wide umbrella.

[JosephM]

5 hours ago, Burl said:

I’ve had this discussion with Joseph.  If I remember correctly he said they tried to avoid all dogma.  My argument was that is substituting one dogma for another.

The 8 steps are indeed dogmatic.  They are put forth as truth without sufficient rational support.

I think most progressive Christians reject many of the 8 points of Progressive Christianity.com. 

PC is an Episcopal mission to the underchurched.  The 8 points are a ‘least common denominator’ designed to increase inclusiveness.

The 8 points while some may see them as dogmatic in my view they are not as they are subject to change as you have seen over the years. The 8 points in my view is not a belief system nor dogma. Here on our main ProgressiveChristianity.org site it reads .........

" Progressive Christianity is inherently always evolving and progressing. Please take these lightly but seriously. They are not dogma, they are simply a starting point to establish conversations and a foundation of values and beliefs that we have observed Progressive Christians generally share. It’s ok if you don’t agree with all the words or all the parts. We support your authentic path."

[thormas]

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

I think that there is something positive about letting the PC movement define itself slowly and naturally and in time.

Perhaps one of the better ways to define it to others is to describe the wide range of ideas and outlooks that are under it's currently wide umbrella.

Intersting point yet the idea of, for example, pantheism seems at odds with the Jesus we 'experience' in the NT and the insights of the community (including biblical scholars).

It remains an interesting issue.

 

[Elen1107]

25 minutes ago, thormas said:

Intersting point yet the idea of, for example, pantheism seems at odds with the Jesus we 'experience' in the NT and the insights of the community (including biblical scholars).

It remains an interesting issue.

 

It depends on what one means by "pantheism". I've gone and looked it up:

pantheism

[ˈpanTHēˌizəm]

 

NOUN

pantheism (noun)

1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.

    

   The first definition here reminds me of one of the statements in the Pauline letters, that we "see God reflected in his/es creation". I think that I would at least in good part agree with it.

    

   The second definition is different, and I can see how one would see it as being "at odds" with most Christian ideology. I've often wondered if the many Hindu or Indian gods are manifestations or parts or smaller parts of what Christians understand to be "the One God". Though some of them might have a bit of (dare I say) the devil in them. 🙂 (don't mean to be offensive here)

    

   I don't know, I'm just sharing my ideas and insights on the subject(s).

[JosephM]

Many Progressive Christians today identify with Panentheism.   In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created. While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe.

[JosephM]

Here is a paragraph from the president of ProgressiveChristianity.com Fred Plumer.

"I also suspect that even if a group of progressive Christians gathered to discuss the same subject, we would have a hard time agreeing on what we mean by the term God. It would be easier, I presume, for most of us to agree upon what we did not mean. We might be willing to let go, for example, the idea of some anthropomorphic being who may or may not respond to our prayers and supplications. Most of us would probably reject the idea of a supernatural theism that has haunted Western Christianity for over 1600 years. But things might start getting tense when we tried to decide if God is a separate entity or whether we believed in a non-dualistic creation, and “God” is in all things. We might resort to terms like pantheism, panentheism or even something called creatheism, (God is a holy name of Ultimate Reality), but I doubt even in this select group that we could agree on descriptive characteristics of God that would fit everyone’s perspective or anyone’s perspective for that matter. We might wonder if so many of us say we believe in “God,” why is it so difficult for us to agree on what we mean?"

Perhaps this is because God is unfathomable or a supreme Mystery incapable of of definition by language.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Many Progressive Christians today identify with Panentheism.   In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created. While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe.

John Macquarie refers to or prefers to call panentheism by the term 'dialectical theism' in that there must be a dialectic or balancing between, for example, the transcendence and the immanence of God. 

In either case there is a profound difference (it seems) between panentheism and pantheism.

 

[Elen1107]

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

Many Progressive Christians today identify with Panentheism.   In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created. While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe.

If this is the true definition of the words, I'd say that I believe in both. & also think that God is more than that as well.

I myself think that God has a kind of consciousness & more.

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

Perhaps this is because God is unfathomable or a supreme Mystery incapable of of definition by language.

I'm thinking that here lies the problem. Putting God or Christ into words may be impossible. One can only experience them and that experience too is beyond words.

[thormas]

11 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that here lies the problem. Putting God or Christ into words may be impossible. One can only experience them and that experience too is beyond words.

I see that it can and has been a problem but it is what we do: we are transcendent beings who are always reaching and it is natural to try to understand why we are, what it is about and, of course, the question of the 'Creator.' The trick perhaps is to realize that our words are never conclusive, that we never fully capture 'truth.'

Edited July 20, 2020 by thormas

[Elen1107]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

I see that it can and has been a problem but it is what we do: we are transcendent beings who are always reaching and it is natural to try to understand why we are, what it is about and, of course, the question of the 'Creator.' The trick perhaps is to realize that our words are never conclusive, that we never fully capture 'truth.'

I agree with you that; "The trick perhaps is to realize that our words are never conclusive, that we never fully capture 'truth.'" It's just the way it is and we have to deal with it and work with it and just try to do our best in using words.

I also agree with you that, "it is what we do". We will keep trying to capture the meaning of God and the meaning of life in words. How possible it is and how successful we are is another matter, sometimes another matter altogether. 

I myself find a lot of the traditional wording and word usage used for God and Christ ratter soapy and gooey. I'm constantly trying to find more intelligent and enlightening words to express God and Christ. Again, how successful I can be in this is another matter.

Thanks for reading again

[thormas]

10 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I myself find a lot of the traditional wording and word usage used for God and Christ ratter soapy and gooey. I'm constantly trying to find more intelligent and enlightening words to express God and Christ. Again, how successful I can be in this is another matter.

I think there are a number of theologians/thinkers who have done a great job on that: John Hick, John Macquarie and, to a degree, Marcus Borg (to name a few).

Edited July 20, 2020 by thormas

[Elen1107]

9 hours ago, thormas said:

I think there are a number of theologians/thinkers who have done a great job on that: John Hick, John Macquarie and, to a degree, Marcus Borg (to name a few).

I've had to look up the first two theo/thinkers that you mention. Marcus Borg I'm familiar with. I'm afraid that for myself, even though I do feel M.B. to quite an eloquent and intelligent speaker, at times he does get too soapy for me as well. Perhaps the problem is me, or that I'm just not familiar with that kind of language. 

I found a video of John Macquarie, where he said that people in the British Isles are "still fighting the Battle of the Boyne" religiously if not in other ways. I couldn't help but think, as an American,  that in terms of religious ideas and Christian religious freedom,... both sides have won - and both sides should get a medal or statue or something. Perhaps one statue that declares both sides and both ideologies to be winners, :-) 

Apologies that I couldn't get back to your last comment sooner. The forum limits the number of comments I can make in 24 hours and I had reached my limit. Thanks

[thormas]

10 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I've had to look up the first two theo/thinkers that you mention. Marcus Borg I'm familiar with. I'm afraid that for myself, even though I do feel M.B. to quite an eloquent and intelligent speaker, at times he does get too soapy for me as well. Perhaps the problem is me, or that I'm just not familiar with that kind of language. 

I found a video of John Macquarie, where he said that people in the British Isles are "still fighting the Battle of the Boyne" religiously if not in other ways. I couldn't help but think, as an American,  that in terms of religious ideas and Christian religious freedom,... both sides have won - and both sides should get a medal or statue or something. Perhaps one statue that declares both sides and both ideologies to be winners, 🙂

Apologies that I couldn't get back to your last comment sooner. The forum limits the number of comments I can make in 24 hours and I had reached my limit. Thanks

I mention Borg because many like him but I lean to the other two. Not familiar with the video.

[Elen1107]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

I mention Borg because many like him but I lean to the other two. Not familiar with the video.

This is the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=QZXJjg5_E70&feature=emb_logo

 

[thormas]

4 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

This is the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=QZXJjg5_E70&feature=emb_logo

I didn't enjoy that video at all. Macquarie and Hick are giants on the page but the videos are a struggle.

[Elen1107]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I didn't enjoy that video at all. Macquarie and Hick are giants on the page but the videos are a struggle.

Regardless, In terms of Christian religious freedom, I think both sides win.

One doesn't have to be Catholic, but one has every right and choice to be Catholic

Likewise:

One doesn't have to be non-Catholic, but at the same time one has every right and reason and opportunity to not be Catholic, and practice what ever form or idea of Christianity one feels is truest to one's spirit, heart and soul.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Elen1107
changed "not be Catholic" to "be non-Catholic"

[thormas]

9 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Regardless, In terms of Christian religious freedom, I think both sides win.

Wining? I took him as just explaining the difference between the US and England in its understanding of ecumenism (at the time he was speaking).

[Elen1107]

23 hours ago, thormas said:

Wining? I took him as just explaining the difference between the US and England in its understanding of ecumenism (at the time he was speaking).

The Battle of the Boyne.

That is where it was once and for all time decided that both non-Catholic Christianity and Catholic Christianity would both be able to exist. It was the final stroke for religious freedom and toleration in the western world.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Elen1107
made 2 paragraphs out of 1

[thormas]

22 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

The Battle of the Boyne.

That is where it was once and for all time decided that both non-Catholic Christianity and Catholic Christianity would both be able to exist. It was the final stroke for religious freedom and toleration in the western world.

...............still, Macqarrie's point was the difference takes on ecumenism and he was correct

[Elen1107]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

...............still, Macqarrie's point was the difference takes on ecumenism and he was correct

He makes several points in that little 4 1/2 minute piece of an interview.

Perhaps that is where ecumenical peace first got started happening. When people decided they didn't want to fight and go to war over it no more.

[Elen1107]

I'd like to get back to the original meaning in the opening post, Should Women be Preachers?

Myself, I would say, if there are going to be preachers, then definitely women should be preachers and have equal opportunity along with men.

I've found that there are a number of things that women assume men understand about women, that they don't have much of an idea about. If we don't have a voice and equal say then we don't get understood and our needs get overlooked and disregarded. 

I also think that it's just fair. If you care about someone then you're fair. Men are supposed to care about women and women are supposed to care about men. Anything else is abnormal and a distortion of who we are supposed to be as people. The genders not caring about each other is abnormal.

Thanks for reading

[Burl]

28 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I'd like to get back to the original meaning in the opening post, Should Women be Preachers?

Myself, I would say, if there are going to be preachers, then definitely women should be preachers and have equal opportunity along with men.

I've found that there are a number of things that women assume men understand about women, that they don't have much of an idea about. If we don't have a voice and equal say then we don't get understood and our needs get overlooked and disregarded. 

I also think that it's just fair. If you care about someone then you're fair. Men are supposed to care about women and women are supposed to care about men. Anything else is abnormal and a distortion of who we are supposed to be as people. The genders not caring about each other is abnormal.

Thanks for reading

Gender equity was a distinguishing feature of the church.  Paul’s letter to the Romans was preached by Junia, not Paul.

When Constantine politicized the church things started going off-track.

[thormas]

10 hours ago, Burl said:

Gender equity was a distinguishing feature of the church.  Paul’s letter to the Romans was preached by Junia, not Paul.

When Constantine politicized the church things started going off-track.

I agree with the comments about Julia but do you think that things (for women) only fell apart with Constantine or did it begin earlier?