New Denomination

[Mystical Seeker]

Is it futility to seek or long to create a new congregation where "all our needs" are met? And who is to say that sitting through some element of a church service that is particularly grinding to your ears cannot yet benefit your soul?

 

Interesting question. I'm not sure how to answer that myself. For me, some elements of orthodox Christian dogma really do grind against my ears. Having grown up in a fundamentalist church, I feel like I've been there, done that, and I'm tired of feeling like a lone voice against a tide of beliefs that fundamentally run counter to my understanding of the world. Do I expect to be in a community where everyone sees things exactly like I do? Of course not. But it would be nice to at least be in a community where the disagreements that do exist lives within a context of a paradigm that I am comfortable with. I feel like Spong, Borg, and others have gone a long way towards pointing us to a new paradigm that I could accept. I sometimes feel like liberal Christianity is caught between paradigms, unfortunately.

 

To get back to the example of Unitarian Universalism--if you want to be challenged by being exposed to beliefs different than your own, that is probably a good place for that, since it revels in its diversity. Again, to me, it isn't necessarily the idea of exposure different beliefs or practices, so much as it is to be part of a process of free and liberating spirituality, that is open and non-dogmatic, grounded in Christian traditions without adhering slavishly to it or taking its myths (like the virgin birth or resurrection) literally. Some practices hold little appeal for me--my Quaker background, for example, have reinforced my aversion towards rituals like communion or baptism, but I could probably live with them even if they aren't my thing. But it is the literalization of myths that I have the biggest problem with. I want to be part of a religion that is both spiritual and sensible.

 

But I am skeptical of the power of the church to be more than a community of folks who enjoy some cultural commonalities and mobilize for social action. Or maybe, that is all it is supposed to be. (I guess I am not as mystical as I thought.)

 

Mobilizing for social action is a good thing, in my view. By their fruits shall you know them, and those are good fruits. If a community mobilizes for social action, it is doing God's work in some small way, in my view, even without the great spirituality. I think there is room for relgious communities that are about community and social action. I have no problem with such communities. I would just like to be part of something more. I feel a religious thirst that isn't being properly quenched.

[Vocalist Of The Heart]

Dave,

 

I'll admit I have not read EVERY post on this topic, but have you ever checked out Unity (not to be confused with Unitarian)? I know you were talking about starting something new, but in case you decide not to, it seems it might fit a lot of what you are in alignment with (based on what posts I did read, that is). Also, Religious Science (not to be confused with Scientology): although not a "Christian" denomination per se, but draws from all religions and supports thinking for yourself. Neither have creeds.

 

As a traveling musician who "ministers" through music I support your music centered idea of service. I've pondered this, too, and so have others I know, so you're not alone in that! Great minds think alike!

 

I also think we are called to begin doing church differently; less “top down”.

 

Namaste,

Vocalist of the Heart

[BeachOfEden]

"As for me, I have been frustrated with the sense that there is no denomination that really suits what I am looking for. I am uninterested in existing Christian denominations, even the liberal ones like UCC, because of their use of language, rites, and creeds that to me signal an old paradigm (and yet, unlike Marcus Borg, I cannot recite creeds that I don't believe to be true.) On the other hand, Unitarian Universalism is too amorphous and unfocused to satisfy what I am seeking."

 

I agree. What i often would wish for is indeed a brand new progressive/moderate church..that would takes the best bits and pieces from different progressive denominations, pluss some emergent and contemporary ideas.

 

Current Pros & Cons

 

It seems many of of like and agree with certian bits of like United Methodists & Presbyterian USA,ect...but in agreement with David and others here...while I DO LIKE UMC and Pres USA's social justice views..the old traditional rites mean nothing to me..and and Pres USA's over focus on the trinity is a turn off to me..and thus where I would tend to relate more to Christian UU's instead. I am appealed to Christian UU's non-trinity views..but on the other hand...some of the really liberal churches like UU reduce all the beliefs down to mere positive 'myths' and then at that point it looses it's meaning to me. I guess at this very moment I relate to UMC the best....though I rareley go there...

[soma]

I think we are all tired of the church about Jesus and its moralizers. The church of Jesus is about our individual spiritual experience with Christ. We must think and direct our actions, intellect, moral and spiritual growth to know what is expected from our own particular talents. This expansion or awareness of one’s consciousness is the resurrection of the Christ consciousness within where the dead rise again to enjoy eternal life in an expanded consciousness in a totally new creation. The Church that can give each one the spiritual experience they need to grow will have to be flexible with a celebration that acknowledges the Christ within everyone. Silence or music which relies on silence will play a big part. The church might be outside but the altar is within.

[AslansTraveller]

I have come to the conclusion that I will never find a single church which will meet all my needs. Maybe that's unreasonable. Every denomination has something I don't like and every one has things I do like. So I think it's going to become a case of going where I need to go based on what I need at the time while maintaining my own personal spiritual practice on my own. In other words, I have to hunt for and gather what I need and not expect anyone to "give" it to me.

[mystictrek]

I have devoted a lot of time and energy in recent years toward promoting "the new church for the new age." My website is devoted to this mission. But the last thing I want to do is start a new denomination, or a new earthly empire for Jesus. So I am staying a Presbyterian even though it is flawed in many ways.

 

The Presbyterian motto is wonderful: "Reformed and always being reformed."

 

The Holy Spirit is at work in all human beings and human organizations. Changes are happening around the world.

 

Just think: In the Presbyterian Church. women could not be ordained as Elders until 1930 and as Ministers until 1955. Now most Elders are women and the numbers of women serving as Pastors is approaching half of the total.

 

The institutional church is a flawed human organization but the amazing grace of God is at work and we are making progress. Find the nearest church most open to reform and renewal and help it progress.

 

"The new church for the new age" is the spirit-led movement of people around the world to keep progressing toward more and more love in each and every local situation.

 

Bloom where you are planted!

[Topaz]

I have to admit, I adore stained glass and cathedral environments. But I don't want to recite creeds that make no sense to me. I like Andrew Furlong's idea of writing your own creed and substituting it for the "official one." (Andrew Furlong is the author of, "Tried for Heresy: A 21st Century Journey of Faith.")

 

But I haven't yet tried his suggestion and I'm not sure how it would feel to be quietly saying my own thing while I'm surrounded by folks saying something different!

 

Topaz

[soma]

When I lived in Korea and went to church with my wife, I memorized a different poem or spiritual verses that were a formula for spiritual experience. I felt the momentum from the collective consciousness, but used it to go deeper in Christ consciousness. I loved the depth of prayer contemplation that I found.

[Guest Michaeljc4]

Please forgive me if someone, somewhere in this long thread mentioned this already, but have you all ever heard of "base communities"? They are popular among Catholics in South and Centeral America. Essentially, small groups of people gather in someone's home, read some scripture together, break bread, share a meal, and talk. Sounds simple...and it sounds like what the earliest church was probably like. In addition, you could pick one day a month or something to volunteer somewhere together, or raise funds for a charity. You could take little "field trips" to cool churches of any denomination, or to beautiful places like gardens, or the woods, and pray together. No heirarchy. No creeds. No authority. Just "two or more gathered in my name..." (not my name, you-know-who's-name).

 

That would be a new denomination. Just a thought.

[Rayosun]

As my first post let me think big.

I am ready to think about a new denomination."

David,

Is thinking about still another "denomination" or "church" new or big enough?

 

You know we've created some 30,000 different "Christian churches" or "denominations" since Jesus passed on. And if you take a second look at what the four Gospels tell us Jesus Christ said about this institution, only 1 of the 4 Gospel writers quote Jesus as speaking that word at all, and if you tore out one or two pages out of Matthew's Gospel, there would be no mention of it left!

 

One billion people believe that the Roman Catholic is the only true version of the Church established by Jesus Christ and 90% of what distinguishes it from the other churches was invented long after Jesus Christ died.

 

All of Christendom lives and dies by "the book", and yet Jesus never bothered to write a single word, or to tell his apostles to write down and publish a single word.

 

I don't claim to be a prophet. And I don't want anybody sending me money. But, to believe the many people who have explored my web site and commented on it ( at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/testimonials.htm ), you might find my website worth exploring.

[rdsaye]

As my first post let me think big.

I am ready to think about a new denomination. I am not satisfied with waiting on the current denominations to go through possible splits and possible transformations. Nor am I satisfied with individual/local emerging groups that speak to local concerns.

This suggestion is obviously not directed to those who are to some degree satisfied with their church alternatives or who see potential in working on anything less than a new denomination. However, I am wondering if anyone knows of others that are thinking big. If so please direct me to those persons.

David

 

 

David, I am with you, dude. Lots of people ask this question at some level, but to answer it out loud would break some kind of taboo. I think we are timid about splitting the Body of Christ, whatever you make of that, into smaller sections when it needs to think in bigger sections.

 

My theological "residence" is on a street, in my mental image, to the right of the Unitarians and the immediate left of the UCC. Lots of people meander through this space, but few have claimed territory. My BA was in Advertising from UGA's Journalism school, and I know a Market Position when I see it. It feels mercenary to think in those terms, but those terms well describe the need that you mention. This market position has not been taken, and whoever takes it will have a ready market share. I strongly believe that a new denomination is feasible, and that its formation may precipitate resolutions to the crises of belief within the mainstream denominations. It will be a fine omelet, but some eggs must be broken.

 

I too have felt that a lot of progressive types exist in small enclaves within even some mainstream churches. I bump into them at lectures put on by SPAFER (spafer.org ) in Birmingham. That's where you find a concentration of them. I am also involved with an "emerging group" of progressives in Atlanta in the form of Emergent Spirit (emergentspirit.org ). I told the founder when I first met him that my ultimate goal in getting involved with other progressives was in fact to help start a new denomination. I think a lot of people, if they really thought about it, would favor the idea.

[AslansTraveller]

I can understand and sympathize with this idea, but I wonder about four things:

 

1) How does this fit in with the idea of being "yeast"? Would we want a denomination where all the progressives gather, emptying their influence from the other denominations? Isn't better that we be scattered about, keeping other denominations from being dominated with theocrats to whom we've given a clear field?

 

2) One of the problems with some denominations (UU and UCC come to mind) is that their voices can all too easily be dismissed "oh, yeah, those liberal nut cases!".

 

3) A "progressive denomination" could all too easily fall into it's own symbols, language and jargon and become 'seperate' from other Christians and thus unable to influence them. This is already a problem in the type of jargon used by many progressives, and an unwillingness to use 'traditional' Christian language, thus alienating non-progressives. We want non-progressives to hear us and get our message, don't we? If we become to seperate, we wind up only preaching to the choir and what's the point in that?

 

4) If this should be done, how about gathering in one alredy established denomination? The UCC or MCC or UU? Why go to all the work to build a structure, administration, etc. when such structures already exist?

Edited September 12, 2006 by AslansTraveller

[Kay]

1) How does this fit in with the idea of being "yeast"? Would we want a denomination where all the progressives gather, emptying their influence from the other denominations? Isn't better that we be scattered about, keeping other denominations from being dominated with theocrats to whom we've given a clear field?

 

That's a very good point about being the yeast (or new wine).

[Tea]

I'm of two minds about this.

 

I was born a Roman Catholic and i joined the Episcopal Church because it didn't seem to enforce belief on every little point like the Roman Church/Pope did. Now we're about to split over the homosexuality issue, and I wish there was a way to remain connected in our disagreement and to give things time to evolve, as they did with slavery, civil rights, etc. It's odd to me that the church did not split over slavery, civil rights, or abortion, but now this issue of S-E-X has everyone up in arms.

 

I'd love to have a progressive church, but it too would have to leave room for differences of opinion. For one thing, if I read Spong right, he doesn't believe in ANY physical intervention by God, and I do. On another chain of messages here, you can read about someone's reported healing; I do believe that God did this, but I know that others will not. So I'd want to see a new church that didn't just replace the absolute authority of Paul with the absolute authority of Spong, y'know?

 

Geographically, too, I'm at a disadvantage re new denominations because I live in Texas.

 

I think one problem we've had is that we haven't spoken out enough. We've let the media believe that "Christian" is synonymous with fundamentalist or conservative. We've let the word "Christian" come to be too closely identified with "bigot". If we could stand up and be counted more often, maybe we'd find that there are more of us right where we stand. When was the last (first?) time you saw the word "progressive Christian" in a mainstream newspaper article?

 

Incidentally, I'm rereading "Stealing Jesus" by Bruce Bawer, which I really like.

 

Tea

[rdsaye]

I'm of two minds about this.

 

I was born a Roman Catholic and i joined the Episcopal Church because it didn't seem to enforce belief on every little point like the Roman Church/Pope did. Now we're about to split over the homosexuality issue, and I wish there was a way to remain connected in our disagreement and to give things time to evolve, as they did with slavery, civil rights, etc. It's odd to me that the church did not split over slavery, civil rights, or abortion, but now this issue of S-E-X has everyone up in arms.

 

I'd love to have a progressive church, but it too would have to leave room for differences of opinion. For one thing, if I read Spong right, he doesn't believe in ANY physical intervention by God, and I do. On another chain of messages here, you can read about someone's reported healing; I do believe that God did this, but I know that others will not. So I'd want to see a new church that didn't just replace the absolute authority of Paul with the absolute authority of Spong, y'know?

 

Geographically, too, I'm at a disadvantage re new denominations because I live in Texas.

 

I think one problem we've had is that we haven't spoken out enough. We've let the media believe that "Christian" is synonymous with fundamentalist or conservative. We've let the word "Christian" come to be too closely identified with "bigot". If we could stand up and be counted more often, maybe we'd find that there are more of us right where we stand. When was the last (first?) time you saw the word "progressive Christian" in a mainstream newspaper article?

 

Incidentally, I'm rereading "Stealing Jesus" by Bruce Bawer, which I really like.

 

Tea

 

 

The yeast metaphor is one to think about, but mostly, this bread is not rising.

 

I hope people will come to realize that progressives are really very ordinary people. These folks I know in Birmingham are about as unthreatening as a bunch can be, and they all live within existing denominations. They are not the "other" in the same way that UUA and UCC seem to be.

 

Out here in the wrong-colored states it is a given that no democratic candidate from New England is going to do well in large parts of the country, especially someone from Mass. There is already a prejudice in place in the minds of a lot of people. It involves those two denominations with all other things from the northeast, the home of the dreaded Liberal. Unfortunately those of us in other places have to get around that prejudice by coming together more visibly and carving out more of a public identity.

 

I understand that another denomination might not work in Texas. It might not work in Atlanta, either. An idea then is to become involved in whatever progressive organizations are within your reach. Some of us in the wrong-colored states end up hanging with the Unitarians, even if it is not a good fit, for lack of a better one among the Christian churches. I told my UU minister once that if there were a non-trinitarian Christian denomination, like the Unitarians and the Universalists both used to be, that I would join it. There is not one; and it is like not being able to buy shoes that fit.

 

So, folks, if not a new denomination, what is Plan B?

 

 

They are spread thin. The question is whether they, or any of us, can be more effective scattered widely among the other churches or in a concentrated group.

[Mystical Seeker]

I'd love to have a progressive church, but it too would have to leave room for differences of opinion. For one thing, if I read Spong right, he doesn't believe in ANY physical intervention by God, and I do. On another chain of messages here, you can read about someone's reported healing; I do believe that God did this, but I know that others will not. So I'd want to see a new church that didn't just replace the absolute authority of Paul with the absolute authority of Spong, y'know?

 

Tea

 

I think you make an important point about the importance of not simply replacing one dogma with another. It is inevitable that there will be differences of theological opinion among progressive Christians. The question then remains as to how you bring people together, given those differences, and how you decide which differences matter and which ones don't.

 

I actually happen to agree with Spong thatt here is no physical intervention by God (if that is indeed what he believes). But I do have other differences with Spong's conception of God. Spong rejects what he calls "theism", instead believing in a Tillich-like God who is the Ground of Being. What this means exactly in Spong's case isn't entirely clear to me. He seems to deny being a pantheist, but when push comes to shove he also seems to be denying all conceptions of transcendence in the Divine nature, and he is instead equating God with some truer, deeper reality of the existing world, which sounds an awful lot like what pantheists believe (I remember once having a pantheist telling me that God represents a truer, deeper reality of the world--the analogy he gave was that God is like the ocean, and we are like the waves.) I, on, the other hand, am a panentheist, and not a pantheist, and while I agree with Spong's criticisms of theologies that stress transcendence over immanence (the idea of God "out there" intervening in the world here), I do believe in a God who is both the sum of the world and also something more. I accept transcendence without accepting omnipotence, and Spong seems to be equating the true, which I believe is a fallacy. I'm not sure how much my differences with Spong really matter, since I do agree with much of his criticisms of traditional, orthodoxy Christianity.

 

Ironically, Spong's prayers to an impersonal "Ground of Being" and my prayers to a personal panentheistic God may prove to be similar in practice, since both Spong and I reject the idea of divine intervention. On the other hand, while I agree much more with Borg's theology (Borg has explicitly described himself as a panentheist), Borg does believe in the efficacy of intercessionary prayer (through some sort of mysterious process that doesn't seem to involve God, as far as I can tell), which I do not. So in a theoretical sense, I am closer to Borg than to Spong, but in a practical sense, it appears that I am closer to Spong than I am to Borg. For me, this is a crucial element of my theology; I think that not believing in divine intervention or in the power of prayer to effect change results in a fundamentally different outlook on how one views God, and the religious life, and as such it brings forth a unique spirituality. On the other hand, to me it is also important to believe in a personal God, and that also colors the way my religion unfolds. All of which suggests that I will always remain, to use a term of Spong's, a "believer in exile", unable to really find a church that will exactly work for me.

[Cynthia]

Just looking at this board over the past few years, it is clear that people who identify as progressives would have trouble formulating a basis for a new denomination. Wouldn't it be a shame (and just more of the same old same old that we are objecting to) to spend our available energy and interest on starting another church??? How about really thinking big - offering an option (which I agree is already present but often quiet) in existing churches and all over the country with people of faith who don't "do church"? Something along the lines of "evangelical" and the way that now meaningless word unites people across traditions. Marketing will be extremely important... even though clearly distasteful - that's one of "our" big disadvantages (along with not generally believing that people who don't join us will burn for eternity!). We have the freedom to worship quietly and often do, forgetting that there are people out there who don't perceive choice and are drowning in doubt, fear, and abstract thought .

 

Progressive has been re-branded as liberal.... (I happily identify as both, but it's not popular!). Emergent seems to be a place where many people can land - with what seems to be agreed is the basic progressive creed - worship and let worship! Emergent also calls strongly for "believe" to be interpreted as an action verb rather than a cognitive concept. Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, Rob Bell, even Phillip Yancey and Marcus Borg are at the forefront. Even the new president of the Southern Baptist Church said that it is time for people to know what Baptists are "for" since everyone is clear on what they are "against"!!!

 

I think that Emergent allows people of very different theological beliefs to join together in Love for common purpose - to love God and love their neighbors - without all the in-fighting that usually divides us. Demons, human nature, or neurological impairments - usually all the good intentions are ruined by people dividing into groups rather than embracing the whole.

[flowperson]

Cynthia...well said sister !

 

flow....

[des]

 

 

>2) One of the problems with some denominations (UU and UCC come to mind) is that their voices can all too easily be dismissed "oh, yeah, those liberal nut cases!".

 

But for years they didn't. We are in a particularly conservative era at the moment. I think that any progressive churches will get branded as unChristian and worse. Things may swing the other way.

 

--des

[flowperson]

des:

 

I agree, but IMO it's probably going to take an 8.0 or better on the Richter Scale for it to happen.

But we can still all hope, since along with faith and charity these are three of the better things in this life given to us by G-d.

 

flow....

[Mystical Seeker]

I have to admit that I am not particularly concerned about how conservative Christians would brand me or my denomination if there were a realignment. One major reason why I am sympathetic towards the idea of a realignment is so that I can go my own way in peace without having to justify my presence in a denomination to its conservative elements. Conservatives are going to brand me regardless of whether I am in their denomination or outside it. I would rather that they branded me from another denomination than from within my own. If they aren't a part of my denomination, then I really don't have to listen to them, I don't have to subject myself to their attacks against my right to be in the same denomination as theirs, I don't have to justify my presence in the denomination to them, and, quite frankly, their intolerant attacks against me and those like me just become irrelevant. It makes all the difference in the world to me whether such attacks come from within or from the outside.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Mystical Seeker

[Quaker Way]

Do we need another denomination or do we need another reformation? I agree with Robert Funk in this article from the Westar Institute's publication, 'The Fourth R'. Here's the link:

 

http://westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_...unk_theses.html

[JosephM]

Do we need another denomination or do we need another reformation? I agree with Robert Funk in this article from the Westar Institute's publication, 'The Fourth R'. Here's the link:

 

http://westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_...unk_theses.html

 

Thanks for the link Russ. As long as another religion or denomination is not in the reformation perhaps that would be fine. The article was very well expressed and contains many views seen posted on this site.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[David]

Well I’m back from the wilderness. Don’t get me started on which is the “real” world.

 

I am pleasantly surprised that this discussion has continued which indicates that people are thinking about it even if they do not agree with me that we need a new denomination. I continue to hope that the future of Progressive Christianity will not be limited to people who are already somewhat satisfied with the current available organizations. My original post suggests that those Progressives that can find some place to be should continue in that place. My suggestion is that there is a bunch of us who have no place. I have tried but I am not able to go to the same denomination that accepts those who run their lives (and perhaps our country) based upon Rapture Theology, accepts those who think that evolution is theology and will not openly question those that maintain that the atonement is still open for discussion. There is no “middle ground” here folks.

 

However, all of the major denominations cloud this truth by claiming Christ and so Christ becomes all things to all sorts of positions. The recent reference to Bob Funk is appropriate. It seems clear to me that Funk, Spong, Borg, and others are helping define what Progressive Theology looks like. Although Borg and McClaren think well of each other and would make great neighbors I think both agree that there is a basic divide between an atonement based theology and Progressive theology. This “theological fight” is not over yet but I am of the opinion that the rejection of the Rapture and the Atonement will be one sign of a Progressive Christian. We will continue to have great neighbors that teach their kids this stuff, we just can’t be in the same Church.

 

However it is one thing to recognize that there is no theological “middle ground” between Rapture Theology and Progressive Theology and quite another thing to think that there is a Progressive Theology that can organize Progressives into a new denomination. I have suggested that it may not be possible for Liberals/Progressives to organize based upon theological agreement.

 

I’m not sure that Evangelicals organize based on theology although it seems that way from the outside. People are looking for a religious experience and they will often ignore theology in order to have that experience. Many of us would like to have some consistency between the sought experience and theology but I think that the motivation to look at religion comes from the need to have that religious experience. Although theology may help one be more open to a religious experience I think for the most part theology comes “after” the experience as an attempt to understand what is “known” via experience.

 

I have suggested looking at what comes “before” theology in an attempt to organize liberals/progressives. I have suggested that “religious knowing” is more important than what one thinks they know. In fact the liberal history supports this---we have stressed how one knows more than what is known. We have suggested that a “liberal education” is all about how one learns to know anything. I think that the same applies to religion.

 

It is more of a process than a product. It is not the same process as a “liberal education” that seems to stress the process of rationality to the exclusion of “religious knowing” but my point is that the process is what leads to and makes important any resulting “product”. So in this Church that I envision the process of “religious knowing” would lead to what decisions are made about worship, education, etc.

 

Although many liberals/progressives may want to limit the knowing process to rationalism there are many who recognize that much is “known” that can not be put into words/concepts. This “religious knowing” does not contradict what we can know rationally but it is more based upon awe/wonder/etc which seems to me to come from a process that is “prior to” rational reflection. I suspect that most of us will want to “check out” those experiences with our rational thinking process so that we do not end up like the Native Americans who thought that their religion could save them from the White Man’s bullets.

 

The process of “doing theology” is more important than what theology you end up with. The fundamentalist has a way of “doing theology” that is repugnant to a liberal. This is what really divides us. The Episcopal church shows this division not based upon sex but based upon how theology is done. It seems to me that we need to form a new denomination based upon this evident division of “how one knows” not based upon specific theological positions.

 

Central to organization is the process of inclusion/exclusion. Before I left for the wilderness we had some discussion which confirmed that the worst thing that a liberal could do was to be a gatekeeper. Yet I continue to think that gatekeeping is a natural and necessary process. We need to be honest and open about the fences that we want and create. Those that think they do not have fences will not create any organization and paradoxically will end up speaking only for themselves. When we refuse to think about fences and organizing groups we end up being only individuals who may or may not meet occasionally.

 

The fences create the ability to have a place which is larger than any one individual. Liberals are wary of fences because so often organizations fall in love with their fences. Certainly a fence can be used in an abusive way (i.e. damning to hell those outside the fence). However, potential abuse is not reason enough to avoid the fencing and gatekeeping process.

 

What I am suggesting is that on the one hand religion is all about what can not be fenced with words/concepts/theology but on the other hand religion works better in groups than when it is limited to individual egos. Groups need fences. We may preach that “in the end” our fences do not matter and we are in fact Universalists (despite my hating Rapture Theology and the like I continue to believe in Universalism). In this way we do not fall in love with the fences. However, fences are needed to create a safe place for even Universalism to happen since those that are not open to Universalism can quickly destroy the group that is attempting to come together.

 

Before we can create a Progressive Christian Church we need to think about who will be included and who will be excluded. I want to start with those that can see the potential of building programs based upon lifting up “religious knowing” more than what is known (while at the same time not ignoring our rational minds and becoming victims to persons and concepts that lead away from rationality). Both Evangelicals and Progressives hunger for that religious experience. In that way we are not divided. I think we need to start a new denomination based upon where we are divided at the most basic level of how we know what we think we know.

 

That is where I would start. There are other “starting places” for Progressives. There may be some out there that think that theology can bring people together. There seem to be more Progressives that see ethical action as the way to bring people together. There can be groups for several alternatives. There is no reason to think that Progressive Christianity will be limited to one form. It now takes many forms and there is no reason that it can not take on many more forms including more than one denomination. But first we have to get over the fear of organizing. We need to think about fences that are effective at bringing us together and signs that point the way without falling in love with the fences and signs.

 

I loved the recent reference to “market share” and doing Church in response to unmet needs. There is a large group of people who are either members of the Church Alumni Association like me or who are in fact potential Progressive Christians who can not go the Church just because the UCC “accepts everyone”. I continue to hope that we can learn to talk about polity because the potential is there.

Edited September 20, 2006 by David

[mystictrek]

I think the current situation in the Presbyterian Church (USA) which is my denomination and the Episcopal Church is interesting. It seems that there is a growing revolt among the Conservatives and some congregations and even dioceses and Presbyterys are leaving these denominations or trying to leave.

 

This is not necessarily a bad thing. I have been concerned that the Conservatives have been gaining power in both of these denominations. If they leave then the Conservatives left behind will have less power in what remains of these denominations. Then maybe these denominations actually will become stronger because they can truly offer an increasingly Progressive agenda. It is my belief that truly Progressive congregations can attract many people and grow. Congregations attempting to please both Conservatives and Liberals have a hard time attracting people.

 

The United Church of Christ has already gone through this purification process for the most part and are now in a good position to grow, especially those congregations which are comfortable with the increasingly progressive agenda of the UCC. There are significant success stories out there and hopefully there will be many more. It may be that the Presbyterians & Episcopals can join the UCC in offering a truly progressive agenda as the Conservatives leave.

 

Much of the Presbyterian and Episcopal leadership has been working hard to make these denominations more open and more progressive. Maybe they are succeeding and that's why the Conservatives are abandoning the ship.