BrotherRog

I have already listed my book recommendations on the tcpc "General Resources" Forum on this Bulletin Board. Wasn't that the purpose of that board?

Some thoughts... I fully support the right of private organizations, including churches and charities, to establish their own policies and proceedures. If the Mormons say that you have to be re-baptized by them in order to become a member of their fold, so be it. Likewise, if the Salvation Army has a requirement that all who receive aide from them must "hear their version of the Gospel", this, to my mind is legally proper and should remain that way. That said, I personally feel that charities which seek to minister to the poor ought not actually condition the aid they dispence upon citizens in need having to hear their sales pitch. I'm reminded of those promos which advertize a free vacation at a condo in Florida .... if you sit through their 2 hour high pressure sales pitch. To my mind, it isn't either/or or all or nothing..e.g. people can be fed in a church basement and a worship service and/or evangelism moment can be offered for those who are INTERESTED after the the meal is over or in another room. If I were in need of feeding myself and my family, I'd want them to be fed first and foremost and if I had to sit through a religious sales pitch, I'd likely do so in a disinterested and reluctant manner (as would be the case for many others.) From a pure evangelistic point of view, you can expect much greater "success" if the people in the room actually WANT to be there; i.e. are interested in learning more a about you and what makes you tick!

I'm reminded of a quote uttered by Noam Chomsky: "The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people."

Re: " What is the difference between a Progressive Christian and a Deist? Or, for that matter, a Unitarian?" Well, to my mind, Deism is the notion that there is a supreme being/deity who created the universe but who then steps back to watch it all unfold. The old image that comes to mind is that of a "cosmic watch maker" who creates the watch, winds it up, and stands back to allow it to unwind without intervening in it in any way. Contrary to what many Right wing Christians are asserting, many of the early "founding fathers" of the U.S. held deistic beliefs about God. In contrast, Christianity, even progressive Xty, views God as very involved with the affairs of creation. Spong and certain other self-identified progressive types may state that they no longer believe in a traditional theistic God who "intervenes" supernaturally in our lives (via miracles, etc.), however, they do seem to conceed that God is actively involved in our lives. Process theologians would say this is a given; i.e. that for every event that transpires in time, God has an "initial aim" (or preferred range of options) for what should happen next - to the exent that a creature chooses one of those preferred options to actualize, their action is in sync with God's will, to the extent that it isn't - it is sinful/deviant of God's will.. and so on and so on - kind of like God trying to be the lead partner in a cosmic Divine-Human (and other creatures) dance. Re: Unitarians, as I understand it, the original Unitarians were self identified Christians who simply denied the doctrine of the Trinity as being essential to proper Christian belief (Thomas Jefferson being an example). A little while ago, the Unitarians merged with the Universalists and are know the U.U. denomination. I've heard that U.U.s on the East Coast (of the U.S.) tend to be more likely to identify as being Christians and those on the West coast tend not to - instead preferring a "cafeteria/smorgasbaord" approach, picking and choosing from what catches their fancy from among the many world's religious traditions.

The following article was not written by what many of us would call a "progressive Christian," however it is good stuff and it comes from what I'd call a progressive evangelical Christian: FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS ARE IN TROUBLE, by Tony Campolo (a widely popular and respected evangelical Christian with great intellect and a heart for social justice) The religious community had high hopes when George W. Bush let it be known that he was a compassionate conservative. The hearts of church leaders soared when the president declared that he was especially committed to faith-based social programs because they so often deliver the best services at the lowest cost. Sure enough, President Bush began his administration with massive rallies where he challenged Americans to volunteer for community service, promising that federal funds would be available to underwrite their efforts. He even promised to expand Americorps, a program initiated during the Clinton years, which enables young people to volunteer for a year or two of full-time community service, by offering them funding for living expenses and up to $3,500 per year toward paying for future education. Last year President Bush gave even more encouragement to religious leaders when he declared that faith-based programs would henceforth have the same opportunities as secular organizations to bid on contracts from the Federal government, ending what he called a long-standing bias against religious organizations. Lately, however, the initial hope and enthusiasm of the religious community with regards to volunteerism and these faith-based initiatives have begun to dim. First, the economy has taken a downturn and the Bush administration has suddenly found itself in financial trouble. The $350-billion-dollar budget surplus in place when Bush took office has become a $350-billion-dollar deficit. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are sucking more than $1 billion dollars a week out of government coffers, and the prognosis is that things could get much worse. As a result, there is less and less money available for any kinds of social services. Instead of expanding Americorps, as promised, the program is being cut by one-third. Leaders of faith-based organizations can still bid against secular organizations for funding for social programs, but there are fewer and fewer contracts available for any organization that provides social services. Instead, massive military spending has become the order of the day. On top of all of this, Bush's new tax cut which, by any evaluation, will largely benefit the rich, will require that in the next Federal budget 500,000 children will be pushed out of needed after-school programs. Perhaps the most deflating news that has come out of the White House lately was from the Director of USAID, which grants money to faith-based programs working with needy people overseas. He has said in no uncertain terms that any organization that is taking Federal dollars should see itself as "an arm of the U.S. government," and therefore should refrain from any criticisms of government policies. In other words, religious leaders committed to relieving suffering abroad ought to abandon any idea of having a prophetic voice because the government has bought their silence. For better or worse, I have always agreed with those ultra-liberals who contend that giving money to faith-based programs is a violation of the separation of church and state. No matter how you cut it, whenever a faith-based organization does social work, it is either directly or indirectly propagating its faith, which is something the government should not financially support. On the other hand, I also agree with those conservative voices who say that churches should finance their own ministries and stop demanding that Federal dollars pay for everything. As Senator Rick Santorum says, "If volunteers are being paid for what they do, then they're really not volunteers anymore." Therefore, instead of condemning President Bush for reneging on his promises to expand funding for faith-based programs, I think Christians, especially American Christians, should be stepping up to the plate and using their own vast resources to fund the vital social work of our churches and faith-based organizations. Don't get me wrong: The government absolutely should not cut its spending on behalf of needy people. On the contrary, President Bush should increase spending for schools in poor communities and he should find a way to provide medical insurance for the one in seven children in America who don't have any. Our government always has had and always will have a great responsibility to the poor. But we in the religious community have a great responsibility as well, and it is high time we stopped asking the government to do our part. ------------ I too am a Christian who takes his faith seriously, however I realize that our secular system of government is what allows for the integrity for my denomination (and all other sects and religious groups) to be maintained. If a denomination or congregation receives federal tax dollars, they will have to do ministry in burocratic ways; and more importantly, if they become dependant upon such funding, they will lose the vitality that only only comes from private individuals supporting a charity of their choice on a VOLUNTARY basis; and finally, a church that becomes beholden to government money is likely to reduce their prophetic voice against government policies. For more resources concerning preserving the separation of religion and government see: www.au.org or www.interfaithalliance.org

During Clinton's moral struggles, he was often compared to the ancient King David. David - you might recall - fell short of honoring his covenant with God when he slept with Bathsheba. So, if by engaging in oral sex with Monica, Bill was like David, how much more is the George Jr. administration like David when he sent Bahtsheba's husband Uriah out to the front lines intentionally putting him into harm's way - when they unveiled the identity of former Ambassador Bill Wilson's wife - an undercover CIA employee?!!! If these accusastions are true, then George, "THOU TOO art that man!" (See 2 Samuel 11-12 for references)

Since I've posted a disproportionate number of threads in this forum, you probably already have a sense about who I am and what makes me tick... but here goes: 1) Do you consider yourself to be a progressive Christian? Why or why not? Yes, but I really prefer to self identify as a "radical follower of the Way of Jesus." Too often, progressive types tend to hold views and notions about the Church and their faith that are too milquetoast and insufficient, at least for me. I prefer the more bold and muscular approaches of Stanley Hauerwas, Walter Wink, and Wes Howard Brook. Hauerwas is often labled a "radical" or as a "post-liberal." I also tend to favor the promotion of the specificity of Jesus as the Christ than the more universalistic notions of some. 2) Where do you live? If you're under 18, please don't be any more specific than your city and do NOT give us your school or your last name. Its not safe Currently in Colorado. 3) What do you do for a living? What do you do outside of your wage-earning job? United Methodist pastor; father; husband; exercise; music; post things on religious and politcal bulletin boards; write my elected officials. 4) How did you find out about these boards? Hmm... Web search I suppose 5) What are you looking for as you post here? Fellowship with likeminded - and differently minded but like-hearted - brothers and sisters in Christ. 6) What on Earth do you think this icon means? Don't really know, but it reminds me of a character on South Park - Kenny, the one who gets killed in every episode. 7) Tell us anything else you want to about yourself Bigger than a bread box, Faster than a self-propelled lawn mower, able to leap most hedges in a single bound!!

Lisa, Ironically, you live in an area (the Delmarva Penninsula) that was a HIGHLY progressive area within historical Methodism. It was there that early colonial Methodism experienced incredible racial diversity and harmony within their class meetings and worship services. One other note - even though a certain congregation might be served by a progressive pastor, if a critical mass of the lay people don't share that perspective, it would be a stretch to call it a truly progressive church.

This is a challenging enterprise. Here are some initial observations: 1. In many denominations, like the UMC and Episcopal Church, etc. the pastors are appointed on a rotational basis and so the theological perspective of one pastor at a certain church doesn't mean that the next pastor will share that same perspective. 2. That said, it is probably fair to say that rural areas tend to be more conservative in many ways than urban ones and so it is likely that bishops will appoint pastors of that perspective to those settings. 3. I don't know how far you are to an urban area, but you might consider driving to an urban area once a month and participate in a more progressive community of faith - to get those needs met - and to also be active in the least conservative congregation near you to allow other needs to be met. 4. You could always search out an appealing progressive congregation and then move to their locale (or to a more easily commutable location nearby). 5. There are "virtual" internet congregations out there, but... they don't really appeal to me.

Well, I have to initial thoughts on this: 1) If this were situation where the alleged crime commited was eligable for potential sentancing via capital punishment, then I could quite easily support a Christian citizen refusing to participate in such a process. 2) To the extent that juries are to be comprised of "peers" of the accused defendant, and to the extent that you are a practicing Christian and the accused isn't, then you aren't one of his/her peers (in a rather literal sense).

"...we might have come to serve the poor, but we will only stay if we discover that we are the poor, and that Jesus came to announce the good news, not to those who serve the poor, but to those who are poor! It is the broken ones who lead us to our brokenness, and to the knowledge that we need a healing Savior. Thus they lead us to Jesus, to healing, to wholeness, to resurrection.” - Jean Vanier (THE BROKEN BODY, Paulist Press, 1988) DOES JESUS WANT ME TO BE POOR? A middle-class Christian seeks to understand how to live in a needy world, by Carol R. Cool. Got a Dollar? Pretending I don't see her, I keep walking, a bit more quickly. When I get to the corner, I glance back to see the homeless woman still on the bench, still hoping to find a sympathetic passerby. I tell myself she would just spend it on liquor. Then I hear Jesus say, "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me" (Matt. 25:45). And I feel guilty...again. There is no getting around the abundance of Scriptures that command us to care for the poor. Neither can we explain away Jesus' declaration while addressing the crowds that "any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33). On the other hand, Proverbs tells us that "prosperity is the reward of the righteous" (13:21). And Deuteronomy 8:18 declares that "the LORD your God...is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth." The context of the verse is Moses directing the Israelites to remember Who is responsible for the prosperity they will enjoy when they cross into the "good land" where they will "lack nothing" (vv. 7, 9). The implication is that prosperity is a good thing. How to reconcile these seemingly contradictory scriptural views? I've been struggling with these questions for years. Sometimes I've felt like Tarzan, swinging from one side to the other. First I would move fully into a social-justice mode, responding to every plea that came my way to bring about a more equitable society. I would jump at every opportunity, throw money at every cause. But more needs presented themselves; more photos of starving children showed up in my mailbox. I couldn't stem the flood, and guilt and frustration set in. Then I would give up. If I was going to feel guilty even when I was doing something, wasn't it easier just to do nothing? So for awhile I ignored the do-gooder stuff that only made me feel more guilty and instead tried to enjoy the "abundant" life. But soon guilt set in again, propelling me into heavy-duty activism. I didn't really want to believe that what Jesus told the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:21 - "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" - applied to me. But the message seemed pretty straightforward: There is no claiming to be a follower of Christ unless you have renounced possessions. How are we called to live as middle-class Christians in a needy world? I began to look for some answers. Some 25 years ago, Ron Sider's book RICH CHRISTIANSIN AN AGE OF HUNGER was my first exposure to evangelical social action. My mindset was radically different for having read it. Unfortunately, while I was more aware of the needs around me, I was also filled with guilt that I wasn't measuring up. It was with some dread, then, that I recently approached Sider and asked him my questions: Can a Christian be a disciple of Christ without becoming poor? Can a person continue in a middle- or upper-class lifestyle and still be living as God desires? His answers surprised me and made me wish I'd asked two decades ago. I might have found the way of balance much sooner. First I asked him: Do we have to be poor to follow Christ? "Absolutely not. The biblical perspective is for us to live in wholeness, which includes a generous sufficiency of things. Poverty is a bad thing; God wants us to have all we need for a joyous life. God wants no one to be poor." Sider said we needed a biblical understanding of possessions. God made all things and declared them "very good." He then put humans in charge as stewards to care for, nurture, and create new things from what He had given them. As Sider put it, "God could have created Beethoven's music or spaceships, but instead, it was His choice to let us create...to produce things that never were before." In other words, producing more material abundance was the Creator's intention for us. But God gave us a few restrictions: First, don't abuse the earth. Genesis 2:15 tells us that God put the man in the garden "to work it and take care of it." We are custodians of the earth, not its owner. God told the Israelites they could not sell the land permanently because the land was His. They were merely "aliens and [His] tenants" (Lev. 25:23). As such, we have the responsibility to care for the earth. He is Lord of creation and its sustainer (Heb. 1:2-3); we must not thwart His work. The second restriction: Don't worship our own creations. The Bible calls possessions dangerous because we often treasure things and neglect God and others. True fulfillment comes first from a relationship with God and then relationships with others. Only then do possessions bring any fulfillment. Sider believes that the average Christian hasn't developed a godly attitude toward possessions and the poor because of the omission of that topic from the pulpit. The care of the poor is the second most common theme in the Bible, according to Sider, and while evangelicals claim to teach the Scriptures, they don't talk about the poor as much as the Bible does. Sider calls this neglect "biblical infidelity." We live in a world where at least a billion people have never heard of Christ and 1.2 billion struggle to live on a dollar a day or less. Those numbers alone underscore the need for expanded evangelism and economic development throughout our world. And that, Sider says, means we as believers are "called to live more simply." According to emptytomb.inc., average churchgoers give only 2.5% of their net income to charity, and Sider says evangelicals approach that norm. "The typical American Christian could easily give 10 to20%. Our motivation should be to spend radically less on ourselves to free up resources for ministry." Next I contacted Crown Financial Ministries, the combined ministry of Larry Burkett's Christian Financial Concepts and Howard Dayton's Crown Ministries, to get the perspective of Christians who teach money management. The book BIBLICAL FINANCIAL STUDY, from Crown's adult small-group study materials, says, "The Bible does not demand one standard of living from everyone." Scriptural principles should influence our lifestyles. We need to learn to be content, which Crown defines as "knowing what God requires of us in handling our money and possessions, doing those requirements and trusting God to provide exactly what He knows is best." Howard Dayton, Crown's president and CEO, believes the church has failed to teach proper stewardship of all our resources. "Too often the church has concentrated solely on teaching people how to handle10% of their income,...[and] they have neglected to teach people how to handle the other 90% from God's perspective." This results in Christians' adopting the culture's viewpoint when deciding how to use their money. Crown's brochure "Establishing a Benevolence Ministry" asserts that "Christianity has failed to comply with one of the most fundamental principles God ever established: 'At this present time your abundance being a supply for their need, that their abundance also may become a supply for your need, that there may be equality; as it is written, "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little had no lack"' (2 Cor. 8:14-15NASB)." In essence: There should be enough for all. Great imbalances of wealth and poverty do not please the Lord. Agreeing with Sider's assessment, the brochure goes on: "The surpluses that the church must have in order to minister to the needy are always available. Too often, Christians are consuming or wasting them. Statistics prove that about 20% of the people tithe in the average evangelical church." Next I consulted friends whom I knew wanted to follow Jesus. Michael and Debby said that while they routinely give to one hunger organization, mostly they just respond to solicitations for money or help that come their way. They really don't have a thought-out plan; they just meet needs that are presented to them as they can. "It's easy to let time go by and do nothing," said Debby. "That's why we find it helpful to have other believers who talk with us about ministering to others." Both Michael and Debby agreed that it helps when the church provides opportunities to give and to do. Ann doesn't really have a plan either. There some organizations she consistently gives to, and occasionally she responds to heart-wrenching mailings. But mostly Ann takes advantage of the monthly needs list her company sends out. Ann responds to those she can "fit in." Unlike many of us who are irritated by direct-mail pieces begging for funds, Ann sees them as helpful reminders not to get too wrapped up in herself. Experts and laypeople alike agree that the church needs to be talking about money and the poor and also providing opportunities for people to give of their money, their time, and themselves. As believers, we need to be talking together about giving and world needs, not to make each other feel guilty, but to help each of us discern God's desires. No one I talked to believed that God called all or even most believers to voluntary poverty. That was a relief. They all believe God wants us to enjoy life while caring for the needs of others. But what about the apparent extremes presented in Scripture? One place that seems to reconcile them is 1 Timothy 6:17-18: "Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share." True life comes as we recognize God as the source of all we have, enjoy all the gifts He's given us, and seek opportunities to be generous and share with others. God's balance does not involve swinging on a vine from extreme to extreme. Instead, I now envision God's balance as a tightrope. There will always be tension; in fact, there needs to be tension if I am to walk it successfully. I find encouragement for this tightrope-walking I Galatians 6:4-5 in THE MESSAGE, which says: "Make a careful exploration of who you are and the work you have been given, and then sink yourself into that. Don't be impressed with yourself. Don't compare yourself with others. Each of you must take responsibility for doing the creative best you can with your own life." So what was "the work I had been given"? I began to investigate my passions and my gifts and abilities I'm enthusiastic, an organizer, and able to teach and write. I enjoy showing hospitality. I always root for the underdog, for I love seeing someone succeed against the odds. As I prayed about the unique way God had created me, I began to choose opportunities that used my talents and gave me joy. I chose an "underdog" country, Haiti, and now work to make a difference there, sponsoring a child through Compassion International, building homes through donations to Habitat for Humanity, and providing food and livelihoods through gifts of livestock from the Heifer Project. I'm using my writing and organizing skills on my local Habitat's fund-raising committee, and I organize service projects for our church. My husband also has the gift of hospitality, which has led us to invite people in crisis into our home for extended periods. With a sense of how God has created us, we now have a plan for our giving. This frees us to say no without guilt to opportunities that don't fit. We want to use our gifts to mirror Christ in our world. And that's the goal of all who walk the tightrope. We learn to step carefully so we don't fall to one side or the other, landing on the soft pillow of materialism or the hard floor of asceticism. And we have an advantage over the typical tightrope walker - we walk with God. If we hold onto Him, our feet will stay on the rope, and we will stay on course. (Carol R. Cool is a freelance writer based in Bear, Delaware. This article originally appeared in the July/August 2002 issue of MOODY Magazine. It is reproduced here by kind permission of the author. Cool wrote "Running for the Exits: How to be a social activist without being a bore!" in the Mar/Apr '03 issue of PRISM.)

Here are some wonderful resources for helping your congregations become more intentional and serious about following Jesus' way and teachings about the Christian response to the poor and poverty. 1. Attached is an article called "Does Jesus Want Me to Be Poor? A middle class Christian seeks to understand how to live in a needy world," by Carol R. Cool. This article was included in a recent issue of the e-newsletter the PRISM E-PISTLE put out by our more evangelical friends at ESA - Evangelicals for Social Action (Ron Sider's group) 2. Ron Sider's famed book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, is a terrific book for an adult Sunday School class and it includes questions for leaders to ask for a class series. 3. Community With Children and the Poor: A Guide for Congregational Study, is EXCELLENT and is based upon the United Methodist Bishop's Letter of the same name. It is available through Cokesbury. This would be a terrific book for a 6 session study series. 4. Tony Campolo's video study series Affluenza - is superb and likely available through your denominational/ecumenical media resource center. 5. For those who wish to go deeper, check out Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics, by Theodore Jennings, Jr. May God bless your Kingdom-building ministries!

Some thoughts: 1. Reasons this topic should be in this "progressive" forum 2. Exerpts from Spong's Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes, HarperSanFrancisco, ISBN 0-06-067557-8 3. Editorial reviews of that book (from www.Amazon.com) 1. How one reads and interprets the Bible is of great importance as it has significant implications upon one's subsequent political perspectives. If one reads it in a strict, wooden, literal manner, one will likely have a more conservative political worldview. If one reads it in a more nuanced, metaphorical, and interprative manner, one is more likely to have a more liberal political worldview. 2. From the preface: ...But I do asume the validity of many of Goulder's premises. I no longer accept the popular theory of the existence of something called the "Q" document. That is a new conclusion for me. Yet all fo the reasons for asserting the existence of Q disapper for me when Luke and Matthew are understood as liturgical and lectionary books. In this volume I will not debate or seek to justify my dismissal of the Q hypothesis. I will simply assume it. For those who wish to debate this are referred to the devasting argument against it developed by Goulder in the preface to Luke: A New Paradigm. It was for me totally persuasive. I prefer to think that Q was nothing more or less than Matthew's own creative genius that emerged as he wrote his gospel as a midrashic expansion of Mark designed better to fit the entire liturgical year of the Jews. I also dismiss the presumed "M" and "L" documents as separate sources of written or oral tradition. The M source for was Matthew's personal creation based on Paul, or on the Hebrew Scriptures, but not picked up by Luke so that it remained uniquely Matthean. L was that material peculiar to Luke's gospel that I think Luke wrote himself. Luke, I am assuming, had Mark and Matthew before him as he created his gospel. He preferred mark and followd him closely . However, Luke also adapted Matthew to his purposes, thereby requiring what came to be called the Q hypothesis, which simply suggested that Matthew and Luke had enough common material to postulate a common source... That common source was, in my opinion, that Luke both had read and would employ Matthew in the writing of his gospel. Luke, however, like Matthew, also created some new material based primarily on his understanding of the Hebrew scriptures, most especially Genesis and Deuteronomy. This was the material in time that came to be called the L source. So this book assumes that Matthew had Mark before him when he wrote. Luke had Mark and Matthew before him when he wrote; and John had Mark, Matthew, and Luke before him when he wrote. It is amazingly simple; and the lectionary theory presented in these pages answers almost all of the questions that the various source theories were designed to answer... (pp.xiii-xiv) 3. From Publishers Weekly Building upon his earlier conclusions that Jesus' Jewishness is the key to understanding Jesus' life and work (This Hebrew Lord), Spong contends that the failure to read the Gospels as fundamentally Jewish impoverishes many traditional Christian readings. Tracing the history of New Testament interpretation, Spong demonstrates the tendencies among Christian interpreters to read the Gospels as documents addressing primarily an audience of Greek Gentile Christians rather than as narratives connected to the broader history of Judaism. Spong relies on a wide range of New Testament scholarship to argue that the form and content of the Gospels reflects not Greek influence or concerns but a peculiarly Jewish outlook on matters of religion and culture. Thus, for Spong, the Gospels are neither objective accounts of historical events nor biographies of Jesus but midrashim, or interpretive narratives, connecting the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth to the history, literature and religion of Judaism. For example, he isolates the symbolic roles that certain characters from the Hebrew Bible, like Elijah and Joseph, play in transmitting the story of Jesus to a Jewish audience. While Spong's conclusions about the value of reading the Gospels through Jewish lenses are neither new nor exciting, his forceful readings of the Gospels and his imaginative speculations about biblical figures are sure to provoke heated discussion among Christian interpreters. From Library Journal Spong, the Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey, and a leader in the movement for liberal Christianity, is the author of a number of controversial books, including Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop Rethinks the Origins of Christianity (LJ 3/1/94). He has now added another volume that is sure to provoke argument. Spong tries to place Jesus and the New Testament in a Jewish context insomuch as the early Christians sprang from a Jewish background that stressed the midrashic (or teaching) tale. He argues that many stories of the New Testament were not originally understood to be based on fact and that getting away from the literalism of many New Testament passages bolsters rather than hinders Christian belief. After considering the contemporary religious scene today, Spong gives background on the early Christian world. He then discusses the major books of the New Testament and the pivotal issues raised by each book. Many readers will find much to disagree with, but it will have a wide readership nevertheless.?Paul Kaplan, Lake Villa District Lib., Ill. From Booklist The Bible has, of course, been read with Jewish eyes from the moment it was written: it is a Jewish book. But Liberating the Gospels is a Christian book; and Spong, bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Newark, New Jersey, urges his Christian audience to remember that the book they call the New Testament was written almost entirely by Jewish authors for an audience that was initially almost entirely Jewish, an audience to whom it would not have occurred to think of the Bible (the "Law" and the "Prophets" ) as anything but Jewish. Spong's primary concern is to popularize the work of Michael Goulder, who reads the Gospel accounts as midrashic interpretations of regular readings of the Torah prescribed for worship services in the synagogue. They are thus not historical accounts so much as liturgically structured homilies that present history through sacred texts. This is not new, but it will be surprising to many readers, and that is sure to sustain the aura of controversy surrounding Bishop Spong's prolific writing. Steve Schroeder --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. From Kirkus Reviews Maverick Episcopal bishop Spong (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, 1994) argues that to take the Gospels as literal history is to miss their essential point. In recent years Spong has gained notoriety for his unorthodox views on doctrine and sexual morality. Here he reproduces the ideas he put forward in Resurrection, arguing that the Gospels are not historical narratives but exercises in midrash, a Jewish genre of biblical exegesis. Spong takes midrash beyond its narrower Jewish definition to mean a method in which biblical themes are interwoven in order to describe things beyond ordinary human experience and language. Nearly 2,000 years of anti-Semitism have blinded Christians to both the Jewishness of Jesus and the ``midrashic'' nature of the Gospels. According to Spong, for example, the account of the Sermon on the Mount is really a device to show Jesus as the new Moses, while the feeding of the multitudes is a way of bringing Elijah and Elisha material into the story of Jesus. Spong hopes to break the impasse between fundamentalists who believe that the Gospels are literally true history and liberals who reject miracles and the supernatural as projections of a prescientific mentality. However, for all his talk of a true ``God experience'' lying behind the Gospel stories, it is hard to tell how Spong's position is substantially different from that of the liberals whom he condemns as spiritually bankrupt. Like them, he assumes a priori that supernatural events cannot happen, and he rejects the historical value of vast areas of the Gospels, such as the Last Supper and the raising of Lazarus, reserving for them only a pale, psychological meaning. Spong praises the ultraliberal Jesus Seminar and lambastes orthodox Christian scholars as lacking either learning or moral courage. Well written and scholarly, but unlikely to fill anyone's spiritual void. (Author tour) Rodger Kamenetz, New York Times Magazine "Spong argues...that the 'Jewish books' that narrate Jesus' life must be understood more as midrashic literature than historical accounts." Booklist "The Bible has, of course, been read with Jewish eyes from the moment it was written: it is a Jewish book. But Liberating the Gospels is a Christian book; and Spong, bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Newark, New Jersey, urges his Christian audience to remember that the book they call the New Testament was written almost entirely by Jewish authors for an audience that was initially almost entirely Jewish, an audience to whom it would not have occurred to think of the Bible (the 'Law' and the 'Prophets' ) as anything but Jewish.... [This] will be surprising to many readers, and that is sure to sustain the aura of controversy surrounding Bishop Spong's prolific writing." Harvey Cox, Harvard University"Bishop Spong's work is a significant accomplishment. It takes the most recent and reliable scholarly research on the Gospels and interprets it for a lay public in an understandable and highly readable way." Kirkus Reviews "Maverick Episcopal bishop Spong argues that to take the Gospels as literal history is to miss their essential point. In recent years Spong has gained notoriety for his unorthodox views on doctrine and sexual morality. Here he reproduces the ideas he put forward in Resurrection, arguing that the Gospels are not historical narratives but exercises in midrash, a Jewish genre of biblical exegesis. Spong takes midrash beyond its narrower Jewish definition to mean a method in which biblical themes are interwoven in order to describe things beyond ordinary human experience and language. Nearly 2,000 years of anti-Semitism have blinded Christians to both the Jewishness of Jesus and the 'midrashic' nature of the Gospels. According to Spong, for example, the account of the Sermon on the Mount is really a device to show Jesus as the new Moses, while the feeding of the multitudes is a way of bringing Elijah and Elisha material into the story of Jesus. Spong hopes to break the impasse between fundamentalists who believe that the Gospels are literally true history and liberals who reject miracles and the supernatural as projections of a pre-scientific mentality." David Rosenberg, co-author and translator of The Book of J "One doesn't have to agree with all of John Shelby Spong's startling assertions to be drawn thrillingly close by him to the original authors of the Gospels. Spong responds to their acts of writing with inspired acts of reading. By absorbing the tradition of Jewish midrash, Spong turns the act of reading into an act of love." Book Description In this boldest book since Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Bishop John Shelby Spong offers a compelling view of the Gospels as thoroughly Jewish tests.Spong powerfully argues that many of the key Gospel accounts of events in the life of Jesus -- from the stories of his birth to his physical resurrection -- are not literally true. He offers convincing evidence that the Gospels are a collection of Jewish midrashic stories written to convey the significance of Jesus. This remarkable discovery brings us closer to how Jesus was really understood in his day and should be in ours. Synopsis In this boldest book since Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Bishop John Shelby Spong offers a compelling view of the Gospels as thoroughly Jewish tests. Spong powerfully argues that many of the key Gospel accounts of events in the life of Jesus - from the stories of his birth to his physical resurrection - are not literally true. He offers convincing evidence that the Gospels are a collection of Jewish midrashic stories written to convey the significance of Jesus. This remarkable discovery brings us closer to how Jesus was really understood in his day and should be in ours. Ingram Bestselling author John Shelby Spong challenges traditional Christian understanding by examining the Gospel accounts of Jesus's life and teaching, especially the infancy and crucifixion stories, through a Jewish lens, offering a startling, richer understanding of Christian scripture. From the Inside Flap Bishop John Shelby Spong's name and work have become nearly synonymous with the word controversy. His books have challenged traditional Christian teachings on sexual morality, on the literal interpretation of the Bible, and on the understanding of women--among other hot-button issues in both the church and the popular culture. Liberating the Gospels continues this tradition as Spong reveals his most provocative argument to date--that Christians have misread Jesus and the Gospels for centuries by ignoring the thoroughly Jewish content below the surface of the New Testament. With a keen eye and years of deliberate investigation, Spong traces the long period of history in which the Gospels were "cut away from the essential Jewishness" and interpreted as if they were primarily gentile books, distorting their meaning with a deeply prejudiced anti-Jewish bias. To remedy both that bias and the continued misinterpretation of the Gospels' message, Spong believes we must recognize the Gospels as the thoroughly Jewish books they are and learn to read them with a clear understanding of the Jewish context, frame of reference, vocabulary, and history that shaped and informed them. By connecting the Gospels to the style of the Jewish midrashic literature of Jesus' era, he shows how the Gospel authors intended their stories to be perceived, not as historical accounts of actual events, but rather as interpretive narratives about the meaning of Jesus, using images and themes from the Hebrew Bible. Some examples of his fascinating arguments and conclusions are: The significant events of Jesus' life follow an orderly cycle of Jewish feasts and rites of passage. Judas never existed but was a fictional scapegoat created to shift the blame for Jesus' death from the Romans to the Jews. Leading characters of Jewish scripture make cameo appearances in the Gospels. Stories about Jesus, from the infancy narratives to the resurrection, can all be freshly understood as interpretive tales based on key passages in the Old Testament. Like any good detective story, Liberating the Gospels is a riveting account of facts and theories coming together, piece by piece, to form a brilliant, convincing whole. Spong approaches the Gospels with reverence and a determination to restore their meaning, their vivid historical context, and the respect so long eroded between Christians and Jews. The result is a remarkable revisioning of Jesus and the Gospels that brings us closer to how Jesus was really understood in his day and should be in ours.

From the Christian Century, Sept. 20, 2003 From across the Pond, British writer Michael Northcott thinks that the U.S. is both the most religious country in the Western world and the most violent. (Since 1945, he notes, the U.S. has invaded or bombed 40 countries.) And he detects a connection between American religiosity and violence - a conservative Christian view of the atonement involving redemptive violence. Religion, he suggests, is all about mimesis - ritually actiong out the events by which God or the gods have made a people into the people of God. "If the central event of the Christian story of divine salvation is about violent death, then it would be unsurprising if over their history Christians had not begun to copy, to act out the violent death, in their relations with people of other faiths, and in their punishment of criminals and heretics." Northcott, it turns out, is not a rabid revisionist theologian; he's writing for Third Way, a progressive evangelical publication in the UK (summer 2003 issue). He argues that Christians should make the center of faith not the cross - especially not a cross deemed necessary to propitiate divine wrath or restore God's honor - but the resurrection, which demonstrates God's power over evil, violence, and death. Would that more Christians grounded their faith on this basis!

The following is some info. re: a proposed "Department of Peace" for the U.S. Government. I seem to recall that the U.S. has had such a Department in the past. Can anyone confirm this or not? Thanks. Also, I would find it hard to see how any person of most any faith (except perhaps worshippers of Thor or Mars) could be opposed to this proposal! IMPORTANT CALL TO ACTION Department of Peace TAKE ACTION TODAY! A reminder that we need you help today as we begin our citizen lobbying at the Capitol in support of the Department of Peace legislation (H.R. 1673) introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. The bill is currently in the House of Representatives (read below for details on the DoP legislation). If you want this legislation to become a reality, it is critical to our grass roots campaign that we have your support. Please forward this information to as many people as you can. Together, we can make this happen! WHAT YOU CAN DO: GET AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO CALL, FAX AND EMAIL THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY! The U.S. capital switchboard can be reached at (800) 839-5276 or (202) 224-3121. Congress is a reactive body, but if our members of Congress do not hear from us directly, then there is nothing for them to react to. We can do this, and the time to do it is now! For more information on our campaign and how you can become involved, please visit the Department of Peace campaign website at: www.dopcampaign.org ********************** THE DEPARTMENT OF PEACE: The Department of Peace focuses on individual and group responsibilities for establishing nonviolence as an organizing principle in society. The Department would focus on nonmilitary peaceful conflict resolutions, prevent violence and promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights. Domestically, the Department would be responsible for developing policies which address issues such as domestic violence, child abuse, mistreatment of the elderly, and other issues of cultural violence. Internationally, the Department would gather research, analyze foreign policy and make recommendations to the President on how to address the root causes of war and intervene before violence begins, while improving national security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international conflict. You can read the latest draft of the proposed legislation at www.dopcampaign.org HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PEACE LEGISLATION -Hold peace as an organizing principle in our society; -Endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights; -Strengthen non-military means of peacemaking; -Work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new structures in non-violent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict; -Address matters both domestic and international in scope; -Submit to the President recommendations for reductions in weapons of mass destruction, and make annual reports to the President on the sale of arms from the United States to other nations, with analysis of the impact of such sales on the defense of the United States and how such sales effect peace; -Encourage the development of initiatives from local communities, religious groups, and nongovernmental organizations; -Facilitate the development of peace summits at which parties to a conflict may gather under carefully prepared conditions to promote non-violent communication and mutually beneficial solutions; -Develop new programs that relate to the societal challenges of school violence, guns, racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and police-community relations disputes; -Sponsor country and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives, create special task forces, and draw on local, regional, and national expertise to develop plans and programs for addressing the root sources of conflict in troubled areas; -Provide for the training of all United States personnel who administer postconflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn societies; -Sponsor country and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives, create special task forces, and draw on local, regional, and national expertise to develop plans and programs for addressing the root sources of conflict in troubled areas; If you would like to join our eNewsletter for periodic updates on our work and for emails such as this, please send a blank email to: join-GRA-eNews@lists.renaissanceunity.org

Whoops! I found a rather humorous error in my post above re: my sentance: "I try to come across as rather neutral; albeit explicity Wesleyan, Arminian, pro- growth in discipleship; pro-evangelism (in a fundamentalist manner)..." it should read (in a NON-fundamentalist manner!). But I think most of you probably already knew that... : )

As a United Methodist pastor, I too have felt some tension about being "too overt" in sharing all of the specifics of my progressive theological beliefs. I view such revealing/self-disclosing as the blooming of a flower; i.e. an unfoldig which happens over the course of the development of personal relationships. During my first year in a given congregation, I try to come across as rather neutral; albeit explicity Wesleyan, Arminian, pro- growth in discipleship; pro-evangelism (in a fundamentalist manner), and also pro- putting our faith into action in matters of peace and justice --- i.e. I try to focus on emphasizing our general Methodist heritage and perspective. In time, and as trust and mutual love emerge, I begin to share more and more of the specifics of my faith, but not all at once, and not in an overly academic manner. (I try to apply the adage: "The people won't care how much you know, until they know how much you care!") I've rarely said that "I am an adherant to Process Theology," but I do preach sermons from that perspective - and interestingly, people who wouldn't care to knowingly adopt Process Theology for themselves often either a) resonate with what I have to say and agree with it; or they hear things that I say from their own more traditional perspective; e.g. when I refer to God as "Gracious, Loving, Creator, God.." they hear "Lord, Almighty Father God.." and when I say "God created the world in such a way that God doesn't control everything that happens... ", they hear "God allow us the freedom of exercising free will..." etc... I often find myself encouraging the more progressive congregants to lead Adult Bible Studies, etc. and some of them have even had their classes members reading Spong, Walter Wink, etc. I advocate "easing into it" and recommend the following progression of books for an adult study group to explore: 1) "Good Goats: Seeking a Healthier Image of God" by Linn et al; 2) Liberals & Other Born-Again Christians, by Sally Geis; 3) Ten Things I Learned Wrong from a Conservative Church, John Killinger Again, I wouldn't adivse leading such a series unless and until you've developed fairly solid personal and loving relationships with many of the people who would be in the class. - People may not agree with your beliefs or perspectives, but they won't reject you or your leadership this way. p.s. You might want to check out the "Resources for Progressive Christians" document that I posted on the tcpc bulletin board webpage.

Hmmm... While I don't view the doctrine of "one life, death, and resurrection per person" as an "essential" of authentic and vital Christian faith, I'm enough of a traditionalist that I feel content to believe in resurrection and not reincarnation - and I'm pretty sure that my former selves in my past lives shared this view. ; )

And here's a GREAT article entitled When Truth Gets Left Behind, put out by the Christian Research Council (CRI) - a rather conservative Christian apologetics organization. It is interesting to me that even they speak out against this kind of premillennial dispensatitionalist mania. Simply cut and paste the following link: http://www.equip.org/free/DW257.pdf Ultimately, what frustrates me about this current fad is 1) it claims to be "the" normative Christian view of things; and 2) it can lead to moral quietude; i.e. "if the world's about to get destroyed, then heck, why bother caring about the environment (note Bush's views of Global warming) and why bother caring about any one other than yourself (ignoring the needs of others)." Now, if these Christians would pause to think a moment, they'd find that they could hold such views if they also were committed to living as FAITHFULLY as possible, including conintued wise stewardship of God's resources, and faithful tending to the needs of the least of these, etc.. Sadly, too many of them have a "beam me up scotty" individualistic mentality.

Beam Me Up Theology by John Dart Formerly religion religion writer for the Los Angeles Times, John Dart is news editor of the Christian Century magazine. This article appeared in The Christian Century, September 25-October 8, 2002, pp. 8-9. Copyright by The Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The hugely popular "Left Behind" series of novels continues to frustrate mainstream pastors and biblical scholars who object to an "end-times" theology they consider just as fictional as the books’ genre. The readers are real, however. The tenth and most recent volume in the series, The Remnant, picked up 2.4 million orders in the two months before its July release. In a little-noticed resolution passed overwhelmingly by the 2001 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), delegates declared that the theology of the series is "not in accord with our Reformed understanding" of the New Testament Book of Revelation. The resolution urged pastors to lead their congregations through studies of the novels if they are causing "confusion and dissension." In addition, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod said the books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins are "filled with very serious errors about what the Bible really teaches." A critical analysis in December 2000 by the late A. L. Barry, then-president of the church, remains on the synod’s Web site. By contrast, the Assemblies of God Web site carries a friendly interview with LaHaye from 2000, along with the denomination’s stance on "the rapture" as a "blessed hope." For the sinner "to be left behind will involve indescribable suffering as God judges a rebellious and disobedient world" according to the Assemblies’ doctrinal statement. Recently joining the fray was evangelical scholar Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary a prolific author of New Testament studies. In the August issue of Bible Review magazine, Witherington noted the popular appeal that apocalyptic literature has in unsettling times, "Unfortunately, not all apocalyptic thinking is good apocalyptic thinking, and this is especially true of the so-called dispensational theology that informs these novels," Witherington wrote. "The most distinctive feature of dispensational theology is what I call the ‘Beam me up, Scotty’ belief." In a similar vein, Bill Hull, a Samford University research professor, told Associated Baptist Press recently that "dispensationalism," in which God tests humans in certain time periods, remains a minority view among theologians. The ideas, spread in the 1860s by English evangelist John Nelson Darby, gained popularity with the publication of the influential Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, which contains long footnotes outlining Darby’s views. A dispensationalist precursor to the "Left Behind" series was Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth -- a record-breaking best seller in the 1970s. The supernatural plot in the LaHaye-Jenkins novels, published by Tyndale House, has true believers taken from the earth in a "rapture" that precedes seven years of suffering -- the great tribulation -- for those left behind. Drawing on images in Revelation, the books predict an Antichrist demanding universal loyalty and acceptance of a "mark of the beast" on their bodies. Plagues and suffering ensue until Jesus returns to establish a 1,000-year reign on earth. Hull, former dean of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, contends that the "Left Behind" series perpetuates "a massive misunderstanding" of scripture. Hull discounts LaHaye’s account of "a secret rapture where unbelievers don’t know why people have disappeared. He notes that Revelation 1:7 says that when Christ returns "Every eye shall see him." The present dean of the Louisville seminary, Danny Aiken, told the news service that he agrees with the books’ general theology, but is concerned about liberties the authors take with scripture. "A well-informed minister should be reading the ‘Left Behind’ series, because his people are," Aiken said. At least one survey has shown that only half of the series’ readers can be called evangelicals. But even nonevangelicals have at least a vague sense of awful predictions in the Bible. Months after the September11 skyjacking attacks, a Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that prophesies in Revelation will come true. Nearly a fourth think the Bible predicted the terrorist attacks specifically. Two critiques of the novels have appeared over the past year in Bible Review. British scholar N. T. Wright, who has engaged in debates with liberal Jesus Seminar leaders, wrote in the August 2001 issue that the huge U.S. success of the "Left Behind" series "appears puzzling, even bizarre" on the other side of the Atlantic. The dramatic end-time scenario of believers being snatched up into heaven is an incorrect interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, Wright said. That passage about meeting the Lord in the air "should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world" -- similar to residents meeting a visiting emperor in open country, then escorting him into the city, he said. Paul’s words to the Thessalonians, according to Wright, are not the same as Gospel passages about "the Son of man coming on the clouds" (such as Mark 13:26 and 14:62), which "are about Jesus’ vindication, his ‘coming’ to heaven from earth." Witherington’s column in Bible Review a year later seconded Wright’s interpretation of the Thessalonian verses, arguing that, according to Paul, those meeting Christ in the sky would return to earth to reign with him there. Witherington also disputed an "unwarranted" view by dispensationalists that the last generation of Christians are "exempt" from tribulation. "Why should the last generation of Christians expect to do less cross-bearing than previous ones?’ he asked. "The idea that John of Patmos, the author of Revelation, intended his message to be understood only by a late 20th-century or 21st-century Western Christian audience is not only arrogant -- it flies in the face of what John himself writes in Revelation 2-3," said Witherington. "Here John states quite clearly that his intended audience was Christians in western Asia Minor at the end of the first century AD."

Left Behind by John Dart Formerly religion religion writer for the Los Angeles Times, John Dart is news editor of the Christian Century magazine. This article appeared in The Christian Century, September 25-October 8, 2002 p. 9. Copyright by The Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I tell you, that on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. There will he two women grinding meal together; one will be taken and the other left." Luke 17:34-35, NRSV. The "Left Behind" fiction series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins borrows its title from passages like those in Luke 17 in which Jesus describes events of the end times. Verses 34 and 35 are widely interpreted to mean that those taken are the lucky ones. Moreover, Left Behind fans and others influenced by dispensationalist theology tend to see the ones taken as "raptured" heavenward to be with the Lord. Not so, says New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III. "A first-century audience would have understood [Luke 17:35] to mean one will be taken away for judgment, while the other will escape judgment by remaining where she is," he wrote recently in Bible Review. "This is clear from the context, which is about the coming judgment -- a judgment that, in Jewish literature, everyone is expected to face." Witherington says it was very common in both Jewish and Greco-Roman literature of that era to see the phrase "taken away for judgment." The Asbury Seminary professor said he interprets the term ‘taken" in this context "of the long history of Israel’s being taken away into exile, and individuals being taken away for trial and judgment, including Jesus," he said. "Those left behind are spared judgment or exile or the like," he said. "And, of course, nothing [is said] here about avoiding tribulation." In other words, even the ones remaining were likely to face eventual chaos and tribulation in end-time scenarios. He said he suspects that "Left Behind" theology attempts to harmonize this Jesus saying with Paul’s colorful imagery of believers being caught up, or raptured, into the clouds in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, as if the two scenarios envisioned the same thing. Mainstream New Testament scholars are divided on who is the lucky person -- the one taken or the one left -- especially when attempting to interpret a following verse, Luke 17:37. The disciples ask Jesus, "Where, Lord?" He answers, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." The footnote in the HarperCollins Study Bible says: "This saying seems to mean that to find those left, one must look for the circling vultures." Yet it could also be argued that the disciples are asking where those taken will find themselves. The location of those left is known -- still in bed or at the grinding mill. Robert C. Tannehill of Methodist Theological School in Ohio wrote in a 1996 commentary that "being ‘taken’ would indicate deliverance. This, however, is not certain. Furthermore, there is nothing here about escaping a period of tribulation that is coming on the rest of the world, as in the current doctrine of the rapture." In another book on Luke published the same year, British scholar Christopher M. Tuckett indicated that those "taken" face sudden judgment. Of the parables in Luke 12 on the thief at night and the waiting servants, he said that "both warn of an event which may come at any moment and catch out those who are unprepared with disastrous consequences. The same is to be found in the apocalyptic material in Luke 17:23-37, he said.

A Christian View of A-theism and Evil: Arguments concerning the nonexistence of God give serious challenge to the traditional theistic view of God; i.e. as all knowing, all powerful, and all loving - as, if things like what happened on 9/11 happen in the world, and if: 1) God knew about it in advance, and 2) had the ability to prevent it, then: God couldn't be all loving, and/or God couldn't be all powerful, or God couldn't be all knowing. Many traditional Christians (and Muslims & Jews) facing this argument reply saying that "We finite humans aren't able to fully fathom or discern the ways of God, i.e. it's a mystery." While, I appreciate and resonate some with that defense, it isn't fully satisfying for me. I recognize that the early Christian thinkers were greatly influenced by pagan Greek philosophical ideals (the omnipotent, omniscient, etc. notions) - influences which really didn't help Christianity to my mind. So instead, the theology I embrace holds that God is 1) all loving, 2) very powerful (largely persuasive rather than coercive), and 3) all knowing of everything that is possible to know; i.e. all that has happened in the past, all the possibilities in the present; and very perceptive about the various probabilities of our future. So, in the perspective I advocate (called "process theology" by liberals or "openness theology" by evangelicals), the existence and integrity of God is secure. I feel that this position is at least as Biblically grounded as the more traditional/popular one. Some might reply that "they wouldn't want to worship a God Who is only very powerful, and only mostly knowing." However, since I believe that God created us in God's image in order to have real and authentic relationships, part of how we were created in God's image is by being gifted with real free will, and hence, God can't know all that we'll do from moment to moment. But God does actively try to influence all of us at every moment in order to lure/woo us toward opting to choose actions that are in sync with God's will. To the extent that we do this, our actions are Godly, to the extent that we deviate, they aren't. *** The following is the transcript of a brief chatroom "whisper" discussion I had with someone exploring these issues, particularly the matter of theodicy - why God allows bad things to happen to good people: *** ß.L. : I like to come in these rooms and listen to the different religions, I don't agree, but its interesting......what do you say to people when they ask why God lets bad things happen to them? BrotherRog : Well, I may not be a "typical" Christian in my thoughts on this matter. I embrace what's known as Process theology (by liberals) or Openness theology (by evangelicals). (It's also similar to the view promoted by Rabbi Harold Kushner) ß.L. : ?? BrotherRog : Essentially, this perspective suggests that God isn't responsible for acts of nature, like when a tree falls on someone, or when people die in floods or lightning, etc., as God has set creation up in such a way that the laws of physics (even the ones we don’t yet know about) must apply; e.g. if a rock falls off a cliff on earth, it must fall down, and it is just bad luck/timing if someone happens to be underneath it or in its path. Now, when it comes to why human caused bad things happen, it is just that, HUMAN-caused. That is, God didn't cause someone to rape or murder someone else, it was simply that offending individual abusing their God-given free will. Now, some will say that "Since God is supposedly all powerful, all knowing, and all loving," then why wouldn't God stop someone from murdering someone else, or why wouldn’t God have prevented the Holocaust or the tragedies on 9/11? ß.L. : Exactly, and they ask why did he create evil? BrotherRog : For me, God is very powerful (but not able to actually catch nuclear missiles in the air should we decide to fire them); all loving, all present, and all knowing of that which is possible to know; i.e. God knows all of the past, all of the present, and the likely probabilities of what will happen in the future. I don't personally feel that God created evil, but simply the possibility for it. When Adam and Eve (if one takes that myth/narrative literally) committed the first sin (an act/thought that is contrary to God's will), they did so using their free will. Once this happened the first time, it made things such that we're more and more likely to sin again. Kinda like how a drug user takes one hit, which leads to another.... or like when a person gets frostbite on a toe, once that happens, its more prone to having it happen again. Does any of this make any sense? ß.L. : yes, perfectly BrotherRog : Ultimately, most people of faith, when pressed, will resort to saying that we need to defer to the "Mystery" of God and God's ways; i.e. we puny humans can't understand it all. However, the way I’ve presented it above helps me make as much sense as possible for me. ß.L. : yeah... There's a website one of them showed me......"godlessamerica" or something like that......it had these horrible pictures of people in misery and asked where was God then? I just didn't know how to answer it BrotherRog : Well, I'd say that God was very much there with those people! 1) God was working hard to try to sway the perpetrators from doing their evil acts, minimizing this as much as possible, and 2) God was suffering with those people, being there for them and with them, working to give them strength and hope. ß.L. : See, and that makes perfect sense to me, but its so hard to get that through other peoples heads! BrotherRog : Kinda, like how when Rabbi Heshel was asked in a WWII German concentration camp by a fellow inmate, "see those men hanging by their necks from those ropes, where is your God now?" To which he replied, "He’s there hanging upon those ropes." ß.L. : wow BrotherRog : Great acts of horror and tragedy are difficult for people to process - indeed after WWII many of the world's Jews have become atheistic, agnostic and/or only minimally religious. However, for me the real problem is that in popular Judaism & Christianity, God is made to be some kind of Superman hero who can do anything to stop bad things from happening, and hence, people are prone to having crises of faith when God "fails" to stop bad things from happening. I think we need to put aside that popular image of God and shift to a healthier one. By the way, are you a person of any particular faith? ß.L. : I was told once that God lets things happen to bring people closer to him, and I just thought that was horrible.....to put people in misery for your own good? ß.L. : yes, I'm a Christian BrotherRog : Yes, I've heard many say that "there is a purpose to everything," or that "this happened so I could learn this lesson," "this happened to test my faith", "..to make me stronger," etc. Such logic is odd and even offensive - especially if said to a victim/mourner soon after their tragedy. However, I do feel that those are things that can be true in a way in that after the fact, looking back on it, people can often see how things have "worked out for them" since then. But this is quite different than saying that one was actually raped "in order to learn a certain lesson." I'd say that if lessons are learned, or people become stronger, etc., then this is because God was working hard to do damage control (to help them dust off, move on, and maybe even help others) after the incident. But not that God caused it. ß.L. : that makes so much more sense BrotherRog : Glad I could be of help! The question you raised is a biggie. It's called the issue of "theodicy" (literally, "the God problem") in theological circles, i.e. why would an all good, loving, and powerful God allow such bad things to happen to God’s people? There are many takes on this matter, but I like mine. ß.L. : I think I like yours too BrotherRog : From my experience, Christians/Churches that come from a Calvinist perspective (conservative Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists) tend to say that God did actually and intentionally cause those acts of trauma, but that Christians/Churches that come from an Arminian perspective (Methodists, Episcopalians, liberals, etc.) embrace the concept of Free Will, i.e. evil is human caused - not God caused. Interestingly, both groups can point to various Bible passages to support their views. Say, which churches, if any, have you been a part of? ß.L. : I was baptized in the Baptist church, but now attend the Methodist church BrotherRog : How ‘bout that, I'm an United Methodist myself! ß.L. : lol...its a small world after all BrotherRog : Keep in mind that if you had whispered this matter to a more conservative Christian you would've likely gotten a very different answer. ß.L. : probably BrotherRog : I have enjoyed this little chat with you. I remember your screenname from a few nights ago in this chatroom. Good to "see" you again! ß.L. : lol, i've just become really interested in the past few weeks.....its weird but hope to "see" you again sometime BrotherRog : God be with you sister. Bye for now. ß.L. : Bye

Well, in all fairness, Bush did conceed to meet with a representative of the Pope from Rome (who was outspoken against this war) just a few days before he authorized the attack in March. I think Bush did this due to the fact that there are far more Roman Catholic Americans than there are United Methodist ones.

Whoops. I think I meant to inquire your thoughts about POST-Liberalism (not "neo-liberalism"). Hauerwas's narrative theology is but one example of this, but George Lindbeck is considered the "father" of this perspective. There's even a Post-Post-Liberalism in the marketplace of ideas - don't ask me to define that though - anyone care to attempt that for us? Pasted below is an article I came across that speaks to some of these matters.. The Origins of Postliberalism by Gary Dorrien Gary Dorrien was associate professor of religion and dean of Stetson Chapel at Kalamazoo College when this article was written. His book The Word as Truth Myth: Interpreting Modern Theology is to be published this year (1997) by Westminster John Knox. This article appeared in The Christian Century, July 4-11, 2001, pp. 16-21. Copyright by The Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. . This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No theological perspective has a commanding place or an especially impressive following these days. Various theologies compete for attention in a highly pluralized field, and no theology has made much of a public impact. One significant and inescapable development, however, has been the emergence of "postliberal" theology, a major attempt to revive the neo-orthodox ideal of a "third way" in theology. For nearly as long as modern theology has existed, efforts have been made to locate a third way between conservatism and liberalism. The idea of a third way was intrinsic to mid-19th-century German "mediating theology," which blended confessional, pietistic and liberal elements. Two generations later, neo-orthodoxy issued a more aggressive appeal for a third way. While insisting that he was not tempted by biblical literalism, Karl Barth began his dogmatics by describing the liberal tradition of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Adolf von Harnack as "the plain destruction of Protestant theology and the Protestant church." Emil Brunner’s "theology of crisis" similarly maintained that in different ways Protestant liberal-ism and Protestant orthodoxy both betrayed the Reformation principles of the sovereignty and freedom of the Word of God. Reinhold Niebuhr took a different tack toward a similar end, arguing that fundamentalism was hopelessly wrong because it took Christian myths literally, while liberal Christianity was hopelessly wrong because it failed to take Christian myths seriously. Neo-orthodoxy was an umbrella term for various profoundly different theologies. It was embraced in the U.S. by thousands of pastors and theologians, who generally got their theology from Brunner and Niebuhr rather than from Barth. American neo-orthodoxy in the 1940s and 1950s typically meant a compound of Brunner’s dogmatics, Niebuhr’s theological ethics, and the scripture scholarship of the biblical theology movement. This movement, a reaction to the perceived sterility of earlier, purely analytic studies, emphasized the unifying themes of scripture and stressed the revelatory acts of God in history as described in the Bible. The neo-orthodox movement was stunningly successful in reorienting the field of modern theology. The biblical language of sin, transcendence and the Word of God resumed a prominent place in theological discourse. But in a remarkably brief period of time, the house of neo-orthodoxy crashed. During the 1960s, the theological giants of neo-orthodoxy passed away, James Barr’s claims about the uniqueness of biblical semantics dismantled biblical theology, and Langdon Gilkey exposed the incoherence of neo-orthodox God-language. Gilkey showed that for all of its condemnations of theological liberalism, neo-orthodoxy construed the meaning of the scriptural "mighty acts of God" in essentially liberal terms. Gilkey later called attention to a secularizing trend in theology -- he called it "death-of-God theology" -- which was led by former Barthians such as William Hamilton and Paul van Buren. Shortly after that, the first currents of liberation theology emerged in Latin America and the U.S., making neo-orthodoxy seem stuffy, provincial and oppressive. Though postliberals’ connections to neo-orthodoxy are not widely touted in postliberal writings, the connections are significant. The postliberal movement is essentially a Barthian project -- one that, in certain respects, is more deeply influenced by Barth than American neo-orthodoxy was in its glory days. Postliberal theology began as a Yale-centered phenomenon. It was founded by Yale theologians Hans Frei and George Lindbeck, who wrote the movement’s founding texts and who (before Frei’s untimely death in 1988) trained most of its key advocates. Prominent figures in the development of the postliberal school have included such Yale-trained theologians as James J. Buckley, J. A. DiNoia, Garrett Green, Stanley Hauerwas, George Hunsinger, Bruce D. Marshall, William Placher, George Stroup, Ronald Thiemann and David Yeago. A generally younger group of Yale-trained postliberals now contributing to the development of postliberalism includes Kathryn Greene-McCreight, Serene Jones, David Kamitsuka, Ian McFarland, Paul McGlasson, Joe Mangina, R. R. Reno, Gene Rogers and Kathryn Tanner. Numerous theologians from different academic backgrounds share key affinities with the postliberal movement; they include William Willimon, evangelical ecumenists Stanley Grenz and Gabriel Fackre, the late Baptist theologian James William McClendon Jr. and British theologians Rowan Williams and David Ford. The school’s founding argument was propounded by Frei in The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (1974). Frei observed that modern conservative and liberal approaches to the Bible both undermine the authority of scripture by locating the meaning of biblical teaching in some doctrine or worldview that is held to be more foundational than scripture itself. Before the Enlightenment, he explained, most Christians read the Bible primarily as a kind of realistic narrative that told the overarching story of the world. The coherence of this story made figural interpretation possible; certain events within and outside of scriptural narrative were viewed as having prefigured or reflected the central biblical events. Jews and Christians made sense of their lives by viewing themselves as related to and participating within the story told in scripture. Frei argued that during the Enlightenment this sense of scripture as realistic narrative was lost. Because their own rationalized experience increasingly defined for them what was "real," theologians sought to understand scripture by relating it to their own (supposedly universal) "reality." That is, they sought to determine the truth within and about scripture by translating it into the truer language of their own world. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative offered a richly detailed survey of the ways 18th- and 19th-century theologians overlooked the narrative character of scripture, but fundamentally, Frei argued, there were two main strategies by which modernist (and modernist-influenced) theologians reconstrued scriptural meaning. Liberals looked for the real meaning of the Bible in the eternal truths about God and humanity that it conveyed, while conservatives looked for the real meaning in the Bible’s factual references. In both cases, the priority of scriptural narrative itself was overturned. Scripture no longer defined the world in which Christians lived in a normative way; rather, the Bible was turned into a source of support for modern narratives of progress or for other doctrinal norms. "All across the theological spectrum the great reversal had taken place," Frei remarked. "Interpretation was a matter of fitting the biblical story into another world with another story rather than incorporating that world into the biblical story." Frei gave most of his attention to the varieties of liberalism, but his verdict applied equally to most forms of modern liberal and conservative theology. "No one who pretended to any sort of theology or religious reflection at all wanted to go counter to the ‘real’ applicative meaning of biblical texts, once it had been determined what it was, even if one did not believe them on their own authority," he remarked. The "real" meaning became all-determinative. Conservatives held out for the literal meaning of various factual references in scripture, and liberals countered that modern science and historical-critical investigations negated literal meaning as an interpretive possibility. In both cases, the sense of scripture as canonical narrative was abandoned. The seeds of a postliberal third way were planted in this account of biblical interpretation. Frei emphasized the primacy of scriptural narrative for theology. His colleague George Lindbeck added an insistence on the primacy of language over experience and a theory about religion as a cultural-symbolic medium. Drawing on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s analysis of language and the cultural anthropology of Clifford Geertz, Lindbeck’s major work, The Nature of Doctrine (1984), offered an account of contemporary theological options that reinforced and amplified much of Frei’s argument. Lindbeck argued for a "cultural-linguistic" understanding of religion as opposed to the "cognitive-propositional" and "experiential-expressive" approaches that have, he said, dominated theology during the modern age. Liberal theologies are nearly always experiential-expressive, he argued; they seek to ground religious language upon foundational claims about experiences of religious feeling, moral value, or the like. Most conservative theologies are cognitive-propositional; they claim that doctrinal statements directly or "literally" refer to reality. Lindbeck observed that in their emphasis upon the function of religious language as propositional information about objective realities, conservative theologians tend to confirm the approach to religion taken by most Anglo-American analytic philosophers. Analytic philosophy typically assumes that religious language is meaningful only if it makes universally valid statements about matters of fact in the form of propositions. Unfortunately for analytic philosophy, no religion can actually be understood on these terms. Lindbeck contended that religious traditions are historically shaped and culturally encoded, and are governed by internal rules. Any explanation of religious belief that disregards these factors will inevitably distort the religious tradition under examination. In the case of Christianity, he observed, it is scriptural narrative that shapes the cultural-linguistic world in which the corporate body of Christ expresses its meanings and seeks to follow Christ. Christian doctrines should not be understood as universalistic propositions or as interpretations of a universal religious experience. Doctrines are more like the rules of grammar that govern the way we use language to describe the world. Christian doctrine identifies the rules by which Christians use confessional language to define the social world that they indwell. Following Wittgenstein, Lindbeck emphasized the connection between "rationality" and the skillful use of acquired rules. Believers, he argued, can prove the rationality or relevance of their religious tradition (or any tradition) only by skillfully using its internal grammar: "The reasonableness of a religion is largely a function of its assimilative powers, of its ability to provide an intelligible interpretation in its own terms of the varied situations and realities adherents encounter." This principle applied equally to Christian communities: "Religious communities are likely to be practically relevant in the long run to the degree that they do not first ask what is either practical or relevant, but instead concentrate on their own intratextual outlooks and forms of life." Just as individuals are saved by faith, not by works, he reasoned, so are religious communities saved by faith, not by social-ethical success. Lindbeck cautioned that he was not making an argument for religious withdrawal from social concerns, for faithfulness always bears good fruit in the social realm. It was biblical religion that produced modern science and democracy and other values cherished by Western civilization. But if the world is to be saved from the demonic corruptions of these values, he contended, it will need a revival of biblical religion to accomplish this saving work. Christianity is most redemptive as a force in the world when Christian churches focus their energies on building formative Christian communities that are rooted in the idioms and practices of biblical faith. It followed for Lindbeck that Christian catechesis is a more appropriate emphasis for churches than the various modern strategies to make Christianity reasonable, attractive or relevant. He pointed out that for the most part, pagan converts to the early church did not absorb Christian teaching intellectually and then decide to become Christians. They were attracted to what they saw of the faith and practices of early Christian communities; only later did they come to understand very much about the faith, after a prolonged program of catechesis made them proficient in an alien grammar and way of life. This is the model that a spiritually serious church should seek to recover in a post-Christian age, Lindbeck suggested: "When or if dechristianization reduces Christians to a small minority, they will need for the sake of survival to form communities that strive without traditionalist rigidity to cultivate their native tongue and learn to act accordingly." At the same time, many old-style conservative evangelicals have warned that postliberal theology is but the latest manifestation of a deadly neo-orthodoxy, which is all the more pernicious for its seeming affinity with conservative aims. In an early negative judgment on Frei, Carl F. H. Henry summarized the problem: Narrative theology drives a wedge between biblical narrative (which it plays up) and historical factuality (which it plays down). Moreover, by failing to ground their assertions about scripture in a logically prior doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the narrative theologians undermine their purported desire to uphold the unity and authority of scripture. Narrative theology has no substantive doctrine of biblical inspiration, no objective theory of biblical authority, no objective criterion for establishing religious truth, and only a partial account of scriptural unity. Furthermore, Henry noted, much of scripture consists of nonnarrative material, which makes the narrative category insufficient by itself to account for the canonical unity of scripture. As for the postliberal claim to eschew the experiential subjectivism of liberal theology, Henry charged that in elevating narrative over factuality, narrative theology becomes unable to distinguish truth from error or fact from fiction. This critique made some telling points, some of which have been registered by others more sympathetic to postliberalism. For example, Harvard theologian Ronald Thiemann, who studied under Frei, objects that the cultural-linguistic model makes talk about the "text" stand in place of Christian talk about God; Yale biblical scholar Brevard Childs rejects Lindbeck’s talk about the text creating its own world. This way of speaking about scripture is rooted in the spiritual practices of the liturgical churches, Childs observes, not "the way the Bible actually functions within the church" -- apparently meaning, in this case, the nonliturgical churches. Frei never claimed to have worked out satisfactory answers to such criticisms, and Lindbeck doesn’t claim to have done so either. But the postliberal founders have addressed many of these issues. In a pointed reply to Henry, for example, Frei admonished that such terms as "truth" and "reference" and "historical fact," which Henry relied on, are more ambiguous than is often recognized. Consider John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." As a doctrinal statement, he observed, "the Word became flesh" can be understood only through the gospel story. Its religious meaning is not an independent proposition; it is comprehensible only as a sequence enacted in the gospel-narrated story of the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. Frei did not deny that biblical truth is often cognitive or that it is sometimes expressed in scripture in propositional form. His argument against evangelical rationalism centered on its claim that truth can be expressed only in propositional form. Like Barth, Frei contended that much of scriptural narrative is history-like without needing to be historical. The purpose of the Gospel stories is to narrate the identity of Jesus, he argued. For this reason many of the Gospel episodes function as illustrative anecdotes. They show us the kind of person that Jesus was. The test of their truth is not whether the particular incidents that they describe took place, but whether they truthfully narrate the identity of Jesus to us. The same principle applies to other scriptural narratives. It followed for Frei (as for Barth) that it is fatally misguided for Christians to suggest that archaeology or form criticism or any other critical discipline should be the judge of how seriously Christian readers take the witness of scripture. The Christian in-dwells the narrative world of scripture and lives through its meanings. She does not decide whether scriptural testimony should be taken seriously on the basis of the most recent issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review. To her, the God described in Genesis is real whether the patriarchs really lived or not. Does this mean that Frei-style narrative theology simply waves off the question of historical factuality? If biblical narratives do not derive their meaning by referring to historical events or ontological realities, how can biblical theology be anything more than a symbolic or mythical construct? If biblical theology makes no claim at all to a historical basis, doesn’t the narrative strategy simply reduce biblical truth to being merely a good story? Many evangelical theologians have followed Henry in charging that Frei is hopelessly cut off from historical reality. Others have argued that Lindbeck too settles for a merely descriptive intratextual strategy that makes no normative truth claims. Frei’s major constructive work, The Identity of Jesus Christ (1975), epitomized these qualities. The book was filled with disjointed fits and starts that tied up his argument and nearly strangled it. Moreover, some of Frei’s more lucid passages were calculated not to give comfort to many readers, especially evangelicals. A strong case can be made that historically the Christian story is not at all unique, he suggested: "This being the case, I shall not attempt to evaluate the historical reliability of the Gospel story of Jesus or argue the unique truth of the story on grounds of a true, factual ‘kernel’ in it. Instead, I shall be focusing on its character as a story." Later he argued that we know almost nothing about the historical Jesus apart from the gospel story and that "it is precisely the fiction-like quality of the whole narrative" of Jesus’ passion and resurrection that makes his identity present to us. Frei recognized, however, that the Gospel narratives themselves do not support a sharp dichotomy between the gospel story and historical factuality. He noted in particular that the question of historical factuality is raised very forcefully in the stories of the crucifixion and resurrection. Mythical narratives always seek to sacralize fundamental religious symbols, but in the Gospels Jesus insists on the unsubstitutable uniqueness of his person and mission. He does not symbolize any mythical type or theme but is presented as unreplaceable. For this reason, Frei observed, the cross and resurrection story virtually forces readers to ask whether the events it describes actually took place. In other words, in the cross and resurrection story, the bond between the meaning of the story and what Jesus did is very tight, whereas in the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8: 1-11), the story is true whether or not it actually occurred, because it shows us the kind of person that Jesus was. "Of course I believe in the ‘historical reality’ of Christ’s death and resurrection, if those are the categories which we employ," Frei said. The problem is that the language of "historical factuality" is not theory-neutral and does not deserve to be absolutized. "There was a time when we didn’t talk, as many people have talked for nearly two hundred years now, about Jesus Christ being ‘a particular historical event,"’ he observed. "And it may well be that even scholars won’t be using those particular terms so casually and in so self-evident a fashion for much longer. In other words, while I believe that those terms may be apt, I do not believe, as Dr. Henry apparently does, that they are as theory-free, as neutral as he seems to think they are. I do not think that the concept ‘probability’ is theory-neutral. I do not think that we will talk theologically in those terms, perhaps, in another two generations. We didn’t talk that way three hundred years ago. To say that the resurrection must be a "fact" of "history" is to make history contain something that obliterates its boundaries. If the resurrection actually occurred, it is an event without analogy. "History" as a category is too impoverished to contain it, and the usual historiocritical questions about the relative probability of different explanations are rendered useless. At the same time, Frei acknowledged, the gospel story clearly makes claims that are not less than historical. "If I am asked to use the language of factuality, then I would say, yes, m those terms, I have to speak of an empty tomb. In those terms I have to speak of the literal resurrection." Near the end of his life Frei reflected that his personal stake in Lindbeck’s argument was very deep, and he exhorted Lindbeck not to back down from his truth claims about the truth status of Christian language. Frei lived long enough to see the emergence of a postliberal school, to which he bequeathed some vexing questions. Is the postliberal conception of Christian truth merely descriptive and evocative? Is it enough for theologians to say that biblical truth is the capacity of the text to draw readers into a new framework of meaning that makes sense of one’s life and world? In the next issue I will look more closely at those questions and at the possible future of postliberalism.

FYI.. George W. Bush was born and raised an Episcopalian. He didn't practice his faith very seriously during his college and young adult years. He "came to Jesus" (i.e. was Born Again) via interactions with Billy Graham (a Southern Baptist), and, due his having moved to the Bible Belt, his Christianity has become more conservative. He became a United Methodist when he married his wife (ast that is her denomination) and yet his views are not at all in sync with United Methodist teaching. Indeed, he is the first president in U.S. history to refuse to meet with Methodist bishops! (He refused to meet with them several times prior to his attack on Iraq this past March, 2003). As United Methodist myself, I feel that GWB is more a Southern Baptist than a Methodist. It is interesting to note that as the Southern Baptist denomination has become more conservative over the past few decaded, Billy Graham has become more liberal! I actually hope that GWB is open to being influenced by his former mentor instead of his weekly phone conferences with other Southern Baptist leaders.