irreverance

Happy Birthday! Let the spankings begin!!!!

Welcome to the club. Now, for a small fee and a credit card number, we'll show you the secret handshake.

Evangelical has many meanings. I tend to argue that it has so many meanings, many of which are complete contradictions, that it is perhaps the most "meaningless" word in Christian vocabulary. In a nutshell, the term evangelical used to mean that we had something to say and that it was worth hearing and converting to (the "good news"). Sometime during the 20th century it was slowly transformed to mean a specific conservative anti-modernist theological approach (note the arrival of "neo-evangelicalism" mid-century), which could theoretically be contrasted with the mainline approach that embraced modernism (to varying degrees of course). And yes, I believe that Sojourners identifies as an evangelical magazine. Jim Wallis grew up in the evangelical tradition (though I can't remember which one).

Thank you for your reply. It's certainly an important thing for people to speak up for others. But Jen had mentioned that she felt stonewalled, and I think that it is important for her to be allowed to speak to that personally. So, while I appreciate your comments, I still invite her offer her voice in this. Since only she can speak for her own emotions, I don't want her to feel silenced in any way.

Well, it seems to me that key to understanding where progressives are coming from may be the study of church history. With such a study comes a sense of what might be termed "historical consciousness." The fact is that theology has changed through time. Christianity as a religion is not as it once was, but is quite different, always evolving. The "tradition" does not always articulate faithfully the messages of who God is according to the Scriptures. That is why it is always under constant revision. So, in many respects, the "progressive" understanding comes from a contextual reading of Scripture and a strong sense of how tradition has developed. Take for example the "traditional" articulation that Paul showed us (mainly in Romans) that Jesus on the cross is a sacrifice to pay a blood sacrifice for our sins, an theology that is assumed to come from his Jewishness. However, biblical scholar Stanley K. Stowers in A Rereading of Romans asserts I posted all that because I wanted to highlight that "progressive" Christianity has many advocates among biblical scholars. It also has many advocated within the field of theology. If you note on this board, PantaRhea articulates what is known as "Processs Theology" very well. In many respects, that is a theology that takes seriously both our current context and the traditional Christian articulation of who God is. For a Roman Catholic process/revisionist theologian, you might be interested in reading David Tracy's Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology. If you are looking for a small book that may help your understanding, I suggest Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. Borg is both a biblical scholar, but seems focused on putting together a low-brow practical postmodern theology.

I am a bit confused by your post. You seem to be saying that we have "stonewalled" the two of you because of your belief that "our relationship with God is based on equality, not subservience." I want to say that people tend to respond to those things they resonate with or feel drawn to respond to. The two of you seemed to have formed a sense of connection on this thread. Not everyone will have that same sense of connection. Therefore, not everyone will respond to all posts. This does not equate to the act of "stonewalling." It's unfortunate that you feel stonewalled, but I don't see any external basis for that as I review this thread. Therefore, I invite you to say more about why you feel stonewalled. I need some clarification to make more sense of your last post.

To say that God is "personal" doesn't mean that God is an individual looking over our shoulders. Too often, "personal" is equated with "individual" in our highly individualistic world. In fact, in the trinitarian formulation, the idea of three"persons" is meant to mean three distincts ways of existing. (Have I mentioned this on this board somewhere else? Oh well, here it is again...) For example: I exist. I know I exist. I love my existence. That is the basis of the trinitarian formula: In all the ways that I exist, I am related to myself. It does not mean that I have three mini-me's running around between my ears (though sometimes I wish they'd keep it down in there ). Instead, it seems better to emphasize that to be a "person" is to be relational. To be in relationship means to be affecting and affected, a fully participatory existence. This approach to understanding God as "personal" can also be used to describe the "impersonal" approaches to God, such as God as Ground of Being since the Ground is always in relationship with all being. But if we start going down that path, it only muddies the waters and really makes the whole attempt to understand whether God is "personal" or "impersonal" hopeless quagmire, so forget that I said it.

This could be an interesting thread: the idea of a "mere" myth. Often in our culture, we equate myth with delusion. However, in ancient history, myth was the story of people and their gods. Or, that was the way they articulated what they perceived to be happening "behind the scences," so to say. Today, myth is more appropriately understood as an interpretive albeit authoritative narrative that guides life. Other terms for it are story, narrative, fiction (technically speaking), and truth. When I am asked about my sense of call, for example, I respond by telling my story, or my personal myth. Because I am a human being, I necesarilly see the world through the lens of this myth. It is according to this myth that I discern what is "right" and what is "wrong." It is my myth that drives me, feeds my passion, cultivates my fears, etc. In a sense, the spirit of my myth is what animates me and my becoming. So there is no such thing as a "mere" myth. When we talk about the Christian myth, we are talking about the governing story (or compilation of stories) of our existence and mission as a people. Because there are in fact many different versions of the story, they are drawn together in the person and work of Jesus. In the coming together, they fight it out, and the story is revised and continues to evolve. For example, when we proclaim liturgically the Apostle's Creed, everyone saying those words has a different sense of what they mean. But somehow there is still a sense that they re-present the Christian myth, and by representing (or incarnating) the myth, it becomes "fact." And, by doing so, we become a "truth-full" people, participating in our truth.

Thank you for that elaboration. It helps a lot to get a sense of where you're coming from. BTW, you mention being 46 "today." Does that mean it's your birthday? If so, Happy B-day!

I can't. I'm jealous. See, that's my problem. It's not empty. It's cluttered...beyond belief even. I can't seem to encounter my desk because the messiness of my life gets in the way and prevents it. And when I do try, all that happens is that I dig through the papers and reveal something more about my own life that is keeping me from my desk. And then I realized that the importance of my desk is not the desk in itself, but the new revelation that comes through the interaction between myself and my desk. Unfortunately, today that revlelation is that I forgot to call someone. So not only is this a revelation about my life rather than the desk, but it is a revelation about a part of my life that didn't even happen. Where is my coffee?

A while back I started writing my own story. I did so hoping that first of all I would eventually finish it and it wouldn't be like all the other writings that I've started and dropped. I thought that maybe it would help those who identify as "postmoderns" who are struggling with what it might be to be "Christian" as well. If you don't mind me taking up so much of cyberspace in one fell swoop, I thought I'd post a bit of it here to give a sense of the direction that I am going on my own spiritual path. Once again my understanding of prayer had been transformed. No longer did prayer include only conversation and silence, but it had now become part of the fabric of life itself. The way that I now understand this is to say that “to pray” is to be attentive, seeking, listening…in other words, to be authentic. To live life authentically—to seek to know God, one’s self, and the world in which one lives, and then tying it all together—was to become a living prayer. And so now I try to live my life as a prayer unto God. My conversations with God continue, but now they also include seeking to converse with the Spirit of God as encountered through my neighbor. Times of silence and solitude still happen, but they also include those times of “inner quiet” when I listen to hear God speak through the lives of those around me. Paul calls us to “pray without ceasing.” That is what I’m trying to do with my life.

THIS is the big issue where I come from. Very often, before you have a conversation with "conservatives," they have to have a sense that you are of their ilk, otherwise you are assumed to be outside of the reach of the Holy Spirit, and thus cannot (by definition) be trusted to talk about spiritual things. It's hard to converse when you've been dismissed before the real conversation starts. I can understand this though. I went through a period of fundamentalism. I suspect we all do at some time or another. Therefore, when I try to relate with those of a more "evangelical" bent, I (as Fatherman suggested) tend to focus on the Holy Spirit. My little joke is that in contemplative prayer one sits still, doing nothing, and just enjoys being in the presence of God...hence it is the Presbyterian version of charismatic ecstatics. I've found that relating the mystical to the charismatic is quite helpful, sometimes even identifying them as two sides of the same coin.

BoE, thanks for the X+P. It's certainly an interesting take. Personally, I believe that the issue of holiness in all relationships has to do with the quality of relationship. It has been argued that what we call a committed homosexual relationship today was not a social issue in ancient days. Then, issues of power were woven into sex acts in ways to enact social dominance. Therefore, a major factor in the current debate has to do with the extent to which the biblical texts (which translated the Greek to "homosexual," and is thus a contextual mistranslation) are helpful today given that they are addressing a different situation and different issues. Personally, I believe that the texts were meant to speak at that time and by their witness help us to discern in our own. The texts point us to the character of Jesus' Spirit which is alive in our midst. When we look at the way that Jesus interacted with people, we see that he constantly championed quality, justice-oriented, compassionate, self-giving, inclusive relationships. If we are to be a holy community (one conformed to his image as his body), then we need to be living out those characteristics. Admittedly, those values will constantly be struggling with one another for center stage, and this is where debate comes in. When I look at the character of Jesus (how many times does he stress the importance of relationship over textual decree?), I do not believe that he would be as concerned with the form a relationship took between a committed couple, but rather would be more interested in how the form liberated the fullness of love to blossom and grow.

Getting back on topic... Canajan, eh?: There is a book out there that you might be interested in especially with your background and spiritual experiences. It's entitled Spirituality and Giftedness. The Institute for the Study of Advanced Development has produced it as part of a series: Advanced Development: A journal on Adult Giftedness. In it, the authors argue that "spiritual intelligence" should be accepted as a category for multiple intellegences, with some people developing their potential in that area more fully than do others. A major interest of mine with this book is the various stories that come out of it.

A quick bit about trintarian theology. When we say that the "trinitarian" identification of God is "biblical," we don't mean it is "of the Bible" in the sense that the Bible teaches that God is Trinity. Rather, the doctrine of the Trinity came about through official reflection on the Scriptures that produced a way to talk about the "who" of God as encountered in Jesus. We have to be careful not to say, "Oh, look, it says 'baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,' so they must have conceived of God as Trinity." Key to understanding how the articulation came about is Augustine. He asserted that because humanity was created in the image of God, then we should be able to look at ourselves and see the reflection of God. If we can come to understand our own internal relations, then we can understand God's. This is where the idea of a "person" comes in. When the theological concept of a "person" comes into a discussion, we are not talking about a form of individualism. Rather, "person" refers to a distinct way of existing. Think of it this way (the most basic Augustinian formula). I exist. I know that I exist. I love my existence. That's who I am in my inner workings. Those three "persons" (distinct ways of being) make up my "me-ness." Humanity is a trinitarian being. So too is God. So the Augustinian logic goes. Hence, he (and I believe it was Augustine) could say that the Holy Spirit is the conjugal love between the Father and the Son. In a sense, Augustine was using the best he had in "psychological" analysis in order to ponder the unponderable. A major issue then becomes: is it the formulation or the method that is authoritative? Enter process theology. This approach takes a more current understanding of the human condition and uses it to springboard into hypotheses about God's existence. In keeping (loose in its articulation, but tightly regarding methodology) with the Nicean tradition, God is Creative Love, Responsive Love, and Unifying Love. Significantly, a panentheist understanding of the God-world relationship does not automatically exclude a trintarian understanding of God. Not that process theology is the only recent attempt at the reformulation and meaninful reclaiming of the trinitarian thought. The feminist Catherine LaCugna's God for Us is a great text for reclaiming trinitarian doctrine. The liberationist Ian McFarlain's Listening to the Least is also excellent (and much smaller).

I thought it would be fun to have a place dedicated to cool quotes that we come across in our various readings. Make sure to identify where you got it (author, title, page).

A thought: #?? Integrity + Justice + Dignity +Compasison = Authentic Humanity Authentically Human = Authentically Divine (But what might that mean?) www.tcpc.org

'r 'u Ready Fur Bein' Saved?.... Rodent Revival Make sure to drop a dollar or two in the plate. And whatever you do, don't wet yourselves (it'll stain the pews).

This is where communication breaks down for me. I believe that there are internal contradictions in Scripture. They were written by real human beings living in real contexts. They were not omniscient, and they were not "infallably" inspired. Hence it is important to look at the texts within thier contexts and seek to understand as best as we can why they wrote what they did at that particular time (which may contradict what was written in another place and time). Progressives, then, are far more interested in the "spirit" than the "letter" of Scripture. I think that the progressive understanding tends to be less concerned with "heaven after death" than "being liberated into abundant life" in the here and now. The primary texts we have (Scripture) speak of "heaven" and "hell" mostly symbolically. The proclamation of the Kingdom of God is the assertion that God's will is justice-oriented love, and any forms of self-serving domination (whether religious or political) are not born of heaven. Thus, the overturning of such supposed "authorities."

Well...this is different (no offense). I must admit that I've never encountered anyone who claims to be a channelling partner for Jesus. Actually, I've never met anyone who claims to have the skill of chanelling. I admit to a certain amount of skepticism. Hence, I'm not really interested in using you to speak with Jesus (I have my own sense of spiritual connection), though I thank you for the offer. But I am interested in hearing your story. I find what you've written intriguing. Can you elaborate on your sense of gifting? When did you first develop/discover it? Can you describe the general experience? You mentioned learning to use your skill "wisely"; what does that mean to you? Just a few questions to explore something that I've not come in contact with yet. You and everybody else, baby!

The best book (by far) I've come across about Revelation is... The Navarre Bible: Revelation The focus of the book is putting the text in its historical/cultural setting and presenting the general consensus of scholars. If I recall correctly (I loaned mine out and never got it back), it has the entire text of Revelation in it and follows it as a commentary.

I don't look at the geneologies as factual or harmonizable (if that is a word). According to biblical scholars, the two geneologies were created independently to say something symbolically about Jesus. Matthew's geneology goes back to Abraham, thus indicating him being the fulfillment of the covenant. Luke's goes back to Adam, identifying Jesus as the fulfilment of what it is to be human. Jesus' legitimacy flows from his incarnation of the divine. Those who encountered him and "believed" sensed that they had somehow touched God through him. The big question the gospel writers seemed to face is how to deal with the experience of the divine through the person and work of Jesus, the Jew (who seems to fail as a messiah, and even worse is not even a very good Jew), in light of his religious identification, tradition, and context. Hence, different (though similar) answers to the question "Who is Jesus?"

I may have to pick this up. It sounds quite helpful.

This was an important book for me when I struggled with the issue of women in the Bible. However, since then, I have come to question much of the argument that was made therein. As I recall, the author stretches significantly some of his interpretations of certain texts. However, because it offers a strong alternative "biblically based" understanding of the role of women in Paul's discourses, I strongly recommend it for those who question the biblical basis of "female submission."

Any idea how much it would cost? Would LibChristian know now that she's around here somewhere?