irreverance

Where would you go on holiday if you could go anywhere in the world, and who would you take with you?

What's the most "interesting" (defined by you as funny, intriguing, whatever) Christmas gift you've seen given?

Hmmm. I don't have a bucket list.

What's your favorite kind of food?

Bump!!!

What book have you read that has influenced your (spiritual?) perspective the most, and how?

Hooray indeed! Thank you very much.

For the record, I huffed, and I puffed, and I blew all the candles out...but not before they dripped all over the brownies, that remained yummy despite the wax spots.

MEEEEERRRRRY CHRISTMASSSSSSSS!!!!!!

>>Anyone else with a passion sort of hobby? If so, what is it?<<

I have many, but one that is very important to me and influences everything I do is my art. What can I say? I'm an artist at heart. Generally, it isn't too expensive for me to do since my primary medium is pencil. But, it could potentially get out of hand financially if I really dove in to some bigger stuff. The most pressing issue is the time involvement. Admittedly, the longest I ever spent on a piece was 25 hours straight (which really isn't so long for a drawing). Something that I started doing some time back was contemplative mandalas as part of my prayer time. (I haven't done that for a while.) I also discovered the "stained glass" materials at Wal-Ma...that one really big store that I can't remember the name of right now. My current interest (as of last Thursday) is artistic enhancements of the sanctuary for worship.

'Nuff about me.

Question: What's the most important thing you learned from your mother/father/primary care giver?

You have family in Rockford? Don't suppose they go to 2nd Congregational do they? If so, I might know them.

There is no personal Sweedish connection for me. But, does Rockford have a Sweedish connection? You betcha! And it's a big one.

Ouch! I had mine out many years ago. I didn't take it well and was in bed for 3 days. I was only supposed to take extra strength tylenol. Unfortunatly, my mom had me so paranoid about knocking out the clots that I was unable to bring myself to swallow the pills. My advice: take the vicodin.

Yesterday, I went to the Stockholm Inn in Rockford for breakfast for the first time since I moved back into town.

Three Sweedish pancakes...slathered with butter...covered with strawberries.

One over-medium egg.

I ate so much I kinda felt ill. But it was worth it.

Ahhhhhh. I'm ready to go back.

Question: Are you a city person or a nature person? What I mean is, would you be more at home in NYC or in Alaska?

I'm an indoor person. It's sad, I know. Put me in a mountain cabin, and I will soon plug in and get lost on the internet. It's safer to look at bears that way. Put me in a fancy hotel in a big city, and I'll probably fill the tub and enjoy a good book and beer before I hop into bed and watch cable. It's safer to watch crime reports on the news.

Question: What's the most significant thing you have scheduled to happen before the end of this week?

Question: You used the terms Progressive, Traditional and Conservative. That threw me, because in my mind that would mean Traditional=Moderate. However, I've known some very conservative "Traditional Christians" (Traditional=Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian. ie "Liturgical"). Am I misunderstanding what the term "Traditional" means? I see it used to differentiate certain Christian beliefs from more evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist beliefs.

Xian:I'm also interested in exactly how you want to differentiate "traditional" from "conservative." "Liturgical" is a good meaning, but it wouldn't work as a third point on this particular map, because it isn't primarily a theological framework. It can also mean "orthodox" in a very specific sense: the implied philosophical and theological perspective of the original creeds.

Alas, now I feel compelled to change my terminology. How about...

Conservative=emphasis on authority as derived from inspired texts.

Progressive=emphasis on authority as derived from inspired spirit.

Traditional/narrative=emphasis on authority as derived from inspiried story.

Some examples of why they would be on a triangle rather than a line. I admit that they are simplistic, but I hope it helps understand where I'm coming from.

*********

Question: What is more authoritative, the texts or experience?

Answer for conservatives and narratives: the texts, because they are either the authoritative word of God or the authoritative narrative that calls us out of the narratives of culture.

Answer for progressives: Experience, because the texts work through metaphor to help us to connect with the God active in our lives and in the world. Hence, if science and the texts are at odds, then science wins.

Question: How important is the historical Jesus?

Answer for conservatives and progressives: Very important, because the Christian religion is centered on an historical figure. From a conservative perspective, because the texts are inspired, the Christ of faith and the historical Jesus are the same. From a progressive perspective, the Christian religion needs to separate the Christ of faith from the historical Jesus. When we find the two at odds, the historical (revolutionary, prophetic) Jesus becomes the model, as opposed to the Christ of faith which has been co-opted by power structures and used as a tool for oppression.

Answer for narratives: Not very important, because it is the "story" of Jesus as passed down that is authoritative, not the actual person. Spiritual transformation happens as the story of Jesus undermines the stories that we inhabit in the work-a-day world and rewrites them, thus emptying our lives of old meaning and filling it with new meaning. Because it is the storythat is authoritative, Jesus (in and of himself) is ultimately irrelevant. Indeed, I would suggest that whether or not Jesus actually existed as an historical figure is also irrelevant in the narrative sense.

Question: How important is mindful tradition?

Answer for progressives and narratives: Very important. From a progressive perspective, history is the process of continual becoming, which also applies to the church. It builds on what came before by reformulating in order to make it meaningful for the "next generation." From a narrative perspective, tradition is an extension of the authoritative story in the Bible. It is the Holy Spirit operating through the story of the church that allow for authoritative interpretation of the christian story, which is why they argue that non-Christians (defined as those who do not participate in the community) can't tell a Christian about the meaning of Christianity.

Answer for conservatives: Not important, since all that is needed to be Christian is to have faith in God and believe in what the Bible clearly teaches. This is what it means to be Christian at all times and all places.

********

Now that I've tried to properly place everything back into the triangle that certain people (who shall remain nameless) tried to flatten, I would like to point out that part of the triangle scheme is to allow for a "field" of play rather than just a "line."

Also, thanks for the good questions. One of the reasons that I took so long to get to this was because I really had to think about it before I could find a way to describe it (which still is probably lacking). A good challenging growth experience.

Nice dichotic portrayal. It must have been very hard to put together because it is inherently an attempt to simplify a complex situation into managable soundbites. You've covered a lot of ground here quickly.

A suggestion: Perhaps rather than trying to codify two positions, why not go for three? You could break it all into the standard descriptions Progressive, Traditional, and Conservative. That might alleviate some of the pressure that seems to arise in the dichotic listing. Personally, I don't think of Xy as a progressive to conservative (left to right) spectrum. The image I tend to use is that of a triangle in which the "middle" isn't really a "middle" but a distinct position that is as far from the "left" and "right" as they are from each other. Also, they are college students, so it would be good for them to learn to think less in either/or terms.

Also, when portraying conservative xy, you might want to avoid literalism as a criteria. That might be a key feature of fundamentalism, but it isn't necessarilly a feature of conservative xy. An example would be where you talk about the Bible. I would describe it this way...

Progressive: Emphasis on human contribution as shaped by author's context

Conservative: Emphasis on divine contribution and revelation of timeless Truth

Come to think of it (I'm thinking out loud here), instead of identifying this chart as "descriptions," maybe it would be better to identify things as "what the general perspective tends to emphasize." So, for salvation your chart might read...

Progressive: Emphasis on abundant life as experienced in the historically (here and now)

Conservative: Emphasis on eternal life to be fulfilled eschatologically (in the hereafter)

Just some thoughts. I don't have much time so I'll have to get back to you with more later.

Overall, it sounds like a cool project. I'm sure you will do very well with it however you decide to go about it.

I think baptism as done in churches misses the point. The inward change is a life long journey so for baptism to suggest that someone *Has* changed (past tense) is deceptive and suggests that they are done changing. I see it as a meaningless ritual, like wearing crosses and taking communion that has lost its meaning through out the ages.

I suspect that many churches do. However, if we look at the origin of baptism, I think we find that it pointed us in a different direction.

Background part:

In Judaism, water baptism was associated with ritual cleansing rather than entry into a covenant community. It was circumcision that identified one as being part of the Jewish people. One did not enter into the covenant community as a "clean" or "pure" being, but rather a being-in-process. Ritual cleansings, then, served as a liturgical way of expressing that becoming that happens inside the community.

In mystery religions, as best we can tell, the story is as follows: A diety or son of a diety enters into our world. This diety/son is rejected and slain. The diety/son raises/is raised in vindication. Those who want to follow this risen diety/son go through a time of purification before they enter into the pure community. The initiation ritual is that of baptism, through which the initiates are baptized into the life, death, and resurrection of the diety/son. Once inside the community, they are allowed to share a communal meal (often bloody meat I believe) through which they partake of the body and blood of the risen diety/son, thus having bestowed upon them eternal life.

The key here is the understanding of purity. From the Jewish perspective, the community is not so much a community of the pure as it is a community where purification happens. In the mystery religions, purification happened on the outside and being pure was something that was required to be part of the already purified community.

When I look at the origins of baptism, I see an attempt at liturgical and theological syncretism that says "the God whom we worship is the God of all people." However, their understanding rejects the standard mystery religion understanding of the intended makeup of divine community in favor of embracing a distinctly Jewish understanding.

Of course, as the first century came closer to an end, the Jewish leaders gave the Christians the boot and Christianity took in more gentile converts. As a result, we see a drastic shift in the meaning of baptism. The catecumenate arose and people were expected to be purified before baptism in order to maintain purity within the community. Hence, Christian baptism came to abandon it's original Jewish theological roots in favor of the mystery religions understanding.

So, I would argue that originally, Christian baptism was intended to make a distinct contextual statement: the life of Christian faith is not about being a pure/holy individual, but about a process of becoming pure/holy within the context of human community.

I also believe that the "majority" of scholars would fall under the rubric of orthodoxy, and hence it simply would not be in their ecclesiastical interest to find that Thomas could take any sort of precedence, historical or otherwise, over the synoptics.

Actually, this is in reference to the majority opinion of scholars (and by that I mean scholars of good repute). This would be the same group that the JS refers to as the "majority opinion." In general, this could possibly be translated as "liberal scholars" as opposed to "orthodox scholars," but I don't know that I want to go that far.

I would agree with you to an extent, but when looking at the materials one is struck with the simplicity and primitiveness of the sayings in the Thomas gospel. While the synoptics are full-bore literary stories in nature.

Thank you for reminding us of that. This is indeed the key to the early dating. Unfortunately, I'm not overly-involved in why Thomas is dated as it is by the various historians. Thus, I cannot speak to why the majority opinion leans in the direction of the later-dating.

I consider the issue to be a good example of how interpretive the field of history is. What happens if form criticism (which would closely examine structure) and historical-contextual criticism (which would look at the cultural atmosphere of a document) come up with different conclusions? Well, we do the best we can with what we've got but leave the question open to new research.

And, since the need for new research leads to more jobs for historians, hooray for inconclusiveness!!

I hadn't heard the news of Funk's passing. I'm sorry to hear it.

As a historian, you take it for granted that, even with the best of intentions, biases creep in, power plays take place, fabrications occur, and so on. Yet you're captivated by the person at the center of this living history, and through it all, you believe that God was really experienced in him.

Having a background in history myself, I agree with this. That is one of the reasons that I like the work of the Jesus Seminar.

Something that we have to remember: the Christian claim is not an abstract one, but an historical one. While we need to consider that the gospels narratives are narratives (and interpretations) of faith, the cornerstone of the proclaimation is a single historical figure. As such, I would argue that it is the responsibility of historians who feel called to do so to investigate Jesus according to thier own gifting and training. It is part of their service to the church, even if the church doesn't want to hear it.

Also, if I understand the issue correctly, a major issue (which is the source of the real controversy that comes from their interpretations) is the dating of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. According to their analysis, Thomas should be dated to the middle of the first century, before the writing of the gospel narratives. If this is so, then they have quite a claim for their work.

However, if I am not mistaken, the majority opinion is that Thomas should be dated to the middle of the second century, after the composition of the gospels. If the majority of scholars is correct, then the emphasis that the JS puts on Thomas as having lots of authentic Jesus sayings is incorrect. The later dating would subject it to significant edits as the tradition developed.

I was baptized as an adult in '98. I identified as a Christian (albeit an odd one) before said cool event. This, of course, led to interesting discussions/arguments in seminary as to whether one had to be baptized in order to claim a Christian identity. But, alas, seminary is filled with lots of what I would consider to be propaganda to condition future pastors to push membership.

Anyway, back to the baptism.

I'm PC(USA). We'll do pretty much any form of baptismal ceremony (sprinkling or immersion in a sanctuary or at a river) as long as it is done within the context of communal worship. However, according to our Confessions (theological herigate), apparently it used to be the case that we only did sprinkling because that's the way Moses consecrated the people (with blood, not water).

I'm personally fond of sprinkling.

What does it mean to me? That depends on my mood. For me, I'd say primarily it is the way that Christians liturgically celebrate God's claiming power and enter into distinct community. Because my life has led me to believe that God's claiming power through sovereign love is beyond our awarness and not ultimately contingent upon our response, I believe in infant baptism. What better way to say that we are all ultimately like infants in our awarness of the divine depths of the greater Reality in which we are immersed. We see only in part, and even what we can see we can barely grasp. So, through the liturgy we are also saying something distinct about God identity as we claim our own.

I reallllly want to go see this soon. Unfortunately, I've not seen all of season 1 yet. I wonder if I should wait until I see the series before going to the movie.

Reading another post made me think that this might be an interesting discussion.

What do you all think about baptism? What does it mean to you (as opposed to what does it mean in itself)? Given that understanding, how do you then think it best administered (if at all)?

(Out of respect for decency I will not even mention my irreverant vision of a grand water slide that shoots out of the side of a giant Jesus.)

"And progress"? This is new. I never noticed that before. Thanks for pointing it out.

Good to see you here. bloved.

I was asked by Lily to start something regarding new churches.

I'm going to start by reposting what I said in another thread:

I have a personal interest in new church development (NCD) for a variety of reasons.

 

First, according to a friend of mine, he had read a study that said that the transformation of an existing congregation takes ten times more energy and resources than it takes for a new church start. From a stewardship perspective, that's significant. Anyone who has been part of a redevelopment process knows how hard it is to help congregations that are caught in the downward spiral of irrelevance to reconnect to their communities in a meaningful way. There are a whole slew of barriers that keep people out of churches or downright drive them away.

 

Second, I want to bring strategic change into the denominational systems. One of the best ways to do this is to create pockets of new life that can be protected from the "we've never done it that way before" kind of interference. This allows new generations to create their own spiritual communities that gives expression to thier own sense of spiritual connection.

 

Third, I don't want to devalue those who have put all those years into creating space for their own spirituality. Those of prior generations can easily be sacrificed on the altar of change for change's sake. To change their worship style from the traditional old rugged cross approach to Christian hip-hop for the sake of reconnecting with younger generations is inappropriate.

 

In short, I think that Christians have something significant to say about God, and starting new churches seems to be the most stewardly, effective, and respectful way of going about it. It enables us to honor our past and embrace the future at the same time. So it's not a matter of whether we have something to say; it's a matter of how we go about saying it.

Now, on to more...

Theologically, I always start with the assumption that God is actually somehow at work in the world around me (go figure). Therefore, my primary task isn't to "bring God" to the outsiders, but rather to seek to discern where God is already at work in the midst of those around me and to help them to seek to plug in.

From a missional perspective, this has distinct significance. First, it means that when "evangelizing" we are not trying to get people into traditional churches with the expectation that they conform to the established worship image if they want to be real Christians. Liturgy (music, ritual, flow) should be derived from real life because God is really active in life. When liturgy speaks to and through living experience, it becomes meaningful and transformative. Hence, the need for "alternative," "experiemental," or "indigenous" worship services.

Obviously, traditional worship works well ("is meaningful") for those who attend. To remove standard liturgical elements and replace them with water-filled trash cans and sandpits in the name of "progress" or "change" would be truly de-valuing to them and their spirituality. Not good. Therefore, in order to "make room" for new worshipful expressions and to "respect" the established worshiping traditions in a congregation, it is important to create multiple services that can take a multitude of forms. Thus, the formal worship of the community becomes "de-centered."

While this general structure could theoretically work with existing church structures, realisitically it is a lot easier to just start new communities. Resistance to useful change in established congregations is tremendous! (If you don't believe me, try telling the established powers that be in a congregation that they will no longer be the center of attention and indeed that people may well be leaving their services for other options and see how they respond.) I often hear "we need new people" from churchgoers, but I don't know the extent to which they are willing to adapt in order to make that possible.

You may be wondering at this point, "But how does the worship service function as the central feature/act of the new approach to worshiping community?" The answer is simple: it doesn't. Yes, what I propose would be the end of formal worship as the key feature of the community. Rather, the key/central feature of the community is the intentionality behind building a relationally-connected community. Whereas a church would have let's say 5-7 worship services in a week, the "knock-down, drag out, church-wide chili cook off and jamboree" (etc) would become the primary activity uniting its members.

The result: a de-centered church that makes room for a variety of ways to engage one's spiritual life and to give expression to that reality, while at the same time having large events (say every other month) that reinforce a singular identity as belonging to "First Community Church of Whereever." Worship then ceases to be something we do on Sunday morning, but rather is something that we "do" that is inseparable from daily living, community building, and making a difference in this world.

By starting new churches, a major barrier in "redevelopment" is bypassed: a disconnected church culture. Because they are "new" and not connected with the "establishment" they don't have all the cultural baggage to wrestle with and they are protected from such influences (in part anyway). Moreover, denominations are able to inject new "information" and life into the system, which could grow to becoming significant and a catalyst to widespread change.

Believe it or not, that's the short version. I can only hope it is coherent since I have to go.

Marie, welcome to the club!

So I don't "get" the urgency to grow in population. I also don't believe that more Christians automatically guarantee a better world. So? What gives? Why evangelize? Why not instead build a church that is a genuine crucible of transformation? Why not teach the really good news? that Life begins after you die TO THIS LIFE and enter into eternal life with Christ, as a Christ One yourself? that ALL of us are called to be mediators of Gods Good Pleasure here and now?

 

Oops, I'm preaching...my apologies.

 

Why not focus on building a stronger church?

I have a personal interest in new church development (NCD) for a variety of reasons.

First, according to a friend of mine, he had read a study that said that the transformation of an existing congregation takes ten times more energy and resources than it takes for a new church start. From a stewardship perspective, that's significant. Anyone who has been part of a redevelopment process knows how hard it is to help congregations that are caught in the downward spiral of irrelevance to reconnect to their communities in a meaningful way. There are a whole slew of barriers that keep people out of churches or downright drive them away.

Second, I want to bring strategic change into the denominational systems. One of the best ways to do this is to create pockets of new life that can be protected from the "we've never done it that way before" kind of interference. This allows new generations to create their own spiritual communities that gives expression to thier own sense of spiritual connection.

Third, I don't want to devalue those who have put all those years into creating space for their own spirituality. Those of prior generations can easily be sacrificed on the altar of change for change's sake. To change their worship style from the traditional old rugged cross approach to Christian hip-hop for the sake of reconnecting with younger generations is inappropriate.

In short, I think that Christians have something significant to say about God, and starting new churches seems to be the most stewardly, effective, and respectful way of going about it. It enables us to honor our past and embrace the future at the same time. So it's not a matter of whether we have something to say; it's a matter of how we go about saying it.

Living the Questions was suggested to me as a possible spiritual development course at our church. I know we've glossed over this before here, but now I'm looking for some feedback from people who have actually been through it.

More specifically, what worked? What didn't? I know there's a prior thread on this forum. I'd like to hear more though.

Thanks for the warm welcomes. It turns out, btw, that the Stockholm Inn is right down the road from me. Yummmmmmm.......

Carl: If you don't mind me asking, how is it that you know Rkfd?