irreverance

Do Gays Cause Hurricanes?

by Janis Walworth.....

Now THAT was toooooo funny!

Thanks! I missed y'all too.

I'm back! So, I keep dropping off the face of the internet periodically, but upon my return this time I have good news. My new job is to be the Interim Associate Pastor at Second Congregational United Church of Christ in Rockford, IL. Wooo hooo!

Fwiw, being stuck in transition sucks. (I hate moving. Hate it, hate it, hate it) I'll be glad when everything is back to normal.

I'm nearly done with the move, which means that sometime in the future (hopefully "near") I will have regular internet access (as opposed to just at the office, which significantly limits my virtual life).

I worry that I will have to compromise my true views in order to maintain employment. I am afraid that it is hard to get a position at the most progressive congregations within the denomination. My pastor is a TCPC type and has been very encouraging. (She was at the Re-imagining Conference.) She thinks I should start a church from scratch, which to me doesn't seem like a realistic idea at all.

Although I don't know exactly what your "true views" are, I suspect that you would find that you are not as unusual as you think you are. Anxiety over being able to fit in at a church is probably pretty normal after coming out of seminary. Often, people go through some serious shifts in thier faith because of the experience. As a result, they compare where they were before entering with where they are upon exit, with the prior being equated with "the church." I bet even evangelicals who slide slightly to the left even go through this.

I'm also willing to bet that when people hear CTS they will assume you are "liberal" or "progressive." So to a certain extent, they are expecting some challenging views to come from you because of your education.

Remember that Borg and Spong both identify with Christianity. Both of them have a great amount of respect for the tradition. While they disagree with how the tradition has played out recently, they are not working to destroy it but rather to reclaim it for our day and age.

I see traditional language as poetry meant to point to something of cosmic depth and beauty. I use it because I believe it is "true," if not "literal." But I also use it in a way that draws us into the greater "truth" that cannot be captured by the "literal." This approach reinvests it with its original purpose: to help us to connect with God.

And don't knock new church development. It takes 10 times as much energy and resources to move an existing church from point "A" to point "D" than it does to start a new church at point "D". Yes, NCD is a lot of work, and it takes a special calling. But I also believe that it is the area that is needed most if we are to seek to establish a "relevant Christianity" in North America. I would suggest looking into that, and then letting us know what you find out.

This is, of course, a malevalent thing to do at someone's funeral.

Having said that...

The sad thing is that they continue to get media coverage for their increasingly bizarre protests,

I was talking with someone who is part of a UCC church that supports gays and lesbians (maybe they were "open and affirming"). When Phelps came to town, they were upset when he didn't protest them. They were hoping that he would so they could get the publicity. After all, what better way to announce your support for LGBT civil and ecclesiological rights? (And the media coverage is free.)

Question: What is your favorite animal, domestic or otherwise, and WHY?

I'm going to have to go the via negativa here and start with what I don't like. I'm not overly fond of creepy crawly things or reptile-like organizms. Fluffy or furry...or feathery...are more to my liking. For a while, I was on a tiger kick, but I really don't like the idea of dinner time turning on me. Something I can have on my lap while watching TV would be good too. I'm going to go with a Cocker Spaniel. It would be cute and bouncy, although I might need to sedate it when I want to go to sleep.

Question: Where was the last place you went on vacation? (And tell us a bit about it.)

A while back I think someone had brought up the 8pts of TCPC. Back then I mentioned that I do not see the 8pts as a subscriptionist list, but rather see them as being more symbolic. That means that some people here may emphasize some of them over others, and indeed some people may disagree with some of them, while agreeing with the rest. From my understanding, the spirit of the 8pts is far more important than the letter. And something that is distincly interwovent through them seems to be a renunciation of a subscriptionist approach to Christianity.

I do not believe that it is helpful to renounce literalist readings of the Bible (or any other creed or confesssion) through a literalist approach of the 8pts. In the end, it is literalism that wins. (In fact, I generally argue that the key to understanding the shift to a progressive Christianity is found in abandoning the literalist lens in favor of a metaphoric one.)

If we accept a rigid interpretive grid regarding who does and who doesn't get voice in this community, then we close the door to growth. I know that my beliefes change through time and circumstances, and I assume that others do as well. Christianity has evolved through time. Christianity will continue to evolve. That means that progressive Christianity needs to have open ends: open in the front to allow for a greater sense of belonging and acceptance, and open at the ends to promote greater spiritual growth.

Moreover, we must never confuse ourselves with God. Just because we have a theological perspective that unites us, we must be careful not to fall into the tribalistic mentality that assumes that we are "right" by declaring an end to dialogue.

Therefore, my understanding of the vision of TCPC is that we are trying to form an enlivening community of creative exploration that promotes quality relationships grounded in human respect and openness, rather than a community grounded in a checklist of common beliefs.

I have Living Buddha, Living Christ. Loved it.

I just got this yesterday. I just started it. Right now, he is in the process of revealing ways that the literalistic reading of the Bible has been used to bring evil into this world in the name of God. I have yet to see where he goes with it. But I understand that he will probably end up with something like Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time. So far, it's pretty basic.

Anyone else got this?

Overstock.com has it for cheap. And where there is cheap, there is me.

If you were someone without much familiarity with biblical issues you might well buy the hyperbole but any Southern Baptist who has attended bible study for any time can drive a truck through some of the holes in his arguments (eg women at the tomb controvery) or his "No credible scholar still asserts xyz".

Actually, that's what I used to think too, and then I did more research into biblical scholarship and discovered the extent to which that was true.

In fact, when I first came across this book, I was in my own "fundamentalist" phase. It was quite the shock. Borg didn't help matters much for me. But, being the curious one that I am, I sought to understand why these people were saying what they did. The two of them were instrumental in that part of my own faith journey, and I largely credit them for forcing me into deep introspection that has brought significant transformation in my own life, the like of which sometimes have to come about through hearing hard to handle truth.

While sometimes I think Spong is a bit over the top in his pronouncements, it seems that there is a distinct reason for it. When speaking out on behalf of those who have been damaged emotionally (or even physically) as a result of a supposedly "religious" way of being, then you don't bring an end to the cycle of violence by saying "pretty please...with sugar on top?" As one who encountered him while going through my own fundamentalist phase, his assertions forced me to consider how I was a part of the system of violence, and to what degree that participation could really be considered "divine."

I'd summarize his attempt at shocking us into divine truth this way: religious violence never has been and never will be holy; it is always evil.

Admittedly, this is a very difficult lesson for those immersed in institutionalized systems whose authority is based on fear, domination, and shame...most especially when "holy writ" seems to authenticate such a reality. Sometimes its just too hard to see out of our own boxes.

I would suggest two books from him as back to back reading. First, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, because it is intended to critique the dominant Christian tradition. Second, A New Christianity for a New World, because it is an attempt to proposing a new vision of what could be. They go together quite well.

I have this, but I haven't read much of it. From the reception that it has received, this is definitely one of those books that will make a difference in how people think, if for no other reason, it publically validates those who agree, but who have been silent due to perceived pressure from conservative church authorities.

What little I have read is pretty cool.

Question: What important goal have you attained so far?

World domination. Oh, wait, you said "have attained." Well, most recently I have my podcast up and running. It's a pretty big thing to me. It's about a new approach to ministry.

Question: Have you ever tried to see how many licks it really does take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop, and if so how many did you get to?

Hooray! Congratulations!

Congrats! Now go out there and corrupt the youth of America!

Sounds like you may have found the place to be. Welcome.

Yup, it was me who made the comment about liberal theology and Nazis. I think Fred summed up pretty well what I was trying to say in his follow-up post. I should have written something more like "liberal theologians" (which doesn't implicate liberal theology in an of itself, but shows how it, like any other ideology, can become a vital weapon in oppression).

A bit of clarity, though. My understanding of Bonhoffer and Tillich is that they don't really speak from theological liberalism. They belong more in the camp of the neo-orthodox (though I heard someone say that that Tillich was more "neo" than "orthodox") with Barth.

I am actually really curious to know what it is that interest Progressive Christians to inner-dialog with conservatives.

I can only offer my answer to this and don't pretend to speak for others. There are seveal reasons.

1. Liberal Christianity supported Hitler. This serves as a reminder to me that just because a theolgical approach is considered "liberal" or "progressive," it doesn't mean that automatically it is leading us closer to God. I believe that the more conservative Karl Barth was closer to the mind of God in his condemnation of the Nazi regime than were the liberal theologians who supported Hitler. When we forget such lessons in history, we are doomed to repeat them.

2. The second is a two parter about the transcendence and immanence of God.

A. I believe that God is well beyond my finite comprehension. Out of respect for God's transcendence, I recognize that just because I believe something to be true about God (which makes it my truth), it doesn't make it true in and of itself. I've been through enough theological shifts to recognize that all theologies are relative. This is about theological humility.

B. I believe that God is at work in the world and in the lives of others in the same way that God is at work in my own life. I experience God at work in my life giving greater birth to this thing that Christians identify as "salvation." As such, I am always becoming more than I already am. Because of my personal focus on the Incarnation, I tend to intimately tie together what it is to be human and what it is to be divine. As I "grow in Christ," I am growing in my humanity, because of the work of the Spirit in my life. I understand this as integral to the process of "becoming human" itself. Therefore, I see this process happening in those around me, conservative and liberal alike.

Yes, I'm talking about the immanence of God here. Because I believe that the becoming of other humans is intimately tied into the nearness of God in their lives, I interact with them with an expectation that I can and will encounter God through them, despite the fact that they can be very "other" than myself. Because I respect the sovereignty of God, I respect their freedom from my self. Therefore, I do not devalue them by wielding the powers of shame and exlusion against them. Rather, I am open to the truth that they bear because I am seeking the truth of God that I experience through them, even though I might vehemently disagree or even downright condemn certain beliefs or actions. There is no such thing as an openness to the holy Other unless we are open to the immanence of God in the "other" that is our neighbor.

3. There are different understandings of what "progressive" means. (Another multi-parter.)

A. On the one hand, it is a social stance. Certain issues come to the fore here, such as civil rights, economic responsibility, unjust use of military power.

B. On the other hand it is a theological stance. Under the progressive umbrella, we find liberation theology, process theology, some neo-orthodox theology, and other general revisionist approaches.

C. The above two don't have to go together. For example, Brian McLaren and the Emergent movement would probably fit into the "theologically conservative, yet socially progressive" camp. Meanwhile, John Shelby Spong would, of course, fit into both.

D. Progressive is a relative term (which is kind of related to the previous point). We have mentioned "openness theology" around here. Theologically, that's a very conservative approach. But, it would probably be labelled "progressive" (indeed dangerously so) in the SBC. So, are openness theologians "progressive?" Well, for their denomination, yes they are. But as far as the larger theological landscape goes, no they are not.

3. As a trinitarian, I believe that God is more about "relationship" than "belief." One of the ways that God works in this world is through the people of God entering into relationship with one another in such a way that they grow together. Therefore, the life of faith seems to be less about believing the right things about God or pursuing the right political agenda, and more about living out quality relationships that embody an other-centered, justice-oriented, and self-giving love. We are becoming vessels of divine, unconditional grace as we become more indescriminate in our expressions of that quality love.

I agree with everything said so far. Admittedly, I've only read Pinnock, so I don't know much about it.

But I like the way a theology prof described it. It's evagelicalism's version of process theology. Basically, the understanding of God's sovereignty is akin to me playing chess with a chess master. I am free to make whatever move I want, and the chessmaster doesn't know what I'm going to do. Yet, despite my freedom, we all know how the game ultimately ends: the chessmaster wins.

Here's the link to my official podcast: Eclectic Podcasting Mass.

If you get an aggregator (mine is from Doppler Radio), you can subscribe (my feed address is http://feeds.feedburner.com/eclecticpodcastingmass ) and it will check for updates when you tell it to.

If anyone is interested in spending the time, I'd love some feedback. Thanks!

DKC, I haven't forgotten about this. I'm piecing together a lengthy response in my spare time. Sorry about the hang time.

So what does "orthodoxy as established in the council of Nicaea" teach about atonement?

Actually, I'd say that the Nicene Creed and the trintarian theology that follows it dosn't say anything specific about atonement. However, there are many implications for the language and its intent. It talks about Christ as being "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one Being with the Father." So, in simple terms, it is to say that because the Son is fully One with the Father (and the Spirit), there is no time and no place in which the will or actions of one member of the Trinity is in opposition to another.

Here's the basic scenario for the blood atonement theory. Humanity has dishonored the father by sinning. In order to make things "right," the Father demands and has effectively decreed the penalty, which is death. The Son, meanwhile, being compassionate steps in to take the blow and heads off the Father's wrath. Effectively, we have two Persons of the Trinity at odds with one another. According to Nicene orthodoxy (which is the measuring stick for anything that can validly be called "orthodoxy"), God cannot have conflicted being or action. So, the blood atonement is in contradiction to Nicene orthodoxy. Which I would argue makes it by definition "unorthodox."

Now, having said that, I think that from the lens of pastoral theology, it is a great theory. We humans can identify easily with a conflicted being since we deal with it daily. Let's say, for example, that someone has deeply offended me. On the one hand, I want to smite them, but on the other I want to forgive. What, pray tell, shall I do? What is the most divine/just/holy way to deal with the situation? Well when I look at the cross and the blood atonement theory, I see that God, too, struggles with such things, torn between the smiting and the forgiving. But, God being truly holy, through the Son (who reveals the divine will perfectly) shows us the way, and we know that to forgive is divine, even at great personal cost.

So, (perhaps ironically) while the blood atonement theory is technically a perversion of Christian orthodoxy (high theology), it can be truly powerful in helping people to connect with God and to participate in the divine life of the Father/Son/Holy Spirit in the midst of daily life (pastoral or low theology). And since the purpose of theology is really to help us to connect with God, the blood atonement can indeed be considered "true," if not "exclusive."

...birthday to you! Happy birthday to you!

Happy birthday dear Altheia!

Happy birthday to you!

THAT was too funny!

As I've been reading through all this (and other related posts), I hear questions regarding the Christian call to justice, and questions regarding the Christian call to be in true relationship with others different from ourselves.

Now, I shall talk about my own understanding of "Christian Justice."

*drags out soapbox and steps up*

*ahem*

First I want to begin by stating that my understanding of Christian justice is rooted in my conviction that Jesus (who was fully human and fully divine) calls us into discipleship to follow his divine way, and as such to become more fully human ourselves. As Jesus has identified with humanity, so too are we called to drop our parochial or tribal identities in favor of identifying with “being human” or the “human way of being.” This, I think, leads us down three paths, which are relative to a given situation. All of these are vital components of "justice."

First, Christians are called to be peacemakers. Christian peacemaking, at least in my mind, is a pro-active attempt to stop the violence before it starts. This category includes especially the various forms of boundary-crossing dialogue, such as interfaith dialogue, cross-cultural dialogue, and so on. It also includes attempts to broaden perspectives by helping people to connect experientially by contact with those who are different. When people understand where others are coming from and can identify with them on at least some level, then they are more open to creative solutions and are more likely to shy away from violence in its various forms. This is what happens when Christian peacemaking is at its best.

Second, Christians are called to be prophetic. Ultimately, the prophetic act is the proclamation that we stand under the Divine Covenant. As Christians who claim to be under the Covenant of Christ, it is our assigned task to work for the outpouring of divine justice in this world, a creaturely order that reflects the image of the God who is a union and communion of self-giving love. We do so as we give voice and empower the poor, the marginalized, and the oppressed. We do so when we stand firmly against the exploitation of human beings for profit. We do so when we boldly proclaim the right of full human inclusion where there is exclusion or neglect.

Third, Christians are called to be a reconciling people. Sometimes, justice actually prevails. When that happens, there are still a lot of hurt people. The struggle for justice cannot happen without people getting wounded on a variety of different levels. Often, those who have new feelings of empowerment will want to overstep their bounds and become vengeful toward those who have treated them unjustly in the past. And those who have been moved from centers of power find themselves afraid of what vengeance might mean. As soon as the battle for justice is over, a new battle almost immediately begins. But from a Christian perspective, the cause of justice is never about vengeance or dominance; it is always oriented toward a just social order that is solidified in reconciliation. Everybody makes mistakes. Those who have been agents of injustice are as much victims (if not to the same degree) of a dog-eat-dog world as those who have been oppressed. They too are products of society. They too are in need of forgiveness. They too need to experience the grace of God in their lives so that they too can know that they do not have to walk the path that they are on. The work of reconciliation resists both the counter-oppression by the previously oppressed and resists the demonization of the “other” which perpetuates the violence. It flows from the commitment to preserve the integrity and dignity of all humanity.

So, in my mind, the quest for Christian justice is not just incomplete, but also questionable if it does not seek all three components. Indeed, to strive for the prophetic while neglecting the reconciling or peacemaking aspects really only serves to readjust the boundaries of the domination system.

Therefore, I would propose the question: To what extent can we really say that we are "seeking justice" if we are not willing to engage in the hard work of "peacemaking" with those who are different from us, even theologically? I don't believe that entry into dialogue with the religious right is an option. Rather, I believe it is our inescapable obligation to God to promote the politics of peace with those with whom we share Table. After all, if we cannot love those with whom we share in the baptismal waters of life, how in the world are we supposed to love our enemies, those who would steal away our lives?

(Yes, this too shall someday be on my podcast, but not yet.)

Hee hee.

I just noticed that your signature responded to Altheia's.