irreverance

Here's my take on wealth in Luke-Acts. Something to consider when looking at Luke-Acts. The author seems to want to use material possessions as a narrative symbol of status. A couple of instances here. First, the establishment of the "deacons." They were created as a group to serve the hellenist widows, at least so the narrative goes. But instead we see them serve as a prophetic extension of the apostles. The responsibility of prophetic office is symbolized in trappings of table service. I like to think of this as being like the Prince of Wales. It really has nothing to do with "Wales." Rather, it is a material symbol of status. Second, look at the narrative of Ananias and Sapphira. In this narrative, these two were not slain by God because they refused to give their 10% tithe. Rather, they were slain because they did not give all. Again, the issue here is material used symbolically. The lack of material giving symbolized a lack of spiritual commitment. By being part of a community to which they themselves did not feel committed, they were, in effect, trying to "buy off" God. (Not that anyone would ever join a Christian community for the self-serving reward of salvation with minimal regard for mission of God itself. </sarcasm> ) So, when we look at how harshly treated wealth is in Luke-Acts, I think it is important to note that it is largely used symbolically. Therefore, I am in agreement with BrotherRog who said, "IMO, wealth in and of itself is not sinful but it is problematic; i.e. it does tend to sway people into thinking that they don't need God and that they somehow deserve to hold onto their wealth," and Darby who said, "A key distinction is that it is the "Love of money," not money, that becomes sinful. Do we own our money and possessions, or do they own us?" Perhaps that was an awful long way of saying, "ditto."

This is not quite exact, but it comes from M. Night Shyamalan's The Village. "Love is what moves people. They kneel before it in awe."

My general thoughts are that, when the rubber hits the road, "progressive" is a relative term. In a sense, one has to identify whether one is progressive based on one's particular context. Also, in the high-brow theological, high towers of the academy sort of way, the term would probably mean something than what it would "on the street." Therefore, I guess that you are the only one who can answer that. If you identify the 8 Points as symbolic of what it is to be a progressive Christian and you identify with those 8 Points, then I'd say you would have a claim to being a progressive Christian. When I post on things like progressives and post-evangelicals, I generally talk about it from a more "academic" perspective. In trying to identify differences, I like to think that I'm helping people identity and wrestle with a variety of issues. Not always does that work I guess. Sometimes, the talk about differences can too often overwhelm the similarities that are shared. The common identity that it vital gets lost. Bottom line: You seem to identify as a progressive. So, in my mind there's nothing wrong with saying you are one. If nothing else, you can be a unique one. Besides, we like you here. So, whatever you decide, we'll still claim you as one of our own.

"The attention of the heart, this quietness within movement is actually another, intimate movement that spontaneously arises in the moment between life and death, when the ego is wounded and God is still distant; this attention is prayer in the sense of the Psalmist who asks, and asks and asks; it is that which watches and waits in the night." ~~Jacob Needleman, Lost Christianity: A Journey of Rediscovery to the Centre of Christian Experience, 165.

My contemplative side has developed its own favorite ritual. I like to pop in my Dead Can Dance, The Serpent's Egg (DCD is gothic) or some similar sounding music. Then light candles which are nicely arranged all around and loose all other light. Then, I make the sign of the cross with water that I have in a glass candleholder nearby. Then I read a bit of Scripture in a lectio sort of way. Then into contemplative prayer. That's the idea anyway. Usually, some variation thereof.

If it is The Meaning of Jesus, then you will really want to read that book. It is an excellent pairing of progressive and evangelical thought. When reading the book, something to note: Wright is more concerned with preserving what the texts are saying. Meanwhile, Borg is more concerned with how our context can make sense of the texts. So the emphasis for Wright is on the ancient texts, while the emphasis for Borg is on the postmodern thought category.

Egad peoples! I go away for a while and everybody decides to live the entirety of thier lives within reach of the keyboard. I thought I'd never get to the end of this. In actuality, I just skimmed most of all this. Brace yourselves, I'm about to take us all back to the past. From a long, long time ago in a thread far, far away... Basically, it was an assertion that because the Scriptures are "God-breathed," they were without contradiction and therefore inerrant. Of course, when the obvious inconsistencies came about, the assertion was modified accordingly. Because of the intellectual necessity to have "perfect" texts, the modified version projected out a belief that there must have been at one time a set of perfect, original manuscripts. Since then, these have conveniently been lost, which makes it is impossible to "disprove" this seemingly "authoritative" understanding. So, it is no longer the texts that we have that are "inerrant," but the hypothetical original manuscripts. What we have today is inerrant inasmuch as it is faithful to those original manuscripts, which is considered to be about 99.9999999999999%. Thus, the distinction is rendered moot. Progressive theology tends to classify the Scriptures as authoritative because they are the story of our people and our relationship with God. As such, they are a central symbol of our faith, but are certainly not to be considered "inerrant" in any sense. Inspired people wrote the texts, which reflect their context and their own limited understanding. Well, actually, I don't think that there would be any progressive scholar out there who would take the virgin birth literally. Rather, it is seen as a literary invention by Matthew to indicate the political significance of Jesus in his time. (Remember that the first Roman Emperor, Caesar Agustus, also was reported to have a virgin birth.) Mythically portraying Jesus as being born of a virgin indicated him as the new "emperor." By the way, note that only Matthew records the virgin birth. Neither Mark nor John mention the earthly birth at all. And Luke only says that the vigin (who is betrothed) will conceive. We tend to read the virgin birth into Luke because we are used to Matthew. So, progressive scholars and theologians (as well as most mainstream conservative ones) deny a "literal" virgin birth, and have replaced it with a "symbolic" virgin birth. Very nice connection of Christ's diety with God's triune nature. Actually, the resurrection is the next one. This theory of atonement says that humanity, in its fallen state, could not redeem itself. Therefore, the Son came to us in Jesus. On the cross, the Son paid the blood-guilt for sin to the Father to ransom sinners. Obviously, this is "out" in progressive circles. It reeks too much of divine child abuse. What's "in" right now is salvation through "revelation." Jesus is "salvic" because he reveals God to us. Currently, the big question in progressive circles is: "Is Jesus salvic for all, or only for Christians?" It's ultimately about trying to figure out how other religions are also salvic. If one asserts that Jesus is salvic for all, then other religions are salvic because of Christ working through them. If one asserts that Jesus is only salvic for Christians, then Buddhists find their "salvation" through Buddha, Wiccans find their salvation through Nature, etc. Typically, this means that the physical body of Jesus has been raised into the realm of heaven. I think of it as God's version of a Star Trek transporter beaming Jesus out of the tomb and into the righ-hand throne. Again, it is a literal reading of the texts. I suspect that most progressives would say that the resurrection means that the life of Jesus could not be overcome by the power of death. Thus, life is stronger than death, love is stronger than hate, and hope is stronger than despair. I don't think that they are as open as you have suggested here. Fundamentalist theologians tend to have a pretty strong emphasis on the particulars of their understanding. Progressives tend to not subscribe to any of the above in any way other than truthful traditional symbolism. *********** And continuing with a completely different thought... Someone mentioned earlier something about someone identifying as an "evangelical" and who was hesitant to identify as a "progressive." (...or something like that...) I want to throw out a bit of my understanding of the current theological atmosphere. I believe that typically, those who follow a "progressive" theology tend to come from a liberal-mainline tradition. Evangelicals haven't had an equivalent until recently. What people like Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren represent is what is coming to be known as "post-evanglicalism" (I think it might have briefly been known as "post-conservative-evangelicalism"). Their current organizational scheme is "Emergent," whic is more of a conversation than an organizational structure. I suspect that many in the post-evangelical camp would be quite hesitant to identify with progressives because of political and theological reasons. Politically, if they identify with progressives, they will lose the trust needed to bring about change in their own tradition. Theologically, they are in a different place. Personally, I see the two movements as siblings born in this postmodern era. Both seem more than willing to dialogue with each other, which may be a good sign for the future.

Try changing the "mode" to rgb or cmyk. Then you might be able to "save as" a GIF.

In PhotoShop: Go to SAVE FOR WEB (rather than "save" or "saveas" under FILE). A screen will appear. Make sure that the file type is GIF (check near the top of screen) Notice that you can change the size and everything near the bottom of the screen. Let me know how it works.

Yeah, but it wasn't by choice. God made him do it. BTW: That's a great summary.

Sorry, but...uh...I had to be elsewhere, because...uh...God said I needed to be elsewere. *Yeah, that's the ticket.*

Oh boy! An opportunity for a history lesson! Before the late 1800s, all Christians were considered to be "evangelicals." But eventually two camps arose. First, the "modernists" were those who embraced modern advancements, and I believe they also tended to be "post-millenial." Then there were the later termed "fundamentalists" who wanted to protect Christianity from the errors of modernity. They tended to be "premillenials." Their eschatological orientations are important. "Post-millenials" tend to be those who look at history as progressing toward the Kingdom of God. Hence, they were predisposed toward embracing new developments. "Pre-millenials" believe that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and new developments can't be trusted, and therefore rejected them. Eventually, this would all erupt in the 1920s. I think the term "fundamentalism" came from the debates between the "fundamentalists" and "modernists" in the 1920s. A key text for understanding would be Liberalism and Christianity by Machen. As a church historian who studied the phenomenon defined it: fundamentalism is "militantly, anti-modernist, American evangelicalism." For the record, the five fundamentals that fundamentalists believe that one must believe in order to be a Christian: 1. Plenary inspiration of Scripture 2. Virgin birth 3. Diety of Christ 4. Sacrificial Atonement 5. Bodily Resurrection The neo-evangelicals were basically fundamentalists who decided that fundamentalism had to be upgraded...a bit (version 1.1). This is your basic conservative evangelicalism today. They were the "progressives" of their day who came out of the "fundamentalist" camp. A bit late in the conversation. But my 2 cents...for now.

Do you know what type of file it is? Try saving it as a GIF, and they uploading.

I've not read it. The Learning Company (www.teach12.com) gave me a free 2-session download by biblical scholar Bart Ehrman on the topic. Basically, its fiction in the "make-believe" sense. It really isn't based on biblical scholarship. BTW: :MAJOR plug for The Teaching Company here on my part. Great biblical scholarship for sale there.

I highly recommend overstock.com. Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time is just over $10 after shipping. Seeking: Another suggestion would be Brian McLaren's, A New Kind of Christian. This is his fictional telling of his own story and his transition from a conservative evangelical worldview to where he is now.

Regarding "Evangelical Lites": There is a movement out there known as "Emergent." Their main site is Emergent Village. Basically, this is a group coming out of an evangelical background who are wrestling with what the significance of the postmodern shift is for evangelicalism. I've been to a couple of their gatherings; they're a great group.

Welcome. I'll have to check out your previous haunt. (Just curious as to what happens there.)

Do you mind me asking where abouts you are? There's a slim chance we might be able to point you in the direction of a group in your area. Also, a book you might be interested in: John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. It might be a difficult read, but it might also be inspiring if you stick with it.

Yes, I did feel threatened. The introduction to the historical-critical method and its implications effectively disassembled how I saw not just the Bible but the world around me. Encountering Borg was an odd thing. On the one hand, I was angry because of what he offered. (How could be be Christian if he didn't believe the Bible?) On the other, I was undeniably intrigued. Luckilly, I was not going to a church at this time, so the normative influence of a "like-minded" faith community wasn't there to prevent me from pursuing this new thing. Faith communities can be double-edged swords: they strengthen and the stifle at the same time. I had hit a point at which my world had outgrown my previous faith and I needed space to wrestle with it. I don't know that my story in this is all that unique. I think that many go through similar things. It sounds like you are going through similar things right now. I seem to remember such questions as "is it 'safe' to follow up on all this?", "what am I supposed to believe?", and (perhaps the hardest) "how do I deal with the embarassment of recanting what I have already said, especially given that others who are dear to me hold to it?" Once the isolation is intruded upon and other ways of understanding Christianity are encountered, there seems no going back. For me, my sense of security in going forward was found the conviction that God wanted me to seek, and God would remain faithful even if I were in error.

I've only been in one Muslim-Christian dialogue. It wasn't too bad, but unfortunately it wasn't that great. I'll have to check out your link.

My spiritual path has been a bizarre one, but at one point I ended up in a fundamentalist phase. I was really engaging the Bible from a literalist view. Then Hans Kung sent me for a loop and the question arose: "How many horses did Ahaziah have?" Well in one place, the Bible says 4k, and in another 40k. That was not a matter of interpretation; it was a matter of distinct numerical difference that was incompatible. I could have ignored it, but not really. So my path went in a completely different direction. That was when I encountered Borg and Spong. Borg traumatized me (I was angry for a week). After I had reconciled myself with what he had to say, I ran into Spong who traumatized me again. Then, I moved in a very "liberal" direction. And that was the next leg of my journey.

Glad to be of service!

I just thought I'd start a thread to ask people what types of things we would like to discuss. Biblical/textual discussions? Theological discussions? Scientific discussions? History discussion? This is just to name a few. Perhaps by throwing out some ideas we might be able to generate more meaningful discussions (not that what we are not doing already is not meaningful, but this might make it more so). So, chose your poison!

Ecclesiastes 1.2: "'Utterly meaningless," says the Teacher. 'All things are meaningless!'"

MLK=one of my heroes. Oddly enough, I confess not knowing as much about him and his life. Rather, he is symbolic to me of all that is human and holy in the quest for justice. One of the reasons he is important to me is universalizing of human worth. This is a vital reminder to me, since the term "postmodern" tends to be a shibboleth of mine. He is a reminder of what we might forget if we descend to far into a relativized world. Could it be true that not all truths are created equal? Could it be that although "justice for me" might not be the same as "justice for you," that there is still a greater reality by which we are all called to be accountable? Could it be that the phrase "you can't do that to a human being" can authoritatively be followed up by the phrase "because God says so" because God is the ultimate threat to injustice? While we praise King for his work, we must also recognize that his world is not our own. Much has changed and he serves to beg more questions than give us exemplary answers. What is "justice"? His understanding of equality is distinctly not the understanding of those who advocate for special interest groups. But our understanding of systemic power has changed. How do we confront "injustice"? His world was one of "legalized" injustice (de jure ). They could stand in opposition to something tangible, or on the books, which could be overturned. But what about cultures in which the injustice is of a de facto sort? What if there is nothing tangible to point to and say "that's wrong"? Surely, his approach would not work in such a setting (see for example what happens with Malcom X). At what point does the cry for "justice" become another tool for "injustice," and how do we discern the shift? We see that right now in Iraq with the US troops engaged in a mission of "liberation of the oppressed" of the oppressed peoples, only to establish an occupational force. Questions. Questions and more questions. But not nearly so many answers.