irreverance

I'm posting because I honestly don't understand the "progressive" position. It doesn't make sense to me from a historical or theological standpoint.

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

"Unlike the later forms of Christianity, the Jewish temple system was not premised on the assumption of an essential brokenness in divine/human relations and the solution to sin and death that would lead beyond this world.  ...The Jewish temple religion rested on an assumption that humans were essentially at hom in and made for this world.  ...The sacrificial practices of the temple were a means of keeping the order finely tuned and in balance.  ...The purpose of the sacrificial system both as represented in the priestly sources of the scripture nad as instituted in the second temple period was not to atone for personal sin or to provide a means for dealing with human alienation from God; these ideas have been projected onto the temple system by Christian and later Jewish theology." (207)

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.

But her messages aligned with mine -- her ingenuous words are infused with her belief that our relationship with God is based on equality, not subservience. You stonewalled her, too.

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.

Anyway have given this personal God thing a lot of thought (both before and aft). My sister is quite literal about this.

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.

...I don;t agree with the far left that believes that the bible is just a collection of positive man-made "myths." I feel that many of the Scriptures that Fundamentalist claim are literal are indeed actually symbolic in nature...especially the ones dealing with purification by fire...just like in many Native American cultures...But I don;t embrace the belief that Jesus did NOT really raise from the dead and that that this is merely a metaphoric 'myth..

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!

But I can see my desk.  ...

I can't. I'm jealous.

...I know that it's mostly empty space and that for it to be "there" is amazing, a miracle.

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.

Everybody has a story to tell.  Some are wild and spectacular.  Others not so much.  As I present mine I recognize the extent to which my own story has vacillated between the extremes of exciting and downright boring.  But it is still my story nonetheless, and I believe that everybody’s story is worth telling.  For to tell one’s story is to wax poetically in the native tongue of God: the language of life.  To tell one’s story is enter into a deeper state of vulnerability to both God and ourselves.  To tell one’s story is part of what it is to pray. 

 

I don’t understand prayer the way that I used to.  When I was quite young, I learned that praying meant talking to God.  To be honest, I don’t recall at what age I learned that lesson, I just know that learn it I did.  And so I spoke aloud, praying to the Spirit that I had encountered, who came to be known to me as “God,” asking for help when I needed it.  Sometimes, though, I also felt like I could have a conversation with this Spirit who seemed so near.  I felt like I could tell God about my troubles and concerns as well as my joys. 

 

Later in life, I encountered contemplative prayer.  Although I had done meditation before, now I had come to see this as a valid form of Christian prayer.  It was at that time that I learned to pray without words.  I leaned that part of prayer was to sit and simply rest while knowing that God was near.  I have seen others metaphorically describe the move to contemplative prayer as like moving from “loving” someone to “being in love” with someone.  Loving someone is the emotional state where two people who love each other do things together, talk with each other, and actively seek to participate in each other’s life.  Being in love includes that, but is also comfortable with just being in the presence of the other without interaction, which means being comfortable with silence  The experience of contemplative prayer was a breakthrough for me.

 

And yet later, I read a book by Jacob Needleman entitled Lost Christianity.  In it, he talked about prayer as the state of being “vulnerable.”  Prayer, for him, is “attention.”  And so he quotes Father Sylvan who writes:

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. (Needleman, Lost Christianity, 165, author's emphasis)

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.

Another thing is the far right Protestants, Catholics, LDS, and JW's..each of these conserative faith groups views everyone ELSE as lost unsaved and hopelslly false heathens who they should not wast any chance at getting spiritual koodies from. Such groups will only innerfaith with groups who agree with THEM.

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.

DCJ,

 

You've brought up an interesting point:  the Trinity.  Can you give any kind of a scriptural basis for the Trinity? (not that I stand on firm biblical ground all the time either).  The Trinity can certainly be inferred, but is there a specific scripture that you had in mind?

 

My personal view is that it is a way of conceptualizing our relationship (and Jesus's relationship) with God; whereby God is Creator (Father), Created (Son), and Relationship (Holy Spirit).

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).

We agree that God's Word should not contradict itself, but interpretations might.

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.

...(My eyes glaze over when I try to use my Strong's Concordance)...

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?

I have some thoughts to share. But first I would like to hear what the gentleman said whom you refered to. Please X+P the text.

OK - this needs to be developed more. It's a rambling form of what I'm thinking but I want to express it before I lose it.

Yes, I have many comments. First, I think what you have here is great stuff. Keep working on it. Second, I have much to say about it myself, but don't really have the time to develop it now. (sorry) Maybe another thread ("Divine Love/Religious Identity...working with God in the rubix cubicle...")?

Jeep: Great quote! Thanks.

BeachOfEden: Robert Fuller's Naming the Antichrist: The Historyof an American Obesssion says something about this. In his conclusion he writes,

The apocalyptic heritage to which modern premillennialists are heir is adept at projecting such anxiety onto a mythic villain.  The symbol of the Antichrist shapes an ontological reality congruent with these anxieties and in so doing satisfies the believer's need to interpret the surrounding world (e.g., humanistic education, rock music, ecumenical religion, hopes for world peace) as frought with danger and deceit.  The tyranny and deceit attributed to the Antichrist mirror the anxiety and self-loathing aroused by one's own continuing inclinations to jeopardize connection with the "Higher Other" of Christ.  ...The point here is that psychological as well as sociological threats to our sense of agency and self-worth are likely to dispose us to apocolyptic, as opposed to prophetic, modes of religious discourse.  ...Those who engage in naming the Antichrist feel themselves exorcised of the demons of disbelief and consequently numbered among those who will be vindicated on the day of final reckoning.  Like all obsessions, however, the naming of the Antichrist seeks to preserve the self by narrowing rather than enlarging its field of vision.  The tragedy of this obsession is that it closes off believers from the possibility of finding an idealized or "Higher Other" immanent in the world about them.  Obsession with the Antichrist closes off persons from discovering the redemptive and wholeness-making possibilities of teh many persons, ideas, and cultural activities that lie immediately before them.  In religious terms, the obsession with the Antichrist has channeled many Americans' desire to be loyal to God into hate-filled crusades rather than into efforts leading to a deepened receptivity to, or communion with, the "Higher Other" (whether conceived as trascendent or immanent) in relation to which they can know themselves to be inherently valued and prized.

What disturbs me about the "heaven/hell" rhetoric as the membership imperative is the way that it promotes what I see as quite frankly being unhealthy psychological and sociological states that actively prevent people from laying claim to the life, the destiny, that they have received from God. (Hence, my own personal bitternes toward "fundamentalism" in any religion.)

BrotherRog: Thanks for the link on the thermodynamics of hell. Very funny.

All: When I think of "hell" I think of it as a symbol of divine wrath for injustice. Thus it points to a break in the divine relationship and separation from divine authority. Therefore, for me, it is important to continue the rhetoric of fires of judgement to make rhetoric of the kingdom of God meaningful. To say that hell exists (metaphorically speaking), is to say that God is not a pushover God and does not support or condone injustice. So, the language of hell is the language that justifies saying "no!" in the face of those who would engage in wonton atrocity in this world.