irreverance

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.

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, 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.

That sounds like something akin to what David Tracy would say. As a process theologian, by chance are you familiar with his work? Righ now I'm reading A Blessed Rage for Order.

There is a theory out there called the "Andover theory" because it was devised at Andover-Newton Theological Seminary by...well, someone (don't know who). Were you making a direct ref to that? If not, you might be interested in checking it out. Revs Box, Thank you for your posting your perspective for us. I do have to warn you, however, that many of the perspectives presented here may make you a bit uncomfortable. I say that because of the force (underlining and boldtype) that you used to make your point, which may identify a possible emotional reaction at the keyboard. Just a heads-up reminder that this is a place for progressive Christians to discuss openly where they are in life, their questions and concerns, what is and is not meaningful to them. If I have misunderstood the emphasis of your post, please let me know.

I thought I'd start something to liven things up a little. I expect that most people here are well acquainted with each other enough to feel comfortable expressing their views on controversial matters as concisely and yet as respectfully as possible. This post is meant to be a stretch for all of us. I noticed on another thread that there that there seems to be an underlying tension regarding what is theological "fair game" for Christian identity. Typically, orthodoxy asserts that doctrine is authoritative for the church and personal theology is not. The established boundaries for what is acceptible for "Christian" discussion and faithful growth is decided by the corporate church (aka, tradition). Typically, to step beyond the pale is to enter into heresy. In order to change the boundaries of the discussion, the tradition must first be changed. However, progressive Christianity by its nature seems to want to challenge this very approach to what is a "valid" Christian mode of theological reflection. Such is expected when the movement does not sit in the center of power. A good example is JS Spong. By orthodox standards, he has stepped well out of bounds (the parameters of the discussion have not yet been changed enough by the powers that be to include him in the "faithful" discussion). Yet, in many respects, he typifies the progressive challenge. Now the question: Do you believe there are there boundaries on what can be considered a "progressive Christian identity"? I am asking on two levels. First , what are your personal boundaries (that which draws out of you the phrase "I identify as a Christian"). Second , should there be corporate boundaries to give a sense of cohesiveness to the identity itself or can anyone join (for example, could someone who hates the Bible, thinks the gospel stories to teach stupidity, thinks Jesus was a moron, and who works as a freelance assassin with little regret, say with acceptance from the progressive Christian community that accepts only self-identification to be authoritative, "Yeah, I identify as a Christian"?) I expect that there will be many different approaches to this one, so it should be interesting.

Jeep and Fatherman, this is for you: You mentioned the "Course in Miracles" on another thread. I have no clue what you are talking about. Please pardon my ignorance and fill me in.

For what it's worth, this board in general seems to be pretty quiet. I was just wondering who posts regularly and who is lurking. So, here's the request: If you post regularly, reply to this. If you read regularly but don't post, reply to this. Everybody, tell us how you got here in the first place. Now, back to me... *ahem* Well, it looks like I am now a relatively regular poster. I originally connected with this site through a google search for "progressive Christianity" (it was a match; go figure). Later, a friend told me about it (that was when I signed it). I hadn't posted yet. Recently, I reconnected with this place through a reference on the Proggie board on B-Net. Now, it's y'all's turn.

Personally, I don't believe that had Kerry been elected that the world would be much better. But then again, my primary concerns on this question are theological ones rather than political ones. Theologically speaking, American Christianity needs to put a visible, public face on the progressive alternative. Currently, the popular conception of what it is to be a Christian (in both belief and practice) comes from tele-evangelists. Therefore, Christianity has already been discredited in the minds of many as a viable religious path into the heart of God. A major question in this is, how should we publicly relate to neo-fundamentalism? Should we decry it as a pretender to the Christian lineage? Do we accept it as a valid expression of Christianity? Such questions are all the more important since a "fundamentalist" phase seems to be a very natural stage in human faith development (see James Fowler's, Stages of Faith; it is called the "mythic-literal" stage, which corresponds with pre-adoloscent development). So, I think there are distinct theological and missional reasons to publically assert our legitimate Christian identity. The big question is, how do we do it?

Ohhhhhh.... How was I supposed to know that the words on the buttons meant something. Thanks!

PantaRhea, please tell me how you got the "quote" to be followed by a name and a date. I can't figure out how to do that.

Depends on my mood and what I had for breakfast. Generally, my personal theology draws on lots of stuff, so sometimes yes, sometimes no. Never assume that I will be consistent.

Here I think we're talking about point #2, which is to "Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us." Now, I must admit that I don't take the 8 points "literally." In other words I don't think that one has to subscribe to all the points to validly use the term "progressive" for self-identification. My understanding of Point 2 is that there is salvation in and through other religious systems. In other words, Christ (who is "a" revelation of God) is salvic for Christians, but Buddha and his teachings is salvic for Buddhism because he too is "a" revelation of God for those in more of a Buddhist culture. An excellent example of such an argument is Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki's Divinity and Diversity: A Christian Affirmation of Religious Pluralism. She is a process theologian (God is not a static "ground," but a dynamic "process"). Thus she tends to emphasize the diversity among religions (which still remain salvic in their own way). I'd have to check, but I suspect that Spong would fit into a slightly different theological category. He comes from a more existential background (God as "Ground of Being" like Tillich's theology). Hence, he tends to emphasize the "sameness" of religions. In the end though, it appears that the two end up on the same page: God is found in the best of all religions. If one understands "salvation" as participating in the divine life (as it is understood according to pretty basic trinitarian doctrine), then indeed the possibility for participation in the divine life seems available in all religions in one form or another, and thus salvation can be effected through them. My struggle is that I have a high degree of respect for other religions and do believe that the Spirit is active in them, but I also take a trinitarian view of God and therefore look to the person and work of Jesus as the primary tool of discernment with regards to what is and is not holy/just/divine, not only in my own religion, but also in others. So in a sense, I am willing to claim that God is "fully" revealed in Christ in a way that doesn't happen anywhere else. Of course, I also recognize that Jesus is a "contextual" person, and that too has to be grappled with when we try to connect his life/work to our world. Hence, we can talk about the "nature" or "character" of God being revealed in him, which may call for different action in our context than he engaged in his. (Take the issue of divorce, for example. He flat out prohibited it. Today, however, I believe it is non-sinful to allow it. Both, contextually, point to the "compassion" or "compassionate nature" of God, but in different ways in different contexts.) So, in a sense, my personal theology is a mess. But I don't consider that a bad thing. Life is messy. We are finite beings. Maybe we need a messy theological lens to be able to see God at work in the world more clearly. Theology is a tool that leads us into deeper intimacy with the divine. So I don't mind my mess. A couple of things I take to heart though. I think there is a danger in overemphasizing that "we are all the same." By doing so, we reject the uniqueness of others. It is a very imperialistic thing really. On the other hand, I think there is a danger in overemphasizing that "we are all different." Then, we reject the commonality that makes for dialogue and friendship. Such fragmentation leads to "tribal warfare" of a sort. We need each other in this world, but we also need each other to be "other." Without both, we forget that we are all part of one big human family.

I think it depends on what one considers "salvation" to be. I think that many would see Jesus as salvic by being a divine revelation. I suspect that there may even be some that would argue that because "salvation comes through Christ" (or whatever similar phrase could be put in here) that ALL religions (including Christianity) are thus properly relativized. This then would lead to more of a "universalist" approach. Personally, I tend toward the latter. I tend to talk about Jesus as the "Truth," who is therefore the proper measuring stick for discerning the holy way of justice in a highly relational reality. Note that this does not exclude other religions from having access to divine revelation; rather, it affirms it. Indeed, it is a way for us to look for God's movement in the midst of others that could help us to ammend our own ways.

Doh!!! I'm 35-1/2 and I live in IL. I like reading, writing, art, movies. Generally, I'm the stay at home type.