BeachOfEden

"You seem to be utterly fixated on this socially conservative Southern Baptist type stuff. Nobody here really considers the SBC much of a theological force to be reckoned with, yet you can hardly let a post go by without bringing them up in some way." So what? Why does this bother you? "You've obviously got some kind of personal grudge there." I thought this was a PROGRESSIVE site. Maybe I am wrong. "To even accuse me of defending this type of nonsense, like you've done in the past, makes it clear to me that this is more about emotions than reasons for you." Research this thread. When did I use YOUR name? Are you simply coming forward and telling us that you believe my discription fits you? Who's problem is that, then? Mine or yours? "Nobody's talking about wanting to argue with Southern Baptists...-" You seem to be pretty passionate about defending them "I, for one, am talking about real theological engagement about ideas that are fundamental to a Christian philosophical understanding of the world." That's a little vauge. Mind expnading on what this means? " As for your earlier statement that "you know precisely what they believe" about this or that, you clearly don't, because you consistently lump conservative Catholics, JW's, and SBC's together on issues of fundamental theology, even though their views are light years apart on almost every conceivable point." Why are you so defensive about defending one or more of these fundamental faith groups? Maybe you should think about defending them on their sites. You seem to feel so passionate about them "I'm not sure you'd understand the differences between Karl Barth, Pope John Paul II, and Chuck Swindoll, because you don't seem to be able to stop stereotyping people's views long enough to really understand the differences." Really? And tell me do each of these restrict women's equality any differently? If the answer is no..then who cares? Sexism is sexism no matter what the name brand of the religion is. "And you don't seem to want to understand them either, " Being force to live with and around them for 26 years I think I understand religious fundamental quote well..thank you very much and because of it I am a little sick of them. "because now you've taken it upon yourself to put "No Non-Progressive" disclaimers on every thread you start --" That's because you people insist on doing an innerfaith with fundamentalists and because this site has yet to make a seperate forum for that i have no choice. "which feels awfully similar to me to signs that say "No Coloreds" on the back of buses. If there's anything that infuriates me about so-called liberals, it's reverse discrimination." Don't compare not wanting to innerfaith with ultra conservatives with racism. "It really saddens me that a food fight has risen up about this issue, and I sincerely apologize for any overstatements or emotional reactions I've made to help bring it about. I now wish I'd left it all alone and done something more constructive." Well, I have decided to leave as well. When I first came here it was a Progressive christian haven. Now it has turned into a Billy Graham innerfaith forum from hell. Let me know if this goes back to being a Progressive forum again.

Ross, I'll see if I can find one ! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You don;t have to look far. They are here.

I am actually really curious to know what it is that interest Progressive Christians to inner-dialog with conservatives. For example, if a conservative catholic comes here and shares their views on why they agree with the Vatican that women should not becomes priests and also that they agree priests should not be allowed to marry and that using any form of birth controll should not be allowed....as a Progressive christian, how does hearing these views inspire your own Progressive views? I am serious. Please, anyone, DO explain this. Thanks:)

"I've been half tempted to go trolling on some of the more conservative Christian forums in order to lure a few over here. This board needs more people participating in conversations. " Please don;t do that. It's bad enough on Beliefnet. It's sounds like people enjoying theological fights and if they don;t have them they get bord. Well, I don;t. I have been there and done that on Beliefnet and that's why I was first appealed to COME ON HERE because it was 'different' than all the other Lib verses Fundi dog fight boards. Fighting with fundamentalists over doctrines does not inspire me. As A progressive I neither find it educational or inspiring to fight verbally with the Evangelical far right nor the anti-theist Humanist left. I think one of the reasons why conversations have slowed here is because while 3 or 4 people seem to love debating with Conservative Evangelicals and conservative Catholics and, I am beginning to think, that some here have actually invited them HERE, the rest of the Progressives are turned off by this. They saw this as the last haven and they now wonder if this site is going the way of so many others. On MySpace there are like 5 Progressive Religious group forums and on there the owners have the ability to screened out non-Progs..maybe Libs and Progs are flocking there because of this. For me, it's not that any Evangelical or non-Liberal Catholic has been outlandishly rude here..it's just I don;t care to conversate with non-Progressives or non-Liberals..I. I have listened to religious fundamental view points all my life...I know precisley what they believe concerning women in spiritual leadership, their view on the rapture and hell and ect..and I really don;t care to hear there views on all this.... If I did ...I'd go to one of the Lib verses Conservative debate forums on Beliefnet.

Here is something I wrote on how many Progressive XJWs feel about the issue of communion/the bread and wine/the memorial...Let me know what you think of it. Thanks! Understanding Progressive XJWs & X-Catholics Fear & Confusion of Communion In Chapter 7 of John Killinger he discusses his annoyance and confusion at why modern day churches dislike serving communion and that he thinks most Evangelical Protestant pastors he has talked to in the past speak of dealing with communion as something boring that one needs to hurry through. He also explain that it is his belief that one of the Reasons that the Disciples of Christ Church numbers have slide dramatically over the last decades is because they are one of the few Protestant churches to serve communion every Sunday. I don't know if I would say for sure that this is the main reason that the D of C churche's popularity has dropped. Obviously, Killenger is writting as a Progressive Protestant who used to be a fundamental Protestant, and as such he is likely neither aware or informed on possible reasons why individuals who are now Progressive but who came from JW background would fear or feel very uncomfortable about participating in communion. For a progressive XJW, I doubt that a complaint that communion is too boring would even enter their mind. There is positively a discomfort with the whole issue of communion with progressive XJWs, but it's not based on bordom, but rather a confusion of understanding what partaking of the breed and wine actually means to 'THEM' personally. It may be hard for those not having been in JW to understand so let me give you an example to help you understand. Imagine there is a game show in which the winners can choose from two trips of their choice. One choice is Paris and the other is Maui. The trips are both equally good but which an individual winner might prefer likley depends on their person tast. To one type of person, Paris may seem romantic and culturel while Maui may seem sticky, hot and too primative and down-to-earth. But to another Paris may seem boring and far-removed from nature, and thus to them Maui would seem like paradise of natural wonders. In JW there is one salvation but two parts to the Kingdom of God, and the scriptural quote, "Thy Kingdom come one earth as in heaven," Literally means that perfected heavenly conditions will come on earth just as their are perfect conditons or renewl in heaven. Basically, there is a belief that each individual has a desire that their blissful eternal life hope either lies in the spiritual relm of heaven or the prefected organic matter relm of the physical earth. This is one if not thee main appeal to JW religion. That appeal that heaven is NOT thee only option. That one CAN desire to live on the natural restored earth forever. Because of this, many individuals who came from or were raised in different Protestant of Catholic churches where they felt the only blissful afterlife offered to them was a non-organic matter relm that is void of any nature or animalkind. To the nature lover type, this version of heaven is unnatural and does not speak to their heart, and thus is why JW's vision of an earthly paradise is such a welcomed vision. Though complicated to explain, JW's are taught that by actually taking and drinking the wine and bread you are agreeing that you wish to give up the earthly paradise desire and exchange it for living in the spiritual relm of heaven instead..Then basically they always remind you not to partake of the bread and wine if you don not understand what this means. So..for folks like, raised this way, as I was, to take the bread and wine is like verifying that you do NOT desire to live on the restored earth forever and thus such folks NOT want to make such a statement. Speaking of the D of C church, one of the very first Progressive Christian books to impress me greatly was the book, "What Paul Really Said About Women." This book explains step by step by use of Greek and Hebrew words how church translators have ALTERED original Greek and Hebrew words and meanings to try and make Paul look as if he supported sexism views on women and how in reality this was NOT Paul but the church translator's doing. This book impressed me very much and I learned that a Disciples of Christ pastor from Seattle WA wrote it. "Wow! I thought. I want to find out and visit this D of C church, I thought. So I did. I did not really see much of anyhting that had impressed me in this book in this D of C church. I was not very interesting or inspiring. After a sermon, they annouced that it was time to serve communion. This made me uncomfortable and so I got up and went outside. Outside an older gentleman with a cane joined me. He looked equally uncomfortable. At first he explained his leg hurt and so he needed to walk outside. Then I mentioned that I felt unfortable with communion and taking part in it and he replied that he did too because he had been raised Catholic and as a Catholic he was told only Catholics were worthy of taking communion and now they he no longer agreed nor was in the Catholic church he felt odd about taking part in communion. Now, interestingly, there IS a pre-JW break-off Russell group called the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement (LHMMs for short) who are one of only '2' NON-JW yet pro-restored earth destiny believing Russell groups, DO believe in the earthly bound as while as the heavenly bound BOTh taking communion. Here is their explaination: The following found at: http://www.biblestandard.com/questions/QA_...fTheLordsSupper Memorial-Who May Partake Of The Lord’s Supper. Question (1961)- Who may partake of the Lord’s Supper? Answer.- "We have especially two reasons for believing that it is appropriate for the non-Spirit-begotten (the earthly/non-heavenly) consecrated servants of God to partake of the Lord’s Supper for the two purposes set forth above as (1) and (2). First, not only the firstborns, but all Israelites by Divine command and approval (Ex. 12: 25-27, 47; Num. 9: 2-5, 13; Josh. 5: 10; 2 Chron. 35: 1-19) partook of the annual Passover, the type of the Lord’s Supper. The Israelites as a nation were consecrated to God and were in covenant relationship with Him from the day when He took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt (Ex. 12: 40, 41; Heb. 8: 9); and they were “baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10: 1, 2). Hence all consecrated believers, non-Spirit-begotten as well as New Creatures, i.e., the “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12: 23), may partake of the Lord’s Supper, the Memorial of the antitypical Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5: 7, 8). Second, the Apostles partook of the first Lord’s Supper while consecrated but in a tentatively justified condition; they were not yet begotten of the Holy Spirit ( They have to die and transform into spiritual bodies in heaven), and could not be until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost." (Rev. 7: 1-3; Isa. 66: 7; Amos 9: 13). Never-the-less, the fact is that many Progressive XJWs, and former Catholics and perhaps other former fundamentalists of faith groups are left feeling uneasy about particapting in communion and I have heard many voice that they perfer to focus on the story and meaning behind the ransom and resurrection of Christ and it's hopeful message instead of actually taking the actual symbols of the bread and wine. So my response as a progressive XJW to John Killinger's asumption that the reason the D of C church has declined in popularity because people feel that communion every Sunday is boring, for Progressive Christian XJWs I'd say it has to do with feeling uncomfortable and uncertain with communion rather than being bored with it. And as for the possible reason for the D of C's decline of popularity over the last decades, I think it has to do with the fact that the D of C, like the majority of few remaining progressive/liberal or mainstream Protestant churches have been so painfuly slow to become contemporary and culturally revevant in their style and approuch. The majority of the congergation members in D of C, as with most mainstream Protestant churches are elderly and dislike change and have be slown to accept contemporary sounding worship music and because of this they have turned off the Baby Bomer generation and those younger.

See new thread on here intitled, "Progressive&fundamental Dialog Forum." ..That continues this discussion.

Pastor Labels Most Southern Baptists Unregenerate Bob Allen 07-22-05 Southern Baptists are sometimes accused of believing they are the only people going to heaven, but if one author and pastor is correct, most of them are in trouble as well. A point of view column in the Florida Baptist Witness estimates that no more than 37 percent of Southern Baptist church members are genuinely saved. Jim Elliff, president of Christian Communicators Worldwide, says only 37 percent of Southern Baptist members on average show up for worship. While shut-ins and those who are sick, out of town or in the military affect the number, Elliff says, those justifiably absent are not enough to alter the picture. Even if you generously grant that all 37 percent are true believers--an estimation that most pastors would say is way off the mark--one still has a church membership that is more dead than alive, Elliff said. If we are honest, we have to ask ourselves, Do Southern Baptists believe in a regenerate membership? Elliff, pastor of Christ Fellowship, a group of house churches in Kansas City, says more persons ought to attend a church than are on its membership roll, but instead the opposite is true. According to statistics by LifeWay Christian Recources, he said, out of 16,287,494 members of Southern Baptist churches, only 6,024,289 on average show up for their churchs primary meeting. The numbers are even lower for Sunday and Wednesday nights. In a longer article on his ministry Web site, Elliff says missing Christians lack signs associated with regeneration. By staying away, they show they do not love fellow church members and they are more concerned about themselves than God. The large numbers of inactive members on most church rolls, he says, indicates a failure of pastoral care. All of these people have prayed the prayer and walked the aisle, Elliff writes. All have been told that they are Christians. But for most, old things have not really passed away, and new things have not come. Most are not new creatures in Christ. Elliff, a brother of former SBC president Tom Elliff, lays blame on several factors. One is reliance on altar calls, praying the sinners prayer and immediately giving verbal assurance that a person is a Christian because of sincerity and accuracy of the prayer. You may not agree with my assessment, but it is my contention that our use of the altar call and the accouterment of a sinner's prayer is a sign of our lack of trust in God, Elliff wrote in an article titled Closing With Christ. Do we really believe that the Spirit convicts and regenerates, and that His Gospel preached and read is the ordained means He uses? In another article on Childhood Conversion, he criticizes preachers for enticing young children to walk the aisle and become baptized before they are mature enough to make such a decision. We must say that many, probably most, of those children that are supposedly being converted in our churches in the early days are showing no signs of conversion later in life, he wrote. Think of all those who made decisions at Vacation Bible Schools, childrens programs, Sunday School emphases, etc., who are on our rolls yet have no real life in them at all. Is it not obvious to us that getting a child to make a decision about Christ in early years does not guarantee that they are believers at all? Elliff also finds fault with entertainment approaches to evangelism and feel-good sermons aimed at drawing a crowd instead of convicting sinners. He also advocates church discipline, where members of a congregation are held accountable for non-attendance and sin. Elliff is part of a network of Calvinistic Baptists who meet annually in a Founders Conference, so-named because they believe their views are closer to those who founded the Southern Baptist Convention than to other Baptists today who value methodology over theology. Their goal is to reform the SBC by moving the denomination back toward what they call the doctrines of grace. With the return to and reaffirmation of the full authority of Scripture has come a growing awakening to the supremacy of God in salvation and the glory of God that should be displayed in local churches, wrote Tom Ascol, editor of the Founders Journal and pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Fla. While many denominational leaders view the movement as suspect, Ascol said, God is opening the eyes of a growing number of men and women to the riches of sovereign grace. This revival of historic Southern Baptist conviction about the grace of God in the gospel has continued to grow so that today, unlike 20 years ago, we have leaders at every level of denominational life and untold scores of pastors, missionaries and church leaders who are returning to the old paths, Ascol wrote. While virtually all Southern Baptist leaders hold some Calvinistic viewssuch as once saved, always saved, many have problems with notions like Christ died only for the elect and that only those whom God has foreordained are able to come to faith. Elliff has in the past drawn controversy for saying he does not know, for example, whether infants who die automatically go to heaven. In an audio file on his Web site, Elliff explained that babies and adults who are mentally deficient are born sinners, because of Original Sin inherited from Adam. He also believes babies must be regenerated before going to heaven and that babies cannot be regenerated and later lose that regeneration at a so-called age of accountability. Babies also cannot exercise faith, he said, which is the only way the Bible describes achieving regeneration. Despite his uncertainty, Elliff said he is optimistic based on the Calvinistic doctrine that regeneration precedes faith. The question, therefore, is whether God could graciously regenerate some or all of the babies who die … and they would express their faith on the threshold of heaven? I dont know, he continued. God makes clear he is just and he will do right. God makes clear he is more merciful than we. God does not make absolutely clear that theres any other way beside repentance and faith or that babies definitely go to heaven or hell, but I think we can be optimistic about that. I think God could do it on the basis of that doctrine. Elliff said God is wise not to allow humans to know for sure the fate of infants who die. Knowing they might be in hell would only bring despair to those already grieving the loss of a child. On the other hand, if people were certain that all dying infants were going to heaven, he said, Abortion would be the best evangelistic tool in the ages. Bob Allen is managing editor of EthicsDaily.com. 2005 EthicsDaily.com

Back up.

I have placed the following on the sugestions forum. I hope my idea becomes a reality. There are a few people on here who seem to enjoy dialoging with non-Progresssive Christians here, be they Fundamental Catholic or more Evangelical Protestant. I view the Debate issue forum as more for us Progressives to offer differing views with one another..but perhaps there could be a NEW forum created/added here espcially for Progressive/Fundamental Christianity dialog. Thank BeachOfEden:)

There are a few people on here who seem to enjoy dialoging with non-Progresssive Christians here, be they Fundamental Catholic or more Evangelical Protestant. I view the Debate issue forum as more for us Progressives to offer differing views with one another..but perhaps there could be a NEW forum created/added here espcially for Progressive/Fundamental Christianity dialog. Thank BeachOfEden:)

Yes, I agree with you guys that there is Progressive way to believe in ransom and resurrection story withOUT making into a morbid, revenge of blood type vision of God thing...BTW, anyone here ever read that book called, "Leaving the Fold"? If so, what was your opinion on the author's explaination on why she rejected the ransom thing as revenful?

Follow Progressive Christians, please add your thoughts on this. Thanks:)

The following is an interesting discussion taken from the Progressive Christianity Forum on beliefnet on the topic of the belief of the ransom and resurrection of Christ, the Atonement theory and Progressive Christian's views on it. Read this discussion of differeing views and then feel free to ad you own Progressive Christian views on this. Messages: 1 - 4 (29 total) jrfoster 1/26/2005 2:48 PM 1 out of 29 What is the understanding of 'atonement' in Progressive Christianity? Was it necessary for Christ to die on the cross? Was there a debt that had to be satisfied? In progressive thought, is atonement really necessary? The New Age-American Hindu Take: elroy 1/26/2005 5:14 PM 2 out of 29 In progressive thought, is atonement really necessary? Well, I certainly can't speak for all progressives, but IMHO atonement occurs in the heart of a spiritually minded individual - not in the act of 2000 years ago. As outmoded lifestyles (legalism, for example) lose their effectiveness, they must die... to be replaced by something new while incorporating the best of the old. The failure of a lifestyle can be traumatic because it is often deeply ingrained in the individual. The internal defenders of the old way will "attack" the new, creating a time of confusion and weakness... but if the new is worthy, it will prevail. The result can be called by many names: resurrection, redemption, wholeness, at-one-ness, individuation, self-actualization, etc. The Left Liberal Take: Pax_Liberalis 1/26/2005 10:13 PM 3 out of 29 Bishop Spong said it best; This doctrine has serious problems and I believe must be rejected in the New Reformation that is upon us. Let me enumerate those problems quickly: 1. What kind of God is it who requires a sacrifice and a blood offering before this God can forgive? 2. What kind of God is it who delights in human sacrifice? 3. Was there ever a time when human beings were perfect and fell into sin? Since Charles Darwin's understanding of evolution emerged in the 19th century, we have come to see life as having evolved from a single cell to Homo sapiens over a 4 1/2 - 5 billion year time frame. Where is the 'fall' in that process? 4. Does human evil arise from a fall that never happened metaphorically? Or is evil a manifestation of the baggage of our evolutionary fight for survival that made human life radically self-centered in the struggle to stay alive? 5. Must salvation take the form of a rescue from our sins or can it be portrayed as the empowerment to evolve into a new humanity, that will somehow learn to live for others? I believe we need to start with a new definition of human life and then move on to re-think the person and work of the Christ. Unless that occurs, I do not believe that these traditional but still primitive ideas will be able to sustain the Christian faith in the 21st century. The following in from Beliefnet's Progressive Christianity forum: grampawombat 1/27/2005 12:14 AM 4 out of 29 "I think atonement as getting right with oneself and with creation is an idea that progressives can relate to. But if the question is specifically related to substitutinary atonement (the spotless lamb, blood sacrifice, and so on), then I don't think you will find to many, if any, progressives who will go for it." BeachOfEden: I like this reply: jsucke3 1/27/2005 4:41 AM 5 out of 29 "No, I do not think Jesus' death on the cross was necessary as atonement for the inherent evil of humans. It harks back to the idea of sacrificing to a vengeful god to prevent his wrath. It is too linked to blood feuds and primitivism. But that leaves me with the dilemma of what to make of the death on the cross. If it was not necessary, what does that mean? For me, it was a symbol of the ease with which human evil can act in ways that cannot be reversed. Amazingly, God did reverse the crucifixion perhaps to show us all the perversity of the act itself. This means that the cross is not the central figure of Christianity. Instead, it is Jesus' love and forgiveness even while on the cross." BeachOfEden: And here is an example of what I was talking about..where far left liberal Christianity reduces everything down to mere psotive symbolic 'myths'... elroy 1/27/2005 11:43 AM 6 out of 29 "js, But that leaves me with the dilemma of what to make of the death on the cross. If it was not necessary, what does that mean? You are assuming that what the Gospels describe was an historical occurence. But that may not have been the case. A good argument can be made that the birth, teachings, death and resurrection described in our Scriptures are metaphorical expressions for events that must happen in our souls if they are to be effective. See my earlier post. The "teachings of Jesus" were not original nor unique. "Love your neighbor as yourself," for example, is found in Leviticus 19:18." BeachOfEden: This person poises a good question: properly 1/27/2005 7:56 PM 7 out of 29 "Lets see now, if Jesus didn't really die on the cross, and we don't need Jesus to atone for us before God, and the Bible is not an accurate document, then in what way is a person who believes this a Christian? This doesn't seem to be a Progressive Christian belief system. It seems to me to be "progressive" without Christ being of any value to the theology at all. Don't get me wrong. I'm not making a judgment about the belief system at all. I just don't see the point of having "Christian" in the name at all if Christ is not central to the belief." cbussiere 1/27/2005 10:54 PM 8 out of 29 "The "teachings of Jesus" were not original nor unique. "Love your neighbor as yourself," for example, is found in Leviticus 19:18." "I don't think the originality or lack thereof of Jesus' teaching is relevant one way or the other, in light of the fact that most of the world's religions share several common teachings. The example cited in the excerpt above simply points to the fact that Jesus came from the Jewish tradition. As such, the core of much of Judaism - the two (or three) great commandments of love of God, love of self, and love of neighbor - are of course central to his teaching. That Christianity has come to espouse this core does not, to my mind, devalue or mitigate against the centrality of Jesus and his teaching to Christianity." "I just don't see the point of having "Christian" in the name at all if Christ is not central to the belief." "I don't either. However, I do think that Christ is indeed central to the beliefs of many (most?) folks who would identify themselves as progressive Christians. This centrality may look a little different in terms of emphasis from, say, conservative Christianity or Roman Catholic Christianity. But I think the centrality of Christ remains." "Marcus Borg has a good chapter on this - "Jesus: The Heart of God" - in his book The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith. Borg is, for better or for worse, widely perceived as a spokesperson for, if not a defining theologian of, progressive Christianity. While he does not view Christ's death as an atonement, he nonetheless views and believes Christ to be central to Christianity. He articulates great faith in the cross as, among other things, "a revelation of the 'way' or 'path' of transformation, as the revelation of the depth of God's love for us, and as the proclamation of radical grace." He also views and believes in Jesus as a metaphor of God. In Jesus, Borg believes, Jesus discloses what God is like. Thus, we see God through Jesus. (Dom Crossan seems to say pretty much the same thing, by the way.) For Borg, the death of Jesus - his execution - was because of his passion for God. Because we see Jesus as the revelation of God, we see in his life and death the passion of God." BeachOfEden: I agree with that. "Finally, Borg sees and believes in Jesus as a sacrament in that he sees Jesus as a means through whom the spirit of God becomes present, during both Jesus' historical life as well as his life in the Christian faith. He says, "[t]he living Christ continues to be known in Christian experience as the presence of God." BeachOfEden: In this, I agree with Borg again. "Borg's articulations are by no means conclusive as to the varying beliefs of progressive Christians. But I think his views are representative of both the fact and the manner of the centrality of Jesus for many progressive Christians." BeachOfEden: And this is an interesting point of view... phlox 1/28/2005 6:08 AM 9 out of 29 "I agree--the atonement was necessary, but not as blood sacrifice. There was no debt that had to be paid. It wasn't God who had to be appeased, but we humans who needed to be reconciled to God. The prodigal son parable says it all. Jesus drew all of us toward him when he was up on the cross, bringing us together in tenderness. Christ showed us that God is not angry with us, he does not use his power against us but gives us power over him, the power to hurt or destroy him/her. Whatever pain and loss we go through in our lives is a result of the free will humans have, not of God punishing us. Jesus reveals God's heart--that God suffers with us and wants to heal us. Atonement says in effect, that God became at one with us in suffering and death, so that we could become at one with him/her in resurrection--new life. At least that's how it seems to me." properly 1/28/2005 6:25 AM 10 out of 29 "Please. Hanging a man from a cross for no reason can't show anybody anything other than cruelty." BeachOfEden: MAN hung Jesus, NOT God. "He articulates great faith in the cross as, among other things, "a revelation of the 'way' or 'path' of transformation, as the revelation of the depth of God's love for us, and as the proclamation of radical grace." "What? How in the world do you get an articulation of God's love for us by slowly killing a man who was not a deity and was not making any sacrafice for us?" BeachOfEden: This Liberal is stating that Jesus was JUST a good man..in 'his or hers' opinion. If Jesus was JUST a man who died long ago..then for those who embrace such a view of Jesus..then there really would be NO point to his death. For if you believe Jesus was NOT Savior and was NOT raised up..then no ransom, no resurrection, no restoration of all things therefore equals No Hope..and therefore=what's the point? All I have heard is contradiction. "Jesus is not important, but he is still central to the belief." BeachOfEden: WHO said Jesus was "Not" important? The far left? The one who's view on Christ is that is was only a nice guy who died long ago and and that there is no resurrection? If this IS the person saying this..then indeed how, then, can Jesus be there central belief? And if Jesus is still the central belief..then this begs the question...WHY? cbussiere 1/28/2005 10:11 AM 12 out of 29 "Please. Hanging a man from a cross for no reason can't show anybody anything other than cruelty." "That may very well be your view, and I'm not contesting it. It's not, though, the view articulated in either Borg's book or the excerpts I mentioned from the book." "All I have heard is contradiction. "Jesus is not important, but he is still central to the belief." Which is it?" "If that's all you've heard, then I guess you're not listening. I can recommend Borg's book for further reading, if you're interested in a fuller articulation of a perspective that differs from your own. I'm not, of course, advocating that you change your perspective. But your attribution of views to Borg that he neither holds nor expresses in the work cited seems to indicate an unfamiliarity with his perspective." properly 1/28/2005 1:32 PM 13 out of 29 "cbussiere, I have not read the book. I can only attribute the plain meaning of the words of the passage you quoted. I am not advocating any particular position on this topic, but I do find the discussion of the Atonement to be quite interesting. Please don’t take any of my comments as an attack, as some have already.The traditional Christian belief is that Christ was a sacrifice for the sins of the world. This is what gives his crucifixion meaning to a Christian. If we assume for the sake of argument that this is not true, then how can his death have any more meaning than the death of any other person? The quotation you used had some very flowery language;" "a revelation of the 'way' or 'path' of transformation, as the revelation of the depth of God's love for us, and as the proclamation of radical grace." BeachOfEden: This is a good point: "If Christ’s death was not necessary, and a person like you or me does not need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, then how can you, or Borg, or anyone else attribute things like the “revelation of the depth of God’s love for us” to what seems to be a pointless death.Again, I am not arguing with you. This is a serious question that to me doesn’t seem to be answered by you reply. Please explain this more fully. I think this point is critical to the significance a person will put on Christ. What do you think?" elroy 1/28/2005 2:12 PM 14 out of 29 "properly, Lets see now, if Jesus didn't really die on the cross, and we don't need Jesus to atone for us before God, and the Bible is not an accurate document, then in what way is a person who believes this a Christian? I think we need to distinguish between Jesus and "the Christ." The name Jesus is tied to the Jewish concept of YHWH (Jehovah to us) as the one true God. The name literally means "Jehovah is Salvation." To call him "the Christ" is to say that he is "annointed" or that his time has come. Therefore we might interpret the phrase "Jesus the Christ" as "the savior whose time has come." But we meet many "saviors" in our lifetime, each annointed in its time. In fact, the Matthew account of the birth and early childhood of Jesus strongly resembles Moses - emerging out of Egypt after escaping the wrath of Herod (Pharaoah). Like the OT Moses, who gives way to Joshua (also "Jehovah is Savior"), the early Matthew image of Moses gives way to the one we call Jesus... after a long and inexplicable gap in the chronology. What I am trying to say is that each of us is capable of giving birth to these "annointed saviors" as their time comes in our own spiritual journeys. I'd say that makes us Christians in the best sense of the word, regardless of what did or did not happen 2000 years ago." elroy 1/28/2005 2:41 PM 15 out of 29 "cbus, I don't think the originality or lack thereof of Jesus' teaching is relevant one way or the other, in light of the fact that most of the world's religions share several common teachings. So, why is his life and teachings considered by many Christians to be more valuable than say, Buddha or Lao Tze? He also views and believes in Jesus as a metaphor of God. In Jesus, Borg believes, God discloses what God is like. Thus, we see God through Jesus... Because we see Jesus as the revelation of God, we see in his life and death the passion of God. We know so little about the historical Jesus that to say "he discloses what God is like" sounds ludicrous. Although he may have demonstrated some God-like qualities, God is surely much more than the life - and death - of any one person can show us. " "He articulates great faith in the cross as, among other things, "a revelation of the 'way' or 'path' of transformation...-" "Could you explain this a bit more? How is a crucifixion "a revelation of the way or path of transformation?" Now if he means that this is a metaphor for our own personal experiences of spiritual suffering that can bring transformation, I can relate to that." jsucke3 1/29/2005 1:23 AM 16 out of 29 "If Christ’s death was not necessary, and a person like you or me does not need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, then how can you, or Borg, or anyone else attribute things like the “revelation of the depth of God’s love for us” to what seems to be a pointless death." "For me, Jesus' life and death combined the basic message of God Is Love with a willingness to suffer, even to suffer death, for that meassage. Others shrank from standing be the message until he died for it. Then, with whatever the resurrection was, they realized how important and transformative the message was and began to spread the Good/God News. The mores of Jesus' time could not countenance a belief that God was love. He was killed for preaching what was becoming a very attractive idea. The status quo was being jeopardized. The government officials and religious officials conspired together to end the message. In doing so, they actually brought home its importance to the disciples. Another of the many ironies of this story." cbussiere 1/29/2005 2:00 AM 17 out of 29 "So, why is his life and teachings considered by many Christians to be more valuable than say, Buddha or Lao Tze?" By "more valuable," do you mean "superior to all other faith and wisdom traditions" or do you mean "more enlightening for the individual believer"? I don't know the answer in either case, because I think the answers are fairly unique to each individual, even though many folks may express the same answer. If you mean the first, then my observation is that some Christians who hold to this view seem to rely heavily on passages in Christian scripture that essentially say things like, "I am [i.e., Jesus is] the way, the truth, etc." or "No one comes to the Father except through me [i.e, Jesus]," and similar passages. These folks seem to me to be very taken with the idea of the exclusivity of Jesus' teaching. Additionally, Jesus does come across as a "my way or the highway" kind of guy in the canonical gospels, at least in my observation. I think folks pick up on that in a way that encourages or confirms their exclusivity/superiority view". "I don't hold to the exclusivity or superiority belief about Christianity, so I can't speak from personal experience. If you mean the second, my observation is that this meaning takes us into the realm of individuality and personal spirituality. Christianity may be a "more valuable" - i.e., more enlightening - path for someone for reasons of culture, geography, upbringing, personality, and/or a host of other reasons that may not necessarily have a lot to do with the teachings of Christianity relative to Buddhism or the way of Lao Tze. Of course, Christianity may also be a more enlightening path for someone based on doctrine and dogma. My sense is that folks come to whatever faiths and beliefs they come to for reasons and in ways that are specific to them. That's the great mystery of faith: How do people get it? Why do they have it? I don't know if you've asked your question on other BNet boards. If you've asked it on, say, Catholicism Debate or one of the conservative Christianity boards or dialogue groups, then you know the kind of answers you've gotten. My guess is that these answers are firmly in the exclusivity/superiority camp." cbussiere 1/29/2005 2:32 AM 18 out of 29 "properly, Borg's view about the death of Jesus, as articulated in the book, is that Jesus died as a result or consequence of the way he lived. Borg doesn't believe Jesus "came to earth" or was "sent" by God to die an excruciating death on a cross. Borg sees Jesus as a "social prophet" and "movement initiator" (his words) much as Martin Luther King and Gandhi, to name two examples, were social prophets and movement initiators who were assassinated because of their political and social views and acts. Thus, Borg sees Jesus' death as a political result of Jesus' life. From there, he basically tries to make sense - for himself and for his readers - of what that death could mean for him and other Christians. (This book is very much a personal statement of Borg's beliefs. In this respect, I gather it's rather less scholarly and detached than much of his other writing.) Hence his view of Jesus as metaphor and sacrament. He would agree with you that hanging a guy on a cross for no reason is nothing less than cruelty and mindless sadism. (This is part of why, for example, he rejects atonement theory out of hand.) He would differ with you in that, while he sees Jesus' death as cruel, he also sees it in political terms as an execution - 1st century Roman capital punishment, if you will. In this connection, he makes the point that Christianity is the only major world religion whose founder was executed by the reigning political and governmental authority. From there, as I said, he attempts to make sense of this event. In this respect, he's not looking at Jesus' death as something to glorify because he doesn't see Jesus' death as the purpose of Jesus' life. He's looking at Jesus' death as a historical fact that may or may not have meaning for him in a context of faith and religion. In essence, he asks, "What, if anything, do I make of this horrific death?" In so doing, he's not only trying to make sense for himself. He's also trying to make sense of the meaning of Christ's death within the Christian tradition, in light of the fact that the predominant meaning throughout much of the history of Christianity - as you and elroy note - has come to be some species of atonement. But Borg rejects atonement theory and theology, and finds meaning elsewhere. His conclusions are in his book, and I've briefly tried to state them in my prior post (without ending up in jail on a copyright rap ." phlox 1/29/2005 8:18 AM 19 out of 29 "Borg says more on resurrection in The Meaning of Jesus. He sees it as a psychological reality but not a physical event." "The only adequate explanation for the rise of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. Easter means that Jesus was experienced after his death and that he is both Lord and Christ." "My position is that experiences of the risen Christ as a continuing presence generated the claim that Jesus lives and is Lord." This book came out in 1999. My guess is that events since then have dimmed the affirmative tone in his more recent work. cbussiere 1/29/2005 10:57 AM 20 out of 29 "Hi, phlox -I'm not a big fan of atonement theology, as I've said. But I think the death of Jesus is something that Christians need to come to terms with individually and/or collectively. There are many ways to do this, and an atonement theory is one but IMO not the only way. So, in this sense, I agree with properly - if a guy hanging on a cross undergoing death by torture for no reason is all there is, then there isn't much there." elroy 1/29/2005 4:35 PM 21 out of 29 cbus, "I don't hold to the exclusivity or superiority belief about Christianity..." "Nor do I. I was just responding to your comment about the relative unimportance of the lack of originality or uniquesness in Jesus' teachings that I had mentioned earlier. I agree with most of what you say. As a Christian who cannot accept some of the outrageous claims that I was taught in Sunday school, I have had to find other ways to understand the Gospels... much like Borg and Spong." phlox 1/30/2005 11:03 AM 22 out of 29 BeachOfEden: This, I believe an excellent point: "Not only is Jesus central to Christianity, but belief in resurrection (however we understand that) is central as well. Jesus wasn't killed for no reason, he was accused of blasphemy, for saying "I am" when asked if was the son of God, the messiah (at least in one gospel). He was executed by envious and fearful priests and elders who saw him as a threat to the status quo. As jsucke3 (why the name?!) said, he showed his willingness to suffer a cruel death for the sake of his message of love. That message was verified by God raising him from the dead. As Borg says, it was God saying Yes to Jesus and No to the domination systems of the world. Personally I do believe Jesus rose from the dead...not from going to church, but from years of studying. I don't see any other way that Christianity could have taken hold and spread as it did. I don't see any other way to account for 11 of the 12 disciples dying for that belief." "Christianity is not exclusive, not superior, but it is the only faith whose founder was resurrected." bob_bennett 2/17/2005 6:55 PM 27 out of 29 Dear phlox - # 19, >>" Borg says more on resurrection in The Meaning of Jesus. He sees it as a psychological reality but not a physical event." Borg is an academic as well as a member of the Jesus Seminar. Neither group accepts miracles, perhaps because no one in our time has any experience of them. Accepting faith based ideas such as miracles is not good for maintaining one's faculty position in most universities. phlox 2/20/2005 12:39 PM 28 out of 29 Bobbennett, I hear what you're saying. Yet, in all Borg's books, though he denies the resurrection as a physical event, he does affirm the healing stories, using the word "marvels" rather than miracles: "I very deliberately refer to Jesus' healings as paranormal, beyond the ordinary...and I reject a common modern explanation of Jesus' healings as psychosomatic. Inexplicable and remarkable things do happen, involving processes that we do not understand. I see the claim that Jesus performed paranormal healings and exorcisms as history remembered. He must have been a remarkable healer."

Here is my sugestion..when a non-Progressive Christian comes here and reply to a post..then simply don;t reply and let the thread die. If we were to keep doing this..then maybe the non-Progressives would stop being encouraged to come here.

In the fundamental churches..what the church thinks=what God thinks. Since Progressive christians are NOT fundamentalists they do not place what the church thinks as being equal to what God thinks. In light of this fact, when a fundamentalist comes here, whether they be Protestant or Catholic or other and tells us that 'their' church beliefs that God or Christ thinks this or that on a matter..it is not realistic for us a Progressive christians to really reply because we do NOt even accept or acknoweldge that what 'the church' thinks of says does = what God thinks or says. As such, when you come here as a devote fundamental catholic and tells us that 'the church' (Catholic church) teaches/believes that Jesus or god thinks this or that on whether women should be spiritual leaders or not..this, to me, as a progressive Christian means positively NOTHING to me. I am NOT Catholic so what the Catholic church thinks or beliefs about whether women have the Godly right to be spiritual leaders or not does not matter..anymore than it it matters to me what the leaders of the Southern Baptist convention think or say they think God or Christ thinks about women being spiritual leaders. Basically if I am not a devote Catholic fundamentalist and I am not a Fundamental protestant then why should I care what 'they' think God or Christ thinks?

On the Evangelical scale is is positvely a Lite rather than an extra dark one..which is a good thing. The REAL roadblock to Progressive Christianity is the SBC..However, I still strongly disagree with Graham's take on a fair chance at salvation in this life as well as his belief in the rapture.

"I thought Jehovah's Witnesses embrace a version of Arianism (#2), given their interpretation of verses like John 1:3 (NASB): All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." That's what I thought too.Umm.let me asked the bibical unitarian web page owner and see what he says... "They interpret "apart from him" to mean "except for him," implying that Jesus was the first created being" And thus why they explain the phrase "begotten". That's why I asked how it is that someone could be Begotten and NOT made?

This statement of the Creed "begotten not made,"-... Makes no snese to me. If you are begotten are you not also made??? "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." These 2 explainations of atonement you gave, are THEE reason, why so many liberals, even including Christians liberals explain why they can NOT stomac a belief in Jesus as Savior..because this would mean they God is unfairly revengful (from their explained point of view...)and that he cruely made his Son Jesus suffer for man's sins. This reasoning is explained in the book, "Leaving the Fold," where the author, a former Calvary Chapel and Assembly of God mebers now a Liberal pretty much says in her own words why she rejects Christianity and Christ. Before I add my thopughts on this...I like to hear all your responses/views on this gorunds of reasonings.

I'm not sure if he is right about this or not....but the owner of the website: www.BibicalUniatarians.org/ ,,,told me that if you believe that Christ had a pre-life in heaven with God than you are not a Arianist..I 'think' that's what he told me..but I am not sure. Maybe I should asked him about this again...

Here is an article I found on online. The religious left may appear poltically silent but has the left ever really been poltically neutral. Has anyone here ever knew of a a Progressive or Liberal that was politcally Neutral? Just wondering... The Good Fight How much longer can the religious left remain politically neutral? Let us read, brothers and sisters, from the Gospel of Karl, chapter 20, verse 4. “And lo, in those days, the man they called Rove did proclaim, 'I shall find those lost four million evangelical voters and I shall shepherd them to the polls.' The call went far and wide, throughout the lands of wheat and sugar, in every hill and valley, and the people did hear. They phone-banked, and caucused, and lobbied their neighbors about capital gains tax cuts. And on the first Tuesday of the eleventh month, they voted.” God's Politics by Jim Wallis Harper San Francisco, $24.95 By now, it's become gospel truth that the mobilization of religious conservatives won the 2004 election for George W. Bush. The grassroots base rallied around hot-button issues like gay marriage while the president conducted a more moderate campaign nationwide, and they provided a cushion of votes in the red states that drove up his popular vote total. Amid the flurry of activity on the religious right that preceded Election Day, what was the religious left doing? Well, here's a taste. On the morning of Nov. 1, the day before the election—a highly competitive presidential election—I opened my inbox to see a press release from the once-venerable National Council of Churches (NCC), an umbrella organization for liberal, mainline denominations. Religious organizations—like other non-profits—are subject to all manner of complicated rules regarding how political they can be, particularly in the weeks before an election. Even so, I expected a pre-election press release to have some bearing on the decision facing the country. I was wrong. “NCC Urges U.S. to Accept Responsibility for Uighur Chinese Refugees at Guantanamo,” read the headline. I have no doubt that advocacy on behalf of Chinese Muslim prisoners is a worthy cause; I also have no doubt that it confirms the irrelevance of the once-powerful religious left. Which is why the recent emergence of Jim Wallis as the public face of the religious left has been such a welcome development for many progressives who are also people of faith. An ordained minister in the American Baptist Church, Wallis is the founder of Sojourners magazine and the progressive movement Call to Renewal. In the last few months he has faced Tim Russert's queries on “Meet the Press,” chatted up Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show,” discussed poverty with Charlie Rose, and mused about faith and politics with Terry Gross on NPR's “Fresh Air.” And now he's released his latest book, God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, which debuted on The New York Times' bestseller list and in the number two slot on Amazon.com. Wallis's ambitions are grander than just writing a bestselling book—he wants to energize a religious movement in this country to rival the influence of the religious right. Can Wallis stop the decline of the religious left? Only if he wants to. Not the liberal Pat Robertson Whenever he is in front of an audience, one of Wallis's favorite bits is to ask: How can you recognize a politician in Washington? He then licks his index finger and holds it up. “They're the ones walking around with their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing,” he says. For those of us who believe public service is a noble profession, it can be an annoying gambit. But it's more than just an anti-establishment rant. Wallis' point, he goes on to explain, is simple—Stop blaming politicians and start changing the wind. God's Politics is part argument for why the wind needs to be changed and part manual for how to change it. The book reads like a sermon by a minister who has learned that the best way to keep his congregation from falling asleep is to break up the theology with anecdotes and provide plenty of lists for parishioners to scribble down in the margins of their bulletins. Sprinkled among timeless lessons from the likes of Habakkuk and Amos are stories from Wallis's time on the front lines of poverty—for 30 years, he has lived in one of Washington, D.C.'s most violent neighborhoods—and from his travels around the country to build a vibrant progressive religious movement, as well as his frustrating encounters with political establishments on the right and the left. The lists are meant to outline progressive religious principles: the Six-Point Plan for Iraq, Ten Lessons to Defeat Terrorism, Ten Lessons for Understanding and Surviving War, Eight Millennium Development Goals, and, as a conclusion, 50 Predictions for the 21st Century. As a long-time advocate for the poor who was leading faith-based organizations decades before George W. Bush ever heard the phrase, Wallis has the street cred and moral authority to make his case. To liberals who believe that religion has no place in public life, Wallis argues that “God is personal, but never private,” citing Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Joshua Heschel, and other moral crusaders whose names warm the hearts of good lefties. To conservatives, Wallis says that their attempts to apply religious solutions to policy problems—from terrorism to Iraq to the economy to abortion—have betrayed Christian principles of justice, mercy, and humility. Both sides, he charges, have done wrong by religion. Republicans have hijacked faith in the name of divisive causes that fail to help the neediest, and Democrats have largely avoided discussion of religion altogether. This is the main take-away point from God's Politics, and in that respect, it is not terribly different from two of Wallis's previous books, The Soul of Politics and Who Speaks for God? But—if the number of times I am asked by people from both parties how I can be both a Christian and a Democrat is any indication—it's a message that bears repeating. One of the reasons Wallis is just now attracting notice is that he's hard to categorize. In a media world that thinks in terms of conflict and neat, tidy boxes, he doesn't quite fit. Wallis is pro-life but anti-war. He challenges the role of Hollywood in promoting “coarse entertainment” and the role of Enron in violating a basic compact with its workers. On balance—particularly given his commitment above all to the elimination of poverty—Wallis's sympathies are more in line with Democratic policies and values. But he does not, he stresses, want to become the liberal equivalent of Pat Robertson. “The media like to say, 'Oh, then you must be the religious Left,'” he writes. “No, not at all, and the very question is the problem. Just because a religious Right has fashioned itself for political power in one utterly predictable ideological guise does not mean that those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart. The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan.” And he's right. Politics and religion are both best served when religious leaders and communities maintain their prophetic independence. The role set by the Hebrew prophets, Wallis's most oft-mentioned models, is a critically important one—“Who will uphold the dignity of economic and political outcasts? Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will not allow God's name to be used simply to justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability?” Indeed, it's hard to speak truth to power when your fondest wish is to rub shoulders with power at the negotiating table or cocktail parties. What's more, history—including just the past few decades—is replete with examples of how a too-close relationship between the worlds of religion and politics can bring out the worst of both. The tie that binds In an ideal world, religious leaders would maintain some distance from the world of politics. But this is not an ideal world. The reality of American politics today is that religious conservatives have inextricably aligned themselves with one political party. If religious progressives are not at the negotiating table, it's not as if their absence is palpable—it's just that much easier to ignore their concerns. Religious conservatives understand this reality. For most of American history, conservative Christians focused primarily on the effort of saving souls, and made a principled decision to stay out of the realm of politics. “Preachers are not called upon to be politicians,” the Rev. Jerry Falwell explained in 1965, “but soul winners. Nowhere are we commissioned to reform the externals.” During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a perfect storm developed that changed the political landscape forever. Supreme Court decisions banning school prayer and Bible-reading from public schools angered conservative evangelicals, and convinced them that government would not remain neutral, allowing them to simply live as they wished. Similarly, many Catholics—who had largely stayed away from politics while assimilating amid anti-Catholicism—were outraged by the Roe v. Wade decision and developed into a politically active force. Both of these groups were embraced by Republican strategists who realized that they needed to form a cohesive electoral block if they were ever going to become a political majority. At the same time, the religious left, once a powerful actor in liberal politics (think abolition, suffrage, the progressive era, civil rights), began to decline. The National Council of Churches played a central organizing role in the civil rights movement, but lost its way soon after, dispersing its attention over what seemed like 87 different policy issues—the plight of Chinese prisoners at Guantanamo just the latest of them. Many well-intentioned members of the religious left, not wanting to be associated with the nascent Christian Right, filtered religion out of their rhetoric and secularized some of their appeals. As groups like the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority became ever more vocal and visible, the conventional wisdom that to be religious and in politics was to be conservative hardened, and—with a few notable exceptions, such as Mario Cuomo and Bill Clinton—religious progressives stayed in the closet. Conservatives have an important natural advantage. The tie that binds them is the belief that government should stay out of their lives. Although each constituency has its own specific hobby horses, for the most part they manage to stand united behind this one simple principle, which leads to scenes like the Christian Coalition lobbying for capital gains tax cuts (because, of course, the ABCs of moral concerns are abortion, buggery, and capital gains taxes). But while it's relatively easy to bring people together to oppose something—particularly if you're not above using scare tactics and telling them they are a persecuted minority—mobilizing organizations to support government intervention on a variety of fronts is much more difficult. Wallis has been responsible for trying to coax religious lefties to wade back into political debate, and he's been most effective when challenging the perception that “faith” is defined only as that practiced by George W. Bush or Ralph Reed. When, as a young congressional staffer, I read Wallis's The Soul of Politics at the recommendation of my minister, I found for the first time someone who voiced my frustration—the religious right didn't speak for me and the political left didn't let me speak. I ended up in divinity school. Other readers have been equally moved—although with perhaps less dramatic results: This past fall, while conservative churches were busy turning over their membership directories to the Republican National Committee, Wallis raised $400,000 in two months for a campaign that ran full-page ads featuring the words “God is Not a Republican. Or a Democrat” in The New York Times during the Republican Convention and in the hometown newspapers of James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. It's a start. In order to truly be heard, however, Wallis and his compatriots need to face what they're up against—a conservative machine that uses two-way communication between religious communities and political institutions to coordinate policy and rhetoric. With the stakes high for issues they care about, religious progressives may have to set aside the pristine white choir robes for a time and get their hands dirty in practical politics. Wallis has written a splendid blueprint for a utopian faith movement, but it may mean very little if he and other progressive religious leaders maintain a chaste distance from the party inclined to act on their concerns. What they've chosen so far is the principled stand that protects religion. But if they want to protect the values they hold dear, and the country they love, they're going to have to start fighting the good fight. Amy Sullivan is an editor of The Washington Monthly.

4 versions of views of Jesus in Christianity: 1. Trintarian= Jesus was and is God and Savior 2. Divinatarian=Jesus is NOT God but was the first being created directly by God through whom all other things in the universe were created and is Savior 3. Bibical Unitarianism= Jesus had no pre-life in heaven before being born as a human on earth but when he was resurrected he was then elevated to God's right hand man and thus became our savior. 4. Unitarianism=Jesus was neither God nor divine was fully human was an adopted son of God but is not Savior. FredP Today, 09:11 AM Post #4 "Definition #2 is the strong progressive version. However, while version #1 runs the risk of being too rigid and exclusive, #2 runs the opposite risk of leaving too little theological self-definition for Christianity. " I have found that defination #1 is thee most popular accepted in of course all of Protestantsim and Catholics both right and left and moderate, and the it is #4 that is the second most popular and from what I gathered, thee single most popular and accepted belief amounf Liberal Christians. And I honestly do not think that the vast majority of neither the far fundamental right, the moderate middle nor the liberal religious left even KNOW about the existence of any other beliefs accept #1 and #4. #2 DOES exist..but no body offical gave this belief a name..untill I gave it one. The only reason why 'I' even came to known that #3 exists is become I researched long and hard on the web untill I learned about it..Otherwise, I would not have known.

All good points,Des. Funny, anyone remember in the comedy the Bird Cage" when that sentor of Moral Order is caught up being associated with a sex scandel and he panicks and tells his wife that they need to do something quick to restore his wholesom image and his wife sugests, "We can call Billy Graham?" And the husband goes, "Nah, he's too liberal". And about the Hindu trinity verses the Protestant/Catholic one, I agree 100%. Why do Evangelical Christians blast Hindus for their version of the trinity being more than One God but not their own version?

I just recieved my June TCPC newsletter in the mail. The article that caught my eye was/is intitled, Billy Graham: Obstacle to Progressive Christianity By Chris Ayers The article points out how outspoken Graham has been in his suport of President Bush and his vice President Cheney. But then the artilce states how Graham involvement in poltics is NOT the only troubling thing for Progressive Christians. What I gathered from reading the article is that the author is annoyed how Billy Graham speaks as if for ALL Christians on how Graham asumes ALL Christians Do and MUST believe in and embrace and promote the trinity belief that Jesus was and is God. I understand the author's annoyance with Graham's presumptiousness in asuming 'ALL' Christians Do embrace and MUSt embrace the trinity to be verified as Christians. The author Chris Ayers bring out that there is the Evangelical Protestant and Catholic belief where they view Jesus as both human and also God..and then that there is also the Liberal Christian view that God was not God, not divine and just a good man. But there IS yet a 3rd view that IS held by both Fundamental Christians AND Progressive Christians alike that is inbetween these two. Some, such as those on www.BibicalUnitarians.org/ call this belief Arianism or simply Bibical Unitarian. Form what the author of this source has explained to me this is the belief that God has NEVER been incarnated. They believe that when Jesus rose from the dead he was elevated and though Jesus did NOT become God nor equal to him, that Jesus DID become a divine being as God placed him to his right side. There is yet another belief that is related to this..but different in that they believe much the same only that Jesus was THEE first being that God created directly and THROUGH whom God used to make all other things in the universe and that as such Jesus DID have a pre-life in heaven BEFORE coming to earth. I asked the bibical Unitarian owner what this belief would be called and he said he honesty did not know and so I named it Divinatarians. So here's how I see it..and tell me if this makes sense to you... I see that there are the following views of Jesus in Christianity: 1. Trintarian= Jesus was and is God and Savior 2. Divinatarian=Jesus is NOT God but was the first being created directly by God through whom all other things in the universe were created and is Savior 3. Bibical Unitarianism= Jesus had no pre-life in heaven before being born as a human on earth but when he was resurrected he was then elevated to God's right hand man and thus became our savior. 4. Unitarianism=Jesus was neither God nor divine was fully human was an adopted son of God but is not Savior. Now, as for the issue of Billy Graham. As I have talked about in the past on here, my own main problem with Graham is his view that the unjust have positvely no hope or second chance at redemption after this life.

I just recieved my newest TCPC newsletter in the mail today and the article that caught mu attention might relate to what we are talking about here. it is intitled, "Billy Graham: Obstacle to Progressive Christianity." I will start a NEW thread by this very ttile where we can all discuss our thoughts on this TCPC article.

I agree with what you said and now I understand..but how is peace to made with the right? And do you think this have to come about through innerfaith dialog? Why or why not?