AletheiaRivers

When I started reading Screwtape yesterday I realized it was the wrong book. Meaning, I had intended to buy The Great Divorce, but somehow picked up this one instead. I was mildly dissappointed at first (because I was looking forward to the bus ride), but soon got over that. I haven't seen Narnia yet. I'm looking forward to it. I'm still in the middle of The Road Less Traveled, but my husband appropriated it from me, and so I had to move to another book. I don't know whether to read Further Along the Road Less Traveled next, or People of the Lie. Recommendations?

I'm in the middle of The Screwtape Letters right now, and I keep finding myself saying "Crap, Screwtape could be writing to Wormwood about me in this letter, because the circumstances fit so well." He, Lewis not Screwtape, has a way of putting things that make me feel so guilty (in a good way).

Boy, you like to ask the hard questions don't you? I've been thinking about it, and I don't honestly know if I coud explain what an authentic Christian spirituality would look like. It's difficult, because I find I don't want to judge anybody's relationship with God. That comes out a bit relativistic, which I don't intend it to be. I guess I'd say that authentic Christian faith is a faith (love for God) that changes the inner person and prompts them (from that love) to do things "greater than Christ." I'm sure that could be re-worded a bit better, but after thinking for the past half hour, it's what I decided to finally write.

I've been chewing on this all day, but I'm no closer to understanding WHY the emergent church movement weakens the possibility of solidly critiquing the claims of literal Christianity. If anything, I see it as bringing the Evangelical branch of Christianity into dialogue with "Traditional" Christianity (which is what Generous Orthodoxy is all about: dialogue and understanding). Traditional Christianity isn't liberal by any means, but it IS less literal and more mystical. I haven't read anything from any "emergent" author except Brian McLaren, and I've never gotten the impression that he is hyper literal in his interpretations. Actually, he has a book coming out next April that has me a bit nervous, called (if I remember correctly) The Secret Jesus or something to that effect. Why nervous? Because I really don't want him going down the "Gospel of Thomas path." Elaine Pagels and others have covered that completely, and I'm actually very happy that McLaren has been sticking to a somewhat historical/critical method. I appreciate his desire to ground Christianity in a historical way, while allowing that Scripture is not inerrant, and uses history, metaphor, allegory, parable, poetry, and song to convey spiritual truth.

T'was a tad dark, wasn't it? Nonetheless, Harry rocks!

I just posted a link to McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian" BLog on the other thread.

Beach, Brian McLaren, the author of the article I quoted, is a major voice in the Emerging Church movement. He's working hard to clear up the misunderstandings about post-modernism and what might be found beyond postmodernism. Here is a link to one of his webpages. A New Kind of Christian - Click Here

Which is why I appreciated McLaren's point in the article about "Three Post-Modernisms." It's not really that there are three different postmodern views, but that the first two are misunderstandings, over-generalizations and exaggerations.

I've read some conversations where people want to boycott a company because they are "politically incorrect" enough to say "Merry Christmas" and I've read other conversations where Christians want to boycott a company because they say "Happy Holidays." People just want to fight. I find myself saying both. If people want to be offended, that's their problem. I do agree that political correctness is out of control. I can't remember if it's Lowes or Home Depot that is selling "Holiday Trees." Good grief.

I don't ever identify myself as progressive, or liberal, or post-postmodern, or ... Hi, my name is Aletheia ( Fred) I simply state an opinion and let it stand for itself. That way the opinions are argued, rather than the labels.

Pbbbblllll!

I knew you didn't mean it LITERALLY. But still, there seemed to be contradiction there, by saying that "To the extent that we are still asleep, grinding our wheels attempting to regain..." I wouldn't think that anyone living in a dream world would be "attempting to regain" anything. Using the Matrix as an example. Most in the Matrix weren't trying to regain the lost city of Zion. They couldn't. They didn't even know it existed. Yes, this does fit in with my query. I was hoping the conversation would eventually end up here. I'd say yes, Christ is my true self, but not "only" that (not pantheism). Meaning, I believe we are us (finite) with Christ's spirit, God's spirit (infinite), within us. In a way, we wake ourselves up, but in another way, God does. I think it's participatory both inward and outward. I didn't describe my thoughts well the first time thru, but I wouldn't say I had two antitheses in there. I'm saying that the overall Thesis that is today's popular Christianity, has been responed to by an Antithesis, that has thrown the "personal God" baby out the window, with the "God is a person" bathwater. They aren't the same. I didn't mean for this to go so off topic. Sorry Darby.

Pot, kettle, black. Hehehehe. Why would someone be attempting to gain salvation if they are asleep (and don't know that they did or did not lose it)? Yeah, I know, picky picky. If someone is trying to regain salvation, I'd say they are "awake" enough to at least have asked some questions and try to find some answers. You are a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in an invisibility cloak! How do we wake ourselves up? I thought there wasn't anything we could do? We've come back around to the questions I asked earlier: Do we, as humans dealing with being "fallen" (ego blinded), have the ability to wake up on our own? Or does it take something akin to prevenient grace (which all have necessarily)? Or is it all "determined" (election)? I wasn't really asking questions or making statements about salvation per se, as much as asking whether we do something to ourselves to wake ourselves up, or if some sort of "divine intervention" is needed IN ORDER for us to even contemplate such an idea as "waking ourselves up" and "salvation." That ties in to the OP and the question of responsibility. Just how determistic is the universe and where does moral responsibility and free will enter into the equasion? I actually wasn't positing opposites. I was discussing the thought and counter thought to various propositions about God based upon the following definition of dialectic: "On Hegel's understanding of dialectic, one examines a position or state of affairs and discovers within it problems and contradictions that allow one to take a new position or set up a new state of affairs that incorporates responses to those problems or contradictions. Hegel's notion of dialectic is often described as a process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis though he did not use those terms himself and though his understanding of dialectic cannot be reduced to that triadic pattern." The "new position" that is taken up based on a previous position need not be polar-opposition, but it is recognized that the new position is generally an over-reaction. Thesis: God is a person and we must use personal, anthropomorphic language to describe him, and offer him sacrifices, and believe he lives on a mountain. Antithesis: God is not a person. In fact, we shouldn't ever use anthropomorphic language to describe God, don't talk to God, and don't believe God even hears us. That's how much God is NOT a person. OR Thesis: The universe is wholly seperate from God. We are autonomous entities, sinful, and God can't even bear to look at us. Antithesis: The universe is wholly God. We are not autonomous entities, but are actually Godself, and the process of history is simply the product of a single entity, God. My point was, basically, that as much as I appreciate current philosophical thought, I see in it an over-reaction to what has come before it. But hey, that is ok, because if Hegel is right, we are on our way to a Synthesis of the old and the new anyway.

If such activities can have the side-effect of causing us to glimpse "the beyond," then how are such activities pointless? Are we (1) just along for the ride or can we (2) participate somehow, in the ride? There is no empirical or philosophical proof that one of the above views is true, while the other is false. I choose to believe that we are called to actively participate in the unfolding of the universe. The first option, I think, leads to relativism. I agree that we must let the universe play itself out. We don't seem to have the option of saying "I'd like to get off now." I don't even think death would give us that. And when I said above that I think we are called to participate in the unfolding of the universe, I didn't mean it as a "striving," (just for clarification). Many people do strive, obviously. But I don't think waking up is the realization that we are just along for the ride and must let the universe do it's thing. I think waking up entails realizing that the universe is going somewhere, and that we can be part of that proactively, rather than being dragged along, willy nilly. It's funny how dialectics plays into everything isn't it? The Christian Thesis seems to be that God is a personal, manlike being that is involved supernaturally, from above, in human affairs. The Antithesis seems to be that the universe is divine, that we are all God, that the whole universe is God, and that there is no "personal" God as the term in commonly understood. Over-reaction begets over-reaction begets over-reaction. I think waking up doesn't entail going way over to the other side, but in the synthesis. Yeah, me too.

Right. That is actually the point I had in mind. We can't "overcome." In the same spirit, I'd say we can't "let go" either. The situation is we are ego-attatched. So now what? I agree with this in theory, but where does that leave us? I'm all right and you're all right? Everyone is saved so we are all alright? We can't overcome our egos. We can't let go our egos, because all such actions are ego driven. Where does the state of being saved (but not seeing it) leave us, if all our actions, even kenotic emptying, are ego driven? It's a paradox, but obviously people (even Ken Wilber) make an attempt to transcend the paradox. How, what, where, when? Do we just let the universe play itself out? I think it has to be more than that and I think it's also infinitely simpler than we think it is.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. It's not that defenses such as the twinkie defense are valid, but it's that the whole disease that gives rise to such ideas as the twinkie defense is an actual disease (ego attatchment). Yes, I agree. I guess in ranting against what I think is the idiocy of such a defense, I'm actually ranting against the problems that ego-attatchment causes. I do see ego attatchment as a disease. Actually, I think selfishness and ego-attatchement are the "original sin" and the fall, respectively. Mankind operates under this sin and it certainly makes following Christ difficult (perhaps impossible?) Perhaps this is where "Prevenient Grace" comes in. Do we, as humans dealing with "original sin," have the ability to overcome this state on our own? Via prevenient grace (which all have)? Or is it all "determined" (election)? I am willing to bet that the inability to choose to do right without some sort of help wouldn't be an idea at all foreign to Darby. Eh Darby?

Smart ass.

I've been saying that there is some weird freakin' synchronicity happening over the past few weeks on this board. I don't even tell you the half of it. In Keith Wards book he has a bunch of stuff to say about Kenosis and kenotic spirituality. I've been reading theology and philosophy for years and I've never come across the term. I put aside Ward's book a few months ago and just picked it back up. If I'd finished reading it when I started it, I probably would have glossed right over his mentioning of Kenosis. I swear, sometimes I feel downright guided.

I think "Integral" is a much better term for what Brian McLaren proposes. Perhaps "post colonial" is good too. The term "postmodernism", even "emerging postmodernism" has too much baggage attatched to it. How would we word that Fred? "Hi, I'm a modernist." "Hi, I'm a postmodernist." "Hi, I'm an Integralist." "Hi, I'm an Integral Viewist."

No, I don't think you were championing "buck passing." I just wanted to clarify that yes, some people have legitimate "mental issues" that may make them more likely to act in certain ways. However, I feel that the, dare I say postmodern, attitude, that "It's not my fault" is being over-used today. It "cheapens" the experiences, feelings and actions of those that basically, have a "good excuse" for their poor behaviour. I guess that those that use the twinky-defense could REALLY believe in it, but I'm more inclined to believe that a good defense strategist put it in their mind. I totally agree that responsibility is a joint effort. I've been reading Scott Peck and really appreciate his focus on the true meaning of "Love" - concern and active involvement in the spiritual growth of others. PS - you keeps bopping in to read as I'm editing. Oops.

When I say we are all responsible for our own actions, I don't mean to imply that we always have a controlled, conscious choice in how we feel. Feelings well up inside of us unbidden and uncontrolled, which is what makes them feelings. I'd agree that we can't act in isolation from our situations, but I also think that in any given situation we have CHOICES. I think that perhaps yes, the raw material we are handed is ours to make what we MIGHT of it. Perhaps that is how God exists in time. Why not that rather than something else? I think that perhaps the evolving of the universe is a "joint" effort. I could say that God's grace is necessary to make those "correct" choices, but putting it in those words simplifies my rather complicated Hegelian ontology. Unified field of consciousness or not (which I actually agree with), basically I think humans pass the buck too much. "The Devil made me do it." "The prozac made me do it." "The twinkies made do it." "Fundamentalism made me do it." "God pre-determined I would do it." "I'm gonna sue you because your food made me fat." "I'm gonna sue you because your coffee was hot and burned my lap."

Nutshell? Kidding! Great synopsis. I get a kick out of the idea that Kierkegaard really disliked Hegel (The System?) The quote from Kierkegaard about the Eternal being in time could be a synopsis of Hegel's entire ontology.

Fred will do this more justice than I can but, here goes ... Modernism is/was a wordview, an era, a way of describing who we are and how we relate to the universe. Modernism, in a simplistic nutshell, is the worldview that grew out of moving away from religion and God and towards science. Post-modernism is the worldview that some say is developing now. Science, while still important, hasn't been found to contain all the answers that many hoped it would. Many are turning to philosophy, religion and God again, and are allowing that belief to influence their worldview. Fred?

I would say that Yes, most atheists I have chatted with became so because of their feelings towards a previous belief system. And as I said in Darby's thread, I think that had I known there were options, I might not have temporarily given up on God and Christianity.

It was multifold: 1) I was really tired of the hypocrisy that I saw in my congregation. I'd had enough and I walked away. I think it helped me feel better about my decision to be a little angry for a while. 2) Doctrine and attitudes of JW's towards "the world." I couldn't swallow anymore the belief that God is as small as humans like to make him. JW's didn't teach eternal damnation, but they still taught that God was going to wipe out 99% of the worlds population in a huge act of genocide. I agree that yes, the Bible does portray God that way, but I don't think that particular writings about God as found in much of the Bible is absolute literal Truth, written down as a "once and for all time" question and answer guide. I tried to stay Christian for a very short while after leaving. I tried to argue against JW's that their interpretations were wrong, but I couldn't agree with most alternative interpretations either. All the ex-JW's that I talked to were members of churches that were just as legalistic as the JW's. I had no experience with anything else and didn't even know "traditional" or "mainline" Christianity existed. I figured Methodists, Lutherans, American Baptists, Episcopalians were all the same and just as legalistic (differing only on minor doctrinal issues). That's what I get for growing up in an agnostic household in Mormonsville: no religious diversity. I certainly didn't feel like I could stay inside the organization and help reform it. That just gets you labeled an apostate and then disfellowshipped. Also, I got married only a few months after leaving and moved to New York. All my husbands close friends were JW's and so we felt we had to be careful. Neither of us wanted to be disfellowshipped because our family (especially his) were/are JW's. So, in a nutshell, I felt burned and I didn't know there were options. I eventually found out, but it took a while. Where am I now? Good question. I'm not evolving toward a more "legalistic" interpretation off scripture, but I'm more comfortable with reading scripture as literal (as opposed to it being ALL metaphorical). I try to keep the literal reading within the cultural and temporal situation to which it applies. I'm comfortable with the idea of "progressive revelation" or "narrative theology." It helps me reconcile apparent OT/NT contradictions. My theology is: "I believe in God." My Christology is: "Something special happened in the person of Jesus. I think that Jesus was Divine. I think Jesus was resurrected. I think that the incarnation and the resurrection tell us something profound about the meaning of life and the cosmos." Some doctrinal issues I have no problem affirming. Where I am perhaps still considered too liberal by many would be that I don't think much of what the church focuses on as being important (read: saves you from Hell) is actually important at all.