BillM

I suspect that the problem with our “holy books” is not the books themselves, but how we use them. Our sacred writings reflect conversations that we’ve had with each other in the past about our experiences of the Sacred, how we understand those experiences, and how we pass those experiences along to subsequent generations. In this sense, I think they are valuable as part of our history, a reflection of our spiritual journeys as humans. They show us how our ancestors saw things, struggled with things, sometimes resolved things, and, certainly, came up with more than one answer to the human dilemma. When we see our sacred scriptures in this way, they can be helpful in showing us both the insights and the misunderstandings we’ve had along the way. The problem arises, IMO, when we “absolutize” our sacred writings and think that they are the Sacred to whom they point. The result of this is that people’s points-of-view rooted in the past are then considered to be God’s point of view for all time for all people. None of us experience the Sacred in exactly the same way. We are all individuals and, therefore, have our own perceptions and understandings of the Sacred. It is when we start to believe, “Your experience must be like my own” that we run into trouble. We turn our experience, which is subjective, into objective truth and then use that to judge others, who is in and who is out, who is more spiritual, who is less. I find it interesting how Jesus took the “I am the Lord, your God. I am holy so you shall be holy” passage and transmuted it into, “God is compassionate, so you should be compassionate.” Jesus, IMO, counters the prevailing religious opinion of his day that God’s chief attribute is separateness. Rather, says Jesus, God is compassionate, “with” rather than “separate.” It is in Jesus that we can find “God with us.” We can even discover “God in us.” And this, IMO, is why the Golden Rule is important. We discover God in each other and recognize the sacredness of the other. That should be honored, imperfect reflection though it is. And I see our sacred writings the same way. They should be honored, imperfect though they are, as part of our journey. They reflect our past and may hold some hard-learned lessons for our future. But they are not the Sacred and shouldn’t be worshipped as such. BillM

Welcome, TheThinker! (I like your handle!) Jump into our conversations or start one of your own. I look forward to knowing you better! BillM

BTW, Skyseeker, have you read, "The Coming of the Son of Man" by Andrew Perriman? I found it helpful in understanding the symbolism in Jesus' eschatological teachings, though I don't agree with every conclusion Perriman makes. BillMc

Dutch, I'm not sure that's a fair assessment of preterism. As I've said previously, preterism is an attempt to deal with Jesus' eschatological teachings within the first century framework. This in no way implies that all of Jesus' teachings about eschatology are literal. In fact, preterests, perhaps more than futurists, recognize the symbolism and allusion present in prophetic streams which are, IMO, not so much about revealing fate as it must/will be, but about warning what might happen if a present course is pursued. Without this approach, it is more characteristic of the futurists (which most Christians are) to look for a literal moon turning to blood and stars falling from the heaven in their attempts to dislocate Jesus and his teachings from his first century world and make him relevant to today. This approach, IMO, does more to discredit the man and his teachings than to understand him. BillM

Skyseeker, I really enjoyed your thoughts on this. As I'm sure you can tell, progressives have a wide range of views on things. I'm am, perhaps, more of a moderate in many of my views, having found the liberal stance to be moving more and more toward atheism and the secular humanism. For me, I still find meaning and direction in the traditional notions of God, the Bible, and, especially Jesus of Nazareth. Believe me, I tried "throwing the baby out with the bath water", but found what was left was simply an empty tub with no correlation to Christianity whatsoever, nothing to tie it to the past, nothing to call it into the future. While I certainly don't think that the Bible is the "Words of God", I still value Jesus' teachings highly. This, to me, does not mean to take them all literally, but it does mean to take them seriously. If Jesus of Nazareth actually lived (many say he is a fabrication), and if, as many religions think, he was a great teacher, then his teachings need to be considered, especially in their first century context. And this, to me, is where the preterist view is helpful in ways that the futurist view is not. It is not a matter of trying to prove the Bible as inerrant and infallible, it is just a matter of trying to understand what Jesus taught and meant and what ramifications that might have for us today. Some would give all of Jesus' teachings in the scriptures black beads (inside joke), but others would still say that he taught us something about God and how to live with one another as God's people. To me, the preterist view is helpful in eliminating the fear-based theology rampant in much of evangelicalism that says Jesus is about to return and judge and/or kill people. I saw a van yesterday at Walmart plastered from top to bottom with this message, that time is short and the world is coming to an end. I think this stance needs to be dealt with (for those who would listen) through serious study of Jesus' teachings in their first-century context. Preterism shines at doing this. To me, the point of understanding it is not to prove that Jesus is God or that the Bible was written by God, but just to try to understand what Jesus' teachings likely meant to the generation he preached to...and if those teachings still in some sense apply to us today. BillM

Skyseeker, I am a preterist, probably of the partial-preterist bent. It is not that I believe that Jesus literally "predicted" the events of 70AD, but I do think the early Church had him make reference to these events as a warning to those who refused God's kingdom. Much of this, of course, comes down to whether or not you see Jesus as an eschatological prophet, as being concerned about where his religion and world was headed. I think he was, in a certain sense. But I don't think that he was privy to details about the future as many futurists claim. I just think he suspected what would happen to the Jews, as a nation, is they rebelled openly against Rome. Nevertheless, I don't think was about the end of the world in a literal sense, just the end of the Jewish world with the Temple as the center. BillM

Dutch, I understand. And I'm not saying that a new Christianity without "God" isn't the right path. It may be for many people. I'm just saying that many people will not find it appealing because, as DrDon points out, they want or need a God-model. But this is why, for me, Jesus is a mediator. Not because he died to pay for my sins, as I don't believe that. But he offers me words that, for me and my needs/wants, do describe God: Father, compassion, Spirit. Granted, I have to fill these words with my own meaning, which I try to do from the rest of Jesus' teachings and my own experiences. I guess what I'm trying to do is what one theologian pointed to when he said something like, "God is the One that we cannot speak of, that we must speak of." As always, just my 2c. BillM

Skyseeker, I hope you don't mind me offering up a couple of thoughts here; I only do so because I've walked a similar path. The way that I (and many progressives) see the scriptures is that the Bible is not a book written by God. It is, rather, a collection of books written by different authors at different times about their experiences with and interpretations of God. If this is true (and I find it reasonable to think so), then, yes, it is possible, and perhaps necessary, to see some parts of scripture as giving us less than perfect understandings of God. We do have the freedom to disagree with Moses and Joshua that God, if he is love, would command genocide. We have the freedom to disagree with Paul that women should be silent in the church, or that government is God-ordained, or that slavery is okay. We have the freedom to agree with Paul and say that he saw through a glass darkly and was not right about homosexuals and their stance with God. This is not easy to do because much of Christianity teaches that you have to believe ALL of the Bible or NONE of it. Who says? Didn't Jesus counter some of the OT teachings? Didn't God show the apostle Peter that, countering the holiness codes of the OT, God accepts Gentiles? And for that matter, Jesus never started or taught Christianity. Christianity is (my opinion only) a religion about worshipping Jesus as God. It doesn't necessarily follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. It is often, as you have pointed out, more about following all of the Bible or putting Paul over Jesus. Jesus becomes little more than a human sacrifice to appease an angry God, and that is not what Jesus taught us. Jesus taught that God is compassionate, that God welcomes ALL. He taught that the Mosaic code really came down to loving God and loving others. So I'm leary of those who want the 10 Commandments posted everywhere and as a basis for a system of government, knowing that the punishment for breaking those commandments is death. Jesus said that what God wants is compassion and justice (which is the social form of compassion). You are in my thoughts and prayers, Skyseeker. There is some good advice in this thread for you. I have nothing to add to that from a practicical viewpoint. I would just encourage you to consider that Jesus never taught "biblical Christianity" or the inerrancy and infallibility of the scriptures, etc. He taught and lived loving God by loving those around him. If you are into reading, I recommend "The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus Borg. He does a good job, IMO, in reminding us what Jesus was all about and how following him is about love, not about sin and punishment. BillM

DrDon, I hope that I didn't come across as a conservative, fundamentalist in my post. I am probably about as far from orthodox Christianity as one can get doctrinally (except for, perhaps, our dear Jack Spong), but there are still a few areas where I use the language of traditional Christianity, but often have to explain how *I* am using the words. So my gift, unlike Dutch's, is saying in one thousand words what should have taken ten. There is a sense in which I think PaulS is right. Whether a person thinks that God doesn't exist or doesn't care, or whether another person believes that God exist but is so transcendent, the result is the same -- God cannot be known. Yet there is a very large segment of humanity that claims experiences of God and I don't know what to do with these claims (other than what the New Atheists say should be done with them). Many of these people, despite the validity of their claims to know God, are, as PaulS has said, loving people. Love rises to the top in their lives and manifests itself as peace, social justice, compassion, etc. Now, I admit that perhaps the only terms that we need to bind us together is peace, social justice, compassion, etc. As long as we agree on those or work towards those, that may be all we need. If that is the case, then maybe many people will let "God-language" and "God-models" go. We will, therefore, become solely humanists. I think, and this is only my opinion, that this is where Spong is going with his work, a new Christianity where God is no more than a synonym for human love and compassion. God is us at our human best. It is indeed an interest premise. But this does fly in the face of God as the "More", as something or Someone larger than ourselves that binds us together. And I just don't know if most people, especially those who have a religious bent, are going to give that up. On the other hand (I have eight of them because I've had four children), I definately disagree with most theistic "attributes" of God. I especially disagree with the "God is holy" model that set up holiness and purity codes, creating an us versus them mentality in religion, and think that Jesus countered this model with the "God is compassion" model, which can foster oneness. I will look through the other threads, DrDon, in order to get to know you better. Nice chatting with you and I'm looking forward to our relationship! BillM

>>If it is true as you said Bill that our God model is the lens (paraphrase) with which we search for proof of God then isn't proof of God irrelevant and since we choose our God model isn't it only our thoughts and behavior that can be valued. I may have misspoke, Dutch. I didn't mean that our God-model is what we use to "search for proof of God", but, rather, that our God-model is how we explain and preserve our experiences of God. In this sense, yes, I do think that it is behavior (which often does come from our thoughts and beliefs) that is the "proof in the pudding". >>I don't mean to dismiss the value of 'personal' relationship with ultimate reality but to focus attention on evaluating - isn't this where we always end up - our behavior towards each other. I think so. In biblical terms, if we say we love God, but don't love one another, we lie. And the converse may be radically true -- if we love one another, then we are loving God also. What do you think? >>That the personality chooses a God that validates our own inclinations and that the way to change is through relationship with others and not through God's teachings? Hmmm. I don't doubt that we do tend to choose a God-model that reflects our own inclinations and values for where we are. This is certainly the case in my life. So I think there can be the tendency for each of us to create God in our own image and then enthrone that image in our heart and life. And this can be, IMO, detrimental if that God-model serves us and us alone. This is why I think we need community. Community can keep us from getting "too far afield" with our God-model, calling us to be responsible to one another, keeping us from becoming too idiosyncratic, which, unfortunately, can lead to cultish beliefs and practices. For instance, I have an "experience" of God that I believe (as much as I can) is transcendent, that goes beyond words, that "proved" to me (I'm not sure I like that phrase) that God is real. But I don't preach this experience as doctrine. Nor do I make it binding upon another. It is MY experience. In my experience, God seemed to me to be pure love and acceptance. I have no statistics, but I think many people either experience or see God this way. But if my experience had led me to believe that I am the only true Christian and that everyone else is going to hell, then community is right and helpful to me to say, "Bill, you need to rethink your experience, for it can be harmful." This in no way means that the majority is right. It simply means that we are accountable and responsible to one another in a good way. So while I may claim a "personal" relationship with God, if that "personal" relationship leads to bad behavior towards others, I need to be called on it. My "personal" relationship with what I call God should not harm other "persons". Is this a value judgment? Certainly. But sometimes that's all we have, isn't it? BillM

Good posts, DrDon. I've been discussing this subject on another PC forum and thought I would abbreviate my thoughts on this subject here also. I am accutely (and sometimes painfully) aware that what I know, or think I know, about God is not provable, especially from a scientific approach. If there is a God as a reality in or behind our universe and existence, this God is, to a large degree, unknowable to us (IMO). If this God is there, then what we can know of this God is more of a knowledge based upon experience than upon concepts that we hold to be true. Our God-concepts, which I call "models", are how we attempt to make sense of our God-experiences (if, indeed, we have them). Therefore, conceptually, the best we have is models of God that we hold to, human constructs that explain our experiences of God, so that we can, as humans, explain and pass along our experiences. Some of these models may indeed come relatively close to the way that God really is, but they are certainly not infallible and inerrant. We construct our God-models in our image. As Spong says, "If horses had gods, they would look and act like horses." I believe we do (and should) update our God-models from time to time as new data is considered and as we progress as humans. This is where I differ from my conservative brothers and sisters who think it best to "conserve" God-models from the past, either from the OT or from the models given to us by the Church. God may or may not be immutable, but our concepts of God certainly do change over time. Nevertheless, even our updated God-models are only that - models - and will most likely be discarded by future generations as idols or misunderstandings of our time and culture. You wrote: I believe that responsible and mature faith must begin with the honest and unemotional reality that God has left us absolutely nothing by way of proof to His/Her/Its/Their existence. We would love to hang onto emotional concepts that circumvent this but, in the end, we cannot. Maybe. But this raises the question, DrDon, of what you mean by "God"? What is the God-model that you are using? I'll be honest and say that my God-model is a reasoning Mind behind and in the universe that has lead to life and consciousness. Is my God-concept ontological true? I don't know. I don't require 100% absolute ontological, scientific truth before I have faith. If I did, I would never have faith. What kind of proof would you like to see for God's existence? I suspect that it depends on what your concept of God is like, does it not? Some want to see miracles. Some want God to protect them from all harm. Some want a universe where nothing bad ever happens as proof that an all-loving God rules from heaven. Some whan assurance that no matter what happens here, they have a promise of a blessed afterlife. Some want God to bless them with health, riches, power, or a long life. Some want God to be their "genie in the bottle" who will do what they ask if they pray long enough or right enough or often enough or say the magic words of "in Jesus' name". We all have God-models. But they are not God. So I agree with you that, in the end, each of us is faced with our own choices for the existence and nature of God. But, in my opinion, whether or not our God-models reflect how God really is (if he/she/they/it/we actually exist), I don't think all God-models are of equal value or benefit to humanity. Some God-models reflect our human desire for greed, for more land or wealth, and we believe God sanctions that, even war, because God has favorites that he wants to bless. Some God-models reflect holiness codes, and we believe that what God really wants is purity. Some God-models reflect an ultimate "us vs. them" with "true" worshippers or followers and that God will separate people according to their God-models, perhaps damning most to hell. Or, unfortunately, calling the "true" believers to rid the world of infidels. So I don't believe that all God-models are beneficial to us or our world. In my bias, what I believe we need is a God-model that is beneficial to us and our world by calling us to compassion and justice. Yes, now I sound like a flaming liberal. That is the kind of God-model that I see in the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Is God "really" this way? I have no idea. I hope so. All I know is that this God-model, though I suspect it is an idol, works for me. It transforms me, not because I can "prove" it scientifically or ontologically, but because it makes a difference in my life, hopefully for the better. BillMc

Welcome, Stopman! I, too, go to a Methodist church. Good people. And we do a lot of good in our community. But I have to cross my fingers when we say the Creed and try to be eclectic about what I hear. My own path has somewhat similar to yours and, perhaps like you, I have found writing about it very therapuetic. If you'd like to share more of your journey and faith with us, there is a "Personal Stories and Journeys" section where you can write from the heart and put your thoughts/experiences to "internet paper" so-to-speak. Be blessed and be a blessing. BillM

Wise words, BoundSacrifice. I agree with you about the “us versus them” mentality and how we deal with that or get over that (although I’m not always successful at practicing what I preach). One of the things that comes up here on the forum from time to time, is our labels and how they often do easily lend themselves to the “us versus them” paradigm. “What is a Christian?” “What is Progressive Christianity?” As soon as we say that we are Christians, there is a lot of baggage that comes with that label. It’s a 2000-year-old religion, how could there not be? And it seems to be the general consensus, due to how vocal conservative, fundamentalist Christians are, they if we are Christians, then those who are not are, by default, judged to be lesser; either lesser in their religious/philosophical views or even, worst case scenario, condemned to hell. Of course, one of the things that progressive Christianity is trying to say is that there are different ways to be Christian and we have the freedom to find the way that works best for us, that makes sense to us, that leads us to transformation or an experience of unity with our God, ourselves, and our fellow human beings. But because the label “Christianity” and “Christian” does have this baggage (which many of us are trying to shed), many who hear “progressive Christian” think it to be an oxymoron or, as you say, a synonym for “heretic”. The label “Christian” has, at the same time, both a rich heritage for bringing some blessing to our world and a bad reputation for being, at times, judgmental and even immoral. At church, I gladly say that I am a Christian. That is the language and culture of the Church. But few there really know how unorthodox I am. My goal there is not to teach theology or to dismantle anyone else’s, but to simply love them and help them as I can. In public, however, I seldom, if ever, say that I am a Christian because I know that people will feel judged by that label and I usually do not have time to explain what a “progressive Christian” is. Lately, if asked, I just tell people that I am a “Jesusian”. This at least let’s folks know that Jesus fits in there somewhere, but that I’m not the typical “turn-or-burn” type Christian. Then, if they inquire further, I have an opportunity to share. If they don’t, no problem. But I appreciate what you said about being blessed to be a blessing. What if our more conservative brothers and sisters, rather than asking, “If you died today, do you know where you will go?”, were to ask, “How can I be a blessing to you today?” Not in an ego-building way, of course, but just in the spirit (and maybe Spirit) of conveying, “You are not truly separate from me. We are in this together with one Father. How can we celebrate this?” >> God loves us all, regardless of what we think about God. This has been the bedrock experience of my life since when I “lost” my Christianity. God loves me just as I am, Christian or not. Regardless of my theology and/or philosophy. But our label of Christianity, for better or worse, is often known for the theology that it holds to and the doctrines it believes. Can we fill the “Christian” or the "Church" wineskins with new wine? Should we? Or does new wine really need new wineskins? I don’t know. Maybe it depends on who we are talking with. But it is interesting to note that Jesus never taught Christianity or called people to be Christians. Nothing wrong with the label. But what’s in the jar?

Joseph, >>It seems to me in general people continue to do church and hold to the conventional Christian doctrines as long as it fills some important need in them. I think your assessment is spot-on. And, as you know, that was and still is the case in my life. I needed (or felt I did) different things in my younger years from church than I do now. As a result, I attend different churches now than I did then. And this notion may well feed into why my church is not growing; it doesn’t meet the spiritual needs of my particular community. Some folks desire more out of a church than just friendships and opportunities to help the less fortunate. Of course, that does raise the question of whether we go to church in order to get our needs met or to meet the needs of others or to try to strike a balance between the two. >> It is my view that it is just a matter of time as they go through the trials and tribulations of life and enter into a more personal search/relationship for themselves that they will come to a point where standard answers to their questions no longer satisfy their soul. As many of us have found, that is a critical and often painful part of the journey. It includes a realization that while God does speak through others, that God who is no respecter of persons reveals him/her/it self to all men/woman through life itself and that no single human/religion has a 'corner on God'. And this raises, at least in my mind, the consideration of how “personal” our religious beliefs and experiences are. Do we, perhaps, miss something in making our faith too “personal”? What has been the bane and the blessing of the Church is that it has offered “community”, a sense of belonging to something (or even Someone) bigger than just ourselves. This power can be and has been abused, but the sense of community, of being part of a larger whole, satisfies something in us. But we are now a very individualistic society that expounds itself on personal freedoms, rights, and privileges. We have “personal” computers, “private” messengers and messages. Our phones have now transitioned to where everyone has their own “personal” phone. The focus is on “I”. iPhones. iPads. iPods. Little about us is communal anymore. In this drift towards individualism, will we soon, if we don’t already, have (tongue-in-cheek) iGod or iJesus or iChrist, religion tailor-made just for ME, that satisfies MY needs, but doesn’t really connect with others or a community any longer? >>While Jesus was a wonderful teacher and example to many, it seems to me that the foundation of any church he may have envisioned was as in Mathew 16:17, 18 and that was "hearing from God directly" rather than the tenets of men whose motives may be in question. So, it seems to me, while churches in general may be declining, as long as individuals are getting closer to the true tenets of God, the kingdom is in a sense, 'expanding' here on earth. Again, I think you are spot-on. Jesus is recorded as saying that it is Spirit that leads us into all truth. So it is not primarily the Bible or the Church or Christianity. It is, according to Jesus, God with us, God in us. We live by the Spirit. We walk by the Spirit. This can be, IMO, a very “personal” thing in a good way, very satisfying to us as persons. But even in saying this, the notion of the “kingdom” is more than just everyone having their own personal cubicle in heaven. J The notion of the kingdom, at least as I see it portrayed in the book of Acts when the Church officially began, is that people were “together”. Individualism was down-played for the sake of the greater good of the community. Granted, that was a different time and place, and I know that. But I guess that what I’m using way too many words to say is that while I agree about the personal aspect of our faith and journey, I’m not too sure how private it should be. If I believed it should be totally private, I wouldn’t even be here.

Good questions, Paul, very good questions. I was involved in a conversation about "spiritual things" with one of my coworkers last week who is an avid Pentecostal. Gun control, the pros and cons, was what began the conversation, but that subject lead to other subjects and I eventually let him know that I did not believe in many of Christianity's doctrines (Virgin Birth, Trinity, Original Sin, Substitutionary Atonement, Return of Jihad-Jesus). His response was, "Well, you don't believe the Bible then. Why do you even go to church?" My answer sounded so lame. I said, "I go there because that's where my friends are and we are doing some good in our community." Now, he assured me that he went to his church to hear the Word of God, and to worship God Almighty, and to hear "a Word of the Lord" from his preacher, and to receive healing from God. And he proudly told me that goes Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, Tuesday night for Bible Study, and Friday night for deacon's meeting. How can I compete with THAT? He was nice enough not to say, I don't doubt that he thought my church is "dead". And if someone new came to our community and had to pick between a church where the living and holy God is encountered and heard from, and another church where we make sandwiches for people who have nothing to eat, which would they choose? I suppose it comes down to, as we are discussing, what we think the role of the church is or should be. But when I think of Jesus' life, how he formed friendships and did good within his Jewish community, I don't feel so bad. For me, going to church is about relationships. And I think that is a good thing. I don't go there to be involved in a service that corporately strokes God's ego, though, yes, it is high church so we do sing songs of praise. And I do hear God speaking through my pastors. But then, I hear God speaking through my friends there, my family, my kids, almost everywhere. Maybe Church has become outdated to a degree, Paul. I think that the social structures found there would lend themselves to, perhaps, good places for Christian education and social programs. But these things seem to be that antithesis of what many evangelicals (though not all) seem to think that church is all about. Church, for them, seems to be a place where everyone believes the same things. And in our world of mass communication with so much information, religious and otherwise, at our fingertips, finding groups with "group-think" is going to become rarer and rarer, IMO. As I'm sure you know, Spong has written, "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." Pretty good book. But it is, IMO, mostly theological. I would love to see a book on "Why the Church Must Change or Die" that gives us some possibilities for transforming some of our churches. There will always be Christians like my coworker who need that kind of church. But many mainlines don't offer that sort of church experience. So what could they offer more than just a "social club"?

Yes, Dutch, that's an interesting (and valid) approach to church growth. The more religious one is, the more children one has. Liberals/progressives may be a bit more "responsible" in this area, but I have no data to back that up. Another factor that comes to mind, although I am not sure exactly how it relates to the OP, is that what the mainline pastors have been taught in seminary as far as historical criticism goes hardly every makes it to the pews. I suspect that this is because, like the rest of us, pastors need jobs. I know for a fact that my pastors (a husband and wife team) support the GBLT movement within Christianity, an issue that the Methodist Church continues to struggle with. But they say nothing about their stance from the pulpit. Perhaps it is because our congregation is older and more conservative. But perhaps there are other reasons, I don't know. What I do know is that my church is a good church. It does good and loving things in our community. It literally feeds the hungry and works with the homeless. Nevertheless, we don't draw in any new members, mainly other Methodists who are moving into the area. So, despite our "good works", my church seems to be quite irrelevant to our community, at least to the younger sector who weren't raised religiously. And, as I mentioned, I'm torn as to whether or not these people should even be "evangelized" to become active in the church. Right or wrong, they don't seem to feel that anything is missing in their lives. They seem quite happy without religion.

BoundSacrifice, I think you make excellent points, also. To me, it is not that our conservative brothers and sisters don't think, but that their reasoning is restricted to the views of their particular denominations. I have, in the past, been somewhat questioning and critical of the pluralism here, but it certainly makes for interesting conversations and provides lots of opportunities to see things from another point of view. While this can lead to conflict, it can also lead to growth. But one of the inherent obstacles in conservative Christianity is that it often does want to conserve the views and interpretations of the past. How do we or can we or should we circumvent this? I also think you're right about the need to present religion, not as primarily a set of beliefs, but as a path of wise, moral, and beneficial steps in a journey. Conservatives often criticize the Mainlines as being 'social clubs'. On one level, if the only reason we go to church is out of tradition or because that's where our friends are, their labels of us might be somewhat justified. But if our 'social clubs, existed to actually further the social gospel as Jesus taught it, more conservatives might take notice. Not that many of us aren't doing these things now, but I don't even know everything my church is doing, let alone why, and I'm not sure on what basis I would even try to 'sell' my church to many conservatives. It's a good church, but though it is Mainline, it is conservative in many ways and doesn't seem to know how to wisely move forward. So it continues to do pretty much what it did 50 years ago and our older members are dying off and very few younger people are joining. When I read the gospel stories, regardless of their veracity, I can't help but wonder what made people so drawn to Jesus? And if he is truly here with us in some sense, why aren't people flocking to him? Are we in the way of the Way?

Good point, Paul. Although, on a technicality, I'm not sure if a group with no religious affiliation could be considered the fastest growing religious group. In your opinion, would this be the same or related to the group that is "Spiritual, But Not Religious"? Bill

BoundSacrifice, if you haven't read it, Diana Butler-Bass has a book that addresses this trend, called "Christianity for the Rest of Us". It's been a while since I've read it, but she notes two main reasons that she feels contribute to many mainline churchs losing their membership versus the growth of the more conservative branches of Christianity. 1. The reality of God - Diana thinks that many mainlines are either unsure of or unaffirming of the reality of God. Perhaps this is due to how "small" God has become in our post-Enlightenment culture, or due to the liturgy of traditions, but she feels that mainlines do not go to church to encounter God. When I was younger and a Pentecostal, I loved that faith because God did seem so real, so tangible in our worship services. Their theology aside, they affirmed that God was real and that he could be known and experienced in a very personal way. Diana feels that we, as human beings, long for this, to know God personally. The position of many mainlines, IMO (not Diana's) is that we know decent theology, but the experience side of it is played down. Even in my own life, I do not go to church to encounter God. My more liberal or progressive theology tells me that God is everywhere. So I go to church to be with my friends, not to worship God. For many conversatives, though, worshipping God is the main focus of the church service. You go there to experience God. 2. The nature of epistomology - In this crazy, mixed up, confusiong world, we want answers to life's problems and challenges. For many mainlines and progressives, we know that there are no magic bullets, no "one-size-fits-all" answers to life. For many of us, life is not about finding unassailable answers, but about a journey, about experience and growth. Many of us are able to hold to questions that seem to have no resolution and even to appreciate and hold in tension different so-called answers because we are aware of and know the importance of context. In contrast, the more conservative branches of Christianity offer people solid answers via proof-texting the Bible or presenting systematic theologies that attempt to help people prioritize their beliefs in order to resolve tensions. This is, I admit, an attractive method. Who would not want the Bible to be an "answer book" that would give us infallible and inerrant answers to all of life's questions and problems? But we progressives know that the Bible and Christianity itself doesn't really work that way. The Bible is filled with a plethora of questions and different answers, all part of the faith of the Jews or of the early church. And Christianity is so splintered that it, too, presents many different viewpoints to those who are honest seekers. Nevertheless, Diana's book highlights a few mainline churches that are growing, and growing well. She does think that they are doing so because 1) they affirm that God is real and can be experienced personally and 2) religious education in these churches focuses on asking the right questions, especially regarding the role of the Church i.e. should the Church's main function be to worship God corporately or to be an agent for good transformation in the location that it exists? Me, I'm torn. I love my church (a local UMC) for its loving people and the work it does in our community. But I don't go there to "feel" God (though I sometimes think it happens anyway). And my UMC is still high-church enough that it doesn't really deal with post-modern questions. It recites the Creeds and thinks those should answer any questions seekers may have. Will our mainline churches address these issues? Can or should they? We'll see, I suppose.

Hi Ron, If/when you do read Cain's book, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it or a short review. Bill

Vridar, Amy-Jill Levine as had another book called, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, which I am about 60% through and find it very helpful in trying to understand the Jewishness of Jesus and his first-century context. Another one in this vein that I've recently finished and that I thought was very good is Jesus the Man: An Introduction for People at Home in the Modern World by Marvin F. Cain. I don't agree with all of Cain's conclusions about Jesus, but that's okay, it got me thinking in new ways about this man I've been fascinated with for 40 years.

BTW, good people, for anyone interested in taking an online course on the "historical Jesus" via an analytical study of the New Testament, the Learning Centre for Religious Literacy is hosting a 6-lecture study from February 12 through May 7. Details can be found here: http://www.questcentre.ca/seminars

Ron, It is a reference to the, alleged, two different “gospels” (good news) found in the New Testament. According to the testimony of the synoptics, Jesus’ “gospel” is centered in the kingdom of God, the announcement that God was calling people, beginning with the Jews but eventually extending to the Gentiles, to live by God’s Way of compassion and justice. Accompanying this announcement, according to the gospel writers, were “signs” of the kingdom, such as healings, exorcisms, and even nature miracles. My interpretation: these were all meant to show that God’s Presence or Spirit was in and amongst us to enable us to live in compassionate communities called the kingdom of God. So Jesus’ gospel is not about himself or the events of his life, but about the in-breaking and experience of God’s kingdom on earth. In contrast, Paul’s “gospel” has little to do with the kingdom of God. His gospel, by his own admission, centers in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul’s gospel is not about the teachings of Jesus, but about Jesus’ death for our sins and Jesus’ resurrection as proof of an afterlife. Many people, myself included, feel that Paul’s gospel has dominated much of Church theology for the last 2000 years. For many Christians (but certainly not all), the question of the gospel is, “If you died today, do you know where you will go?” While that question may be somewhat important, that was not the focus of Jesus’ teaching. His focus was on wise living in the here and now, as exemplified in his parables and aphorisms. He wasn’t crucified for teaching about the afterlife. He was crucified for preaching an alternative personal/social wisdom that challenged both the religious and political authorities of his day. So there seems to be two different gospels in the NT, one by Jesus that has nothing to do with his death and resurrection, but with the need to repent and begin living as God’s people here and now. And one by Paul that says what is really important is believing that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected, and that believing this puts you in right relationship with God. Paul even goes so far to call down curses with anyone who disagrees with his gospel. To me, that is a bit presumptuous. I don’t know whether these two gospels can be reconciled or not. But I do find their dissimilarities interesting.

Thanks, Ron. I'll have to look into Dr. Tabor's work as I'm interested in how "following Jesus" (what I call "Jesusism") changed into Christianity. I try not to be too hard on the apostle Paul and do my best, where he is concerned, to follow his own advice, "Test all things. Hold to what is good." I think he was very zealous to be all things to all people in order that he might win some. But, and this is just my opinion, I think his theology went too far in removing the historical Jesus (whom he never met) from his Jewish context and recasting him as a Greek/Roman God in order to make him attractive/palatable to the Gentile world. This, to me, is what the "Christ of faith" is, the recasting of the human Jesus of Nazareth into a God to allow for Jesus-worship. Yet, I also recognize and respect that some see "Christ" as the part of Jesus (and the part of ourselves) that is in-tune or at one with God. I believe the historical Jesus taught this principle also. And I suspect many seekers would be open to explore this perspective of "Christ." It is just the "supernatural" baggage - such as the Virgin Birth, the Sinless Life, the Ascension, etc. - that makes Christ unbelievable to many people. And if they can't get past that way Jesus has been packaged by the Church, they seldom will listen to the teachings that come closest to what we know of the real person (however close or distant we can get to him).

Good point, George. In my opinion, I don't even think there is a "consensus view." There seem to be about 3 or 4 different streams of interpretation within "historical Jesus" scholarship. Obviously, Ehrman follows Schweitzer's view that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and was wrong about the timing of God's kingdom, which pretty much makes him, for Ehrman, untrustworthy about anything he said. Nevertheless, there have been a lot of strides made in Jesus-scholarship over the last 60 years which are leading a good percentage of the scholars to think that Jesus was not as apocalyptic as first thought. I could post some of these references, but it is always more fun to research things for one's self. For me, and speaking only for myself, I do believe that Jesus believed that kingdom had arrived, but that it was vastly different from many apocalyptic expectations, including those of John the Baptist, that were circulating at the time. We do often find the kind of "Jesus" that we want or need. Jesus scholars try to bear these "weakness" in mind.