BillM

Romansh, I don't at all mind a point-by-point discussion (it can be time well-spent). As you know, I'm a non-theist. To me, God is an ancient metaphor, a placeholder, not a being that we can seek and understand with the disciplines of science. I have had a few of what I would call mystical experiences of God, but these were experiences of CONNECTEDNESS to what is, not some sort of Isaiah experience of being caught up to the third heaven and seeing angels, etc. These experiences are descriptive of me, not prescriptive for others. But they convinced me that the Universe is truly the Uni-verse and not as disconnected as religions often teach (us vs. them, flesh vs. spirit, etc.). I'm very skeptical of what I consider to be supernatural claims. I suspect that Nature is all that there is. But I also suspect, as Newton said, that we have just barely begun to explore Nature. Barely. So I think that science, not religion, will lead the way forward for human maturity. At least, it has the capability to do so. However, we are, for the time being, stuck in an age where the majority of humanity still needs the walkers that religion often provides. Most are not ready to walk upright on their own. They need, in their view, the hand of a heavenly Father.

Thanks for your input and condolences, NORM. I suspect that suffering usually has two major impacts on us. The first is our desire to know and understand why we suffer. We'd like a reason. The second, perhaps more devastating, is how alone or forsaken suffering makes us feel. Even Jesus, on the cross, seemed to feel that God had forsaken him. This is where, perhaps, sitting Shiva is a helpful practice. I don't really know anything about the tradition, but I know it is the community coming together to support the grieving. I don't think that Christianity has such a tradition, probably because it holds that because the loved one is in a better place, grieving is not necessary. Ha ha. Not true. Grieving is about those who remain, about dealing with our loss, not about healing (because that probably does not come), but about learning to live with the life-change that the loss brings to us, usually against our will. It is not an easy thing and, IMO, can be helped by a support community. In my own experience, though a couple of people from my church came to the funeral, that was all that happened. We received cards, of course, but there was nothing like sitting Shiva. Nobody truly grieved with us (IMO). Instead, they just tried to reassure us that all was in God's plan and that Moriah was in a better place. I don't believe the first assertion and I'm skeptical of the second.

I suspect that the reason that religion is not shelved entirely for the sake of science is that there still exists within the human creature the notion of spirit or, for lack of better terms, the desire that we have to believe that life has some meaning and purpose to it. Science alone, IMO, cannot provide that. Within the evolutionary paradigm, we exist only to reproduce ourselves, red in tooth and claw. There is no higher meaning or purpose. There is no spirit. All there is in scientism is the physical realm. Everything we experience, so we are told, comes down to chemical reactions and neurons firing in the brain. While this is certainly true, such a paradigm doesn't really support our age-enduring desire to think that we are somehow special, somehow God's crowning creation, somehow the center of the universe. I respect science highly as a tool to study and understand the physical realm. But I'm not ready to say that all that exists within the universe is physical matter. How could we be dogmatic on such an assertion? This doesn't mean that I believe in God as the Old Man in the Sky, or in angels or demons. It just means that there *might* be more to the cosmos than just what our physical senses tell us. So I'm not convinced that a modern scientific understanding is everything we need to mature as a species. Science tells us how to build a bomb. Can it tell us whether or not to use it if all we are is a collection of meaningless chemicals and neurons? I love good scifi because it raises these kinds of questions. Just because we can do a thing, should we? I'm not sure science alone can help us answer all our questions. What do you think?

I hope it's okay to resurrect an older thread, but Paul makes a good point. Popular Christianity, for better or worse, rests upon the notion that everyone since the time of Adam has been born in the "going to hell line" and that the only way to remedy that damning situation is soteriology. So then endless arguments ensue about whether we are saved by our faith in Christ, the faith of Christ, the teachings of Christ, the atonement, good works, following church or Christian theology, predestination, universalism, etc. ad infinitum. All of this discussion and argument stems from believing in a literal Adam and Eve whose sin, rather than causing them to simply die, resulted in the damnation of all of humanity. So I, too, am thankful if the church can get past the teaching that we need to be saved from hell, and how that is accomplished. Soteriology, IMO, has done nothing to make our world better because it is too focused on some mythical next world. I don't at all deny that the Bible has a lot to say about salvation, but it is seldom in the context of getting out of the "going to hell line."

Joseph, you make a point which, to me, is important but which can also be somewhat challenging. In fact, it references the thread I started on the role of Jesus for PCs. Of course, you well know that no one person speaks for all PCs, so our answers can be, and are, quite varied in this respect. Back when I was an evangelical, I considered Jesus to be my Lord and I considered that most, if not all, of the red letters in my Bible were his authentic teachings. So Jesus was, for me, a person to be obeyed, to be followed, to be imitated. I no longer hold to that viewpoint unilaterally. Like you, yes, there are some teachings attributed to Jesus that seem, to me, to be good, just, compassionate, teachings which, if put into place, might make us more mature humans and our world a better place. But I would not in any way say that all of the red letters are of this nature. Many of his teachings, as others have said, reflect the limited view of the man, given his time, culture, and religion. So, for me, Jesus is more like a brother whom I have never met, but who others have described to me. Are these descriptions accurate? Who is to say? But my brother is my brother and has no authority over me. If I value whatever relationship I have with him, I have to consider, as I do, what information I have available and whether or not what is attributed to him does, in face, seem sensible and moral to me. This is quite a different view of Jesus from when I was an evangelical. But it is where my journey has lead me and I'm fairly comfortable with this position. I have "freedom in Christ" to even question Jesus. My brother, not my Lord.

Much is made in Progressive Christianity about how we should be inclusive of others. The idea is that no matter one's race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, social status, culture, etc., we welcome all to be part of...fill in the blank, community, God's kingdom, the church, God's people. Often, Jesus is held up as our standard for such egalitarianism. Yet, even if we no longer hold to a belief in hell or everlasting torment, there are still plenty of scriptures attributed to Jesus where he speaks of those who are not inside the kingdom, of those who are late, of those who are not prepared, of those who don't join into the party, of those who are, dare I say it, damned. What do we, as PCs do with these non-inclusive accounts where Jesus seems to teach against universalism or to say that there are people who are not going to be included, who are not, for lack of a better term, going to make it? How can we speak of Jesus as our role model for inclusivity when he was not always inclusive?

One of the things I appreciate about your Oath, NORM, is that, unlike most Christian creeds, it is more centered on what we do rather than on what we believe. Beliefs (unless they are harmful ones) are relatively impotent. This is, IMO, why many people can claim to be Christian and yet not have their lives match up with the love, the life, the freedom of being that Jesus showed us. Jesus had relatively little to say about what to believe. He had much to say about how his listeners should live. I'm especially struck by how he said his followers would be known by their love. Love is not a belief. It is an action, rather a series of actions that reflect how we live.

Great post, NORM. Good to see that you are still here and sharing. I'm currently re-reading 4 of Spong's books and getting things out of them that, probably, I wasn't ready for before. The PC journey is, on one hand, a difficult one for me because many of the things I now hold to be central are not really central to common Christianity, some of which your article refers to. On the other hand, perhaps like you, I have found other things that are central to my life and faith that are meaningful and purposeful to me, even if they are unorthodox. Many of those things are also reflected in your Hippocratic Oath for the Religious, so thanks for sharing.

PS - One of the things that Progressive Christianity does for me, Burl, is it gives me the freedom to bring reason, common sense, science, textual criticism, conscience, and morality to the scriptures. I don't have to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. That's not how human reproduction works. Even children know that. I don't have to believe that Jesus turned water into wine or walked on water or fed 5000 with a little bread and a couple of fish. I don't have to believe that epilepsy is caused by demon possession. I don't have to believe in bodily resurrection of Jesus, especially when the accounts disagree and when such an event is not in any way supported by science or biology. I don't have to believe that Jesus is going to return to destroy the world. I don't have to believe in a literal heaven or a literal hell. I don't have to believe that God had to kill Jesus before he could forgive my sins. I can believe in these things *if* I choose to, if I think they make sense to me or are moral. But, for me, PC offers a liberal Christian approach that, rather than trying to reclaim some time of non-existent pure Christianity of the first century, calls me to ask how Christianity can be interpreted in sensible, moral ways today that help us face the challenges of being human and the needs of a hurting world. I read and converse with the scriptures. But they have no authority over me than what I allow them to have. So when Jesus says, "He that believes in me will never die" and believers died anyway, well, he was obviously wrong. If he meant that they wouldn't stay dead, he could have said so. There is no evidence, even in the scriptures, that a Christian is immortal. None.

I don't take the resurrection accounts as literal, historical events, Burl. In the first place, the four accounts don't agree with each other and cannot in any way be reconciled. In the second place, I recognize science as a better way of understanding our physical world than the mythical claims of people 2000 years ago. We all know that people don't come back to life after being dead for 3 days except in fairy tales. In the third place, Christianity has done a poor job in understanding "eternal" (aionos) in the scriptures. It doesn't mean "everlasting." It means "age-pertaining." Even those that Jesus promised "eternal life" to still died. There is no scientific reason to think that consciousness continues without the brain that produces it. That's what would make the resurrection necessary. But we have no evidence or proof of such a thing. Certainly people have come back to life after dying with resuscitation efforts. But that isn't quite what the Bible means by resurrection. The whole idea is rather nebulous, lacking proof, and against science.

I don't think that current science can get us much past the point of "ashes to ashes, dust to dust." And maybe this fits with Jesus' teaching that we are to deny ourselves and pick up our cross. He was facing his own death, probably gazing into the unknown. So perhaps this is what it means to deny the self, to be aware that the self that we know, the self in our bodies, is doomed to perish.

I agree with you, Burl. Even within Judaism, the idea of the resurrection came about because, without it, God's promise to give faithful Jews their own land and kingdom seemed to fail. So the idea of the resurrection allowed them a certain amount of trusting that God would be "fair" in someday restoring them to their land, even if it was post-death.

Growing up in evangelical Christianity, there is no doubt that that version held to the "going to heaven or going to hell" paradigm. My studies in Judaism led me to believe that the ancient Jews did not hold to this paradigm. For them, being in covenant with Yahweh led, not to immortality, but to having their own land, on earth. It wasn't until the Babylonian captivity that some (but not all) of them began to entertain notions of being resurrected to live on a renewed earth. The Sadducees, as we know, rejected this notion. And Christianity has almost always had, on the sidelines, the teaching of annihilationism, that the wicked stay dead, that only the righteous get immortality. I'm agnostic on the whole subject. I'm not a PC either to gain heaven or escape hell. I suspect that the "turn or burn" approach of Christianity came into the church via Greek Gentile influence. Back to the self: To me, self-consciousness or self-awareness is both the product of our human evolution and a "gift from God". In my most mystical moments, when I sense or perceive that there is no separation between my self and God, I'm still aware of my self, but it doesn't impede my relationship with God. In fact, I'm not sure I could feel "at one" with God unless there was an "I" to feel this. Others experiences may be (and probably are) different. But, in this sense, I always wish the highest good for my self, which may indeed be opposed to popular "selfishness." This, to me, may be what Jesus meant by loving one's self. But I'm not sure.

Steve, I don't know if the notion of an "immortal soul" is an orthodox Christian one or not (though it is a popular notion). But I also know that (somewhere) the Bible says, "The soul that sins, it shall die." The word "soul", in its original Hebrew meaning, did not mean an immortal part of the human makeup. It simply meant "life", no more, no less. In this sense, the Bible speaks of animals as souls because they, too, have life. When the word began to take on the idea that it is an immortal part of human componentry (body, soul, spirit), I don't know. We can, of course, reasonably assert the existence of the body and soul (as in "alive" or "not alive"). But claims that we have an immortal component (such as spirit) don't seem, at this point, to be scientifically verifiable. There are many superstitious and anecdotal claims, of course, but I wouldn't consider them to be hard evidence for some part of us that is immortal. Just from my studies.

Yes, Paul, I was referring to Jesus' saying of the two greatest commands, "Love your neighbor as yourself." This seems to imply that we have some kind of self-love. Of course, as has been pointed out, other scriptures have Jesus say to deny yourself. Isn't the Bible fun?

Some religions, especially those of the East, tend to focus on diminishing self or attaining some state where self no longer matters. How would this concept, which I think has some benefit, mesh with Jesus' teachings about loving one's self? Are these notions at odds or do they overlap?

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't find Yahweh's command for the Israelites to commit genocide to be "God breathed." Neither would I find Yahweh's command to take virgins as war booty to be "God breathed." Neither would I find Yahweh's command to stone disobedient children to be "God breathed." Other scriptures that I wouldn't consider to be "God breathed": The sun stopping in the sky. The command to kill homosexuals. The idea that Yahweh punished all humans for the sin of two. The notion that snakes or donkeys talk. The idea that an axe-head can float on water. The claim that God killed someone for spilling their ###### on the ground. The claim that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt. The claim that all the animals of the earth fit into and were sustained in the ark. The notion that God would sanction a man's sacrifice of his daughter to God. None of these so-called "God breathed" scriptures, IMO, line up with either science and/or morality. Neither do they line up with my progressive experience of that which I call God. I understand the desire for an infallible, inerrant "word of God", but I don't think it is available to us. PS - Because there may be some here that appreciate the Weekly Lectionary, I won't discuss my views on the Bible further in this thread. If anyone wants to discuss/debate that issue further, I'd be open to another thread for doing so. Peace.

I find our different experiences of church to be interesting and fascinating, especially between one side of the pond and the other. I admit that when I was young, I rather enjoyed the notion that the pastor had all the answers and it was my role to be the student. But as I've grown old (ha ha), I no longer see things that way. About 3 months ago, my UMC pastor told the children, during the "Children's Sermon" that the creation stories in Genesis were fact. The UMC should know better by now. I mean, I love these people but they simply hold to a different view than I do, not only of the world, but of Christianity and what it means. I can no longer fit into the cookie-cutter mentality of the institutional church. I've become one of what Spong calls "the church alumni association."

I was, for lack of a better term, in love with Jesus for many years. But I eventually came to see that the Jesus I was attached to wasn't very much like the Yeshua portrayed in the scriptures. So, for me, Jesus' role is much like that of a teacher or example of a spirit-filled human life. But I don't claim that the resurrected Jesus lives in my heart, as if there are two people living inside me. On the other hand, I have come to appreciate the mystical strain in Christianity that suggests that we can experience some of "Christ within", which I interpret to be an awareness of our connectedness to God and to others. This, to me, is the "anointing" that the original word references back to, where we, as humans, become God's agents for justice and compassion on earth. But, speaking only for myself, I don't consider Jesus to be some kind of ghost or physical being sitting next to God on a throne somewhere. He is, rather, a symbol of a spirit-person, something that I can develop and enjoy in my life here and now.

I agree with Burl, this is an excellent article, Joseph.

I confess that I really don't attend church much anymore. It may sound selfish, but it just doesn't do anything for me. And I've moved far in my own theology to where I don't think God, such that God is, needs or wants worship. So the notion that I need to go to church in order to worship God is, IMO, ancient superstition based upon a deity with self-esteem problems. What kind of person needs to continually be told how great or awesome they are? What I do miss is the fellowship. I have (or had) some pretty good friends there at church. Yet none of them have been to see us in our "dark night of the soul" or during my wife's open-heart surgery. They assured us, via email, that they are praying for us. But, being human, I'd rather see someone face-to-face then to have them tell me that I'm in their prayers. The UMC church that I have a membership at is, of course, in the middle of debating whether or not homosexuals can be licensed by their denomination. Their Book of Discipline has forbidden it. Yet there are, no doubt, many pastors in UMC pulpits who are in homosexual relationships. I have no problem with it. But it's a shame that this issue is tearing the UMC church apart. I find that the hymns, though pretty, seldom reflect what I believe. I have to cross my fingers if I say the Creeds. I don't take part in Communion because, to me, it is representative of cannibalism which Jesus, being a Jew, would never have supported. I visited a UUA church while I was in Boston. The UUAs have a long history of progressive social and theological movements. But they are, currently, only about 20% confessing Christian. That may be an option I pursue. Another option is a UCC church here in Fort Worth. I've visited a few times and quite a number of sermons would fit right in with PC. But it is quite a drive away. So I miss church. But I feel that I can't truly be who I am at the church that I have my membership. It is too constrained by doctrine and tradition.

Burl, the scriptures are a tool, perhaps like a hammer. A hammer can be used to build a house. It can also be used to kill someone, bashing their head in. There are indeed wonderful scriptures where Jesus tells us to love God and love one another, even those we consider to be enemies. There are scriptures, such as we find near the end of the gospel of Matthew, where Jesus says to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, help the poor. There are scriptures, such as we find in Galatians, where Paul tells us what the fruit of the spirit is and what it means to walk a spirit-filled path. There are scriptures that tell us that the mark of one who follows Jesus is love. Faith, hope, and love are good. But the greatest is love. But there are also scriptures where God tells the Israelites to destroy their neighbors, to keep virgins as war-booty, to kill homosexuals, to stone disobedient children. There are scriptures where Jesus says to hate father and mother. There are scriptures where Jesus says to buy a sword. There are scriptures where Paul curses anyone who does not hold to his gospel, which is quite different from Jesus' gospel. There are scriptures that say that women should be silent in church, that they should not teach men, that they should not wear jewelry. There are scriptures that say that anyone who is not a Christian will, in some sense, be forever outside of God's presence. There are scriptures that condemn eating shellfish, eating bacon, wearing cloths made of blends, and planting different kinds of crops in a field. What this tells me is that the scriptures are far from monolithic or consistent. It tells me, contrary to what Paul asserts in 2 Timothy, that not ALL scripture is breathed out by God, unless God is some sort of schizophrenic deity with an arbitrary sense of morality. The scriptures are diverse enough that they can be made to support almost any view that we want to hold to on almost any issue. Those Christians who call for the death of homosexuals are Bible-believers. So are those who refuse medical help. So are snake-handlers and exorcists. The scriptures, for me, are not authoritative, despite what Paul says or meant. They are, rather, a conversational partner. I read them and ask, "This is how ancient people viewed God and life with God. Does this still make sense today? Is this moral? Does this lead to compassion?" I don't read them with the view of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." In fact, there is a great deal of the Bible that I don't think God had anything to do with. At least, not the God that I think calls me deeper into life, love, and fullness of being. At their best, the scriptures call us to seek out a personal relationship with the Divine. At their worst, the scriptures sometimes call us to denigrate and harm one another. So I in no way believe that God breathed out all scripture. If Paul in fact wrote this, I doubt he had read all scripture. Much of it is not worth calling "the Word of God."

This topic is broken off from a discussion we were having on Burl's Lectionary thread. What role does Jesus play for you today? Intercessor? Mediator? Savior? Example? God to be worshipped? Divine rescuer? Humanist? Jewish sage? Jewish spirit-person? Giver of eternal life? Forgiver of sins? Spirit guide? Other?

I, too, think that the KoG for Jesus, at least in the beginning of his ministry, was a reconstituted Israel. I recall him telling his disciples to take the gospel only to the house of Israel. And he chastised the woman who came to him to have her daughter healed because she was not Jewish (as I recall). But I also think that, over time, Jesus' concept of the KoG began to change. He became more open to half-breeds and Gentiles. And he refused the throne in Jerusalem, something that those who believed in an earthly messiah would have expected him to usurp. In one of his post-resurrection appearances, he told his disciples to take his teachings into all the world. So perhaps his views were enlarged as he came into contact with people. If this is true, then the KoG, for Israel, would have meant the re-establishment of their nation with their own ruler. This would have probably been interpreted as Israel ruling the known world with messiah ruling with a rod of iron to enforce the monotheism and laws of the Jews. It wouldn't have meant, as Burl, point out, the modern notion of "going to heaven." It would have meant heaven coming to earth, which is something we see in the book of Revelation. Yet... Yet I have trouble translating this into modern terms. For one thing, we don't live in a monarchy. We here in the States have no king. We claim to be a democracy - a government by the people for the people. Second, I'm very wary of the kind of Christianity that feels that nationalism and patriotism are almost synonymous with being a Christian, as if God establish the USA so that he could, through the USA, rule the rest of the world. Such notions make my skin crawl because of what this kind of thinking has lead to in the past in other nations. So this makes me wonder what of the KoG is left that might be translatable or relevant for us in the modern world. Is the term, or should it be, obsolete? If so, what if left of the message of Jesus that still applies to us today?

Yes, Romansh, there are certainly more than just 3 options. Pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, and deism being a few more. I was just speaking within general North American god-concepts. I also appreciate your thoughts on the justice/penal system. No "punishment" can bring my granddaughter back. But one idea that may be gaining ground in all of this, because it is such a high profile case, is the possibility of "Moriah's Law" which would make it, at least on paper, illegal to text while driving on Texas highways. Currently, there is no such law. Some cities outlaw it. Almost all school zones outlaw it. But there is nothing to stop people from distracted driving in speeds in excess of 65MPH on our highways. Would such a law stop all texters? Certainly not. But it may raise public awareness of the dangers, and it may, perhaps, save some lives.