BillM

Just be glad you don't have to live with my brain, Deborah! Yes, it would mean that I interpret those things metaphorically. Another subject. Jesus never mentions being born of a virgin in any of his teachings. Neither does the apostle Paul, the earliest NT writer. All Paul says is that Jesus was "born of a woman." He mentions no virgin birth, no manger, no wise men, no field with shepherds, no star in the sky. The resurrection accounts in the gospels cannot be harmonized, IMO. The earliest gospel, Mark, has no account of a resurrected Jesus. It simply says that the tomb was empty and that the women left afraid. If you check your bible (any major version), you will find a note in the gospel of Mark that says that Jesus' post-resurrection appearances are not found in the earliest manuscripts. These appearances were added later. Please allow me to say I have walked a similar road to your own, though there are, of course, differences. And I felt, for quite a while, that if I couldn't believe ALL of it, then I couldn't believe ANY of it. It did feel, as you say, all connected. In my opinion, this is because Christianity comes to us as a package deal. It doesn't want us cherry-picking what we believe. It takes the "whole enchilada" approach and insists that we eat it all. And if it comes to us in our childhood naiveté, then we often believe simply because we trust those who have given us the package. As we grow and mature, though, we learn to separate the chaff from the wheat. Or, as the apostle Paul says, "Test all things, hold to what is good." As adults, we develop reasoning skills that enable us to determine what is true from what is false. We no longer accept what our parents taught us just because they said so. We only accept what, to us, seems wise and good. And we also do this with knowledge in the "real world". It's my belief that we should also do this with religious thinks. We should bring reason and skepticism to the bible, to notions about God and Jesus. This doesn't mean that reason is the ONLY way to discern spiritual things (for I've had a few mystical experiences that go beyond reason), but it means that we do ask if our religious views are somewhat coherent. If our religion doesn't make some sort of sense, then we are holding to non-sense. Now, the apostle Paul does say that if Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, our faith is in vain. But there are two important things to notice about this. First, Paul says that it is a spiritual body. What does that mean? No one seems to know. Second, Jesus never taught that his resurrection was key to following him. His virgin birth and his resurrection are not part of the Sermon on the Mount or the Two Great Commandments. It seems to me, though I could be wrong, that Christianity's main focus should be on what Jesus taught, and the virgin birth and his resurrection weren't major themes to him -- though they are to Christians. It is not easy to walk this "progressive" path. It's been hard for me in my ways. But it has also made Jesus and God more believable to me. It's a journey of unlearning and learning. But I think it is worth it.

Did you manage to find a theology and world-view that closed the gap between your mystical experience and your mind? Probably the closest thing I've found, Deborah, is panentheim with a touch of process theology thrown in. In panentheism, everything is in God. God is considered to truly be omnipresent. There is no where we can go to get away from God's presence (Ps 139; Acts 17), like in the Gospel of the Chairs. A good metaphor for this is a fish swimming in the ocean. The fish is in the ocean, but the ocean is in the fish and all around the fish. The fish cannot go where the ocean is not. Paul echoes this in Acts 17: "In God we live and move and have our being." This notion probably best explains to my head the experience of my heart.

I'm not sure, Deborah. I do know that the first century Jews, unlike the Greeks, were fairly strict monotheists. No faithful Jew would have considered himself to be YHWH. However, they did have a concept for (and an expectation of) a person who was "God's agent" or "God's anointed" (which is what "messiah" or "Christ" means). When Jesus starts his public ministry, he goes to the synagogue and reads from Isaiah's scroll: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me to...." This is his Inaugural Speech. He doesn't say, "I am YHWH" or "I am YHWM the Son." He simply says that God's Spirit (Presence) is upon him to enable him to do his ministry. Now, I have no fear that if I worshipped Jesus, God would strike me down. Christians have done so for 2000 years and will, no doubt, continue to worship Jesus as God. All of our concepts of God are, IMO, idols. It is just that the Trinity makes no sense to me and I can't imagine Jesus saying that he was God. As you've mentioned, he did claim unity with God. But he also prayed that we would experience the same unity. I do think that Jesus was divine. But it is the same kind of divine that we all share in as God's children, God's sons and daughters. I believe that I am a son of God. But I am not God nor the totality of God. My wife can verify this. God is More than just me. But when Christians consider Jesus to be God and all of us to be just sinners, it makes following his Way impossible from the start. I believe we can be "fully human" but also Spirit-filled or Spirit-anointed. We can carry on Jesus work in this world.

To me, Jesus is not different in kind. But he is different in degree. Many (most?) Christians see Jesus as different in kind. To them, he is the God-man. Or he is God appearing to be human (Docetism, which was actually a heresy at one point). But Jesus is something which we are not. He appeared to be human, but he was really God on the inside. Therefore, he can be worshipped, but not followed. One does not follow a god, but one does worship a god. To me, Jesus is a God-filled (or Spirit-filled) human. And I think he was more God-filled than probably any other man that I know. So I think he was 100% human, but he had a degree of sensitivity to God that most do not. Some do. Mystics have a sensitivity to the Spirit. But they are still human. This fits with the NT notion of being filled with the Spirit. The NT does not call us to be God-men or God-women. But it does call us to be filled with God, to follow the Spirit, to exhibit the fruits of the Spirit. We can do this as humans. This is why, for me, Jesus is an example of a God-filled human life, not a "God in a man suit". But YMMV.

Deborah, you asked about my mystical experiences. I've only had 3 of them and one of them I never share publically. These experiences are descriptive of me and my journey, but not prescriptive for anyone else. And they are extremely difficult to put into words so that you could "step into my shoes." Nonetheless, I'll offer them and you can make of them what you will. The first happened about 10 years ago when I was extremely frustrated with my Christian religion. Because I was raised a conservative fundamentalist, I thought that Christianity was mainly about whether you went to heaven or to hell when you died. And I'd been taught that it was correct beliefs that were the determining factor for destination. But with over 30,000 different Christian denominations, each of them claiming to be the "true Christians", how was I to know what the correct beliefs were? I entered a dark night of the soul which lasted for a number of months, in which I feared that God would/could kill me at any point, sealing my eternal fate. One night, as I lay in bed, I felt that the only sane solution for me was to no longer believe anything. So I told God that I no longer believed in him. I told him I no longer believed in Jesus. I told him that if he was real, he could kill me and send me to hell. I no longer cared. There are many other things that I told him in my despair and anger that are not fit to print, even here. Let's just say I was very blasphemous. And when I was done, I waited for lightning to strike. But instead of lightning, I felt as though warm water was starting to flow around my body. The feeling continued until it felt as though I was being buoyed up. I felt, perhaps, like a leaf on an ocean. It didn't matter what I did. It didn't matter what I believed. I just felt as though I (and everything that exists) was part of this huge ocean and that I was okay. Floating on and in this ocean had nothing to do with me, per se. There was no fear. There was no confusion. There was only the sense/feeling of "all is well." This lasted for, perhaps, 15 minutes or so. And then the water started to recede, leaving me laying there on my bed. See, I told you it wouldn't make any sense. But this experience conveyed to me that I was okay with "God", with Reality, with What Is, whatever name you want to put with it. The second experience happened when I took my son to the Johnson Space Center in Florida. We were watching an IMAX movie called, "Through the Eyes of Hubble." The movie starts on planet Earth and, using images from the Hubble Telescope combined with computer enhancement, it takes a 3D journey to the farthest reaches of our known universe. As I sat there, holding the hand of my 7-year-old son, he seemed to take on a gold glow. It sounds strange to describe it now. I was suddenly amazed that in this stunningly vast universe, there was only one of him and how fortunate I was to be his father. We are so, so, so small. And we are so, so, so unique. Tears were streaming down my cheeks at the beauty of our universe AND the capability that we have to have and treasure loved ones in our lives, even if it is for an extremely short amount of time. And then I was struck by the notion that God feels the same way about each of us. In this vast universe, we are each unique individuals that, IMO, God loves. The value of a thing is determined by its rarity. I was amazed at how rare each and every one of us is. We may be earthen vessels to each other, but are we golden vessels to God? Does God see us shining in his eyes, in his kingdom? Well, that's the gist of these two experiences. I really didn't seek them out. I have no idea if there will be others. But one assured me that I am okay with God, and the other reminded me how rare and precious we all are. And those these experiences are mine alone, they lead me to believe that you, too, are floating on the ocean of God and that you are a unique and rare creation. Rejoice!

Hi Deborah, What are your theories (of the atonement), if you have any? My theories (such that they are) is that Jesus was killed for challenging the religious and political authorities of his day. I don't believe his blood purchased God's forgiveness, as I believe God has always forgiven sins. Forgiveness is not for sale. I find no sense or comfort in the notion that God had to kill Jesus in order to forgive me. I want nothing to do with a God like that. If God cannot forgive my sins simply because he is a forgiving God, then I don't care a God that has to punish someone else in order to be on good terms with me. Have you heard of Brad Jersak? He wrote the book "A more Christlike God, a more beautiful gospel", where he suggests that we not only have gotten the end of the story wrong, but also the beginning (my rephrasing). Makes a whole lot of sense to me. His lecture on this sums it up nicely. Yes, this makes a whole lot of sense to me also. And Kevin Miller, director of "Hellbound?" who questions the retributive notions of hell and how they do not fit in with Jesus' teachings on love, forgiveness and mercy...which makes me question Jesus' other stories that do mention hell...have we perhaps misunderstood them due to mistranslations, misinterpretations and misunderstandings of culture and context? I'd agree. At the heart of Jesus' message and ministry is the notion, not of punishment, but of transformation. Repent. Change. Transform. His gospel, IMO, is about personal and social transformation. The doctrine of hell says that a time comes when God is no longer interested in the transformation of his creation. Instead, he just punishes them forevermore. What kind of parent would ever punish their child with no hope for repentance or reconciliation? How just would it be for God to punish people infinitely for finite sin? On the nature and heart of God. I believe that if Jesus was the exact representation of God, then I have reason to believe that God was never against us, but always for us. If Jesus did not shy away from our mess, but met us there, then why wouldn't God have the same heart towards our brokenness? Exactly. I've said, in the past, that if God couldn't look upon sin, and if Jesus was God, then people should have exploded or melted in Jesus' presence. But such was not the case. He enjoyed being with sinners and they seemed to enjoy being with him.  And what about hell? What is hell exactly? Our broken state? Our misery? Our pain? And all the consequences thereof? Then yes, I believe in hell and I see it all around me and in my own life...and Jesus met me there and has the keys (what do you think He intends to do with those? Lock us up for failing miserably or set us free in grace and forgiveness? So what about hell? What if Jesus' gehenna was something along these lines? What if hell is the painful encounter with Truth, that in metaphorical terms burns away all of the ignorance that has been shielding us from experiencing the pain of reality? What if all of this happened within an unconditional, non-judgemental, loving Presence ("God is a consuming fire")? What if hell is the equivalent to experiencing the pain we have inflicted on others? I could live with that kind of a hell and it would fit comfortably with the view of a loving God as well as with a just God, would it not? If hell is something like that, then it really does bring it right into the here and now, because I agree with you...bringing the Kingdom of God to earth is what Jesus was all about, I want to join in that effort! May I have your thoughts? Well, as you know hell/hades/gehenna/tartarus is a deep and lengthy study. But I distillate it into this: Most of Jesus' teachings are parables pitting, not destinations of heaven and hell, but wise living verses wasteful living. People, according to Jesus, invest their lives wisely in God and one another, or foolishly in selfishness or worldly systems. To symbolize a wasted life, I think Jesus chose the burning dump of Gehenna outside of the city of Jerusalem. Supposedly, the fires there burned day and night, and once your trash was thrown in there, there was no getting it back out. So I think Jesus used Gehenna as a powerful metaphor for a wasted life, for a life that does not seek the kingdom of God. Christianity and the church has changed Gehenna into a literal place (inside the earth?) where God punishes the wicked and unbelievers forever and ever with no hope of reform. It is indeed a powerful and frightening image. But it in no way paints God as just, loving, merciful, or compassionate.

That's a good question, Deborah. My answer has to be a bit technical so that I'm not misunderstood. To "worship" something is to attribute ultimate worth to it. It is akin to "worth-ship." If we worship someone or something, that person or thing becomes the center of our lives, perhaps the center to which everything points. And for many Christians, this is everything to them. But in my journey, I find Jesus to be like the finger pointing at the moon. The point is not to worship the finger, but to worship what the finger points to -- the moon. Jesus' ministry and message (except for in the gospel of John) was not about himself, but about God and God's kingdom. He preached that God alone should be worshipped (Matt 4:10; Luke 4:8). In my readings of the gospels, I don't see Jesus soliciting worship from people. He faithfully pointed to God. But Christianity eventually elevated Jesus to God status, eventually coming up with the doctrine of the Trinity. With this doctrine, because Jesus is a person of the God-head, Christians feel it appropriate to worship Jesus as God. Having said all of that, I do find Jesus worthy to be admired, emulated, considered to be a revelation of what a person full of God is like. I just don't think he is God. So I don't worship him.

The doctrine of hell can certainly instill a lot of fear in us. For many years, I was of a Baptist flavor and was never quite sure whether I believed all the right things enough to escape the fiery pits. I mean, they say to believe in Jesus, but exactly what must be believed about Jesus in order to have the right beliefs? Then I drifted into Calvinism which assured me of "once-saved-always-saved" or that I was chosen for salvation before the foundations of the earth were laid. But as that doctrine really painted God in a harsh light (IMO), I gradually came to believe in annihilationism. There is exactly quite a bit of scriptural support for this notion, that the wicked die and that is the end of them. Exploring still further, I found the doctrine of universalism. That doctrine also has a lot of scriptural support, the notion that Jesus' death was efficacious enough to save everyone. Of course, all of these doctrines are predicated upon the belief that we come into the world damned for hell in the first place (the doctrine of Original Sin). But as I explored progressive Christianity more, I came to believe that while we do in fact come into the world as selfish creatures, we are not damned from birth. That notion no longer makes sense for me and really makes God out to be an unjust monster. Add to this that, a few years back, I had a mystical experience in which I experienced God's unconditional love and, thankfully, I no longer fear hell, even if Jesus did teach it. At this point, I am agnostic about the heaven/hell scenario. I'm more concerned about the kingdom on earth and the notion that many people waste their lives on things that are just not worth it. As always, my 2 cents.

Wonnerful, if you haven't yet read them, these two chapters from "Common Sense Christianity" may be helpful to you: http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=3145&C=2654 http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=3145&C=2639

Concerning the Jesus of history, I use 2 main criteria for considering him, his mission, and his Christology: 1. First, I consider the work that the "historical Jesus" scholars have done over the past 100 years or so. I don't agree with all of their views or conclusions, but I find their work interesting and worth considering in that they try to place Jesus within his own 1st century Jewish/Roman context. In this endeavor, I try to be as objective as possible. 2. Second, which I have to admit is very subjective, I bring my own sense of morality and common sense to the biblical accounts of Jesus. CC tells us that we cannot do this, that we have to take what is on the page as historical fact. But I don't find that particular Jesus to be either sensible or, at times, very moral. Though I am far from infallible and inerrant, I think that at my age I have some sense of common sense (how things really work in the real world) and what it means to be a moral person. So I judge the stories about Jesus according to this criteria. Can anyone actually walk on water? Would it be wise to sell everything I have in order to follow Jesus? Is my epilepsy really caused by demons? In this sense, I guess I am somewhat like Thomas Jefferson, cutting and pasting his own "Jefferson Bible" with the miraculous removed. For CCs, they need the miracles in order to believe. For me, these accounts get in my way and make Jesus less real to me. So I take serious what the Jesus scholars have tried to do. But I also judge the scripture accounts according to how I think the world really works and my own moral compass. Some CCs would assure me that I have created Jesus in my own image. Perhaps that is so. But, as you have said, the accounts vary widely. Unless I walk away from Jesus completely (which I don't want to do), I do find that I reconstruct Jesus, his message, and his mission into what makes sense to me and seems to be a person of good moral character. YMMV

Wonnerful, I have wrestled with many of the same exact issues you mention. Unfortunately, I can't resolve any of them for you. I'm sure you already know this. All I can do is to say, "Yes, I've walked (and continue to walk) this path and here is where it has lead me." I continue to wrestle because somewhere deep inside I still feel there is a baby left when we throw out the bathwater. I was recently listening to a Borg/Craig debate on the topic of the resurrection i.e. did Jesus literally rise from the dead in some form of a physical body. Right at the start of the debate, Marcus Borg emphasized that he approached the gospels very differently from William Lane Craig and does not see the gospels as complete historical truth. To make a long story short, this means that Borg and Craig are going to reach very different conclusions about the subject because Borg is approaching it metaphorically while Craig takes a literal approach. I do agree with Borg that there was a historical Jesus who was most likely a religious and political revolutionary. And I agree with him (and others) that Jesus later became the "Christ of faith" who can be worshipped, but not followed. And I, in a sense, understand your frustration with not being able to get to the bottom of all of this. To this frustration, all I can offer are two responses: 1. Progressive Christians typically learn to live with ambiguity in things. CC (yes, common Christianity or common Christians) wants absolutes. CC wants lines drawn, boxes utilized, Creeds upheld, doctrines completely spelled out, little left open to private interpretation. If CCs can't agree with one another about where the lines are drawn, they go start another denomination. But PCs have studied enough to know that there are few lines and boxes. There is this intellectual side that informs us that our faith (if that is the right word) is pretty much wide open. We know of the contradictions and variations. We aren't happy about them, but that is how ALL human experiences work. To be human is to live with much mystery. 2. Which brings me to point 2 in that there is also an experiential side for many of us which also informs our faith. Personally, for me, I no longer worship Jesus. I don't see the bible as fallible and inerrant. I don't believe that Yahweh is the Supreme Being. But I have had a couple experiences of what I call the Reality of God that go way past my frustrations at trying to get to the historical Jesus or what parts of the bible are genuine or the vindictive "god" as the bible portrays him. These experiences have convinced me that God is real and that I (and everyone else) is okay with God. This doesn't mean we don't need transformation. We do. Our world does. But it means that I'm not in jeopardy if I can't find the historical Jesus or if I don't believe everything in the bible or if I don't think Yahweh is a very good understanding of God. The God I experience is beyond our human lines and boxes. So all of this leaves me in a place where there is much ambiguity about things, but where I am okay with that because, in Christian language, God is for me. It doesn't depend upon Jesus' blood or upon some kind of confession of faith that earns me salvation. It depends upon the kind of God I believe in and experience (both head and heart). You wrote: "Where I still find a place to value the Christian Mythos, is the way the Bible seems to follow a trajectory, from the god of war to a God of Love (as Spong and Borg emphasize), from God rewards piety in Proverbs to God sends the rain on the good and bad, from martyr-centered apocalyptic Gospels to more mystic-centered (the Kingdom is Now) Gospels like John, etc." I think this is correct. But I don't think that it is because God has changed. I think it is because our human understandings of God have changed over time.

By way of contrast, Wonnerful, in my youth "following Jesus" meant being a Christian. For me, this meant reading my bible, praying often, going to church whenever the doors were open, tithing, witnessing to others, keeping my sins confessed, voting Republican, being against abortion and homosexuality, and a whole host of other things that CC ranks up there as quite important if we are going to go to heaven when we die. But, thankfully, I no longer feel or think this way. The "way" that I believe Jesus shows us is the way of connectedness to God and to others i.e. love. Jesus said, according to the gospels, that love is how we would know his disciples. It has nothing to do with the Creeds or a church's Statement of Faith. It's more about how we live than the specific beliefs we cling to. In my journey I discovered that "following Jesus" is something quite different from being a CC. This doesn't mean at all that I think Christians are bad people or that they are not sincere. It simply means that Jesus never taught Christianity (as we know it) or told someone to become a Christian. He taught his Way. And what we call "the first Christians" were, at first, called "followers of the Way." So I tend to think that Christianity has lost something integral down through the centuries. That something, as Marcus Borg wrote about, is its heart. And I think progressive Christianity is taking steps to reclaim that while knowing that our minds need to stay in keeping with 21st century knowledge.

Wow, Wonnerful, you have so much food for thought in your post. I hope it's okay if we (you and I and others) discuss them as they come to mind. I probably have a very heterodox view of what it means to follow Jesus. Please allow me to set the context. As I'm sure you know, "WWJD" is a very popular slogan in common Christianity (I will use the abbreviation CC in our discussions) which implies, at least to me, that we should imitate or mimic Jesus on some level. Now, I don't have a problem with that in theory, but, as you have correctly pointed out, Jesus was a Jew, both faithful to and challenging to his own faith tradition. It goes without saying that he was a product of his religion and time. It also goes without saying that despite CC's claim that "Jesus lives in my heart", Christians don't do the kinds of miraculous things attributed to Jesus in the gospels (even though he said they would do even greater things). So, logically, these miracles are fabrications of the early church OR people are lying about Jesus being in the hearts. My point being, and Gandhi noted this, Christians are not very much like Christ. On this basis alone, Christians are not very good at "following Jesus" or "WWJD"? Should they (or we) be? Does following Jesus faithfully mean converting to first century Judaism? If so, what kind? Pharisaic? Essene? Zealot? Sanhedrin? In the beginning of Jesus' ministry, he says he came ONLY for the Jews. But by the time we get to Matthew 28, he is sending his disciples into the world. Did he intend for the whole world to convert to Judaism with its 10 commandments and other 637 laws? I think not. In fact, I think the closest he comes to this is to reinforce the two Greatest Commandments. So what MIGHT it mean to follow Jesus in our day and time? Again, I don't think it comes down to mimicry or imitation. But you know from your reading that most "historical Jesus scholars" tend to see Jesus as a Jewish mystic. In other words, Jesus experienced God as a reality in his life. As close as we can come from the gospels, he was centered in God and God's kingdom. And he needed no mediator in order to do this. He claimed a Oneness with the Father. So PERHAPS, just perhaps, the way we can BEST follow Jesus in our time is to develop our OWN Oneness with God, to experience our own unity with Reality or with What Is. In this sense, Jesus is not so much a conduit as he is an example. After all, he prayed that his disciples would be one with God just as he is. Again, it comes down to loving God and loving others. How we each do that will be as unique as we each are. It will be tailored to our personality, our culture, our setting, our contacts. In other words, following Jesus is NOT a formula. Rather, as Jesus said, it comes down to following the Spirit (God's empowering Presence with us) and that will be blowing everywhere like the wind. IF all of this is true, then we are truly free to follow the Spirit where it leads. I cannot and should not tell you how to follow Jesus because that is the Spirit's job and work in you! In this sense, following Jesus is not like walking in his footsteps. Rather, it is experiencing our own relationship with God to where we need no mediator. When/if this happens, then, IMO, we begin to have "the mind of Christ" in us. These notions would, no doubt, sound heretical to CC. But Jesus did teach that his followers were to carry on his work and mission. Okay, enough of me running my fingers for now. What do you think about this? How would you "follow Jesus" here in the 21st century?

Welcome to the community here at TCPC, Deborah! I'm glad you found us! I, too, know what it is like for common Christianity to take our experiences of the Divine and try to fit them into boxes or into a rigid framework. One of the things that I appreciate about this community is that we are encouraged to be where we are at in our journey and there is no "orthodoxy" that says what we must believe or not believe. This approach allows for a great deal of diversity, but most of us feel that is a good thing. We each bring something unique to our discussions. Can it take the place of a brick and mortar assembly? I don't know. But I have often had someone here say something to me that was just the right thing at the right time to either confirm my journey or to gently challenge it. We look forward to what you bring to our fellowship here. Again, welcome. BillM

We each seek our own path, what makes sense to us, Romansh. For now, this makes sense to me. But who knows what tomorrow will bring?

I appreciate Audette's metaphor of God as the body and we as its cells. All God-talk is, IMO, metaphor, but some metaphors work better than others. Audette's works for me because it illustrates how we do have a certain amount of free will in our lives yet we are not disconnected from one another or from the Whole. Marcus Borg, in a number of his talks, articles, and books, speaks of God in these panentheistic terms. He references it to the verse in Acts where Paul says that God is the One in whom we live and move and have our being. This speaks to me much better than the theistic models of God in heaven and us down here. The panentheistic model of God doesn't, of course, solve every theological problem. Theology is simply too varied. But I think this model is worth serious consideration, especially for people like me who thought that the only alternative to theism is atheism.

I read this this morning and found it...helpful: One of the most damaging arguments within almost any theology – and a theology is by necessity an understanding that is based on some idea of a “God”, as the root of the word is “theos,” the Greek word for god – is the question of evil. If there is a God, and God is good, then why is there evil or why does God allow evil? Pantheism struggles on this point, because if everything is God, then everything evil is equally God. Panentheism, however, has a different understanding. Borg speaks rather eloquently to this point in the same interview: “Let me start by talking about evil in relationship to that supernatural interventionist model of God. A major problem that I and other theologians have had with the supernaturalist, interventionist model of God is that it makes it very difficult to explain how things like the Holocaust, or TWA 800 exploding in the sky, or the individual and random tragedies that people experience all the time, can happen. If we think that God can intervene when God chooses to, then it become incomprehensible how God could have let the Holocaust happen. If we think that God sometimes intervenes to heal people of catastrophic and life threatening illness, then it becomes incomprehensible why God doesn't do that for everybody who's got premature cancer, let's say. All of those problems become utterly insoluble it seems to me with the interventionist model of God. Some 30 years ago, Bishop John Robinson, who wrote Honest to God listed three reason why atheism is the only attractive modern option--and he was thinking of atheism in relationship to the supernatural model of God. One of those [reasons was that] God is morally intolerable. His point is the one I'm just making. If God could intervene but chooses not to, then God is morally intolerable. For the panentheistic model of God, the notion of God as a being outside of the process, who sometimes intervenes, simply disappears. With a panentheistic model, God is present in everything and God is the source of everything--that doesn't mean God is the source of everything that happens, but God is present in everything.” (ibid) To delve into this a little further, it might be best to begin again with a metaphor for the relationship between, for example, humans and God in a panentheistic worldview. One of the most familiar metaphors is that of cells in a body to the body itself. In a human body, for example, the cells are a generally necessary part of the whole, though any individual cell may die or be replaced with no particular harm to the whole. Similarly, cells are themselves made up of constituent parts, and perform different functions. As humans, we are now aware that we have cells; we are reliant upon them; we may even do what we can to increase the overall health of the cells. But we do not control our cells; they function or fail to function independently of our will, for the most part. Additionally, most of us would agree that our larger self, the human being, has a consciousness and awareness that greatly supercedes the awareness of an individual cell, and also human beings have agency that exceeds the agency of a cell – in other words, I as a human person can do things and my cells are a part of that, whether they know it or not. They are a part of a greater whole. Of course, as a human person, I can directly impact some of my cells; I could cut off my leg, for example. And, my cells can impact me – they can grow without regard to limit, and then I have cancer, which could kill me and all my cells. But within this metaphor, you see that the relationship between self and cells is necessary but not directive. Loosely speaking, my cells have free will. As do human beings within the paradigm of panentheism. And it is by choosing poorly – or perhaps, with imperfect or limited knowledge? – that human beings in particular create suffering or evil. However, to the panentheist, there is something much more important than how suffering or evil might come about, and that is that God is present with us in our experience of suffering. There is something more than our experience of pain; and this can be a healing concept. Martin Luther King, Jr. once spoke to this concept when he famously quoted one of our Unitarian forefathers, “the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” The transcendent, enduring “moreness” of God is that justice-bending arc. -- Audette Fulbright

Right or wrong, people expect "intercessory prayer" to work, even if we can't explain how it works. In all the many church services I've been in over the years, prayer times is always accompanied by expectation, by faith that God will, in fact, hear our prayers and do something. Despite the slogans and bumper stickers, prayer doesn't work, at least with no higher odds than winning the lottery. I've said it before, if prayer really worked, people would go to the church instead of to the doctors. But we all know that Christians go to the doctors as much as non-Christians do. The proof is in the pudding.

Wonnerful, you and I have probably been somewhat assimilated by the Borg. Marcus references quite a bit in his writings about the differences between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith, and I think it is helpful to realize that this dichotomy exists. And I think Dom Crossan gives us the most probably picture of what Jesus was like, if he indeed existed at all. I, too, tend to think Jesus was apocalyptic, believing that God would wrap up history very shortly and establish a kingdom on earth (which is quite different from "heaven after you die"). In this position, he was, obviously, mistaken. But I still like the kingdom of God as a metaphor for compassionate communities. I even appreciate the Christ of faith as a metaphor. We all know that "Christ" is the Greek translation of "messiah" which simply means "anointed." Contextually, it did not mean "God in the flesh". Rather, it meant someone anointed by God (up there) to do God's work (down here). God's agent, so-to-speak. In that sense, I appreciate the metaphor that Christians could be considered to be "little Christs", God's agents to do his will on earth. I don't even mind when someone speaks of the divine spark in us that enables us to do the same. It is just when it is literalized as the "ghost" of Jesus coming down from heaven to dwell inside a human body (sort of a holy possession) that the notion of "Christ" become problematic for me. It seems to me that if such were the literal truth and if the bible is a historical account of what Jesus did. This "Christians" possessed by Christ's spirit would be able to do what he did and, as he is claimed to have said, even greater things. But I see no evidence of this amongst Christians. I certainly couldn't do these things when I was an orthodox Christian. Anyway, I've dragged this conversation why off your initial topic. Sorry 'bout that. I am, obviously, still curious about and fascinated with Jesus. But I don't care for the "Jesus wars." IMO, we just don't know enough to know. If you'd like to discuss this further, why not start another thread?

It seems to me that life will play out how it plays out regardless of whether one prays or not. This is, perhaps, the truth of it all, Paul. For many years, I sat under guilt-inducing Christianity that said I should be doing more - praying more, reading my bible more, giving more, witnessing more, attending more, fasting more, more concerned about the plight of the world. I'm 56 now, knowing that I have way more years behind me than ahead. As I'm agnostic about an afterlife, I'd prefer to just enjoy whatever time is left to me with my family and friends, doing things I love to do (which are quite varied). This in no way means that I am not concerned about the plight of the world. I care. And my children and grandchildren will inhabit the world we leave to them. So I help when and where I can, depending upon what might be called "the leading of the Spirit" rather than guilt-inducing sermons from preachers in 3-piece business suits with Jags to drive. For all I know, this is the only life I have. I will gladly give it to and for my loved ones. But I'm not going to give it to Jesus, the church, or anyone else out of guilt. I'd rather just let it play out and enjoy the ride.

I wish that were the case, Joseph, I really do. But I tend to think that the "divine rescuer" is way too dominant within Christian culture, rather than Christ as a means of personal and social transformation. This doesn't mean that I don't think Christians desire or embrace transformation. I think they do. But the Christian paradigm constantly reinforces to most of them that they are sinners and will forevermore be so. It also reinforces the notion of surrender or "dying to self" which, IMO, negates any positive message that we could actually change ourselves and our world if we used reason, science, compassionate and the "gifts of the Spirit" to do so. For 2000 years, the world has been waiting for Jesus to return to fix things. Maybe, just maybe, Jesus has been waiting for us to carry on his work in transforming this world into the kingdom of God.

"And sending it is indeed a noble endeavor but it doesn't alleviate the cause." That is certainly the truth, Joseph. It is like the old saying, "When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why there were so many poor, they called me a troublemaker." It would require a change in thinking (individually and globally) to address the issue of world hunger. Can we, will we, do that? It remains to be seen. But I doubt it. We are far too self-centered, especially in first world nations where capitalism and materialism seem to rule. I wish we had a better prognosis, but I don't really see it happening. Our middle class continues to shrink while the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer. And, IMO, Christianity is mute to speak to power, to be a prophetic voice of what will happen to us and our world if we don't change our ways. Christianity is, by-and-large, still far too busy reserving seats in heaven.

I would join with Paul, Joseph, in asking why are there Ethiopians starving? I find it unrealistic in the extreme to say that their pain is an illusion and that all they have to do is to tap into a higher consciousness and their bellies will be full.

Those are some good questions, Joseph. For me, they go back to "What does it mean to be a Christian (or to follow Christ)?" In popular Christianity, the focus is on the person of Jesus, usually upon worshipping Jesus as God. What you believe about him is key. The focus of the Christian Creeds is to make beliefs about him very clear. In other forms, possibly the more progressive views, it is not the religion about Jesus, but the religion of Jesus -- as you have said loving God, self, and neighbor. But even doing this cherry-picking certain teachings from the canon that we have no assurance that he ever said. But even in that, I find that I don't believe in God as Jesus did. He was a Jew. He held a great deal to 1st century Judaism, even though he sometimes challenged it. I'm not a Jew. I don't see the world (or the universe) as the Jews do. So I don't hold to the religion of Jesus either. My path is my own. Sometimes Jesus' insights help me along the way. Sometimes they are stumbling blocks to me. So, as I've said earlier, even the "Jesus Scholars" say that a historical Jesus is impossible to get to. This leaves us to either disregard him completely (perhaps a Christless Christianity?) or to say what fascinates us about this character from history - what he maybe did, maybe taught.

Wonnerful, I fell in love with the "Sunday School Jesus" when I was twelve at vacation bible school. This was the typical Protestant Jesus who loved everybody, who would forgive your sins if you were sorry for them, who would come to live in your heart, and who would take you to heaven someday. Using a few cherry-picked verses from the bible, I accepted this Jesus as my lord and savior and promised to live the rest of my life for him. For some people, I suppose this is an easy thing to do. They live in a "Christian culture" and this is the only Jesus they know through their entire lives. But I made the "mistake" of reading many of the other verses from the gospels (as well as the writings/opinions) of others and came to see that there is no monolithic view of Jesus in the scriptures. For Pete's sake, we have four different gospels who don't quite agree on who Jesus was or what he did and taught. And who knows how many other gospels were lost or excluded from the canon? The popular Jesus right now is either "family friendly" or someone who wants you to be successful and rich. My wife's family is into this "family friendly" Jesus who would never ask someone to leave their family in order to follow him or who would never say that you have to hate father and mother in order to be his disciple. They cherry-pick the kind of Jesus they believe in. But so do I. I am not convinced that there ever was a Yeshua of Nazareth. Possible? Yes. Probable? Not from my studies. This means that I have to consider his alleged teachings based, not upon his personage and authority, but upon their own internal sensibility and morality. I have to reconstruct who I believe he was according to what I have learned over the years. And I am well aware that this is my own personal Jesus, that I am picking and choosing what teachings and deeds I think come closest to who I believe he was. The Jesus I believe in now is no longer God or my savior and lord. If I had a Christian label, it would be Unitarian. So I see Jesus as a human, as a brother on the journey. This is quite different from the Sunday School Jesus I grew up believing in. And because I don't consider Jesus to be God in the flesh, it excludes me from the Christian faith. This is no big deal for me because Jesus never called anyone to become Christians anyway. So do we have the right/freedom to create Jesus the way we wish him to be? That has certainly been the case down through the centuries. And, perhaps, doing so if the best Jesus we can find.