pacigoth13

Yes. It is an entire interpretive lens in and of itself (gothic existentialism). Of course, the worldview to which the lens is being held up to is the Christian worldview. It is much like what one would consider existential Christianity (found through Kierkegaard and discussed even in the works of Bultmann). The gothic element comes in more of a current trend (here I speak of the European movement with its focus on reflection and introspection, not necessarily the American counterpart which is more dress and outwardly focused though the two may be compatible). My personal identification with it comes out of my experiences in childhood, what I listened to and read; as well as my current faith journey through contemporary theology and philosophy. Hope this helps...

He has weekly phone calls with the Southern Baptists? Geeez... Why does he refuse to even consider the Christian argument for pacifism? PS, thanks for the FYI, I did not know that.

Well, I don't think that it is as easy to use the Bible to condemn homosexuality as some people think it is; likewise I don't think that it is as easy to use the Bible to condone homosexuality as some people think it is. :-) This issue is always especially sensitive because it involves people with real emotions feelings etc. who have been discriminated against simply for being who they are, because people have to seperate traditional cultural views from what the text is really saying, and because the Bible is often very misunderstood (by both sides) on this issue. We have to approach this issue with tolerance and acceptance...

I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I live in no man's land, where conservative Christianity and liberal Christianity are either mutually exclusive or somehow united. Although, I am usually rejected by conservatives and accepted by liberals despite disagreements...

Well, I happen to be a gothic Christian--it doesn't get much more progressive than that. ;-) I also identify strongly with the pacifism of Hauerwas, Campola and others. One of my favourite books of all time was Travelling Mercies by Anne Lamott...anyone read it? Two of my other favourites are Marcus Borg and NT Wright. I actually dislike Spong's views immensly. Not because they are liberal, but because they are usually historically implausible and lack academic appeal. I'm still waiting for a gothic Christian church... anyone interested?

Well, I have mixed feelings actually. I am not a part of the Episcopal Church, I am a part of ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). However, my best friend is an Episcopal deacon, studying to be a priest. My main problem is not so much with the ordination of a gay bishop but that he left his wife and kid and that a lot of people closer to the situation have seriously questioned his ability to be a bishop and have an effective ministry (totally apart from him being gay). Sometimes we can be so eager to give positions to minority people that we give them to people who are otherwise unqualified, if this makes sense. And yet, its not my place to judge him or say that God cannot use him. So I have a "wait and see what happens" approach.

Well, I did appreciate reading that... LOL. However, I have found that all interpretative lenses fit under one of three umbrellas. 1. the literal-factual approach a.k.a. fundamentalism. Everything is taken as literally as possible even when the context does not permit this. For example, taking Revelation literally even the book was written as an epistle, a prophecy and an apocalypse (which is anything but literal). although the approach has conservative appeal, it often misses the point of the text. the tendency is to make the Bible only God's word. 2. the critical-metaphorical approach i.e. Bultmannian approach. everything is questioned (historical criticism) and much of the Bible is taken as metaphor, or as Borg would say "the finger that points to the moon". this has appeal mainly to those who have been damaged by the previous view and hence find fundamentalism acceptable. however, this view taken to the extreme can cause problems where the Bible can mean anything or where it loses meaning all together (what can or should we really believe? anything?) the tendency is to make the Bible only man's word. 3. the historical-grammatical approach the text speaks for itself. history and grammar are used to come to the meaning of the text. for example, we may apply the JEDP theory to the Torah but at the end of the day what we have is the Torah in completed form which the final redactor produced for a reason. this is the view i hold, as i believe the Bible is as much the word of man as it is the word of God and likewise it is as much the word of God as it is the word of man.

*sighs* Honestly, I don't think Bush's approach is Christian at all. I have been convinced of pacifism for a long time, and my study of the Bible has shown me that pacifism is the Christian position. The historical Jesus of Nazareth was obviously opposed to violence: "you have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' but I (and only I) say to you, 'do not oppose the evil one, but whoever hits you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other'". Matthew 5.38-39. Do I believe Bush is sincere and that his behaviour is in accordance with his fundamentalist upbringing? yes. Do I agree that it is actually Christian? no.