Eric333

Ok thanks soma, when I hear Ken Wilber start using those concepts I often zone out because I have a hard time applying them :-)

Paul, I understand where you're coming from with that. The word Christian does at the end of the day identify the base of the community and create a broad signal to those who might be looking for it.

Thx Paul. I was just curious. I can see why you say Agnostic technically leaves the door open for the angry muscle man with a beard. Often the stigma of "atheist" is someone who spends a lot of energy trying to claim there is no God / entity / unmoved mover of any kind, even though the actual word shouldn't mean that. I find Deist to be a decent word too for these purposes, but the form of a being or creator might still be too definitive for you.

Paul, I wonder if perhaps the equation of Christian-Agnostic would work by changing the defintion of God/Gods? Or are you using the word Atheist in the weak form which already leaves the door open for some "unmoved mover" yet closes the door on an God that comes along with a definition? Eric

Hi Zenagain, I think you're on point in many ways. We know that J, B, and S didnt write because back then it was considered more legit to have others record and share what you were doing, although I have a hard time imaginging that either of those three could grasp the idea of so many years passing and their teachings being so dominant. Especially Jesus who is recorded as thinking the end was coming soon. If they did think their teachings would be cornerstones of millenia to come, and if they had any idea how various institutions and communities would play a game of telephone and politics (sometimes innocently and other times on purpose) they may have written for themselves as to never be misquoted :-) It's like Ponce de Leon who is infamous for foolishly looking for a fountain of youth while all the while that was just a rumor started by rival Christopher Columbus. I guess the lesson for today is that it pays to clearly state your business... ;-) Eric

soma, it would be intersting to get a follow up on what you mean by the bolded bit in the statement quoted.

Soma and Paul, You both make very valid points. Maybe I went too far to add some literal Christian interpretations to the mix, which I also agree are likely not literal or even historical, but I was trying to have a bit of fun by citing NT, OT, and CS which may be hard to get across in the essence of a forum post. I agree 100% that being nice would get us into the right direction, as long as someone like Hitler didnt think he was "being nice" to his people by getting rid of all those Jews...even if he was wholeheartedly acting from the inside out in his own warped way. Could the word "nice" be too subjective? Eric

Thanks Soma. I'm not a big fan of fences either, which is partly why I put that post together. I like the title of "humble seeker of good, justice, and love" but a title like that would die on the marketeers table :-) I do know that I fit in well with people simlar to this board, who have christian heritage, are striving to do good, and are looking for community of accepting people, which I think is the only reason i look for at least a loose fence... not to fence it around god, but for a designation that identifies like minded people.

Thanks for the feedback Paul. I think the 8 points are very well crafted actually, but am curious why, as Dom Crossan might say, the word Christian isnt totally dropped and mayby use Jesusist or something like that. Given the modern common defintions of Christian, do the 8 points maintan enough overlay?

Hi Paul, interesting post. Since many of the other responses have covered much of the overall answer I think ill add a little controversy. When I read the Bible, I dont see Jesus as always being nice. When he cursed that olive tree he seemed plain grumpy! :-) Also, with my kids I realize its nearly impossible to be nice when my overall goal is to be loving. Can "just be nice" really work? Maybe, but this human would fall short too often, even when I am ultimately trying to help. I recall CS Lewis saying something like most people didnt want God the Father, but rather God the sweet old great-grandfather who just wanted everyone to be happy. Although I don't belive the Bible is in any way direct words from God, when it comes to the OT I dont see much of God having niceness as his primary concern.

Hi Joseph, I think as some others have said, you nailed it as indescribable. But if I had to use words to describe a concept of God, I might go as far to offer the definition of: a supernatural, metaphysical, and / or mystical entity responsible for initiating existence. Thoughts? Regards, Eric

Hi there PC's and friends. I have recently been wondering if the title of "progressive Chrsitian" is even too much of a label for many PC's. In a recent blog post I listed my current beliefs and would love some feedback from members of this board of whether those belifes would "qualify" as Christian, or even a stretch of a PC. The blog is here http://www.christianevolution.com/2013/03/am-I-a-Christian.html but I have pasted the pertinent points below as to not force you to my blog if you wish not to go there. If you comment on the blog that would allow a variety of other types of thinkers to see some good responses, but the forum is good too, whatever works best for you. I admit it's a bit wordy and thank you in advance for forgiving that :-) 1) At some points in our lives we all naturally deal with self-centeredness, and we sometimes think (at least subconsciously) that the world revolves around us, and tend to take ourselves way too seriously. But Jesus said to put others first. He said if we want to know love, we must give love to others as we would expect to be loved. He said if we want to find ourselves, we must first lose ourselves... That all resonates with me. 2) At some points in our lives we all naturally feel anger, resentment, or lack of forgiveness for past events. But Jesus said to let go of anger, forgive everyone, and if someone slaps us on one cheek to turn and give them the other. He said to let go of past hurts, and instead to look forward with peace and joy... That all resonates with me. 3) At some points in our lives we all naturally feel jealousy, envy, and greed. But Jesus said to give of ourselves and our possessions generously, and with cheer. He said our hearts would be with that which we treasure, and that doing for others is more important than our own social status and the size of our storehouses... That all resonates with me. 4) At some points in our lives we all naturally feel unnecessary anxiety, fear, and insecurity. But Jesus reminded us not to worry, or be troubled, or afraid; as those negative emotions won't add a single minute to our lives; and instead to exhibit courage and live with a noble purpose. That all resonates with me. 5) At some points in our lives we all naturally chase power and status But Jesus says that those things sought out of context are a huge drain of lifecycles, and that we should instead focus our time and energy on humbly and meekly building others up with respect, positive virtues, consolation, and encouragement... without seeking recognition for our good works. That all resonates with me. However, after much subsequent exploration, research, and some basic common sense, there are aspects of modern mainstream Christianity which I can't subscribe to or have any degree of certainty about. You see, I don’t literally believe stories like Adam & Eve, Noah’s Ark, Jonah, Job, or others like them... at least not literally, and in many cases not even figuratively. I think many of these stories limit our spiritual growth and were merely tribal attempts to harmonize a good God with a challenging (pre-scientific) world. I don’t believe God sent his people on divine missions to slaughter everyone in the lands that he wanted them to inherit; or that he rained down fire and brimstone on certain cities as consequences of their sin; or that he sent a death angel over a town to kill Egyptian babies. I think those were stories born of theocracies trying to rationalize their conquests. And I believe there are people alive today who take that warrior God motif too literally and use it to support some warped views. I also don’t believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible. In fact, I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where it claims to be? Who says we have to believe every word literally anyway? I would love it if we had a perfect owners manual directly designed to navigate life by our creator, but we don't, at least not in my opinion. I do “believe” Jesus existed, and I follow many of his teachings. I “believe” in "God," although I cannot in any way try to define God or ascribe limited human attributes to God (such as a white beard). So I choose to "believe" that some undefinable God does exist, but I understand if you don't. I “believe” that undefinable and uncategorizable God has some good purpose with existence, but in this wild and crazy world I can’t articulate that point much further. I don’t “believe” Jesus was born of a literal virgin, and I don’t think Jesus believed that either. I do “believe” Jesus is the son of God, just like I am the son of God, or you are the son / daughter of God (for whatever that may mean), for in the most famous Lord’s Prayer, Jesus prayed to “our Father,” which shows that in his opinion we are all sons and daughters of God. I “believe” Jesus died for our sins, in the sense that he understood our sins and was willing to go all the way to death to try to turn us from them. The Bible says there's no greater love than to lay down one's life for another, and in that sense, you might also say that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King died for our sins. I still go to church as it’s one of the only positive places on earth to be in community with other seekers and be reminded to slow down, take time to reflect, and serve others on a regular basis... although I do have to tune out some of the doctrine. I do “believe” in prayer, because at the very least it’s therapeutic for us personally, and it brings people together, and if we believe in an afterlife there's no reason we can't pray to Jesus or anyone else for that matter. Oh, and lastly, I believe the word “believe” plays much too large a role in today’s spiritual conversation, because something either is, or it isn’t, and "belief" doesn't make it more real or unreal, although our actions in response to it might. So after this post I don't believe I will use the word believe so much. In your opinion, could these beliefs even fall under the PC umbrella?

Thanks for the response Minsocal. Kant has always been a challenge to me, but I guess I have been trying to combine the two parts you mentioned, do you think that's possible? (i.e., extreme logic in laymans terms?)

Great point Joseph. I have a good friend who says Belief Systems can best be explained by their initials (i.e., BS :-)

Thanks George. I guess to your point, I am leaving the possibility open that we have yet to evolve to the point where we can grasp these possibilities, so maybe in a million years (or tomorrow) we can evolve enough to be able to identify (or experience) these other possibilities.

Thanks for the feedback and thoughts Paul. As you allude to, we honestly cannot prove either way, so I dont understand how Atheists can take the "prove it to me" appraoch in order to even be open minded to the idea that a God could exist.

Hi folks, I've been trying to better weigh out a belief in God vs. no belief at all, especailly for those with a scientific / skeptical leaning mindset. I came up with this quick Theorem of Antipode Impossibilities of God, and would love a little feedback from this group. http://www.eacology.com/2012/05/could-god-exist-antipode.html

Well put.

Thanks George. My goal was exactly that, to simply describe the traits of a "garden variety" progressive Christian if I dare suggest there's such a thing :-) I noticed your title of "Sr. Spong Subscriber" so to use one of his sayings, I agree that the fastest growing denomination is the "Christian Alumni Association" and many folks are looking at what's next. I think the PC vibe is a nice landing place but to many people lacks sufficient definition to look into it. PS, on that note, what's the story behind your spong subscriber title? I'm going to see him speak in 8 weeks in Asheville, very much looking fwd to it! Eric

Dutch, I think we actually agree... so maybe I didnt state that clearly enough. What I meant to convey was that Progressives seem to be very open minded and loose when it comes to dogma's, creeds, rules, regulations, and labels, etc... I wouldn't say that the striving would be toward "one religion" but rather PC's tend to lean toward thousands (or millions) of unique expressions of religion, which like drops of rain form something called a "lake." It would be like the polar opposite of one religion but it would certainly have a auro of unity to it. Also, as it involves specifically unity and pluralism in their formal definitions. My point was that the PC, while seeking unity with other religions, would also prefer the Muslim for instance to loosen up their grip on their literal interpretation of their text, dogma's, and creeds... So maybe the ideal would be a pluralistic embracing of "progressives" of all religions. Does that make more sense?

Hi Everyone, I have been reading and digging for some time to better understand the progressive movement. Below is what I have boiled it down to at this time, and I would be curious to hear your thoughts: First off, the Progressive Christian would probably balk at any attempt to categorize, define, or "boil down" the movement to begin with, as by definition that "no walls" approach to the theology is an inherent trait of the movement :-) But below is my current take on the movement. 1) PC is made up of mostly people who were raised in the Christian experience but have come to realize that most of the scriptures, dogmas, creeds, and traditions are not literal, and should not be taken as authoritative. In fact, most PC's would likely agree / admit that many of those scriptures, dogmas, creeds, and traditions can be harmful to humanity if taken literally (or even figuratively in many cases...). 2) That said, PC's see that the common culture that binds Christians is worth holding on to. PC's would likely agree that the positive aspects of Jesus have made a beneficial difference in their lives, even if the divinity and message of Jesus has changed substantially in their minds as they've evolved intellectually and spiritually. Within that would be a common sympathy for those who’ve grown so fond of certain scriptures and hymns which had to be reinterpreted in light of changed theology, but which are difficult to let go of all together…. Some might even share a similar mourning experience when intellectually they were forced to officially abandon most of the traditional Christian beliefs they held dear since being young children. And some might also share an experience of being judged and abandoned by close friends and family who still hold fundamental views and think the PC has lost their way or become “watered down “ or compromised. 3) Most PC's would share a place in their heart for the plight of atheists, who struggle mightily to battle the prevalent fundamental - evangelical views that dominate much of the western world’s politics and culture. Especially those views which would cause the judgments others of other orientations, and those views which would seek to stymie scientific advancement and compromise scientific education. PC’s would also value questioning and disagreeing with traditional Christian viewpoints, which means they would understand and sympathize with many of the atheists arguments. 4) Most PC’s would be open to unity and pluralistic rhetoric, but even then the astute progressive would see the many pitfalls and limitations of those systems as well, and would prefer that everyone evolve beyond any particular bent on “their” systems scriptures, dogma’s, creeds, and traditions. And on the other end of the spectrum, many PC’s would resonate with much of the New Age movement, but would struggle to fit into the culture of the movement. These facts would make it quite difficult for a PC to find a Church or faith community in their area to be a part of, therefore many PC’s either don’t go to church or do go to a more traditional service in which they don’t really fit in. 5) Most PC’s would also be bound by the fact that with all of their belifs which have come into question, they retain a steadfast belief in a loving God of some type. Although without being able to lean on the Hebrew scriptures it has become impossible to classify that God. When asked by the Atheist why they still hold to that point of God’s existence, the PC is likely to hold on to the idea that a God is behind the whole thing, but certainly not in the form of Yahweh. 6) PC’s tend to lean liberal politically and socially, and would resonate a bit more with the Jesus of non-attachment and communal caring. Many PC’s would see this slight political integration as a limitation and strive to be agnostic to such things. One where Love is the dominating theme of the message (as opposed to rules, tough love, judgments, or revelation theology). If asked about Hell, the PC would almost never say who will and won’t go there, and would likely say that hell and the devil are misunderstood archaic tribal notions. 7) And lastly, many PC's would see a funny irony in the other abbreviation of "PC" as it sometimes means "Politically Correct" which is definitely not a common characteristic of the other kind of PC (Progressive Christian) :-) Thanks for the stimulating conversation! :-) - Eric