darby

Fred- Christ said He would build His church (Matt 16). He is the head of the church (Eph 5:23). Paul, in the pastoral episltes to Timothy and Titus, told them to appoint elders (overseers, bishops) in the church. The writer of Hebrews tells the believers "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give an account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." It just seems very scriptual for there to be authority in the church. I certainly agree that the church is not the end....fwllowship with God through Jesus is. But the church is an important tool, which serves a valuable purpose (when functioning properly). While there has been much abuse by authority, I think the main purpose for that authority is for care, concern and shepherding of the body. Domination is a sign of poor authority...not that authority is wrong.

Alethia, realizing my many references to scripture, I guess I stand guilty of "bibliolatry." This might be off point, but much of this deals with the question of AUTHORITY, I believe. Many Christians have run from "authority" over the years....and sometimes rightly so, as the authority was terrible and evil. But I was reminded recently by a book that God did not expect the church (universal) to be a democracy, but a kingdom, with Jesus at the head. We are equal as believers, but God does put certain people in authority. As a protestant, I certainly believe in the "priesthood of the believer." But it is also clear in the Bible that there is structure, and, yes, authority, in the church. And those of us in the church (all believers) are to submit ourselves to the authority. It's important that the Bible says to "submit ourselves." No one forces me to submit...I prayerfully put myself under submission. (after much investigation!!!) There is also a HUGE responsibility for those in authority. They will give an account to God for the souls under their care, for one. And they need to lead as Jesus did...by serving and washing feet. Not to lord their authority over the people, but to love them, serve them, encourage and exhort them. This is probably one of the toughest things for a Christian (especially one who has been burned by church in the past) to do. But, in the end, I don't think God wanted us functioning as "spiritual lone rangers." Just my .02.

Respectfully, I don't think so, des. Of course, this is probably where you and I would normally disagree. Peter didn't respond about the revelation of casting on the other side, or thinking in a new way. He bowed down and worshipped the Lord. His response is crucial to the story I spent some time this morning going back over some of the miracles attributed to Jesus. There seems to be a common theme--people are in awe, and they glorify God. When the paralytic is healed, the people marveled and glorified God. When Jesus healed the multitudes (Matt 15), "the multitude marveled when they saw the mute speaking, the maimed made whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel." When Jesus calmed the wind and the waves, the people asked "who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?" When Jesus walked on the water, and rescued Peter, again, the people "worshipped Him, saying, 'Truly You are the Son of God'." I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Jesus, and His power, seem to be the focus for the people when Jesus performed a miracle. Not a lesson about how to think. Not about "authentic doubt." Nor about what method He used--look at the different ways he gave sight to the blind. I'm not saying every verse in the Bible is crystal clear, and that I completely understand it all. Nor that a verse can't say different things to different people. But, conversely, I don't think every interpretation or meaning is valid either. I think it is important for all of us to attempt to "rightly divide" the Bible, as best we can--to be very careful as we use scripture to make points. All that to say, I do agree with Jerry's premise that Jesus pushes us out of our comfort zones. And it can be quite uncomfortable, at times.

Jerry- I don't think the parable you mentioned was so much a call to being radical, or thinking outside the box. The point for the fisherman was to recognize who was in the boat with them, and His power. That' why, upon seeing the display of power, Simon Peter fell down on his knees and said, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." He knew he was in the presence of awesome power.

James--just so you know, you DO come off as sarcastic in some of your posts. No need for any of us to do that....it detracts from the debate.

Point well made. This is one area I think conservatives have made a huge mistake. Being principled and resolute doesn't have to mean coming off as hateful. I think that's changing, fortunately, in some areas. In my own church, we "fling the doors wide open," as my pastor says. And we try to be welcome to all. And people say they really sense that. And yet, we're very upfront and firm about our views on the Bible, Jesus, etc. I heard something that really stuck with me one time, and it's how I try to operate, and our church as well. Basically, "If people are offended by the message in the Bible...the cross, repentance, the words of Jesus...not alot we can do about that. But never let them be offended by you, your methods, your actions, your demeanor, etc." Basically, don't apolgize for the gospel, but be kind and generous to people. ('cause you're slowly coming over to our side!!!--just kidding) Hopefully because of the above. As I've mentioned before, I'm not OFFENDED by another's view. Even though I might completely disagree with them. Also, I always remind myself that I'm the outsider, or guest, on this board. Not the other way around. I just like to present a different view, from time to time. I understand what you're saying, MOW. But "how I see Jesus" is the wrong question to ask, I think. All of us, myself included, ought to be asking "Who is Jesus" in totality. Including the things that don't fit into my little world. Otherwise, we all make our own Jesus....and the end result is a Jesus that is at best incomplete or at worst, not real. WE need to adjust to HIM...not the other way around. Sorry, I realize we're way off topic now.

For those of you who are new, here's my disclaimer...I'm coming from a conservative/evangeical view, simply making observations. It seems this type of post occurs routinely..."What do the 8 points mean"..."Which ones are most important"..."What can we agree on"...etc. I think it's common knowledge that this type of agreement is next to impossible in Progressive Christianity. As des has pointed out, this "lack of agreement" is almost a core belief of PC. Kind of hard to then turn around and get agreement on something. As you begin to build a movement, or start a church, etc., those type of defining questions will come up. What do we believe about communion? Christ? Easter? Sin? Eternity? Can every member just choose how they feel about those and other things? If not, who does the defining? Even as Fred pointed out, I think, the term "progressive" implies that you are progressing towards something. But I don't see much agreement as to what. Rather, it just seems like you are all joined by what you are progressing away from...namely, conservative Christianity. I liken the Progressive Christianity movement somewhat to the Republicans in the 90s. The people said, "OK, we've got it....we know all about what you are against." "Tell us what you are for." Admittedly, perhaps this is not important to the PC movement, by it's very nature. But I think it's hard for any movement to build steam, if that is the goal of PC, without knowing what you are for. Finally, Alethia, I had to chuckle about you wondering if we'd get around to discussing God or Jesus. I'll have to say, when I first joined the forum, I figurd I'd find a board where we were mostly in agreement on the basics of Christianity, differing in social areas, government's role, etc. I thought the discussions would be centered on Jesus, how he would have us act today, etc. I've been surprised that many on this board probably feel more aligned with a liberal Buddhist, Pagan, New Ager, or other than a conservative, evangelical Christian like myself. It seem that for many here, "progressive" is more important than "Christian" as a label. Do you guys see that? Do you think it's true?

MOW- I don't think the African proverb meant "government" either; I was just explaining the concern that conservatives have--if elders, contemoraries and ancestors don't step up to the plate, many will argue the government take over. I agree about the trash that bombards us from corporate America. Where's the disagreement? That's why my kids don't watch Smackdown, or Fear Factor. There are alternatives. I don't have that same abililty with my kids' public school (unless I have the money for private school, which I don't). Thus, I can't "take my business elsewhere" when it comes to school. So I'll work, and at times fight, as would any good parent, to be actively involved in their education.

Cynthia- Before Fred posted that appropriate quote, I was going to similarly point out that all sides usually want the government to get involved in THEIR projects, and similarly want the government to butt out of other areas. I do think there is a difference in getting involved in what goes on in someone's bedroom and some of the other things you mentioned. I may not get involved in someone's bedroom actions, for example, but I am going to be very involved in what is taught in MY kids public school, financed in part by MY tax dollars. Same goes with books in a public library--especially where there is access for children. I don't think of those as particularly conservative ideals....just good, protective parenting.

Des, I think for most conservatives, this is probably the worry. Not that she desires that. But it's just one more step down a "slippery slope" of the government, or "village leaders" telling us how to live. I know that for me, I completely buy into the idea that we help each other, etc. I love the "Acts" model...that they went house to house, giving as each one has need. I think Christians should live like that. I think that for most conservatives, if they are honest, can probably find a lot that they agree with in the book concerning giving, sharing, carrying one anothers' burdens. We are not an island. It is certainly a biblical model. Where we get concerned is when we feel the government thinks it might know better than us, and tells (or legislates) how we ought to eat, raise our children, live, etc. We want that message taught or encouraged, not legislated. And, in the end, I'm sure alot of the problem with the book IS that it's Hillary, not someone else, who wrote it.

Fred- I agree completely. Can you imagine John Spong and Franklin Graham in the same room, sharing ideas? Neither is going to walk away agreeing with the other. They might be nice, and be friendly towards one another, and respect each other as people, but that's about it. They're both going to leave, thinking under their breath, "Boy, he sure was a pleasant fellow. Wish he wasn't so screwed up in his thinking." (not sure we're any different on this board!) It brings to mind the semantics of being "tolerant" and "accepting" of others' beliefs. I think I'm pretty tolerant of anyone believing just about anything. Now, am I accepting of those beliefs as valid and true as my own? Not necessarily. If that were the case, none of us could have principals or standards. If everything's valid, then nothing's invalid. I don't buy into that.

Sounds like we all agree that man (or woman) can and has often taken what Jesus meant and misconstrued it, or added to it, or taken from it, or just generally messed it up. As to whether Jesus really said those things.... This is a deeper question that has arisen on this board before. For me, if that question is valid, then it's also valid to question the other things attributed to Jesus. Maybe He really didn't say "do unto others"; "forgive 70 times 7"; "you cannot serve God and mammon"; "blessed are the peacemakers"; etc. Perhaps these too are examples of where the early church put words into Jesus' mouth. I acknowledge that all factions of the church, no matter which particular bent, can be guilty of championing those particular ideas we like or agree with in the Bible, and pushing aside or diminishing those ideas that don't particularly sit well with our belief system.

How could baptism and communion, both commanded by Jesus, be meaningless? (He led by example in both, btw). Now certainly over the years we could miss the meaning, perform them casually, diminish their meaning,etc. So WE could get it wrong, I agree. But did Jesus, the one we follow, get it wrong? I agree that baptism should not be a destination, but a "jumping off" point, the beginning of a new life, spent trying to "walk as He walked" in love, compassion, prayer, obedience.

Cynthia- Is this a mis-type? It just seems these comments are somewhat contradictory--that there's not much point, and yet that it obviously was very important and moving for you. Just wondering.

First, I think baptism is important....Jesus told us us to "make disciples...baptizing them..." When people came to faith in the Bible, they began looking for water to be baptised. Sprinkled as an infant, I later struggled with whether or not to be "re-baptised." As I searched the scriptures, what I saw was individuals choosing to be baptized (the Ethiopian eunuch, the Gentiles Peter ministered to in Acts 10). Even Jesus decided to be baptized....it was not done for him. This is what we call "believer's baptism." After much prayer, I chose to be baptised (immersed) based on MY decision to follow Jesus, not my parents' faith while I was an infant (although I certainly appreciate their heart and desire to raise me in the church) I agree with Alethia that it is an outward show of what has already happened inside the believer. It is a symbol that the old self is buried, and the new creation is raised. I think this outward expression to the public can be a huge moment in a believer's life. It should be celebrated, and the church should never tire of seeing baptisms!

I have a few things to say, but my desire is not to respond to this man's passing in an inflammatory way, so that the thread dissolves into a "he's a heretic/no he's not" way. A couple of things in the article jump out at me, though, and I am interested in your perspectives as "progressive Christians". First off, this % stuns me. And leads me to the question: Would a person who only believes 20% of the passages in the Bible attributable to Jesus are true consider himself/herself a Christian/Christ follower/disciple of Christ? If so, how? I don't say that sarcastically--I would truly think someone with those beliefs would more likely think of themselves as a spiritual person who values some of the things the man Jesus said or stood for, just as they value many other teachers. It's not surprising to me that after dismissing 80% of Jesus' sayings, and most of His miracles, Funk refers to him as just a "great sage." Is that it? Can that be all there is to Jesus? A "great sage" who taught us how to be nice to people, but really had little power? I'm asking these questions out loud, not pointing them at any of you specifically. I'm not assuming that any of you hold fast to all of the Jesus Seminar teachings. At the end of the day, the Jesus presented there would not be a Jesus I would leave father or mother for or be persecuted for. It would not be a Jesus I would drop my fishing net or get up from my desk and immediately follow forever. It would not be a Jesus I would worhsip (as he called for), anymore than I would "worship" any man or woman. It would not be a Jesus I would feel compelled to obey in all circumstances. It would not be a Jesus I would look to for healing. And it certainly would not be a Jesus I would be willing to die for. Funk says he did not his faith to be in Jesus. I contrast this with the examples of the Roman soldier...the women with the unending flow...Zacchaeus. I think their faith was clearly in Jesus, and he was always impressed with their faith. They saw a power and presence they did not find elsewhere.

Uuummmmm......Huh? Jen (Is that who we are today?) Your stunning intelligence is so superior to the rest of us here, it boggles the mind. Of course, perhaps I'm just playing with half of mine, according to your science. (My wife might claim "half" is being generous) Please continue to teach and astound us.

Fred- For 99.5% of us, I would argue that beyond all the terrible abuse we may have suffered, the junk we've received from society (tv,music, etc.), growing up in perhaps the very worst of surroundings, etc., at the end of the day, we make a choice to proceed or not to murder that friend, molest that child, rob that bank, cheat on our taxes, etc. That doesn't discount that we should minister to people with tough circumstances so that they can avoid making horrific choices and make good ones instead. Or it doesn't discount the idea that some are more likely to commit certain evil acts than others based on upbringing, etc. But in the end, I still think for most of us, we are responsible for making the right or wrong choice. For that small percentage of people (perhaps a 4 yr old that kills someone or a severely mentally handicapped person that molests someone), where we agree they really had NO knowledge of what they were doing--no knowledge of right/wrong--then I would put that in the "tsunami" or "just awful" category. A terrible, awful, tragic, gut wrenching occurrence, but one where we cannot perhaps assign blame or attribute to evil intent.

Because it involves a willful and deliberate action (or lack of action) that is in direct opposition to a holy God (and in many cases our fellow humans) My .02

Backpacking through central or south america. What famous person in all of history (we'll take Jesus out of the equation) would you most like to spend an evening with?

Ross, I'll see if I can find one !

Happy Bday!!!! What, are we turning 21, 22 today? Hope you have a great day!

Des/Alethia--Thanks for the kind words...that's how I hope to come across in my posts. My discussion about posting more elsewhere was not a "I'll take my ball and go home" statement. I've not been offended here, even by Beach. I enjoy dispelling the myths I think she has bought into. But as I reread the intro to the boards, I had to ask myself if they were really set up for an outsider challenging ideas, etc. Even wiith all of my problems with Beach's generalizations, I can actually see why she might want (and expect) a "conservative free" zone....a place to spout off, etc. As much as I'd love to meet people at the coffee house for debate, I'm not sure I'd want an outsider coming to one of my elder's meetings at church and consistently challenging everything that was said. There's a time and a place. What I will probably do is just be more selective in which posts I respond to.

Where to begin.... I reread the intro to the discussion forums and saw that the main purpose of the forums is discussion about progressive Christianity, not debate, although debate is allowed if done appropriately, etc. I also can see why some might want a completely "safe" place to sound off, etc. So perhaps in light of that I'll post more on beliefnet or somewhere else, where debate is encouraged. Plus, as a non-progressive, it's not my place to get into the fray about what is acceptable/unacceptable debate--that's an in-house issue best decided by the rest of you. Beach, you obviously have tons of bitterness built up over past treatment. It seethes out of your posts. And I don't say that just because I disagree with your views. In fact, I don't think you're anymore "liberal" or "progressive" than most on this board, and yet I'm able to carry on intelligent, meaningful dialogue with others because they are nice, compassionate and respectful. (In fact, they act kind of like this historical figure I read about one time that was known for compassion, treating people kindly, etc. But I digress) And they are able to do so without bending their beliefs or agreeing with me. Lastly, Beach, I usually speak up when you make one of your sweeping generalizations because I go to church or know so many evangelical, conservative Christians who think and act nothing like you generalize. People who minister to the homeless and ex-convicts; adopt orphans (met a guy Sunday with 5 adopted children--one hispanic, one A-A, one oriental, and two cauc.--beautiful!); minister to unwed mothers, addicts, prostitutes; serve the poor overseas; etc. I know these examples don't fit into your narrow, paranoid world, but I go to church and serve with people like this all the time. Contrary to your myopic view, you don't own the market of love, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, etc.

Peace- Sorry for the confusion...yes, that's the post I was referring to. Trust me, I am all for a vigorous debate on all issues political and religious. Like you, I'm not for some wishy-washy, "walking on eggshells" discussions. My feelings don't get hurt. It's just not an honest way to put forth ideas. And it's lazy, also. There's a famous quote..."You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument." We could substitute "label or lump people into categories" in the place of "raise your voice." Challenge ideas...propose solutions...and don't be so paranoid of those with different views.