FireDragon76

11 hours ago, thormas said:

Really - Imperial Consensus?

Will I checked his blog, put in 'imperial consensus' and really got nothing. It seems so important to you, I assumed it was a major thing. The only reference I found was to what seems to be the traditional understanding of Christianity, so I assume traditional theism.

However, what I was presenting was not traditional theism, I simply linked creation and salvation which is biblical through to progressive and panentheistic and thus more nuanced than what must be considered imperial by the Lutherans???

Whether or not its "traditional theism", it's still very much focused upon the same concerns of the Greco-Roman consensus.

Note what David has to say about the characteristics of that Greco-Roman consensus.  Note particularly what I have bolded:

"1. Christian belief is essentially about gaining true knowledge about God (and Jesus tends to become first and foremost a communicator or mediator of this knowledge)

2. Scripture is understood as itself the fundamental revelation of God – a kind of sacred text – and Christianity is consequently understood as a huge exercise in exegesis of this divine text

3. salvation is conceived as a gradual transformation and training of the human soul/person, and usually as a kind of cooperative effort between humans and God

4. the world is the natural and necessary object of Christians’ transformative work– i.e. the world/state/family is to be transformed into a foretaste of the kingdom to come, and the kingdom is, as much as possible, to be realized now

5. as a result of the last two points, Christianity is overwhelmingly conceived as an exercise in moral/ethical improvement: it provides the commandments, techniques and imperatives for a holy “way of life”, for the individual, the family, society, the state, the world

6. the church, as the instrument and vessel of this divine transformation, legitimately exercises a significant, even coercive, authority, power, and control in the social and cultural realms, and (therefore) maintains a concrete, unified, institutional presence" 

You've just substituted Whitehead for Aristotle, but you haven't really challenged the assumptions underlying the imperial consensus (or as Dave calls it, the imperial synthesis) in the first place.  You're merely arguing that Whitehead makes more sense of God than Aristotle.  But you're just sexing up the old consensus, a bit of window dressing in the end.

David goes on to actually challenge the basis for the imperial consensus in the first place:

http://www.underthesunblog.com/main/three-pillars-of-the-old-order/

You should probably focus on part 2 and 3, however, since I doubt you have a high view of the Scriptures:

http://www.underthesunblog.com/david-corner/the-problem-with-deification-essay/

http://www.underthesunblog.com/david-corner/kicking-the-gnostic-habit-the-problem-of-faith-as-knowledge-essay/

The lion has no ability to imagine a world other than the way it is, whereas human beings do have that ability.   That is one basis for our sense of sin (the other is based on creating symbolic categories of purity and impurity, something that is part of Judaism, but not necessarily Christianity).  We have the feeling that some things about the world  aren't the way things should be.   An "is" doesn't make for an "ought".

However, just because we can imagine a world doesn't mean we can actually live in that world.   History is littered with totalitarian, utopian movements based on nothing more than human idealism.   Leaving this world of idealism to religion, narrowly constructed, makes a great deal of sense, since this state of affairs can seemingly only be completely realized in the world to come by divinity, and not by human beings.

20 hours ago, Burl said:

You are correct.  Americans generally decide what they think is politically correct first.  Then they choose a 'religion' which supports their bias.

Evangelical fundamentalist churches are more prone to this than the Protestant mainline in the US.  Mainline Protestants have a variety of political orientations, though genuinely far right politics is extremely rare. 

My own denomination's laity are made of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

You'll have to explain this one........

 

Although I appreciate the Amazon referrals, I have a long list of books I'm reading. But feel free to provided some detail on justification by faith if you are able.

David Wagschal's blog is well worth reading.  The sort of religious ideology you are describing fits into the "Imperial Consensus" he critiques.

I came from an Eastern Orthodox religious tradition that was steeped in language of theosis, just as David did.   I don't like its results; it's a subtle confusion of Law and Gospel and lends itself easily to spiritual abuse.

5 hours ago, thormas said:

This seems reminiscent of the baby and the bathwater. To become so suspect of a major part of the tradition seems a shame. But, isn't this picking and choosing biblical passages or entire themes to suit ones purposes? How can a Christian consider God as Creator or the 'ordering of creation' suspect? You can't mean you simply doubt the story and opt for evolution because evolution has no place for Augustine's original sin (see below).

Actually it doesn't imply that, for it is God that enables us to be 'better people' or, to say the same thing with different words: to have a greater 'likeness' to God; to be more Christ-like; to change (metanoia) and become new men, new women; to become a son or daughter of the Father, etc.  We can only be 'better people,' only overcome sin/self-centeredness (i.e. salvation from sin) because of God, the God who does not merely love but is Love.  It is only Love (God) that overcomes self-centeredness (the original sin of 'Adam' and the self same only sin of mankind).

It is not whether or not God can only truly love us when we are something more than what we are; it is that we can only be(come) more, because we are Loved or to get to how it works: we can only become more or better people or overcome sin/selfishness if and to the degree we incarnate God - if we embody and become love!

Grace is gift, gift is given, what is actually given is God: God gives himSelf! What is radical is the Power of Love (i.e. God) - literally the only power by which man becomes like Christ. This is indeed radical. There is no moralism here, this is salvation theology.

Well the reality seems to be that human beings are self-centered (i.e.sinners). I will leave Augustine for another time.

What does chosen mean? Does God choose not to save some people? If we can only be saved by love (which is God) then God must not love all because that is the only way to be saved.   Sounds like the guy on the beach who yells to the drowning boy, "I love you" but does nothing to save him or worse, choses not to?  Say what? Finally, what hypothetical humanity? Humanity is actual people - no hypothetical about it: no people, no humanity. 

 

I am not critiquing creationism vs. evolution.  I believe God is the Creator, I couldn't be a Lutheran otherwise.  I'm critiquing the idolization of a magisterial reason, nature, and natural law, what is implicit in the "orders of creation".   I don't think that's a good approach to a Jesus-shaped faith, even if that's the approach many churches tend to take towards the issue.  

Two resources for you, for understanding our Lutheran approach:

https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Bible-Martin-Luther-Introductory/dp/0801049172

http://www.underthesunblog.com/david-corner/so-wrong-for-so-long/

And if you need more help understanding Dave's perspective, this book by Gerhard Forde is excellent:

https://www.amazon.com/Justification-Faith-Matter-Death-Life/dp/1620322102

On 7/27/2018 at 9:55 AM, thormas said:

However, Jesus didn't come for the world, to either praise or condemn it. He was a Jew who came for Jews with the specific intention to preach the coming Kingdom. He was not presenting a perfect walk to God, he was calling on God's chosen people, already in covenant with God, to prepare for the Kingdom: as this was expected in the lifetime of his followers; there was no time to perfect anything. 

Jesus was wrong, the Kingdom did not come and the communities that followed him had to adjust and, thereafter, it is perfectly valid for the Christian community, which is now in it for the long haul,  to talk of the 'Christ' of their community and the (his) Way to walk before God.

Exactly, that's why I distinguished between 'judgment' or the condemnation of others that is motivated by self (centeredness) and judgment rendered for others, on behalf of others, that points to the possibility of 'new life' or the inherent danger if one doesn't seize the opportunity. I think Jesus 'judged' this way in his words and actions and condemned the judgment of the Pharisees and Scribes which condemn the other but did not offer life. 

Seemingly, many Christians make the opposite mistake by reading the gospels as a unit and combining the stories to create a fifth or their own gospel (as in the birth stories at Christmas). I agree, it is best to have a fuller take on a particular gospel but there is nothing wrong, within that, of selecting particular texts to make a point (carefully). Plus, the gospels themselves are predetermined opinions or beliefs and support for these beliefs are sought in the OT and presented by the careful arrangement or rearrangement of the deeds and words of Jesus. Nothing wrong with that but it should also be okay if we do the same with our beliefs or ideas (again carefully).

Dictionaries are obviously helpful but we have also been talking about the inadequacy of words and the need to stretch words in order to better 'speak' of a reality that is too rich to be captured by words. Such a word is judgment and another is incarnation. Many scoff at and dismiss the notion of incarnation in the 21st C. I do not accept the understanding as it is commonly presented (God down to man) but understood in a new way, it holds interesting possibilities. The dictionary definition (a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit) can be helpful but on its own, doesn't get us very far.  Even Spong's idea of God as a verb, a noun (defined as a word used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things) as a verb (defined as word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence) opens up new possibilities, new insights and new understandings. 

Sometimes, we have to go for it, as long as it is sincere and with great care. As Uncle Ben said to Spider Man, "with great power comes great responsibility."

No need to be so subtle.  Jesus condemned the pharisees because they used religion, what was holy, to hurt and exclude people.  Every one of us is capable of using what is holy to hurt "the other", and our natural inclinations as a human being are to do just that.

Hart is an Orthodox Christian that is conciliatory towards Anselm and Aquinas.  I see Hart as not presenting knowledge of God so much through reason, as much as the concept of God being reasonable.  There is a difference.   Orthodox Christians are not necessarily anti-rationalistic or against reason, but they are an eastern religion that prioritizes intuition and experiential knowledge above all else.

13 hours ago, thormas said:

I too consider God as Savior, but it is always tied to God as Creator (and Sustainer); it is the same God. To me, there is no distinction: I create my child, I love my child, I want my child to have the fullness of life, I want to share life with my child (this is Creator) and if my child fails, has difficulty, needs help then I am still there for her (this is Savior/Healer).The God who saves is first (so to speak) the God who creates.

I too accept grace/gift - the gift of life and, as part of that, the realization that I am only able to become 'Human' though the gift of Other who gives Self in and through the created order. God comes to us and enables us to become fully Human, in and through others (grace). Salvation enables us or empowers us to become sons and daughters of the Father (after the 1st born Son): this suggests we no longer sin and thus by definition are better people. So.........grace enables us to become better people.

The Word, spoken in the beginning, the Word that echoes through all, is the same Word that is embodied (incarnated) and heard clearly in the man Jesus - in his life, death and Life.       Again, not applied to things, given to men and women. Jesus did not apply, he was with and for others; he gave (gift/grace) himself to others so they might have Life.

How are other Protestant traditions not accepting or defined by incarnation theology??? Further, speaking about the 'world without sin' is not mere speculation, it is, rather, a statement/belief about the God we believe is Savior: that he didn't need sin to love us, that as Love ItSelf, he loves us, as he did Adam & Eve, before sin entered the world. It is a fully biblical position. Don't Lutherans know this? Don't they know the sun shines and the rain falls on all, even as it? Don't they know the Good Son in the tale of the Prodigal is already with and loved by the Father? It is not speculation about how we think the world should be, it is s faith statement about who God IS!

Spong and Fox may be different but these men and these other Christian traditions also 'confess' God and his Christ. How can you say they do not?

As for the councils - that is for another day.

You have potentially packed alot of ideas into such a small space.  

Our emphasis on God as Savior is implicit in our tradition, but is even further reinforced because of our experiences in the 20th century.  Doctrines of orders of creation were used to justify the rise of a regime that committed the worst atrocities that Europe has ever encountered.    Therefore, we find appeals to the original ordering of creation suspect.   But we go further and criticize it on theological, and not just ethical, grounds as well. 

We don't view "being better people" as how we would describe salvation, because that implies that God can only truly love us when we are something more than what we are.   We believe in actual, radical grace.  Paul says that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.   Moralism has no place in our theology.

We don't view human beings as being without sin in this life.    We believe human beings are born sinners.  We are Augustinian in that sense.  The Christian is a forgiven sinner.  We also believe God loves everyone, but everyone that is saved is chosen by God.  God doesn't save a hypothetical humanity, but actual human persons.

On 3/25/2018 at 1:22 PM, romansh said:

This thread seems to have more twists and turns than Monte Carlo Grand Prix.

But if spirituality (as opposed to the antithesis of death) is what this thread is actually about, I am reminded of a funeral service I went to an ex-Pastor friend of mine at a local church. There were a few unfortunate aspects to the service, but the church was full. I could not help but feel a large number of the people were having "spiritual experiences". As much as I can discern from an observer's viewpoint without an MRI scanner or some such. 

I also cannot but think there was an addictive aspect to these so-called spiritual experiences. Now I think addictions per se are not necessarily detriment to life. Quite simplistically we are addicted to breathing. Also I am not so naïve not to understand I too have my addictions. But I suspect some have  strong addiction for spiritual experience whether it a 400-strong congregation singing or perhaps the infra-sound of a cathedral organ, hence the Christian music and art threads.

I don't think that's what Christians are thinking of when they are talking about spiritual experiences.  A spiritual experience is more than simply an experience of the sublime.

This is more like the spiritual experience Christians often have:

Mike McHargue, a popular progressive Christian blogger, talks about experiencing something similar.  A sizeable percentage of Americans who are otherwise psychologically healthy have had some kind of spiritual experience similar to what Mike or Tracy Lind have experienced.

On 3/20/2018 at 7:49 PM, romansh said:

No not good comments at all.  1) evolution does not care about oppression. 2) If the weak out-reproduce the strong, the weak are winning from an evolutionary point of view. 3) If Timothy or anyone else can't think of reasons for not oppressing the weak, the education system in that segment of the population needs a revisit.

I see him arguing there is a moral or spiritual dimension to human being, that we are not merely animals.  Otherwise, why not do as animals do and simply accept that things like racism and tribalism are merely manifestations of our genes to favor in-group members?

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

As a former believer in salvation, I came to question the whole 'salvation' story when, amongst other things, I learnt and better understood evolution.  To me, and perhaps this is why some Christians very strongly deny evolution, is that the science of evolution punches a great big hole in the whole redemption story, IMO.

I was raised being taught that mankind inherited the burden of sin simply for being born.  Why?  Because Adam and Eve sinned against God which in turn cursed all mankind.  Now I realise some may see Adam and Eve as myth/metaphor however the point still remained that humans were born lacking and required redemption.  But why only humans, and why only when we were humans?  Where was the need for redemption when we were Neanderthals, apes, or amoebas?

I don't think stories in the Bible must necessarily be understood literally or as scientifically verifiable facts to be sacred and meaningful.  That is a common approach to the Scriptures in my church denomination; neo-orthodoxy rather than liberalism or fundamentalism.

I see too much needless suffering in the world, based on nothing more than empty fear and hatred, to be unconvinced that salvation no longer matters.   As a Lutheran, I believe salvation entails more than going to heaven when one dies, it also implies being open to living a life as a disciple of Jesus Christ because the evil of the world is contained by the hope in God's promises.    Through trust in God's promises as a gathered community around the Word, life is transfigured into a sacred calling or vocation where we become God's hands in the world doing God's work.

Based on what psychologists know about religious participation, it's mostly positive.  Some religious beliefs can be problematic, of course, but it's hard to generalize.

10 hours ago, thormas said:

Perhaps, you can elaborate on Luther and salvation at some point and post in the future - could be of interest especially for those who are not Lutheran.

We are alot like other evangelicals in the basics.  But I think the most striking difference is that we believe in real grace for real sinners, and not what Luther called "a pretend grace".   We believe in living the Christian life boldly rather than scrupulously.    And we do not view salvation as an offer or a process of growth but something that is completed and applied to the individual through hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments.

Here's a video from our presiding bishop talking about being a Lutheran.  It's a bit more liberal in tone than my own congregation, and a bit vague on the actual details, but it's a good overview for knowing what Lutherans are about:

This is one of my favorite Lutheran hymns, we sign it at baptisms.  We are a church very much oriented around communal sacred rites, especially baptism.  That is where we believe we primarily encounter God as human beings.  As the Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber jokes, we are "religious, but not spiritual".

Lutherans consider God as Savior as a more central theological locus, a more important idea, than having God as Creator.  We are less "creation oriented" in our thinking and more "salvation oriented".  Grace, rather than human ability, is also a core theological locus of Lutherans.  Salvation is not about becoming a better person, but was accomplished in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and is applied to us today through hearing the Gospel and receiving the sacraments.  

We have an incarnational theology, it is one of our defining characteristics that often sets us apart from some other Protestant traditions.  However, we do not speculate about what the world would have been like without sin.  God loves this world and its people as it is, not as we think it should be.

I know Jack Spong or Matthew Fox may have different theological emphases, but we, as Lutherans,  work within a theological tradition that is distinct from Episcopalians.  We are specifically a confessional church body, and interpret the Bible within a confessional tradition that is Christocentric and Pauline.  We see ourselves in theological continuity with the early church, indeed, our confessions have the same status for us as do the early councils of the Church.

BTW, here's some articles discussing research into infant cognition and morality:

https://nypost.com/2017/04/13/your-baby-is-a-little-bit-racist-science-says/

https://www.centertao.org/media/Why-of-it-all.pdf

Here's a video of that 60 Minutes piece of on the Yale Infant Cognition Center.  It also has an interview with Paul Bloom, who is a leading researcher on the biological basis of morality.

A baby's sense of morality, which is really just an sense of impartial fairness, is biological and it is in fact shared with other primates.  It is not learned.

Babies do show preferences for people that look like them or have similar preferences in food or toys.  That is biological.  Even the most liberal minded parents are going to have babies that have preferences for people that are similar to them.

This doesn't mean people are cursed to be members of the KKK of course but it does mean that our cultural values are not working with a blank slate.  We come into the world primed for survival through group loyalty and tribalism above moral considerations.   It's why far right rhetoric is so appealing, because it taps into something primal in human nature about feelings of security.

It is dangerous for people to think that they are above the things they abhor.   What we repress, we express.

In another thread you asked what makes Lutherans, Lutherans, and if I had to point to something I'd say this is a salient point.   Admitting human beings are perverse and fundamentally misguided but also recognizing we are loved despite our inherent perversity.  That is a dialectic that cannot be neatly resolved discursively, and we believe that is realistic and true to the Scriptures.   It's not a choice between emphasizing human sinfulness or God's love, both are true for us as proclamation.

I don't think there's one answer to this.  All I do know is that sin explains alot in what I observe in the world. 

My pastor sometimes uses stories of little kids fighting over toys to talk about original sin.  But I think I've found a better example.  Research an Yale's psychology department has shown that a baby's innate sense of morality is easily overriden by things like loyalty to people that are similar to them, and also they can be easily bribed contrary to those same moral intuitions.  Things like racism and nationalism are easily understood in terms of human nature that's hard wired into us.  So we're born with some dark tendencies from the get go that aren't merely the result of culture.

So really I see sin as part of a useful story that explains some aspects of our experience in the world, especially how people are fundamentally perverse.  As Paul says in Romans, he knows to do good, but there's another law at work within his flesh.  The spiritual battleground is within the human heart, and none of us are pure in that regard.

I come from an Orthodox background (the same as Hart) that has a less rationalistic approach to God and differs from Aquinas and Aristotle, but I still don't think its true to say they would agree that God is potentiality.  Orthodox focus on the divine nature being unknowable and knowledge of God is mediated through grace rather than reason.

Our congregation actually has gay people who serve in ministry, and Lutherans tend to be nonjudgmental anyways.   So we are more than merely tolerant.   But at the same time we have alot of older people who are not yet ready to have things like same-sex marriages.   This varies from congregation to congregation, since our polity is congregationalist.  And our own congregation, I think, isn't ready or willing to dive into the more politically charged pro-LGBT movements within our church, such as ReconcilingWorks, and the entanglements that might entail.  I think that's fairly typical of moderately conservative ELCA churches in the US.

I came to accept gay people years ago when I was an Orthodox Christian, a convert from apatheism. Gay people were, at one time, the last people I wanted to meet.  I wanted to stay away from that controversy and the baggage associated with it.   However, I think God has a sense of irony and stuck alot of gay people in my life.    And it is one of the reasons I had to leave that church in the end, because my understanding was at odds with my church, which considered homosexuality sinful and deviant, like a disease, which is something I saw as very damaging to people I had come to know and who had lived with that message. 

I was also drifting towards a more Lutheran understanding of salvation, anyways.  Luther was a brilliant theologian and I think he really cuts to the heart of the issue, esp. for anybody that has come from a Christian background steeped in tradition.  Eventually, that whole "sin-management" thing can become horribly oppressive, whereas I think the Christian life should be far more bold. 

On 6/18/2018 at 6:28 PM, Burl said:

New study on effects of yoga and meditation on personality.

https://qz.com/1307380/yoga-and-meditation-boost-your-ego-say-psychology-researchers/

It could be because as the article says, that meditation and yoga is presented differently in a western context, typically, as a way to be a more effective agent in the capitalist system.    This has been criticized by some Buddhists themselves, particularly from the Tibetan tradition (Chogyam Trungpa) but also some from the Zen tradition (Rev. Kevin Malone, a NY prison chaplain), and Marxists such as Slavoj Zizek.    There are whole schools of Buddhism that do not even practice meditation as commonly understood, and for those that do, it is not necessarily considered a basic practice.

Also, the western psychology and phenomenology of the self tends towards autonomy as implicit, whereas the eastern understanding is that the self is relational.  Concepts like "ego" have different nuances, depending on the context.

I'm a bit confused by what exactly being a "progressive Christian" really means.

I consider myself a progressive Lutheran (I'm a member of the ELCA), but as a Lutheran my faith is both confessional and Christocentric.  While I respect that there is wisdom in many religions, that's not what I see as the core of my faith, which is about God's reconciliation with humanity in the person of Jesus Christ.  So I'm not sure I can agree on all 8 of the points. 

Lutherans also emphasize human sin and human depravity, even if we do not have quite the same tone as other evangelicals, it is still an important part of our proclamation and spirituality.   

On the other hand, I'm outspoken in my support for inclusion of LGBT persons in the Church, and my religious denomination (ELCA) also expresses a basic level of support for LGBT rights, including non-discrimination in public services.   By many evangelicals standards in the US, that is highly problematic and that would tend to lump me in the "progressive" camp as defined by an organization such as Patheos or Sojourners.

My social ethics generally follows in the tradition that came out of Bonhoeffer's writings on "religionless Christianity", for instance Jurgen Moltmann, John A.T. Robinson and Harvey Cox.   We are less interested in spirituality as something separated from secular activities.   In this way it is really a classical Lutheran emphasis understood in a modern context.  Most Evangelical Lutherans in the ELCA understand God as transfiguring the secular.   So, we tend to view things as individual spirituality and mysticism as less important, even perhaps misguided at times, despite modern trends to the contrary in our culture.   We are "religious, but not spiritual", as the Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber likes to joke.   What little exclusively "religious" spirituality we have is communal fellowship centered in our sacraments and rites.

While textual criticism can be helpful, it's good not to get stuck on its conclusions as the final word.  It's possible the "older" manuscripts we have, simply have missing endings, and the original manuscript was similar to the one we now have.

In Acts there is the story of Paul and his companion picking up a snake, being bitten, and not being harmed.  Then the natives worship him as a god.

The quote "To escape sin may be the ultimate guilt" is attributed to Bonhoeffer.

Peace churches are those churches that believe Christians are not free to participate in war or justified violence.  Historically, most Christians have not held this ethical position.  Augustine was probably the first to clearly articulate the argument that Christians could be soldiers in good conscience.  Before then, many local bishops prohibited anyone who had killed, for any reason, from receiving the sacraments without penances.

Christian realism is an outgrowth of neo-orthodox Reformed and Lutheran anthropology and social ethics.  It's not cultural conservativism and quietism of the fundamentalists, but it's also critical of the utopianism and flawed anthropology of the Social Gospel movement.  Even though Bonhoeffer did not identify himself as such, theologically he had more in common with Niebuhr than many of his liberal contemporaries. 

Bonhoeffer and Niebhur are arguably among the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20th century.  Bonhoeffer in particular was brilliant.

I'm more into Niebhur-style Christian realism or Bonhoeffer.  I'm not really comfortable with peace-church pacifism where we stand back and merely let our lights shine.  I'm more Augustinian: "to escape sin may be the ultimate guilt", something attributed to Bonhoeffer. 

My church has a nuanced position, despite the fact our conservative peers tend to say we are "pro-abortion".    We don't really approve of it in general, for starters, but we aren't known for being overly judgmental.  It's left up to the individual a great deal to decide what he or she should do in controversial matters, with the pastor and the religious community there to accompany them in that task.  Our ethics is like that in alot of ways.  We give guidelines more than rules.

Some of us are pro-choice, others are pro-life.  My pastor leans towards a more Catholic pro-life position but even he recognizes it is an area of ethical complexity and we should avoid trying to minimize that.  That's more or less what I believe about the matter, too.