FredP

Oh, by the way, creation ex nihilo isn't even close to what happens in the impregnation of a woman. In inpregnation, an exactly equal amount of genetic material is contributed by the male and female parents. The zygote that results does not come "from the outside," but literally "from the inside" of both parents. Apparently the "marital act" (not sure why intercourse has to be euphemized and quoted) is not reasonably familar to everyone, because your analogy of it to creation ex nihilo is about 500 years out of date. And lest it be claimed that I'm reducing impregnation to the physical act only, I deliberately used "intercourse" rather than "sexual intercourse." I do, however, presume that a child partakes equally of its parents in every other way as well, which makes the genetic analogy perfectly apt.

If, as you believe, the outward form of the Priesthood is ordained by God until God sees fit to change it, then yes, the Church is committed to this view. Naturally, you're not going to find many here who share this understanding of Priesthood. Many reasons have been suggested why the Bible and early Christian history have men at the forefront of sacramental life. Most charitably, some suggest that the idea of priestesses would have been incomprehensible in the first century, in a religion aimed foremost at the Jews, and so Jesus elected male leaders out of a simple recognition of that fact. On the other end of the spectrum, it is claimed that the ordination of male priests did not go back to Jesus, but was a practice of the early church retrojected back onto him. In any case, it's not at all clear that the presence of the commission of Peter in the gospels has to mean that God has forever ordained an exclusively male priesthood. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to when you say her article "charges Jesus Christ" with committing or condoning sexism, but I speculate that you take her to be implicating Christ by virtue of the fact that he founded the Church on a male priesthood. As I said above, there are many ways to read the Bible and early Christian history that don't implicate Christ in this, or any other, way. I don't get any impression from her article that the target of her criticism is Jesus Christ. I suspect that she takes Christ's view on Christian leadership to be fully inclusive, and then claims that the Church has strayed from it. If you want to criticize her, that seems like the fair angle to take. I've heard this argument so many times (from Kreeft, Lewis, and others), and to this day I can't make a shred of biblical or philosophical sense out of it. In the Incarnation, Jesus Christ took on our humanity, not our maleness. When priests speak in persona Christi, they are able to do so because God has taken their full humanity into Christ. The priest speaks in Christ with a human mouth, not a male one. Which of Jesus' other human attributes are qualifications for priesthood then? There is a very important truth here. C. S. Lewis more poetically said, "God is so masculine, that all creation is feminine by comparison." The archetypal masculine and feminine (for you Jungian folk out there) represents a polarity between initiation and response, pattern and void, seed and womb, yin and yang. And in the primary God-World relationship, Godhead is the initiating force in and behind all that is. In this sense, our souls bear an archetypally feminine relationship to God. In the web of creation, however, masculinity and femininity are imprinted on everything and everyone, in different ways, to different degrees. They clearly determine our physical/reproductive structure, but have successively less influence on the higher developmental stages: emotional, mental / logic, and spiritual / unitive awareness. Even in a marriage relationship, there are masculine / feminine dynamics going on all the time in both directions. Indeed, for Jung, one of the hallmarks of the maturation process is the unity of the masuline and feminine principles in oneself. Bottom line, even if the masculine principle is what's so important for spiritual leadership (and I'm not even convinced of that), restricting spiritual leaders to people with masculine bodies isn't the most reliable way to get it. If having masculine bodies in the Priesthood is what's so important, to stay true to what you believe God has ordained, well, I'm not sure we have much common ground for discussion on that particular point. Holding onto an ecclesiasical model for fear of schism and doubt may benefit the common good, but it bears no relationship to its theological or philosophical correctness. The same argument was made for continuing the practice of slavery in America. It also begs the question of just who's good is being benefited. This is absolutely correct, and I had the same criticism of her article, and of people who use women's "priesthood rights" for agendas of empowerment. It's not about having power, but about having the liberty to exercise one's calling to Christian service in the person of Christ. As always, thanks for sharing your thoughts, Fred

Definitely! They're both phenomenal theologians, far more penetrating IMO than most of what passes for theology these days.

Well, this is just one example of the book's limited historical perspective coming out I think. Crossan criticizes Johnson for making extra-historical claims about Jesus; but the whole thrust of Johnson's book (The Real Jesus) is precisely that the meaning of Jesus extends far beyond the merely historical! And Johnson is no fundamentalist or literalist: a quick perusal of his more recent book on the Creed makes that very clear. This is one of those areas where I think Crossan's work has to be supplemented in order to really appreciate the importance of Christ in a fuller way.

I really love this book. Everytime I come back and skim over parts of it, I'm always surprised that I forgot how great it is. He's got such a keen, penetrating intellect, and is just masterful with language. I also appreciate that he is up front about his assumptions, admits when he is going out on limbs, and is as "critical" (in the academic sense) of his own ideas as he is of anyone else's. I think ultimately the view of the book is limited. Some of that is intentional (i.e. it's a work of history, not theology); but inevitably the modern academic-liberal perspective takes over, and one does come away from the book wondering if all Crossan sees in Jesus is the social challenge. But as an examination of the social challenge of the person of Jesus, I think it's about as dead on target as you can get.

Sorry, but a couple people beat you to it. Within Christianity, it's known as Arianism. It's basically the view held by non-Christian Neoplatonism as found in Plotinus and Proclus. But it's true that it isn't as well-known today as views like adoptionism or Unitarianism, even though it's far more sophisticated than both. Actually, Augustine argued against the pagan Neoplatonists on precisely this point, in considerable philosophical detail.

"Definition #2 is the strong progressive version. However, while version #1 runs the risk of being too rigid and exclusive, #2 runs the opposite risk of leaving too little theological self-definition for Christianity. " I didn't mean your views #1 - 4, I was referring to the definitions of Christian belief in my own post. Sorry for the confusion.

Some new titles coming to a bookstore near you... The Hokey Pokey and Philosophy: Is That Really What it's All About? (Philosophy) A Visual History of Hokey Pokey Oil Painting in Venice, 1680-1750 (Art History) You Do The Hokey Pokey and You Turn Yourself Around: How to Improve Your Life with One Simple Song (Self-Help) You Take Your Left Foot Out: Marginalized Voices in the Hokey Pokey (Sociology)

There is a terminology issue, of course, as far as whether one defines Christian belief as "conforming to the historic Christian creeds" (whether that be literally, metaphorically, spiritually, metaphysically, or whatever), or more broadly as "belonging to the total history of Christian theological reflection." Obviously, definition #2 is the strong progressive version. However, while version #1 runs the risk of being too rigid and exclusive, #2 runs the opposite risk of leaving too little theological self-definition for Christianity. Sometimes, in an effort to escape rigid versions of #1 (Billy Graham style theology, for example), people rush to embrace #2, when a more nuanced version of #1 is really all that is needed. Christology affords a good illustration. I've said before that, like most progressives, I don't believe in a literal virgin birth, a literal empty tomb, or the literal eternal preexistence of the human being Jesus of Nazareth. I might be tempted therefore to adopt one of the other theological views of Jesus, like Nestorianism, Arianism, Docetism, or any of the views you presented in your original post. However, in the process of doing so, I also lose whatever spiritual or metaphysical truth might be embedded in the Chalcedonian definition of the two natures of Christ, and one could argue that this truth is crucial to a distinctively Christian view of the world -- or at the very least, worthy of recognition for its profound significance to Christian thought. Likewise the doctrine of the Trinity. My $.02, for what it's worth, is that these two doctrines are very poorly understood by most Christians (traditional and progressive alike), as far as their true spiritual meanings. This causes a buffet-style approach where you draw up a menu and everybody chooses what sounds good to them. But these doctrines aren't just simple surface claims: they're invitations to enter into a spiritual mystery. A deeper exploration of them would go a long way towards a common understanding. Some day I'll get around to doing it!

Woohoo!! May your days be happy and filled with cake.

I think peace will probably start with individuals sharing thoughts and ideas (like here!). I'm not overly optimistic that the religious right as a system has any strong desire for this kind of peace; but I know there are conservatives out there who really genuinely want the world to be a better place. I think they're wrong in some significant ways, but if I want them to listen to me with a truly open heart and mind, then I owe them the same. "Interfaith dialogue" is technically dialogue between religions (Christian-Buddhist, etc.), but I assume the question is, Will this peace come about through some sort of "official" group-dialogue between conservative and liberal Christian churches? I don't know if I can answer that question; but as I said above, I do think it will begin with individuals if it is going to happen at all. I think if you take most people out of the comfort zone of their group identities, and talk heart-to-heart about issues that concern all of us as people trying to live out their day-to-day lives as Christians in 21st century America, you'll probably get an ear. If you really genuinely try, and get the shaft, dust off your sandals and move on. Nevertheless, I would wholeheartedly welcome any attempts at inter-Christian dialogue on a church or community basis. But the bigger the groups involved, the more effort it will take to keep it from turning into a battle of group identities, even with the best intentions. It would need to be facilitated by people who are very far along in the dialogue process themselves, and can debate and discuss issues without things getting personal or tribal. The dialogue between Borg and Wright in terms of traditional vs. progressive Christianity comes to mind.

Maybe you oversimplified. Maybe I overreacted. I can understand why you would make a statement like you did. Can you at least understand why I would react strongly to what I felt was a drastic oversimplification? Is anyone else completely baffled about where I'm coming from? What more do you want me to say?

Anyone read this? It was hugely popular at my Evangelical alma mater (Wheaton College) but I never actually got around to reading it. I just picked it up today. With parenthood approaching rapidly I don't know how soon I'll get to it, but I'll see what I can do!

It's encouraging to see that my intentions have been correctly understood. Bottom line, I was trying to say that oversimplification needs to be avoided at all costs. No more, no less. I actually never said one thing by way of argument about any politician or group on any side (aside from sharing my personal opinion once, as a gesture to correct a misunderstanding about where I was coming from). I didn't feel the need to blame the religious right for oversimplifying, because we all know they do it. But people are notorious for not seeing in themselves the very same things they accuse others of, so I'm merely trying to keep the light pointed at us too. Who was it who said, "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" God knows I've been guilty of the very same thing many times over, so it's not something I'm trying to say out of self-righteousness. But I can't hold back from saying it strongly, because it's just so important to our mission as progressive Christians. In a society that is becoming more polarized by labels and boxes every day, we must show the world a better way. Otherwise, we're just another group with another agenda. Yes, I do want to dialogue with the right. I am willing to endure the challenges I find there, and I'm willing to listen for any good ideas they may have, that my own blinders have caused me to pass over too lightly. I'm also willing to endure the challenges I find on the left! No person or group can possibly have all the right answers, or all the wrong ones. That doesn't mean I'm going to sit down with Fred Phelps and dialogue about homosexuality though. That's where discernment and strategy come into play. But there's no such thing as discernment when there is only black and white, red and blue, right and left. Thanks des for bring up the role of the television media in understanding how our culture has become so polarized. This is dead on target. The tube has thoroughly altered our cultural attention span, and our ability to see issues in their full complexity. If your views about some issue can fit on a bumper sticker, I promise you they're wrong. We've all seen the monster SUV covered with "Support our Troops" ribbons, Christian fish, and Bush/Cheney decals; but who hasn't seen the other great cultural cliche: the college professor in the little beater car, covered with liberal bumper stickers? Neither of these oversimplifications can be right; but neither can a watered-down "moderate" compromise. The way forward is more sane, more frustrating, and more exciting, than anything our corporate media-politics machine is able to give us: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. But to make this a reality, for us, for our children, and for our grandchildren, we have to have to resist the easy labeling, boxing, and stereotyping that has become so commonplace in our culture -- and risk being viewed as an outcast by everyone who does it. Do we have the moral courage to do this?

Thanks everybody! We're enjoying the calm before the storm, trying to take advantage of going out and doing things, before we get strapped in for awhile. I was excited about the UCC's decision as well, but I do understand the inevitable backlash that is already occurring, and will continue to occur, around the country in the aftermath of it. I was hoping to get around to writing a short article on the subject (in all my spare time, of course), and seeing if I can get popular in the UCC editorial pages.

There it is again, all or nothing. All I can say is, good luck surrounding yourself with people who agree with you in every conceivable detail. I'm officially signing off this discussion.

Wow, you really are so polarized that you can only see viewpoints in an all-or-nothing fashion. It's funny: that's exactly what fundamentalism is. I wonder how you don't see it.

This is truly unbelievable. Seriously, I can't believe what I'm reading. Did you take the time to actually read my post? Or do I have to subscribe to your version of Bush and his supporters as Southern Baptist White Supremacists, in order to be acceptable as a progressive? (Bush is a Methodist, by the way.) I happen to think the Bush administration is the worst thing to come to Washington since Nixon, and I happen to virulently despise the "Religious Right" in all its forms; but come on, how can you throw every conservative person in the country into the same basket? Talk about black and white. Talk about absolutes. This kind of cartooning just polarizes all the issues and makes any kind of real dialogue impossible. Isn't dialogue supposed to be a progressive hallmark? Getting people from different viewpoints to sit down and look at an issue with respect and tolerance for each other's points of view? The issues that really matter are going on all around us. Corporate power and human rights; privacy, security, and demographic profiling; freedom of speech, press, and religion; and an overall increasing immunity of government from the concerns of justice, and the will of the global community. Caricaturing Bush as a fanatical racial and religious zealot is not only inaccurate, it actually deflects the focus away from where it belongs -- away from the monstrosities the Bush administration has actually committed. Lastly, I don't care what "side" anybody thinks I'm on. I'm not trying to find personal identity in a label I can conveniently apply to myself. I'm happy to call myself a progressive, but no group is going to tell me what to think.

About three more weeks! I can't believe how the year has flown by.

These kinds of childish oversimplifications by progressives are just going to make us more enemies. We sit here and criticize conservatives for thinking in black and white, absolute terms, and then you propose to put forth a definition of "the basic Bush supporter's mind set"?! What could such a thing possibly mean? I have good friends who support Bush with varying degrees of reluctance (some with none), for a lot of different, complex reasons across the board, from religion, to economics, to social stability, to education -- or even just because they haven't seen a democratic candidate in years who seems to care about their values in the slightest. I may disagree with all of those reasons (except maybe the last one), but I don't disrespect their fundamental right to make up their own minds, by practically accusing them of belonging to the KKK, as your definition above pretty much does. If we want a clear, convincing, progressive political voice, we've got to stop setting up conservative straw men, and start addressing the real issues that are causing a widespread dissatisfaction with political liberalism -- issues on the Right and the Left. When we do bumper sticker politics, we're doing no better than the mud-slinging ads that saturate our TV's before elections. Oversimplification is the enemy of genuine ideological progress. We can do better.

The first part of what? The religious-right style mix of politics and religion? Or the anti-cult thing? Definitely not #1: the Enlightenment sought above all to extricate politics from state-sponsored religion. (Jefferson's famous quote applies here: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god.") As far as being related to an anti-cult sentiment, I don't know, I can't really see a relation... Well, not force; that's part of the mode of religious-right style politics that we reject. But I would try to argue strongly for my social and political beliefs from the angle of faith.

Yes, and sadly, power struggles and stupidity within the Left in the late 60's probably contributed to the downfall of the movement more than anything else. Lots of youthful idealism; not so much of the wisdom and experience of age. (I mean, let's be fair: we're talking about an undergraduate student movement here.) What makes our era potentially even worse than the 1950's is a lack of optimism about the future of humanity, and a sea of philosophical confusion on the Left about Truth and Value.

Hmm, I think there's a stronger correlation in time between the anti-cult hysteria and the rise of the popularity of eastern philosophies, mysticism, drug use, etc. in the late 60s and 70s, which were perceived as a huge threat to the American Protestant way of life. This was the second heydey of Fundamentalism (the first being the revivals of the mid-20's), and certifiable "end-times" craze. Not that McCarthyism didn't set up the furniture for it to happen, but I think that historically it's located closer to the 70's, with the fall of American "innocence" in Vietnam, and the era of experimentation with alternate spiritualities and ideologies. Of course, this could be my personal experience talking, too: my childhood hero was Keith Green, the free-loving, transcendental-meditating, pot-toking, hippie musician turned Jesus freak in '75. (Some groovy music though.) Also, I wouldn't be so quick to judge the religious right for merging their political beliefs with their religious beliefs. I oppose the particular kind of political and religious beliefs they have, and the way they merge them. My religious beliefs influence my political beliefs on a daily basis, as I'm sure yours do as well. Just a little clarification.

"So This Is How Liberty Dies?" by Steven LaTulippe http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe51.html

I think it's more that my thoughts osscilate between the theological and the political, and I'm on the decidedly political end of the pendulum right now. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I'm about to become a parent, and I really want my son to grow up in a world that celebrates his unique gifts, whatever they may be, and doesn't try to pollute his brain with corporate garbage by the time he's six months old.