FredP

This is actually the point I was trying to make in my first reply, but I think James worded it more convincingly. Our religion is where we learn, for example, that we're not just equal in some abstract legal sense, but special and unique by virtue of the divine image we bear. It is also the place where we learn that the capacity for good and evil dwells in each of our hearts, and that no nation has the right to declare its stance and its ideals so uncritically good as GWB has done.

All those philosophy dollars hard at work. Seriously though, I'm glad you didn't take my response as nit-picking. It's a subtle but important distinction. I'm not saying, of course, that the biblical authors were stupid and didn't know the difference between reality and fairy tales. But when they pored over the Jewish scriptures to glean some meaning (and some hope) from Jesus' ministry and execution -- a well-established interpretive tradition within Judaism -- it just never occured to them that those passages' metaphorical or spiritual meanings could be divorced from their "literal" implications. So, for example, when the OT speaks of the Son of Man in Ps. 8:10: "...you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay/corruption [Hebrew Sheol, the Pit, etc.]," this must imply that Jesus' body could not have been left to rot in a tomb. They were well aware of the spiritual meaning of the text, but the differentiation between its various levels and overtones wasn't taken into account until much later, and not by everyone, even to this day. Orthodox Christianity still reads these OT passages as prophecies referring to Christ, and relies on the very NT passages that are based on them to confirm the link. The old habits die hard. How hard is it to read Isaiah 7:14, 9:6f. without thinking of Matthew and Luke, or 53:3f. as referring to the crucifixion?

I was serious though -- if you're passionate about this topic, do read Jim Wallis' God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. He'll be theologically more conservative than most of us here, but socially and politically and economically progressive. Very worthwhile reading.

I'm sorry, but I sincerly doubt that they were thinking about whether Jesus' body was physically resuscitated, lifted off the ground, and floated up into the clouds. (The three do go together; if the ascension wasn't "literal," then where did Jesus' body go?) Clearly this is a point of divergence for us as progressives and non-progressives, and I think we just have to respect that, and formally disagree. As many times as someone plays the "how else do you explain the early church?" card, you're going to get the same answer, and it's not going to satisfy you. I'm not trying to be trite about it, but such is as it is.

Sorry, for whatever reason I never saw the end of your post where you responded about MLK. Either I was too eager, or my computer was wigging out!

At the end of the day, we're not really disagreeing that much, I just like to be argumentative. Ask anyone. If I've given any indication that I approve of Bush's use of religion in politics, please correct that misunderstanding right now! A legitimate use of religion is a uniting, inclusive one, not a partisan one. It is absolutely no place for a political leader to be proselytizing for a religion. The King example (yes, he was a preacher, but he took his preaching to the political sphere for political change) was just to say it's possible to use it in this way as a politician.

You don't have to exclude religions to talk about particular ones. To bring up Martin Luther King again (which you didn't respond to at all), he invoked religion to talk about equality and freedom, without anyone ever supposing that he was shoving the Baptist Church (which was a member of) down anyone's throats. That's the difference. Of course it is! But if religion is invoked inclusively, it doesn't lead to this. I keep wondering why you keep equating "discussing religion" with "only looking out for Christians" or "imposing" one religion on everyone? Have I come even close to implying this? What I've said is that it's appropriate for politicians to appeal to beliefs and sentiments that form the religious and spiritual core of humanity (MLK on equality, for example), rather than continue to address the nation as if these beliefs and sentiments didn't exist. One doesn't have to be exclusivistic about particular religions to appeal to human ideals by means of them. I think that too often, the "religionless" political sphere just ends up fortifying our "cultural religion," which at the moment is scientific naturalism. Political voices like King rightly challenged that limited view and used more human images, such as that all God's children should be able to live together equally in freedom. Was he imposing Christianity on America by saying this?

It's not that they didn't worry about whether it was literally factual; the concepts of literal, metaphorical, real, etc. were simply not yet differentiated in the cultural consciousness. We can appreciate that fact, but we will never be able to read the texts the way the first readers did (nor should we). We've lost some of their epistemological innocence, but gained a valuable critical capacity. By knowing that Jesus' body didn't physically float up off the ground and up into the clouds at the Ascension, we're free to differentiate the various meanings of this (true!) event and explore each in its own right. Thanks for the positive feedback everybody.

Hold on though -- my UCC church sometimes puts liberal politics in the pulpit. Should we not be allowed to do that? If so, who's to say which should be allowed and which shouldn't? (Granted, my church wouldn't kick you out if you voted for Dubya, that's probably a good example of the illegitimate mix of politics and religion!) I'm worried about saying "Take religion out of politics" because it begs the question, What is a good or bad mix of politics and religion? Bush's mix, we'd probably all want to say, is pretty bad. But what about Martin Luther King's? Was it wrong of him to appeal to religious claims in making the case for equality during the Civil Rights Movement? I know this book comes up a lot around here, but Jim Wallis's God's Politics really makes a strong case that the Democrats really need to reappropriate a legitimate use of religion in their political platform. By failing to appreciate the religious values of liberals, he claims many undecided people are settling for the conservative approach to politics, because at least they acknowledge that religious claims are important.

Here's another thought... Most people you come across on a daily basis seem so mired in triviality and small talk, that even just talking about an important issue of any kind can sometimes be enough to get a conversation moving in a spiritual direction. I sometimes just throw an idea out into the conversation and see if I get a "bite." And it depends on whether someone resonates with your thought processes as well. Since I have a bit of a philosophical bent, I tend to be obsessed with issues of meaning and purpose in life... I frequently talk about how I think our consumer culture does everything it can to bombard us with images and sounds 24/7 so we won't have half a second to stop and think about anything important. (If we did, we might not buy the next new exciting product.) There's nothing really "religious" per se about that observation, but it can lead to a great discussion of ultimate meaning and purpose if the person is so inclined. Of course, there are as many approaches as there are people, but we'll probably all do best if we find our voice and stick to it. I think most people are starving to talk about something meaningful.

Personally -- and I stress this is my preference -- I really dislike "contemporary" services. Perhaps this is in large part because my wife and I are both classically trained musicians, but I think the new wave of contemporary church music is (with a few exceptions) musically and lyrically more shallow, and generally makes for a more "touchy-feely" service. Granted, a "traditional" service can be completely lifeless, but I have a difficult time experiencing reverence and awe in the divine presence when I'm surrounded by the same sounds I hear on the radio all day.

Incidentally (not referring to the original post) there is a very important difference between saying "you are unenlightened" as an attack against another person or group, and saying it very carefully in the proper context, if its deemed that it's not going to fall on deaf ears, and/or set the person back even more. Not all such statements that challenge another person's views can be construed as "religious bigotry." If that were the case, many of the posts on this board would be guilty of it as well. We're all here because we actually believe that progressive Christianity is a more compelling alternative than the authoritarian varieties.

Well, the difference is between whether "unenlightened" means "not a Buddhist" or really not enlightened! I imagine a spiritually immature Buddhist, like a spiritually immature Christian, would think everyone outside their religio-cultural sphere is worse off than they are; whereas a mature person in either tradition understands that there are wide ranges of realization everywhere.

I think it's eminently appropriate to evangelize in a progressive context, although most of us would probably agree that bluntly introducing the subject with random people off the street probably isn't going to get you very far. The more the implications of my faith become a part of who I am, the more opportunities I find to bring it up with others though. I don't have to "force the subject" like I did as a fundie in my youth, because it grows naturally out of the concerns I have as an adult. What impact would it have on the world of economics, law, education, ecology, etc. if we really believed that the Divine was completely present in every person, every thing, every moment? What would it mean for corporate America, the inner city, the public school system, the medical establishment, and so on and so forth?

I've been groping for words to express this thought as well... And the fundamental impasse is that we as modern scientific folk (for better or worse, I believe both) have a really tough time entertaining this idea that the real meaning of something may be infinitely truer than the literal meaning of it. Our use of the phrase "but it is / is not literally true" betrays a nagging committment to the literal that simply didn't exist before a few hundred years ago, in the same way that it does to the modern mind. I'm not a dreamy romantic who thinks the modern mind is the source of all our ills; yet that mind does turn out to be both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it gives us the capacity to genuinely tease apart superstition from reality, and falsehood from truth. As such it has been a monumental step in human evolution. In the sphere of religion and spirituality, I truly believe that we can understand spiritual reality in a way that has never before been possible, because we are able to criticize it and ask it hard questions. But this capacity can also become a stage we get stuck at, and identify with. Insofar as we identify ourselves with "enlightened reason," we will always, I think, have a "Yes, but..." attitude towards the spiritual, preferring to emphasize what we don't mean over what we do mean. The modern perspective of doubt and criticism is inevitable (and I say again, a good thing) in a person who has developed at least up to the capacity to comprehend the universe rationally. But in the more spiritually astute, I think it becomes relegated to a corrective, but not defining, role. Not a childish surface acceptance of fairy tales, but not an incessant rational clarification of belief either. A new thing that grows organically out of both. Transcend and include, to use a really great Wilberism. And I hope nobody imagines that I'm putting myself in this "more spiritually astute" category. I struggle daily with letting my "Yes" be "Yes"... I can gauge where I'm at spiritually, almost moment-to-moment, by reflecting on whether my ego insists on following up "Yes" with "but..."

I used to have a fish and a yin-yang on opposite sides of my car until I discovered someone had gone and ripped the yin-yang off. I really need to replace that... I can appreciate the Darwin fish and all, but I opted not to put it on my car because it tends to be viewed (and intended) as a joke, and I don't want people thinking my Christian fish is a joke as well.

I said, I regard Jesus Christ theologically as a sign, not as a historical figure. Yes, Jesus was a historical figure, but the (merely) historical figure isn't what I'm talking about when I use Jesus Christ in a theological sense.

I thought of C. S. Lewis' quote, to the effect that Satan is a nothing but a hammer in the hands of a benevolent and severe God. Severe might sound, well, severe, but I take it in the sense that God will stop at nothing to destroy everything that holds us back from growing into the fullness of Christ... including hacking off chunks of ourselves that are hindering us if necessary. (Shades of, "If they right hand offend thee, chop it off...") I think that's more or less what you're talking about... Satan being the catalyst for growth. I think you're right about Lucifer... Lucifer figures in some of the oldest OT mythology (Job), but is definitely not the serpent of Genesis. Then there is the NT figure of the "Accuser" -- which is, interestingly, "categoron" in Greek, from which we get the English "categorize." The Accuser traps us in boxes so we can't see the whole truth.

We're not human beings having a spiritual experience; we're spiritual beings having a human experience? (Is that Teilhard? Anyone?)

I understand what you're saying... Yes, Jesus the historical figure was born, lived, and died in time and space just like the rest of us. But I also don't want to completely separate Jesus from Christ in the sign, because Jesus as man is part of what makes the sign mean what it means. Perhaps Jesus the man + Christ is the divine son => Jesus Christ the sign. Anyway, terminology aside, I think we're very much on the same page.

YES!!

Actually, unless you happen to be attending Bob Jones University or some such, even most evangelical scholarship agrees that Revelation is thoroughly symbolic, and deals with Rome ~70 CE. I learned that one at Wheaton College, home of the infamous Billy Graham Center. (By the way, Billy Graham attended Wheaton for one semester, in 1943, and his theological views are very much not representative of the college as a whole. Yet, say Wheaton to most people, and the first thing that pops into their head is, "Oh yeah, that's that Billy Graham school. Do you guys have lots of revivals?")

Nope. The Catholic Church, for example, has never taught inerrancy, but infallibility: i.e. it perfectly illumines the issues of doctrine and morality that it addresses. Most here will probably not agree with that characterization either, but it's very different from verbal inerrancy.

Perhaps I read into something you said. When you were saying that Jesus "became" divine, as opposed to being divine from eternity, I took that to mean that Jesus aspired to divinity by his own effort. I interpret the gradual move in the early church towards Jesus' eternal divinity to be precisely the result of the ongoing realization that the incarnation occurs by God's initiative. (If he was divine by God's initiative, then why was he only divine at the resurrection, or at baptism, or at birth, or ...?) In other words, if God initiates the incarnation, then Jesus has always been "God with us," from the beginning of time. Anyway, that's how I understand the theological development going on there, and so I may have misinterpreted your post for that reason. (Once again, remember that I regard Jesus theologically as a sign, not as a historical figure. I keep saying that because it's crucial to understanding almost everything I write!) Hope that clears things up a little...

That is a quote from the great Ben Franklin.