FredP

Ken Wilber fan?

I'll have to read the links later, but for the moment, my $.02 is that Panentheism and Process Philosophy/Theology are completely separate (though not exclusive) things. Borg, Spong, and Matt Fox all explicitly adopt Panentheism (as do I), but we vary in our degree of acceptance of Process thought. Many theologians long past were Panentheists by definition (Origen, Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, Eckhart), but assuredly not Process thinkers.

Absolutely. That's why historical Jesus scholarship is crucial -- to keep Jesus' life and mission in focus as we continue to do theological extrapolation. I think it's what Borg seems to be saying, maybe not adoptionism in its technical theological form, but that the Jesus' status is vindicated by the Easter experience. I thought it'd be a kick.

I believe this is Teilhard de Chardin. Or at least something much like it comes from him.

Why removes? Why not adds to? Certainly Jesus wasn't less than who he was historically, in his Jewish context. This is why I tell even my conservative friends to read Crossan! This is a heresy known as adoptionism. It seems to be the approach of Borg and Spong, among others; who observe (correctly) that the claims to Jesus' divinity begin with post-resurrection vindication in Paul's letters, then go back to the baptism in Mark, back to conception in Matthew and Luke, and finally back to the very beginning in John. Maybe I just like controversy -- or maybe an incarnational progressive Christian is a rare exotic creature -- but I think the move from Paul to John is not only understandable, but theologically necessary. In adoptionism, God says, You weren't mine to begin with, but you are now. With preexistence, we meet the phenomenal claim that God incarnate has been latent, organically if you will, in the physical universe from the moment it came into existence, and before (ontologically of course, as there is no "before time"). One of the cornerstones of my claim here is going to be that Jesus is the Cosmos in miniature, and that to read not only the birth stories, but also later Christological history, in this light, is going to reveal some pretty fantastic stuff. But I get ahead of myself.

I think what I (we?) was more going for, is that the propensity for faith itself is a drive that is innately human, as opposed to culturally conditioned. It is built into the very fabric of being human, and we all possess it, though some spend their whole lives trying to drown it out. Perhaps, some personality traits factor in too; but I prefer to believe that everyone in their own way, and in their own personality-style, gets the opportunity to use it, or drown it out.

Let me start by migrating from another post re: Spong, which underlines the importance of the topic: This topic includes, but is not limited to: * Is it possible in a progressive context to affirm the divinity of Christ? * If so, how? Metaphorically, mythically, allegorically, spiritually, literally? * If not, what do we make of this claim? Can we do without it? * How does Jesus relate to Christ? As my quote above should make clear, I want to affirm that it is possible, and (in my opinion) crucial, to make the claim of the divinity of Christ strongly as progressive Christians. Furthermore, I think that it can be done without appealing to virgin births and empty tombs -- but at the same time, without reinterpreting it away, to the point that it ceases to mean what it clearly claims that it means. Fire away!

C.S. Lewis' stuff has gone through a major "rebranding" the past few years. Everybody's into the original covers now. The book you saw is probably a really old edition.

The "Transposition" essay is (should be? I think?) one of the essays in The Weight of Glory. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

cunninglily & des, This is a beautiful thread! Thanks so much for this discussion. I think des's statement that '"What" we believe is shaped by experience, culture, language, etc., but *that* we believe is shaped by something inborn' is a good observation. Of course, the operative word is shaped, not determined. The two influence each other greatly, because those elements of 'experience, culture, language, etc.' are very dynamic, and we interact with them to different degrees for a lot of different reasons. The 'inborn' fact of our search for meaning drives us to different degrees to 'experience' other 'cultures' and traditions, immerse ourselves in other 'languages' of theology, faith, and practice, etc. -- all of which inform our decisions to commit one way or other to perspectives of faith. We operate within some limits imposed by genetics, environment, and culture, but they don't determine the outcomes. It creates a healthy dynamic, I think. On the one hand, I humbly recognize that my Christian background has a lot to do with the fact that I grew up in the United States in the late 20th century, to parents of Eurpean descent, etc. On the other hand, I can stand firmly in my views, knowing that my views are more than just culturally determined, and knowing that I have opened my mind to other ideas, some of which I have integrated, and some not. And for my own sanity, I'll continue to keep company with others who have made different choices.

Inner Christianity is phenomenal! It's one of very few books that, when I hit the end, I literally flipped back to the beginning and started again.

Interesting. I actually felt that Resurrection and Liberating the Gospels were his two best. In each case, he had a nice, narrow focus and really kept to it. They were very detailed and insightful, without being overly polemical (not completely free of polemics, it is Spong, after all). Then with Why Christianity Must Change or Die and A New Christianity For a New World, I sort of felt he took out his axe and just mercilessly slashed everything to bits. I find them on the whole less nuanced, less developed, and more polemical. Where I have really diverged from Spong (and maybe this is off-topic?) is not so much regarding his approach to the Bible, i.e. rejecting the literal/factual interpretation of creation, fall, virgin birth, resurrection, second coming, etc. (on that we agree for the most part). Rather it's that his interpretation gives him (and his readers) so little left to hang on to. Resurrection and LTG do a great job of suggesting how the early Christians expressed their experience of the resurrected Christ in gospel form. But when he attempts to suggest what that experience might have been, the best he can possibly offer, haltingly, barely, is a psychological feeling of powerful love and self-acceptance. Life-changing love and self-acceptance, to be sure; of a sort never before seen, to be sure. All these superlatives and more about Jesus the man. But I personally think there's no way Christianity can possibly survive without Jesus, the Christ, the God-Man; and progressive Christianity has got to find a way to make this statement in a compelling way. Ok, I'm now officially off-topic! A show of hands for taking this elsewhere...

Here are a few of my favorites from King's X. They date from a more searching period in my life (10+ years ago), but they still say a lot... And hell, they're just downright groove-tastic. Pleiades when i look up at the stars at night what could i find beyond the light a hundred million worlds that we ignore who can restrain pleiades or know the laws of heavenly's how many times have we been wrong before far off in the field i see a castle today the people gather at the pole he tried to tell us all the world was spherical they burned his body but not his soul Lies in the Sand (The Ballad Of...) There's a man, who says there is a light in the sky. All my friends say he's telling a lie. But he speaks with such passion that I have to think about. And his hands ... well they tremble as he points it out. But I can't see what it's all about And the voices of many are singing along it seems. Is it all something new? And will I see it too? Or is this just continuing man? Throughout all history, claiming they all can see but the evidence falters just short of my hand. And there are lies in the sand. There's a man who says he was a Satanic Beast. And the many were there at his feet. And he scared all the people, cause he is just what we want. Is it all something new? And will I see it too? Or is this just continuing man? Making more history, claiming they all can see but the evidence falters just short of my hand. And there are lies in the sand. There are things that will surely seem as they are not, And I might not know all that I've got. But the bluffing is easy, and I haven't seen your hand. Run Yeah she told me, that if I wasn't good He would get me, make me pay for everything I did, and she said that everybody bad would burn in Hell I did what she told me and I became someone else I had to run I had to hide In the world outside A better chance, out there If God is everywhere I wait for nothing, take my chances let it ride maybe there's an answer but it's buried by the lies Somebody told me that it's just a waste of my time But I can't get rid of all those bags I left behind

I didn't know where else to categorize this topic, but this should work. I thought it would be fun to have a place to post lyrics that are particularly meaningful to us personally, have a spiritual twist to them, or are just plain fun without being horribly off-topic.

I haven't read this book for quite a few years -- years in which my overall philosophical outlook has grown quite a bit further away from Spong's than it was then. But I do remember being utterly turned on by the lectionary theory proposal. (Not that it's originally his idea... I think the ideas in this book are essentially Goulder's, but not having read Goulder first-hand, I'm not really qualified to say precisely where the two differ.) I don't really see the "Lectionary Theory" and the "Q Hypothesis" as mutually exclusive things. The gospels could have been composed with or without a lectionary intent in mind, with or without a primary source called Q. The importance of the Lectionary Theory in my mind, is the incredible sense it makes of the aspects of the gospel material that are utterly incapable of historical corroboration -- especially the birth stories and passion narratives. When he led me through the Markan passion narrative, clearly revealing a progression of key turning points at (conveniently) three-hour intervals, the light just went on -- this is a Vigil service! Duh, how did I miss this?!

My personal favorite is one of the less-travelled ones (big surprise). It's called The Weight of Glory, and is actually a collection of shorter essays. "The Weight of Glory" and "Transposition" are especially thought-provoking. As with any Lewis, you'll probably come in contact with a lot of unusual ideas, but those aren't always bad.

You lost me there. "Could ya splain Lucy?" (In my best Desi Arnez voice.) It was just another way of saying the same thing. If Christianity were a bizarre special-case religion that didn't somehow plug into universal truths, I wouldn't be inclined to follow it.

For the past few years now, I've actually given up shopping for Lent. Not like groceries and stuff, but books, CDs, clothes, etc.: things that are unnecessary, but that I find myself buying all the time and take for granted that I can.

This is what really led me to the notion that Borg brings out in The Heart of Christianity (even though I actually had exactly this sense long before I read it there): the similarities between the world religions at their esoteric core does not count against the truth of Christianity, but profoundly for it. A bizarre, idiosyncratic religion would not impress me as true.

I think I share the opinion of a lot of fellow posters here, that C.S. Lewis is both fascinating and frustrating. Where a progressive would find agreement with him, I think, is in his insistence that Christianity is a myth. They would disagree with him that it also happens to be historical-literal fact. But for Lewis, while the historical nature of the myth is part of what vindicates its truth, it is pure myth at the level of its meaning. In other words, e.g. Yes, Jesus was literally raised from the dead, but the meaning of that dying and rising is the same as it is in every other religious tradition. The difference is that in Jesus, it actually, historically happened. So Lewis's opinion of Paganism is much, MUCH different than that of contemporary conservative Christianity, though of course, he doesn't just accept it uncritically (nor do I). Christianity, for Lewis (as well as Augustine and the ancient Church Fathers, for that matter), completes and corrects the Pagan worldview, which is the closest approximation to the truth that humanity can achieve on its own effort. Hardly the view of today's fundamentalists, who portray Pagans as more or less goat-slaying devil-worshippers. From what I've seen in your other postings, I might imagine that your experience has been similar (though not theologically): a disenchantment with Paganism as practiced, and yet a deep sense that it is profoundly on the right track, and for some, in fact, the surest path to Christ. On that note, Crossan in his Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, makes the most astonishing observation about the Matthew birth story, one that I had never heard before. While clearly basing the narrative structure on the birth of Moses, Matthew adds the ironic twist that Mary and Joseph must flee to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath, rather than away, as Moses to escape Pharaoh's. Combined with the attendance of the Pagan wise men at the manger scene, the idea seems clear: perhaps at this moment in time, under these historical circumstances, that which is spiritually alien is more open to the birth of the Christ-child than his own native antecedent with its legalistic trappings. Fascinating.

You know, even as I say this, I have to correct myself! (Fortunately, the paradoxical nature of this stuff is all well known!) God/Tao is actually both (and yet One): the source and destination of forms and opposites. It comes back to that transcendence / immanence thing that is captured so well by the notion of panentheism.

Thanks! As it turns out I've had that book on my shelf for awhile now, and just read it on the train this week. But I've read most of his earlier stuff, so it's not really new material. I'm curious as to what you mean by that statement? Why creation and not God? Well, this is probably where I remain most solidly orthodox. Strictly speaking, God is impassable, ineffable, unassailable, and all those other im-, in-, and un- type terms; which is of course, our way of saying that there's nothing that we can properly attribute of God. We see in creation an almost infinite array of interlocking forms and anti-forms (my terminology attempting to integrate the Eastern idea of opposites with the Western idea of Forms!); but strictly speaking, Godself is beyond form and anti-form, beyond opposites. But as I said, this is actually Eastern as well: Tao is not the union of opposites, but the beyond of opposites: the formlessness from which form springs. I hope so, if I can manage to pull together enough time to keep up with it! I don't think I'll be able to write this much from work on a typical day. Fred

This is a great issue, and affects me just as much as a philosopher, as it does as one interested in theology and spirituality. I think it's just plain important for the evolution of knowledge and understanding that the notion of "tolerance" doesn't degenerate into a shallow, politically correct suppression of argument. An appropriate level of steadfastness in the distinctiveness of one's views, and a desire to debate them in a public form -- really debate, not just sit around and say, "Whee, look at all the pretty ideas" -- doesn't preclude my genuinely respecting and welcoming opposing views. It works from both ends of the debate: it's not just that I want you to be convinced if I'm right, but I want to be convinced if you are.

Well, I'm a month late, but I have an excuse, I just joined. I wouldn't say I consider myself to be a "Taoist Christian" so much, as I would say that the "union of opposites" idea that is fundamental to Taoism has dramatically influenced my understanding of both creation and salvation/redemption in Christianity. (Incidentally, it's also a major theme in Jung; see his essay "A Psychological Approach to the Dogma of the Trinity" in Psychology and Western Religion.) I say it has influenced my understanding of creation, rather than my understanding of God, because, as in Taoism, God/Tao/Ultimate transcends all opposites. Anyone read Alan Watts' Behold the Spirit? That's got to be one of the most amazing takes on Christianity ever written; and obviously from someone steeped in Eastern thought. Unfortunately, I think Watts did a few too many drugs in the 60's and 70's, because he seems to have forgotten Christianity's esoteric core and lapsed into identifying it purely with its negative forms.

Greetings All, By way of introduction... I am a 31-year-old married man (soon to be a daddy!) from the northwest suburbs of Chicago. My interests range from the sublime to the mundane: reading and writing on topics at the intersection of theology, philosophy, science, and spirituality; playing and (occasionally) writing music; computer programming; roaming the countryside with my wonderful wife Sue; group games; fine dining; shopping; progressive rock; and Chicago-style pizza. In my bizarre and twisted spiritual career, I have been variously Fundamentalist, Baptist, Charismatic, Episcopal, Unitarian, Catholic, Taoist, and thoroughly Agnostic! If I had to describe the most consistent feature of my journey, I think it would be that there is a kind of natural breathing rhythm to it: an "exhale" that propels me away from some aspect of Christianity as I currently understand it, followed by an "inhale" that takes in the new insights or information I learn and reintegrates it with the rest. Insofar as the "exhale" phases have pushed me away from a lot of safe places, e.g. belief in the literal-factual interpretation of the Bible (creation, fall, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.), I apparently stand squarely in the progressive camp. Yet, as the deeper meanings of all these realities continue to sink in more and more deeply, I find the "liberal" label every bit as inadequate as the "conservative" one -- both seem utterly unable to capture the momentousness of the Christian view of the world, or to give one any compelling reason to believe in it. I'm hoping to begin to develop this theme in some of my own personal writing (you know, in all my free time!). Hopefully you won't mind if I bounce some ideas off you as I go. Please drop me a message anytime! Fred