Jump to content

peacemover

Members
  • Posts

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by peacemover

  1. Good observations, Fred. Postman's books are very astute and insightful, although I would have to say are also a bit alarmist in some respects. One could also make the stretch and say that the Orwellian negative utopia is how things played out in the rise of communism with the state-sanctioned repression; whereas in capitalist, free-market nations like the U.S. and western europe, it has been control through saturating the pleasure-inducing media with messages that sub-consciously control or influence the populus, a la Huxley. The eight points, in essence, to me, seem to amount to a sort of paradoxical exclusivist (or dare I say liberal elitist) inclusivity. Peace, John
  2. Fred, I wholeheartedly agree with your astute observation of the progressive contradiction, that all ways to the divine are equally valid. The most liberal "progressive Christian" scholars exemplify this contradiction to the greatest degree, I believe. The verbiage of the 8 points, along with the rhetoric of the far-left liberal wing of progressive Christianity says they believe all ways are equally valid. However, with a nod and a wink they proceed to seek to trash, deconstruct and impugn any form of evangelical Christianity that does not completely subscribe to their "metaphorical" interpretation of scripture and its claims. This to me is a very striking contradiction that I take issue with. What do others think? Peace, John
  3. The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder is an excellent book on the person of Jesus from a Christian pacifist perspective. Others on this board may feel that Yoder's theology is a bit too evangelical, but I have gotten a lot out of his writings, including this hallmark, seminal book. I have not read it or looked at it in a few years. I am planning to pick it up again and give it another reading. What do you think about it? Peace, John
  4. Meditation does offer many beneficial physiological effects including relaxing the response of the autonomic nervous system, and reducing the production of corticosteroid-like hormones that are generated whenever we have a fight-or-flight response to threatening stimuli... This has been well documented in the work of physicians such as Dr. Herbert Benson, of Harvard Medical School who wrote the classic book "The Relaxation Response," as well as Dr. Harold Koenig of the Duke Center for Spirituality, Religion and Health, who has written and published widely on the subject. I will try to post some links later when I find the time. Peace, John
  5. Sounds good to me! I can't stand labels, but because of the polarization of the conversation, every position stated is compared against the liberal/orthodox paradigm... I don't even like the buzzword "progressive" because it can circumvent the needed articulation of what exactly this means... Peace, John
  6. Excellent questions, MOW. By enlarge, I did find the segments from 'Living the Questions' to be sensitive to the compassion to which you seem to be referring. The possible exception was the segment on prayer, in which Marcus Borg seems to almost mock anyone who believes in the efficacy of intercessory prayer. John Cobb, John Crossan, John Shelby Spong, Nancy Ammerman, and others showed much sensitivity to the issue of a compassionate response to sufferers, though.... I thought... Peace, J
  7. Aletheia, I have really wrestled with the questions and claims of the Christian faith, and while my heart is firmly committed to social justice, progressive politics, and liberal democracy, I also have been feeling that Christian moderates like McLaren, Yancey and Campolo, and even Ron Sider are closer to my beliefs as a moderate Christian evangelical with a social conscience. I read a lot from the progressive school- Borg, Crossan, even Spong, and while I heartily embrace the questions and scholarly inquiry they raise, I am coming back to believe that there needs to be some basis of truth that one needs to accept to call oneself Christian. The challenge is, that where that truth resides is not a clearly demarcated line (as much as our more conservative sisters and brothers would like to have us believe)... it is a nebulous gray area, but there are truths that I believe are distinctly Christian for me: -the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, the son of God (not just 'Jesus of Nazareth') -the validity of the resurrection as an actual, believable event (not just 'a metaphor'), even though we can't historically prove it, I still believe it -the validity of the Crucifixion, not as a sort of Anselmian blood atonement for sins(which I definitely do not believe), but rather as God showing us a new way- putting to death the sacrificial, domination system, and instituting a new way of peace -the Christian life as a new way, that leaves behind old patterns of selfish living -the Bible as being a reliable source for teaching and learning for today, not just an antiquated, politically incorrect, seriously flawed collection of writings to and by an ancient community (which may be the case to some degree, but I cannot totally discard the authoritativeness/relevance of scripture offhand, as Borg and others would have us do as I understand it) Those are the major distinctives of the Christian faith for me, that come to mind... that many of the more progressive Christian scholars discount. I am still reading, and interacting with the progressive Christian school of thought, but so far have not found these writings to be as inclusive as the writers would like for us to believe... How about others? Peace, John
  8. I support the goals of JS, and think their methods and findings are refreshing, and do bring new light... especially for all the neo-conservatives who would like very much to take us all back to the flat earth, literalist-fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. We all know it is not that simple; all I was saying was that one area where I think JS has fallen short- amidst all the great accomplishments of advancing the cause of progressive Christianity, etc, etc, is that it has preached to the liberal choir... Perhaps some of the agnostic masses, of which Borg speaks of repeatedly in "The Heart of Christianity" as 'voting with their feet' about the irrelevance of 'the former vision,' 'earlier tradition' or whatever the label of the week is for non-progressive Christians who believe there may be some semblance of inspiriation or historical validity to scripture... perhaps some from that crowd were reached by the Jesus Seminar, but for most moderate and/or evangelical Christians, it has raised more skepticism about liberal Christianity... For evangelical and conservative Christians, JS has merely served to bolster the straw man of liberalism that traditionalists like Alastair MacIntyre and others have been claiming is a scourge and the root of societal decline... I don't know- I think the findings of the Jesus Seminar are largely right on, but as an 'educational' tool or way to further the cause of progressive Christianity, they have failed miserably with the exception of some segments of atheists/agnostics... Just my impression... Having strength in numbers does not make people from a particular point of view right; but it does say something about the level of effectiveness with which that side is communicating their vision to the larger public... So far, I am sorry to say, the neo-cons are winning in that category... Progressive leaders say they are not concerned about competing with conservatives and fundamentalists, but yet every initiative from Christian progressives seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to what conservatives are doing.... a few examples: -"Living the Questions"- the progressive discussion group, billed as 'the unapologetically liberal alternative to the Alpha course' -the newsletter from this organization seems to frequently feature commentaries and articles that are reactions to what conservatives, like Billy Graham for instance, are saying and doing- why it is bad, and why progressives are better -similarly with the books by Borg and numerous other progressive scholars- a significant portion of these books seems to focus on deconstructing evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity, while the so-called 'newer vision' that Borg and others point to, seems often to be thrown in as a sort of after thought that lacks clarity or articulate development... just my initial impressions to all this, as someone who considers himself very progressive socially, yet moderate in my theological views... What do others think about all this? Peace, John
  9. That book is the sort of dialogue I was thinking about- "The Meaning of Jesus Two Visions" by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright... Part of the problem is that there is so much polarization on both sides... Most Christian progressives would probably consider someone like N.T. Wright a conservative evangelical, perhaps with moderate tendencies... I recently lent that book to a friend of mine who is very theologically conservative, and he told me that N.T. Wright was basically regarded as a liberal heretic by the more conservative Christian scholars... I don't know- I guess we just continue the conversation as inclusively as possible and see who comes to the table... My main point was that I think it is both arrogant and presumptuous to label and exclude others from the conversation because they come to the issue with different convictions than ours. Peace, J
  10. I have tried to keep up with the Jesus seminar a bit, and found the approach of open inquiry from a variety of disciplines to be refreshing... The one aspect they lack, to their detriment, I believe, is to include scholars from various convictions- both those who are "progressive" as well as those who are "evangelical" or even "conservative"... The dialogue brought about by the Jesus seminars has ended up being rather one-sided, because Funk, Spong, Crossan, Borg and others have only invited to the table those from the conviction that scripture is almost purely metaphorical and lacks historical authenticity, aside from being human documents from an ancient Christian community. What are they afraid of? Open the dialogue to include people from various convictions and even other faiths, and the conversation can only be enriched, as long as everyone who participates agrees to be respectful, and inclusive of all views that are voiced with scholarly backing for their claims... Peace, J
  11. Has anyone here read or heard about the book Democracy and Tradition by Jeffrey Stout?? In the thoughtful book, Jeffrey Stout, professor of religion and culture at Princeton University, offers a persuasive call to people of faith to join the public square dialogue on important issues such as justice and democracy. He cites the call to this engagement from figures such as John Dewey, Walt Whitman, as well as Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Ralph Ellison. Stout also offers an in-depth and persuasive critique of the work of theologians and ethicists John Milbank, Alasdair MacIntyre, and most notably Stanley Hauerwas. He categorizes these three figures as being from the school of "new traditionalists," and also chastises each of them for their anti-liberal polemics. In particular, Stout asserts that MacIntyre influenced Hauerwas in the direction of turning against liberalism, and creating a sort of distorted "straw man" out of the term and, what Stout would argue is a misinterpretation of the term. In the two chapters (6 & 7) on Hauerwas, Stout also uses Hauerwas' own body of work to try and show that in his earlier work, he was more influenced by John Howard Yoder, and his pacifism. Sometime in the late '70s, early 80's, Stout suggests that Hauerwas came under the influence of MacIntyre's anti-liberal, traditionalist approach more and more. Stout also asserts that Hauerwas, with all his emphasis on "character" and "virtue" has neglected, in his more recent writings, an important emphasis on social justice and accountability of the church in public square dialogue. He offers a sort of appeal to Hauerwas to reassert his support of social justice and to seek to spell out more practical applications for his character ethics, while at the same time refraining from his liberal-bashing. Good luck! Stout also cites Karl Barth, who he asserts was quite orthodox in his theological views, but rather inclusive and progressive in his approach to ecumenism and the importance of public square dialogue. All of his points are very interesting, and have merit, but also seem to lack a true understanding of what Hauerwas is truly about as a theologian (as far as his pacifism and core theological beliefs about the Church, etc). Stanley Hauerwas penned a thoughtful reply to Stout that he included as a lengthy postscript to his recent book on the ethics of Bonhoeffer: Performng the Faith. Both works are very insightful and engaging to read... Has anyone else read either book? If so, what did you think? Peace, John Philadelphia, PA
  12. I have gotten a lot out of the following books on prayer and meditation: Prayer: Finding the Heart's True Home, by Richard J. Foster A Testament of Devotion, by Thomas Kelly Conversations with God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans, edited by James Melvin Washington, Ph.D. The Shape of Living: Spiritual Directions for Everyday Life, by David F. Ford The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction, by Eugene Peterson just about any book by Henri J.M. Nouwen Prayers Plainly Spoken, by Stanley Hauerwas Here is My Hope: A Book of Healing and Prayer- Inspirational Stories from The Johns Hopkins Hospital, by Randi Henderson and Richard Marek I also have greatly enjoyed the prayers and poems of Wendell Berry... the Journal of John Woolman is another great prayer & devotional book... These are just a few of my personal favorites- there are many great books on prayer, as well as great collections of prayers on various themes and topics. Peace on the journey, John Philadelphia, PA
  13. Those first few sessions of LTQ, in my opinion, did not seem to me to be congruent with at least part of "point 4" of the "eight points": Just my opinion... Again, otherwise I found the course to be very stimuatling and insightful... Peace, John
  14. Hi John. I am interested to know what in the "deconstruction" process you found "seemingly incongruent with the self-proclaimed inclusivity of progressive Christianity". You suggest that the replacing of one set of rules etc with "newer" or more "modern" rules etc. is somehow incongruent with inclusivity. How would you define an inclusive Christianity? Are you suggesting that an inclusive Progressive Christianity would be without "rules, traditions and code words"? If so, how do you define or distinguish a Christian tradition as distinct from other traditions? I'm working to understand what people mean by the word "inclusive". I find social inclusivity pretty straight forward, but I'm getting stumped on what you guys mean by doctrinal inclusivity. How do we envision a distinct Christian tradition that is also inclusive of other traditions? How would this flesh out? lily <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lily, I was referring to my initial impressions of the "Living the Questions" (LTQ) course with Borg, Crossan, Spong and others that bills itself as "An unapologetically liberal alternative to the ALPHA course." I have completed both courses, and can honestly say that they are two very different courses with very different goals. I think that the designers of LTQ were seeking to cash in on the popularity of the ALPHA course with that hook line, but in fact the two courses are very different and not easily characterized. Incidentally, having completed ALPHA, I would disagree with the dismissive characterization that David Felten and other LTQ organizers have given, by essentially labeling it as an easy-answer, literalist-fundamentalist course. I consider myself quite progressive and did not experience it in that way at all. The materials and discussion in the group I participated in were very open to diverse perspectives with a lively conversation around questions of faith and the person of Christ. My observations about LTQ, as I believe I specified were that INITIALLY, they seem to spend the first 3-4 sessions 'deconstructing' many traditional Christian beliefs, without lifting up any alternative perspectives. This was frustrating, and hard to follow, not because I was salivating for easy answers, but because I did not initially find their deconstructive dismissals of orthodox Christianity convincing. The format of those initial sessions seemed anything but inclusive, unless of course the participant is already on board with an extremely liberal faith perspective that denies the validity of the atonement, and views virtually everything in scripture as metaphorical instructions to an ancient community. I connected most with what Crossan, Ammerman, Cobb and Hauerwas shared. Some of the clips of Borg and Spong, and a few others though almost seemed to mock anyone who believed scripture is somehow God's inspired Word, or that prayer is efficacious for instance... That hardly seemed inclusive or respectful, to me, of people struggling to come to grips with the more liberal branch of progressive Christianity. Once we got through those first 3-4 sessions, and the progressive perspective was actually unpacked in some detail, (beyond all the deconstruction of orthodox Christianity), then the sessions seemed more insightful, inclusive and invigorating. I think they may want to revamp the initial sessions, though to be more balanced in their approach. There was also significant attrition in our group- it fell from 18 in the beginning down to 6 by the 3rd week. Some of this is normal, and some of it is also how it is presented- I thought the facilitator did an excellent job, but those first few sessions just seemed a little rough for some with their force feedings of what progressive Christianity is NOT about... Just my opinion... Otherwise it was great and very insightful... Peace, John
  15. Des, I think the piece you are referring to is The Merchants of Cool Great series and good resources and info on the website... Thanks for mentioning that one... Peace, J
  16. I know, I know... It sounds like corny idealism, but that is really how change happens in the world- enough people standing together and committing to a common cause. I think a large part of the problem we face now is American apathy- people are too absorbed in their own comfort zones to stand up and help make a difference. I am seeking to be more involved with this movement, and hope others here will as well. Peace in the name of all that is holy to you, John
  17. Interesting observation. Actually, fundamentalism, as I understand the term could be either liberal or conservative- it does not characterize the specific beliefs themselves, but rather how those beliefs are interpreted and how receptive the person is to other views. If you capitalize the F, then that could refer to the literalist movement that became popular in the early 20th century... but aside from that difference, I would like to see more open dialogue among people with diverse views... Peace, John
  18. I would definitely agree, XA- Wallis gives voice to a whole segment of progressive Christians whose collective voice has been largely drowned out by the rightist political establishment and conservative media agenda. Beyond that, however, one aspect of Wallis' book and of the movement he is a part of through Sojourners is that it has credibility and respect on both sides of the political spectrum. Wallis is socially progressive, yet he also is largely pro-life. He does not believe prohibitive legislation (with abortion for instance) is the answer, but rather to offer better options for prevention and follow up care. Still, he believes that we need to focus on initiatives to improve quality of life- both for struggling Americans and people in the 2/3rds world, especially places like Sudan. Wallis demonstrates a rare gift to reach people on both sides of an issue, and move them both toward a more compassionate, socially conscientious way that is unified by shared values. Although he really takes the Bush administration to task- about the war in Iraq, their abysmal failure with healthcare policy, and shortcomings in Middle East, and African policy for instance. However, he also reaches out to moderates and conservatives based on common faith values of concern for the least and the lost, and life. I wish he would run for office, but, perhaps his grassroots level movement will make even more of a difference- like he says- most politicians lick their finger and test the wind before making a decision... As people of faith, we are called to be 'wind changers' as he likes to say. So let's go change the wind, people! Peace, John
  19. Sorry if me posting all these links is getting annoying, but these articles just seemed to offer uniqiue perspectives into this topic that I wanted to share. Here is one written by a young Japanese American man recounting his family's memories of the time immediately following Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan: An Anniversary to Forget
  20. There was also a poignant article in the Washington Post about a group of Japanese and American WWII veterans that gathered to remember the occasion, share stories and get to know one another: Sixty Years After A-Bomb, Old Foes Meet Over a Deep Divide
  21. By the way, there was an interesting article about Robert Oppenheimer- one of the scientists who developed the atomic bomb, in Science and Theology News: Atoms and Ethics Peace, John
  22. Here is a link to Jim Wallis' profile and bio from the Sojourners' website, that provides that information. Peace, John
  23. I resonate with much of the spirit of this thread as well. I do not believe dropping those bombs was necessary. The Hiroshima bomb alone killed upwards of 200,000 people on its own- the overwhelming majority of them being innocent civilians. That sort of a vicious attack- even against a nation that attacked our forces so viciously at Pearl Harbor and throughout the South Pacific in WWII amounts to state-sanctioned terrorism or at the least is very close to it, even against an agressor that started a war with our nation. I think it is out of bounds and inappropriate to call our current president a terrorist, however. Yes, he has sanctioned our forces in Iraq to unleash one of the most deadly, unilateral attacks on a nation in recent human history. The estimated Iraqi death toll probably rises into the tens of thousands if not over a hundred thousand total. The main difference in my mind is that Hussein, while he may not have had WMDs, was a despot who had murdered tens of thousands of his own people and basically committed genocide against the Kurds and against other Muslims and anyone not of his origin who stood in his way. The problem there is that once you take out a ruler like Hussein who controlled that nation with an iron fist, there is a vacuum of power that these insurgents have taken advantage of, and will continue to exploit until the American troop body count gets high enough to raise public outrage to the point that it forces the president to pull out. Let's get back to Hiroshima, though... It was the greatest human tragedy perpetrated by our government, and opened the door to mass development of nuclear weapons that otherwise may not have occurred so rapidly and voluminously. Nuclear disarmament and international inspections need to be a top priority for our nation and the international community. There has been a good bit of coverage about the anniversary on National Public Radio in recent weeks. Peace, John
  24. I agree wholeheartedly... I just think that for a lot of people the magnetic ribbons on those shiny new SUVs come across as a blanket endorsement of Bush's unjustified war in Iraq. I pray for our troops, and for the Iraqi people every day... I don't agree with the politics behind the symbol, though.
  25. That is great Des! Remedial reading is a tremendous area of need in our schools. You can also be a great encourager to a population of students that has undoubtedly faced many disappointments and setbacks. in their lives. All the best to you! Just try not to indoctrinate them with too many progressive ideals all at once- Let us all know how it goes... Peace, John
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service