peacemover

Interesting discussion... I would have to disagree with the assertion of Tillich being more neo-orthodox than liberal- Tillich clearly carried on the torch of the nineteenth century liberal tradition (influenced by Schleiermacher and others), and added to it a large dose of existentialism, and modern humanism. If you look at the wikipedia entry for Paul Tillich, it really gives a good concise summary of his theology in contrast to Barth and others... Interestingly enough, under the section entitled "opposing views" there is a quote from Hauerwas and Willimon's book Resident Aliens that says of Tillich: Fascinating... I agree with Hauerwas on much of his writings on pacifism and social justice, but I think his characterization of Tillich is a bit overly simplistic. Peace, John

Yeah, that always gets me when I see all those magnetic ribbons slapped on the back of those SUVs... I think mainstream American culture has been hijacked, not by terrorists, but by Conservative idealogues who have seen 9/11 and the rise in terrorism as the perfect opportunity to diminish civil liberties and seize control of our government through a widespread campaign of fear-mongering. I am concerned also- both about what ultra-conservative politicians and their minions are doing, but also by the incredible lack of vision, and lack of any meaningful response by more progressive and moderate leaders... Jim Wallis articulates this quite well in his book God's Politics. We need more people like Wallis to get involved in politics and get our country back on the road to real progress. Right now, it would seem that Karl Rove and his rightist puppets are having their way with the country, and the American people have fallen for it...

Fred you're right about Bonhoeffer being 'hard to pin down,' as you are about the people you mentioned, Altheia. I deeply respect the people you mentioned for the very reason that the work to build bridges rather than increase the divide between liberals and conservatives, so-called. Another that I would add to the list is Jim Wallis. Beach, Your hostile comments, apparently directed toward Cunning Lilly are over the top and entirely out of line. I think you need to do a little soul-searching and apologizing. That sort of juvenile verbal mud-slinging has no place here or anywhere for that matter, except perhaps the couch at your therapist's office. Peace, John

Fred, I would not consider Bonhoeffer theologically liberal or progressive. He opposed Nazism and was a strong advocate for human rights and social justice. However, his theology, particularly on matters such as the atonement and interpretation/authority of scripture are anything but liberal, and are, in fact, quite conservative in many ways. Peace, John

I would welcome people with diverse views here on the forum, as long as the mutual goal is working toward a greater understanding and appreciation of diverse beliefs. I think it becomes problematic, however, if you have a sort of proselytizing that develops either from one side or the other here on the board (i.e. a person from one particular viewpoint trying to convert another person to their way of thinking through stubborn argument). In that case, I think the best way to police that is, as was suggested in the other thread, to just collectively not respond to that person's posts, then hopefully they will get the idea and cut it out... Peace, John

Okay, okay wisenheimer... I just wanted to make sure we are making progress in all areas of our lives not just with all this heady theological debating (or non-debating as it were)...

Wow! What a voluminous post! Perhaps a link or summary would suffice in the future... great questions though... Dispelling the so-called atonement or ransom theories was a major point on the agenda of the authors and contributors of the Living the Questions, Borg, Crossan and Spong being among the primary progressive Christian scholars who held the view that Jesus' death was not a sort of atonement. Crossan articulated, the way I heard and read it, that Jesus submitted himself to execution on the cross not as a sort of ransom or atonement, but to abolish once and for all blood sacrifice as an atonement, and also to take a powerful stance against the domination systems of the world. By doing this, Crossan would argue that he aligned himself with the plight of the peasants, among other things. Again, for Borg it all seems to come back to metaphor (i.e. it is not really important if anything salvific was accomplished at the cross, or even if Jesus actually rose from the dead for that matter- neither of which Borg believes incidentally)... Rather the cross was a powerful statement made by a wise Jewish peasant-mystic against the domination and blood sacrifice systems of ancient Palestine and the Temple cult. Interesting discussion... Peace, John

Ok, I hear what you're saying and agree, now that you put it that way... anyway... back to seeking progress...

What? You are bifurcating here Cynthia- which is it- do you think anyone should be allowed to post here as long as they follow the board guidelines, or should it become a closed membership group (which I am not in favor of), where each prospective new member would have to "apply" for membership to the moderator or admin of the board... If you personally don't want to respond to or even read posts you consider "non-progressive," you certainly have that right, although I think that sadly shows you are not very secure in your beliefs and perhaps afraid that someone with differing views may unsettle yours. Of course there are times when a post is so 'out there' that the best thing may be to just let it die or get buried by other more relevant threads, but if that is the consensus of this online community then that will happen on its own without admonishment- that is just how online forums function... With these sort of forums those are the main options, unless of course you have an over-zealous moderator or admin who would like to do to 'non-progressive posts' what Jefferson did to the Bible... Peace, John

I say as long as the dialogue is civil and courteous we can only grow in our understanding of one another by cultivating a lively and diverse conversation... All perspectives should be welcomed as long as the posts meet the standards of the board, and stay on the topic without digressing into rants or mudslinging... Were there any threads/posters in particular that you were concerned about when you posted this message? Perhaps you should address them directly rather than through this sort of "back door- let's not let 'them' in" approach... Just a thought- do what you want with it... Peace, John

I read a lot of diverse perspectives, and try to take it all in with an open mind... A few of my theologically well read friends can't believe, for instance that I read both Karl Barth and Paul Tillich, and actually get something out of each one... So I definitely do take in a variety of perspectives... I have just been deeply impressed in all of my reading with Crossan- I like the way he makes his case, and the depth of information and quality of scholarship he provides... And, yes, I do also go back to books I have read earlier and give them a fresh read, and often I do discover new things... I am doing this now with some of Karl Barth's writings, and while I admire the depth and breadth of his scholarship, I am beginning to see some areas where I think he misses the point or dismisses other perspectives too quickly. I eventually get around to doing that with Crossan, too, but I am trying now to really immerse myself in some of his major works like Historical Jesus, Birth of Christianity, and hopefully also his new book on Paul so I can have a good basis of comparison for others like Johnson... Peace, J

Perhaps... I have not read any of Johnson's books, so I should check it out, Crossan really seems to respond quite forcefully to Johnson's apparent critique of Crossan in The Real Jesus... Clearly there is more to Jesus than what can be indisputably proven historically or sociologically. I think this truth is one of the major shortcomings of the whole Jesus Seminar endeavor. It also harkens back, in a way, to the Jefferson Bible, that sought to sanitize the New Testament of any references to the miracles or divinity of Jesus.... Still, Crossan raises some very valid observations to consider... However, Crossan does not seem to argue against the validity of the miracles or divinity of Jesus, just that they cannot be proven, so therefore should be interpreted metaphorically, and separate from the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Agreed. I am about halfway through the book at the moment, and so far, only about 3 cursory references to "Jesus of Nazareth" and a couple of scriptural references thrown in here and there to bolster his case... He spends a lot of time and energy (and pages in the book) dissecting the peasant culture of ancient Palestine, and how they were exploited, and incited to revolts, etc... He also seems to go to great length to point out the inconsistencies and apparent biases of ancient historians such as Josephus. He is very skillful, however, in the way that he provides all of this seemingly unrelated background sociological information from antiquity, then masterfully brings it together to effectively make that particular point in his case... I am looking forward to finishing the book and finding out what he has to say about the real historical Jesus... His approach seems to be like that of a master painter- first carefully and deliberately painting the background, and setting the scene, before painting the main subject... I am sure it will all come together later in the book... I'll let you know... Peace, John

Crossan takes Johnson to the woodshed in Crossan's book The Birth of Christianity... (p. 30ff)... Check it out... Peace, John

I just started reading The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant , by John Dominic Crossan. Out of all of the so-called progressive Christian scholars, I find his writings to be most convincing because he has done thorough scholarship in a variety of fields including biblical studies, ancient literature, sociology, and archeology to make what I believe is a very convincing case for his perspective. Has anyone else here read any of his work? If so, what did you think about it? Peace, John

Fred, great book! Not only have I read it, but I took courses with Ron at Eastern Seminary in Philadelphia. Ron Sider balances social justice and concern for the poor and needy with evangelical faith quite effectively, I believe. I don't agree with some of his more traditional beliefs, but deeply respect his stances on social justice, peace, the environment, and ethics. Also, Ron lives in Philadelphia and is actively involved in transformational urban ministry. Rich Christians is a classic text on social justice and cultivating concern for not only the third world, but the least and the lost here in our own nation. I found one of his opening illustrations in the book to be quite powerful and humbling at the same time- comparing all that we Americans enjoy and often take for granted that people living in the third world do not have- such as adequate clothing, healthcare, even electricity and running water. The statistics and demographic information have been updated in the most recent edition, and provide stark evidence of American extravagence and also of the vastly different consumer-oriented cultural perspective that we have in comparison to most of the rest of the world. In addition to Ron's books, a few others from similar perspectives that are worth checking out are those of: Jim Wallis(author of God's Politics) and Ray Bakke(author of The Urban Christian). Peace, John

Believe it or not, if I remember correctly, the last Magdalene institution in Ireland apparently closed as recently as the early 1990's... That was shocking to me. But then again, Ireland has long been one of the most morally conservative countries in the western world. I am sure variations of the abuse depicted in the film all happened in one way or another at some point, I would certainly hope that they were not nearly as vicious as what was depicted. A few of the more disturbing scenes: -when the nuns line up the girls and demean them for their physical features in front of all the other girls... -the nuns viciously cutting all the hair off one of the girls for trying to escape... -the priest sexually abusing one of the girls (although he apparently later received his comeupance via a strange incident involving poison ivy)... -the attempted suicide of one of the girls... Also, the general mood of the film shows these girls facing unrelentingly cruel abuse at a place where they were supposed to find help and be reformed... I also questioned whether, in part, the author and directors' motivations were in any way anti-Catholic. It is definitely worth seeing for the powerful human drama and richly developed characters, but don't watch it if you are feeling low, or have a weak stomach. Peace, John

I know this is only supposed to be a thread for book discussions, but perhaps it should be expanded to include films as well... I just saw "The Magdalene Sisters" on DVD. It is a very tragic tale of this very repressive order of nuns in Ireland where girls who got into any sort of trouble or even suspected trouble were sent away to this order, where they basically were imprisoned and subjected to harsh labor and abuse at the hands of the nuns and priest. In the film, we follow the stories of three girls- one who was raped by her cousin, another who just talked to boys, and another who had a child out of wedlock. They were all shipped away to this work camp, basically disowned by their families and shamed and abused by these nuns. Supposedly the story is true, but I can't imagine the level of viciousness portrayed in this film actually being perpetrated... it is shocking... Has anyone else seen this film? If so, what did you think about it? Peace, John

Here is a link to the official UCC resolution from their website (it is a pdf document): "In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All" http://www.ucc.org/synod/resolutions/gsrev25-7.pdf Peace, John

Darby, was there a post or topic in particular that led you to post this? Specific feedback always helps. The topic titles like this one seem a bit gratuitously inflammatory, biased, and unfairly stereotypical if that's what you're referring to: "Mccarthy Era & The Rise Of The Far Right, McCarthy Era,&Anti-Cult Hysteria" http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=479&hl= I posted a thread on the Supreme Court crisis that is political, but I believe also directly related to progressive Christianity. People need to be respectful of others beliefs, and also respectfully candid about their own. Otherwise we'll all feel like we're walking on eggshells and probably not risk gaining any greater understanding of one another either... I respect our leaders, but I also believe it is important to engage in meaningful , respectful, candid dialogue about the beliefs and issues that are important to us. With recent events, such as the Supreme Court resignation, and one more (Rehnquist) coming soon, along with the Africa crisis, Iraq, and our impending environmental/energy crisis, there are a number of issues that deeply impact us all as concerned people of faith. Also, I am all for diversity, as long as policies are as equally respectful of diversity as the background of the person in the office. Peace, John

Congratulations in advance, Fred. All the best to you and yours... You make some excellent observations. I was also encouraged to hear of the UCC vote toward allowing same-sex marriage. It is not the way for me, but I definitely believe it should be a viable option for Christian couples of that orientation. My own denomination (ABC-USA) is presently embroiled in a bitter dispute, where, from what I understand, the more ultra-conservative, so-called "evangelical" wing (I think they misunderstand what "evangelical" means along with most other fundamentalists) is trying to make a power grab and using the homosexuality question as ammunition to advance their misguided cause... I am glad to be able to call myself both progressive Christian and Baptist, but the fundamentalists are thirsty for power and in antagonist mode... Please pray for us. Peace, John

Des, thanks for your thoughtful post... I agree with all of the nine points you mention with the exception of #3 and #4... One thing that I really appreciated about the Living the Questions series was hearing the position of progressive theologians such as Borg and Crossan discussing these issues. Borg and Crossan both categorically reject the atonement theories. They assert that Jesus willingly submitted himself to execution at the hands of the Roman "domination system" in order to do away with, or signal an end to the blood sacrifice system of ancient Judaism, and other ancient religious traditions dating back even before Jewish antiquity... I also appreciated something that Stanley Hauerwas, a somewhat socially progressive-yet-not-theologically-liberal pacifist scholar. As I recall, he dismissed atonement theories saying essentially that God is not an angry daddy who needed to punish his son in order to redeem the world... God didn't do the violence to Jesus on behalf of the world; instead Jesus received the violence of the world in order to show us all a better way. He expands upon this theme a bit in his recent book on the seven last words entitled "Cross-Shattered Christ". Borg also dismisses any notions of so-called original sin, as being a relic of the ancient blood sacrifice systems that was brought back to the forefront by figures like Augustine and Anselm... Interesting topic and reflections... let's keep the dialogue going... Peace, John

What you said Altheia, and what I get the impression you agree with, Cynthia, about having had enough "deconstruction" already is something that resonates well with me also. The first few weeks of LTQ (www.livingthequestions.com) were a little rough for my wife and me, as far as trying to discern what this "new vision" is all about, while only seeming to hear about what the answers WERE NOT. As I said, though, looking back later once we completed the course, I can see why they structured the course the way they did. Also, my impression is only my impression. I am sure there are plenty of other people who would not feel the same way about the sense of "deconstruction" of traditional beliefs. I would still strongly encourage you to seek out an LTQ group and give it a try. I also found it interesting to be able to compare and contrast LTQ with ALPHA- having completed both courses. I get the sense from reading the pejorative comments about ALPHA on the LTQ website that the authors and contributors had not completed ALPHA or even reviewed the materials all that thoroughly. Because, while ALPHA is biblically based (huge gasp), it does not push a literalist interpretation of scripture, or even the need to accept certain theological beliefs. ALPHA is designed to be a 10 week discussion group on various topics regarding the person of Jesus Christ, with a weekend or 1-day retreat in the middle of the course on the Holy Spirit (which I found to be both refreshing and spiritually enriching). My main critique of ALPHA is that they do assert some fairly traditional/conservative views on issues of sexuality- such as marriage, and homosexuality. These topics do not emerge as much in the sessions as they do in some of the supplementary materials. ALPHA also presents a more traditional, Anselmian view of atonement. This traditional orthodox view of the person of Jesus Christ obviously makes many progressive scholars squeamish. It causes LTQ's progressive scholars to rant about the "domination system," regarding Jesus' crucifixion, and downplaying it having any salvific significance within itself. If presented properly, though, ALPHA is not about giving easy answers or the "false certitude" that Borg and others rail against in LTQ. ALPHA is intended to be about cultivating an accepting, inclusive atmosphere in the group where any question can be asked, and wrestled with, without giving pat easy answers, but rather cultivating meaningful dialogue. Also there seemed to be a bit of hypocrisy in the LTQ when the spoke against "proof-texting," then at the end of the session they give scripture citations "for your reference." Both programs are worth completing, and both have their strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion. Neither are objective or without their own agendas. In the end the Christian spiritual journey should be about continuing on the path of spiritual growth. The more resources, groups, books and dialogues we can utilize to help us to do that, the better. Peace, John

Borg in his book "The Heart of Christianity" does speak about what he calls "thin places" which, as I interpret it, he refers to places on one's spiritual journey in which one directly experiences the divine in a powerful way. He stops short, though of the possibility of such encounters happening through an intervening God. Borg also rails against the notion that God is in the business of punishment and reward. Have you read "The Heart of Christianity," by Borg? If not, it would be well worth reading. He lays out an inviting vision for what progressive Christianity could look like... Peace, John

Has anyone else out there completed the new progressive Christian discussion series Living the Questions? http://www.livingthequestions.com It is a really innovative 12 session series that includes interviews with progressive theologians such as: Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Nancy Ammerman, John Cobb, jr., John Shelby Spong; and even a few theological moderates like Tex Sample and Stanley Hauerwas, and others. The series is written and compiled by two progressive Methodist pastors- David Felten, and Jeff Procter-Murphy. It is also highly praised and endorsed by TCPC founder Jim Adams. Here is a listing of the themes of the 12-13 weekly sessions: The sessions that I got the most out of personally were the ones on "social justice," "A Kingdom Without Walls," and "Compassion." Personally, sessions 2-5 were sort of frustrating for me because they really seem to have a very intentional agenda of "deconstructing" much of traditional Christianity without simultaneously lifting up this "newer vision" or "emerging paradigm" that Borg trefers to so much but seldom elaborates on. This newer progressive vision is laid out and expanded upon pretty convincingly in sessions 6-10 if you can make it through the first five sessions allowing yourself to be unsettled (it seems to me to be a deliberate effort on the part of the authors of the series- to make the participants unsettled and theologically disoriented so they can then infuse their agenda without the participants having as much resistance to it- just my impression). Session 11 is an interesting portrait of Paul- largely drawing on Crossan's scholarship on Paul and his impact on the development of Christianity, as well as his interpretations and misinterpretations of scripture and "The Jesus program" as Crossan is fond of referring to early Christianity. Crossan also wrote a book about Paul that I am looking forward to reading... Session 12 was interesting, but really should have been divided into two separate sessions in my opinion. The session begins with highlighting some of the distinctive traits of progressive Christianity (such as social justice, peace, inclusivity, acceptance of diversity, movement away from biblical literalism, etc). That was more than enough for one session, but then at the end, they throw in this big long treatise on "process theology" a la John Cobb. Way too much material for one session, and also could be confusing and frustrating for people who either do not have theological training and/or have not read much theology. Session 13 is an interesting look at Methodism, and its development from the roots of its founder, John Wesley, to the present. I would highly recommend the series, but be forewarned, the first 4-5 sessions are a little rough if you are accustomed to a more traditional, evangelical approach to Christianity. Also, as I mentioned on another thread the authors bill LTQ as "an unapologetically liberal alternative to the alpha course." I have completed both courses and there is no comparison- they are completely different in their goals and scope. The LTQ people, in my opinion need to be more original and stop trying to cash in on people who weren't satisfied with ALPHA and/or benefit from the popularity of ALPHA. This seems to be typical, unfortunately of many "progressives"- that is the impression of coming across as being more reactively "anti-conservative" than proactively liberal or progressive. What did others who have completed it think about LTQ? How about people who are thinking about it? What are your thoughts? Peace, John