peacemover

Borg is a panentheist, which as I understand it is a branch of natural theology that asserts that God is not an intervening God, but rather a participating God.

 

A panentheistic view of God allows for a God that could be intercessory. Some panentheists believe God intervenes. Some panentheists believe God COULD intervene, but will not, or perhaps will only do so in very unobtrusive and small ways. Some panentheists (like Process Theology) believe God CANNOT intervene.

 

I think Borg falls into the "could but won't" category?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may be right, but I got the very strong impression that he does not believe that "intervening" is something that God does. In the session on prayer, he and others also seem almost to mock anyone who prays to God seeking intervention.

His belief seems to be that prayer changes us, but does not change God.

Perhaps he has something there- I just do not think these views were presented in a way that invites dialogue, but rather one that seems to mock people who may have different views about prayer. Interesting...

Perhaps I'll look for or start a thread on LTQ...

Peace,

John

Wikipedia has a thoughtful entry about Borg and his theology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Borg

Here is an excerpt:

Borg advocates entering into relationship with God as more important than belief about God. He has a panentheist understanding of God, which sees God as both indwelling in everything and transcendent. He teaches that a historical metaphorical approach to the Bible is more meaningful for today's world than is Biblical literalism

Peace,

John

This is interesting - I'm not familiar with Living the Questions (off to Google  ), but I've heard Borg speak a couple of times (as recently as March, 2005) - and he prays so beautifully.  He generally chooses ancient prayers and, I can't know his heart - but - his presence, voice, tone (and all the indefinables) - speak of the presence of God.  He struck me as much more spiritual - for real rather than ivory tower - when I saw him than when I read his books.

 

Basically, Borg gave me the intellectual gift of being able to accept Jesus and christianity without feeling foolish or feeling that I had to do it on popular terms (I live in the South).  This was phenomenally huge to me and I will always be grateful to him.  Seeing him in person made me think that he has a much deeper spiritual life than comes across in his books.

 

Since making peace with God, church, and my approach to following Jesus, I find the argumentative, angry approach less appealing.  It has a place and has value - it's just not my thing at the moment. 

 

Working to bring people together strikes me as Godly.  All this division (remember the Church Lady from SNL)... could it be....... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cynthia, first, here's a link to the LTQ site:

http://www.livingthequestions.com/

First of all, they bill it 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, so the LTQ people need to be more original and stop trying to cash in on people who weren't satisfied with ALPHA.

Secondly, I agree with much of what you say about Borg and prayer. He definitely encourages prayer and meditation but he also is very critical of intercessory prayer. I am as well, but to suggest to people who believe in its efficacy that it does not make a difference as Borg seems to do, goes too far I think. Borg is a panentheist, which as I understand it is a branch of natural theology that asserts that God is not an intervening God, but rather a participating God.

About the "argumentative approach" I definitely agree that is not the way to go- that is part of why I found people like Crossan and Cobb to be more convincing, because they back up what they say with scholarship rather than just throwing a lot of catch phrases out there like "newer paradigm," "earlier vision," "biblical literalists vs. metaphorists," etc., like I sense Borg and Spong do quite a bit.

Interesting and fruitful discussion here. Glad to know there are others like myself seeking a more progressive, thoughtful approach to the Christian faith.

Peace,

John

BTW, back to the original topic of Bill Maher. Well he is a very honest agnostic/atheist with a keen moral compass (yes it is definitely possible). However, I think he enjoys the outrageous and so forth, and likes the response he gets just about as well as he likes saying it. Of course he did pay for it with his comments right after 9-11 re: "courage of terrorists" and the countries rampant flag waving. But while I thought these statements were outrageous and overstated, he certainly had a pt., imo. Some of what he says about religion is in that category. Not sure he even knows about liberal/progressive beliefs.

 

--des

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree to a point- he makes his statements for their effect in some cases- that is what satirists and comedians do.

As for his remarks after 9/11, he said basically that night that his honesty got him canned because the network wimped out and caved in to pressure from politicians and corporate interests...

Actually, I noticed that there are several targets/straw men, that Maher likes to "stick it to":

-religion and religious people

-big corporations

-conservative politicians, especially if they are religious

-anyone against legalizing marijuana

-anyone against the idea of gay marriage

Those are kind of his main themes, I have found.

He is definitely funny- I will say that for sure...

I haven't read enough Spong to know, but with Borg, he is clear that if fundamentalism is working for someone, then you should not challenge it.  He sees his theology as being for people who cannot be christian in a fundamentalist way; who need a different take on the Gospels.  At least that's how I hear him  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah, that's how I heard Borg Cynthia. i've only seen the first session of Living the Questions, but I think Borg came across very well. very aware of him saying that if fundamentalism works for someone and they're not using it to beat up on other people, then its OK. don't feel so easy with Spong though I've not read enough of him to decide. feel very grateful to Borg for helping me find a way through not being able to 'believe in' very much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Midgecat, for the rest of the "deconstruction" of traditional Christianity, by Borg et al, you need to tune in for sessions 2-5 of the Living the Questions, because they really seem to state very strongly what the answers ARE NOT, without really lifting up a convincing vision of this "new paradigm."

They do really lay out the vision in the later sessions of the course. I particularly liked what Crossan and Cobb had to say, as well as Hauerwas (although he only appears in about 2 of the sessions). Borg has generally good ideas, but I think his tone comes across as ivory towerish and arrogant at times- like when he rejects the value of prayer as basically being nothing more than a spiritual placebo. And basically dismisses anyone who views scripture as anything more than "a metaphorical human product written by and for an ancient community."

I also appreciated the meditation thought at the end- either at the potter's wheel or walking the labyrinth, etc.

Interesting discussion...

by the way, is there a thread for Living the Questions??

If so, perhaps we should move our discussion of the series there...

Peace,

John

There was an interesting article in the Wahington Post today that caught my eye. This sort of bridge-building while still upholding our progressive values is something I believe we need to work toward more intentionally (bold and italics mine):

Religious Right, Left Meet in Middle

 

By Alan Cooperman

 

  The Rev. Rob Schenck is an evangelical Christian and a leader of the religious right. Rabbi David Saperstein is a Reform Jew and a leader of the religious left. Both head political advocacy groups in Washington, and they have battled for years over abortion, gay rights, stem cell research and school prayer.

 

This summer, each intends to preach a bit of the other's usual message.

 

Schenck said he plans to tell young evangelicals at a Christian music festival on July 1 that homosexuality is not a choice but a "predisposition," something "deeply rooted" in many people. "That may not sound shocking to you, but it will be shocking to my audience," he said.

 

Saperstein said he is circulating a paper urging political moderates and liberals to "demonstrate their commitment to reduce abortions" by starting a campaign to reduce the number by half within two years.

 

Schenck and Saperstein disclosed their plans in separate interviews. They are not working together. The minister remains a die-hard opponent of same-sex marriage; the rabbi staunchly supports a woman's constitutional right to choose an abortion. But both are trying to find common ground between liberals and conservatives on moral issues -- and they are not alone.

 

After a year in which religion played a polarizing role in U.S. politics, many religious leaders are eager to demonstrate that faith can be a uniter, not just a divider. The buzzwords today in pulpits and seminaries are crossover, convergence, common cause and shared values.

 

Last week in Washington, representatives of more than 40 U.S. denominations took part in the Convocation on Hunger at the National Cathedral, where they sang a Tanzanian hymn while the choir director shook a gourd full of seeds and children laid breads from around the world on the altar.

 

It may have been mistaken for a hippie ceremony were it not for the sight of clergy from the Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God and other evangelical churches praying alongside Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, mainline Protestants and Jews.

 

The show of solidarity was partly a reaction against "the recent manipulation of religion in ways that are divisive and partisan," said David Beckmann, a Lutheran minister and president of Bread for the World, a nonprofit group that helped organize the service.

 

"Because religion has been dragged into political life in some ways, this is the religious leadership of the nation saying, 'No, let us show you what religion in the public square should really be about,' " he said.

 

Meanwhile, the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are moving quickly toward full communion, which would allow them to swap clergy and recognize one another's sacraments. Protestant and Jewish leaders, who have been at loggerheads over proposals to divest stock in companies that help Israel maintain control of the Palestinian territories, have announced a joint trip to the Holy Land in September.

 

The National Association of Evangelicals is promoting dialogue with Muslims, concern for the environment and efforts to combat poverty. "On issues like poverty, the cold war among religious groups is over," said the Rev. Richard Cizik, its vice president for public policy.

 

The Rev. Don Argue, a past president of the NAE, is an informal adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has introduced legislation aimed at reducing the demand for abortions without restricting their availability. Jim Wallis, a left-leaning evangelical whose bestselling book "God's Politics" is a plea for liberals and conservatives to identify common causes, has worked with the staff of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), as well as with Democrats on antipoverty proposals.

 

Some observers view all this aisle-crossing mainly as political positioning.

 

"There's a kind of pulling back from religious war," said Mark R. Silk, director of the Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. "But I don't think one should overlook the self-interest of both sides, at this moment, in positioning themselves as willing to compromise and work with the other side."

 

In last year's presidential election, voters who said they attend church more than once a week favored President Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1. White evangelicals backed Bush by almost 4 to 1. Occasional (less than weekly) churchgoers tilted narrowly toward Kerry, and secular voters overwhelmingly favored the Democrat, according to exit polls.

 

Religion was not just a defining issue in the campaign but a divisive one. Some Catholics questioned Kerry's worthiness to receive Holy Communion because of his stand on abortion rights. Church-based activists pushed referendums on same-sex marriage onto 13 state ballots.

 

Since the election, Democrats on Capitol Hill have tried to demonstrate that their positions are infused by faith; Republicans have sought to show that their moral concerns go beyond abortion and same-sex marriage.

 

"On the left, they need to show they have a religious bone in their body. On the right, they have to prove their vaunted values are not limited to one or two hot-button issues," Silk said. "So count me a little skeptical about how far this 'crossover' and 'convergence' really goes."

 

Saperstein, who heads the Religious Action Center, the Washington advocacy arm of the Reform movement in Judaism, said he believes the search for common ground is "both strategic and substantive."

 

"I think it's genuine and real, this engagement of liberals in trying to cut the number of abortions in this country," he said. "And I think conservatives are sincere when they say, 'I may be against gay marriage, but the demonization of gays and lesbians is deeply troubling to me,' or when they say, 'You can't look at the Bible without seeing the call to care for the poor.' "

 

Saperstein noted that the phenomenon of strange bedfellows began a decade ago on foreign policy. During the Clinton administration, the rock star Bono, former senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and religious leaders across the political spectrum teamed up to champion debt relief for Africa. Since Bush took office, broad religious coalitions have backed U.S. peacemaking efforts in Sudan, funding to combat AIDS and pressure on countries that restrict religious freedom.

 

What is new, the rabbi said, is the effort to forge such coalitions on domestic issues.

 

"For 25 years, evangelicals involved in conservative politics and mainline denominations involved in liberal politics really have been adversaries, both in politics and in the free market of ideas, and that continues because we have very different visions of religion in American public life, and very different views of the Constitution, and very different views on some core issues," he said.

 

"But right now on abortion, poverty, gay issues, the environment, there's a lot of talk about crossing the lines and finding common ground. There are elements of a common vision, but not yet common policy or legislative proposals."

 

Schenck, who is president of Faith and Action, an evangelical organization on Capitol Hill, said that a willingness to reach across partisan lines is attractive, particularly to young people. "I think evangelicals are awakening to the vulnerability to being used in a political way. I hear a lot of people talking about that, about not being owned by a political party," he said.

 

Schenck outlined his limits: "There is no room for compromise on the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of marriage and the public acknowledgement of God." But he said that when he preaches at the Creation Festival, a four-day Christian music event in Mount Union, Pa., he will say that the Bible forbids homosexual acts but that evangelicals are wrong to insist that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

 

"As far as affirming that there may be people in our midst who have this as their nature, that will be radical within evangelical circles, because we want to see this purely as an act of will, like breaking and entering," he said. "And it just isn't that. It is so much more complex. If young people hear Christian leaders like me say that, I think they'll be interested in hearing what more we have to say."

 

 

Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

Peace,

John

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -Mahatma Gandhi

McLaren's book showed me that there is a third option between "Spong style Liberalism" and "Falwell style Fundamentalism". 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I definitely agree with that aspect of McLaren's book, and others like it... it is a call for greater Christian unity in the midst of the rich diversity of each of our faith traditions.

For me it is a breath of fresh air.

I just finished Generous Orthodoxy - it's a gotta read y'all!

 

I'll wholeheartedly "ditto" that recommendation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm about 3/4 of the way through it now... McLaren gives a solid overview of many of the different Christian perspectives and traditions, although I believe some of his characterizations about certain faith traditions, such as Methodism, for instance, are a bit skewed and somewhat inaccurate.

I love the whole premise of the book, though- calling for greater unity among Christians and people of faith...

After completing the 12 week "Living the Questions" course, however, one of the themes that kept getting drummed into our heads by Spong, Borg, Crossan and others was this notion of being unafraid of being heretical... like somehow being considered heretical was a badge of honor...

I think a lot of the "progressive scholars" in Borg & Spong's camp want no part of any sort of orthodoxy... a la G.K. Chesterton, Brian McLaren or otherwise...

It often seems to me that Borg & Spong in particular have an on-going experiment to see how far they can go with their deconstruction and metaphorical approach to Christianity while still calling what they practice Christian.

I am all for much of what they stand for, but I think there is an air of elitism in it that concerns me- i.e. not making an intentional effort to dialogue with people of faith with different views, but by the same token not hesitating to label and slam them in books, lectures and videos (i.e. all the talk about the so-called "earlier paradigm" or "Christian fundamentalism" without also critiquing "secular fundamentalism" in the same way).

We are probably getting into a whole other can of worms here beyond the scope of this thread, but it is certainly a good dialogue...

Also, Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times, wrote a very thoughtful, provacative piece on John Shelby Spong and progressive Christianity that appeared in his column about a month ago:

EDITORIAL DESK | May 15, 2005, Sunday

 

Liberal Bible-Thumping 

 

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (NYT) Op-Ed 823 words

Late Edition - Final , Section 4 , Page 15 , Column 1

 

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 823 WORDS - Even aside from his arguments that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that St. Paul was a self-hating gay, the new book by a former Episcopal bishop of Newark is ... John Shelby Spong...

Did anyone here happen to read that?

There needs to be more open dialogue and less labelling and elitist grand-standing, in my opinion, if progressive Christianity is ever going to get a wider audience....

Anti-Christian, anti-faith, secularist rants by leading progressive commentators and pundits, like Bill Maher, Al Franken, and others shows that there is still a great divide between the liberal media and liberal people of faith...

We must close the gap by cultivating an open dialogue in the public square, while also continuing to uplift the distinctives that make us progressive people of faith.

Peace,

John

I think that the conservative right should be brought to task for the numbers of people they have driven away from Jesus and any vision of God.

 

Much praise to Wallis, Borg, Spong, Campolo, and McLaren for helping people understand that it is not an either or situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cynthia,

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need for accountability and dialogue.

I also deeply respect the people you mentioned there, because they understand that a thoughtful dialogue needs to be cultivated in order for more people to embrace progressive Christianity as a viable path.

I would also say that an important part of that dialogue is acceptance and affirmation of people even if we disagree with their particular theological views.

While I agree with much of Borg and Spong's theological views, I also think they can tend to come across as intolerant of and unwilling to dialogue with people who are more moderate or conservative in their views.

That is what I really like about people like Wallis, Campolo and McLaren- they are bridge-builders, and call people of faith with a committment to social justice to pursue a more fruitful, accepting dialogue, rather than constantly handing down theological ultimatums.

Is it a trend John?  My sense of it is that its always been this way.  I spent the biggest part of my adult life believing I had to make a choice between progressive politics/thinking and faith in god.  Only recently realised it might be possible to have both.  Perhaps some of the problem is that the only christians that are usually that visible are the kind that he describes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know how long it has been this way, but I do think that part of the reason that progressive candidates have not been able to win national elections recently is because they have failed to appreciate that spirituality is very important to most Americans.

I also think that figures like Maher, who obviously have a social conscience and want to see it become more of a part of American public life, also alienate many people of faith (who may otherwise agree with what they stand for) by the anti-religion rhetoric.

It is almost a sort of secular fundamentalism that he would like to see replace the Christian conservative fundamentalism that is so rampant in conservative politics today.

I don't know what the middle ground is, but I think if progressives are going to have a serious and influential voice in national politics, a middle ground of dialogue and mutual respect needs to be found.

My wife and I went to hear Bill Maher (of Real Time w/Bill Maher, and formerly of Politically Incorrect), live in concert on Saturday.

I really like and wholeheartedly agree with most of his views on social issues; as well as his critique of the hypocrisy of conservatives in our nation, as well as the Religious Right.

I love his rants about Bush, because it is truth that needs to be said but few have the courage to stand up to our Cowboy in Chief, as well as the wimpiness and lack of vision of the Dems.

I have been frustrated and disappointed by the strident anti-faith agenda he pushes...

I love his critique of "The Religious right" and believe it is right on...

He opened up his monologue by coming out and saying "Praise Jesus!", and basically saying that the conservative politicians in congress just invoke Jesus to justify their corrupt policies...

I agree with that...

What I have problems with is his assertion that one "cannot be a thinking person, and a person of faith."

Here are some of the characterizations he makes of people of faith:

morons, psychopaths, hypocrites, moralistic bullies trying to control other people's private decisions...

I think with the exception of perhaps someone like Jim Wallis, many if not most of the voices in progressive politics and social change, like Bill Maher are very hostile toward religion and people of faith...

Where is the middle ground??

Have any other Christians with progressive social values observed this concerning trend?

Peace,

John

Thanks for this link John.  I got the book a while ago, excited by the idea of it and the reviews.  And then felt a bit off by some other things, thinking it was more conservative than i felt comfortable with it.  I'll give it another go.  Hope the discussion group goes well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim Wallis is a progressive voice of reason to the evangelical Christian community. Part of what I like about him is that he is a bridge-builder rather than merely a finger pointer. He certainly takes both conservatives and liberals to task; and has a lot of criticism for the Bush administration and the "American civil religion" that they have attempted to create by misusing religious language to claim divine endorsement of their policies.

He also affirms that conservatives and liberals can find a common vision to work together toward and that is that cause of social justice- i.e. care for the poor, better healthcare and education, more inclusivity of diversity, etc.

The group went well last night and was very interesting as 75% of the group is in a Salvation Army recovery program near the church where the group is being held. They have been indoctrinated with some pretty conservative theology over at the Army, but have a real hunger for spirituality, and an openness to new perspectives by enlarge.

The remaining 25% was comprised of "progressives" from the church and community. It was an interesting discussion. No one from the Salvation Army could afford to purchase a book so I gave them my copy to read and share.

It should be an interesting discussion...

Peace,

John

I have read God's Politics and am co-facilitating a a discussion group that starts tonight. I am really looking forward to it.

I think Wallis, especially with his latest book, has really advanced the social justice and progressive Christian dialogue forward, and into a movement that is really taking hold here in America.

Another aspect of what I like about Wallis' book is that it calls for both liberal and conservative Christians to claim a common vision for social justice; helping the poor; and celebrating diversity.

I am excited about it, and really looking forward to the group...

In case you didn't know about it already, there is a discussion and study guide for God's Politics available on the Sojourners website:

http://www.sojo.net

Just click on the 'God's Politics' link on the left side of the page and then on 'download a study guide'...

Peace,

John

I really like McClaren's perspective and writings. He focuses on the importance of relationship and acceptance in Christian life. He is also one of the more innovative leaders in the Emerging Church movement that has brought forth some tremendously creative approaches to worship, faith dialogue, and Christian life.

I am working on reading Generous Orthodoxy now... I have not made up my mind about it yet, because I am not finished reading, but my initial impression was that he seems to be trying a little too hard in the book to be all-things-to-all- people, to the point that he fails to lift up a compelling vision, at least in this book.

Also, I think that has to be one of the longest book titles in history (if you include the whole title):

A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN

I also found it interesting that McClaren was UN-INVITED from speaking at a Southern Baptist gathering after the publication of the book...

I say good for him to tell it like he sees it, and call for more inclusivity and dialogue with diverse people.

Anytime you have the Sourthern Baptists mad at you about being too inclusive, hmm, maybe you're doing something terrible like trying to follow the Great Commandment, to share God's love abundantly with ALL people...

Peace,

John

I reflect upon some of my impressions of the theological themes in Star Wars in a recent entry on my blog (which is a new experiment and still very much a work in process):

http://peacemover.blogspot.com/

Let me know what you think, by posting a comment or two...

Peace,

John

A very interesting and lively dialogue seems to be emerging here.

I would like to respond to one of the earlier observations that was brought up, if I may:

Des wrote:

I think Borg's comments about this are quite apt. IF you take some of it as literal and some of it as metaphorical you are left with the unenviable position of trying to figure out which you see as literal and which you see as metaphorical. And then you are left with why you conveniently chose one text over another as literal or metaphorical.

I agree about this observation for the most part; my point was that I think Borg rushes too quickly to declaring scripture metaphorical. Certainly there are many rich metaphors contained within scripture, but it is not ALL metaphor.

Similiarly, scripture is not literal, absolute, historical truth, nor was it ever intended to be read as such, I believe. Scripture is a collection of personal accounts, occasional letters, and stories that were undoubtedly written by many different authors, in many different contexts at many different times.

So I do not believe it is a matter of "trying to figure out which you see as literal and which you see as metaphorical" any more than it is a matter of just making a blanket declaration that scripture is a metaphorical human product written by and for an ancient community, as Borg seems to strongly assert in what I have read and heard of him. It is not that simple.

I really like Crossan's writings in this regard, because he digs into the textual literary criticism aspect of it and wrestles with these questions, whereas Borg just seems to write it all off as metaphor and continue to spin his whole new paradigm vision, all the while essentially denying or at least sharply discounting the divinity of Jesus.

I have some major issues with this approach, but I am exploring these claims with an open (but not empty) mind.

The Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan

You've read B of C, but not The Historical Jesus? I think THJ is much better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only major work by Crossan that they had in stock @ Barnes & Noble, when I stopped in was B of C, I have The Historical Jesus on my wish list and hope to get to it soon...

I have read some excerpts from it, as well as some of Crossan's other writings on the subject in relation to his involvement with the Jesus Seminars...

So I feel I have a good idea about where he is coming from in this regard...

I look forward to reading it...

By the way, has anyone here read Crossan's recent book about Paul? If so, what did you think?

Peace on the journey,

John

I don't know if this is the proper way to post this, but I was deeply offended by a recent OP-ED piece that appeared in Saturday's edition of the Washington Post by Reagan's former secretary of the interior, James Watt, entitled "The Religious Left Lies":

http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W4RT04D1...BCF17F3C9C1DA00

Here is a brief excerpt of this alarming and inflammatory attack:

The religious left's political operatives have mounted a shrill attack on a significant portion of the Christian community. Four out of five evangelical Christians supported President Bush in 2004 -- a third of all ballots cast for him, according to the Pew Research Center. Factor in Catholics and members of other conservative religious communities and it's clear that the religious right is the largest voting bloc in today's Republican Party.

 

The religious left took note. Political opportunists in its ranks sought a wedge issue to weaken the GOP's coalition of Jews, Catholics and evangelicals and shatter its electoral majority. They passed over obvious headliners and landed on a curious but cunning choice: the environment. Those leading the charge are effective advocates: LBJ alumnus Bill Moyers of PBS fame, members of the National Council of Churches USA and liberal theologians who claim a moral superiority to other people of faith...

What are your thoughts on this?? Is anyone here planning to write a letter of response?

Peace,

John

I'm still very new to this movement, but so far I have read:

The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg

The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg, and N.T. Wright

and

The Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan

For a socially progressive perspective from a moderate Christian evangelical, I would strongly encourage you to read:

God's Politics: Why the Right gets it Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get It

by Jim Wallis, founder and executive director of Sojourners

Peace on the journey,

John

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Lily.

As I mentioned, I found the "deconstruction" process largely frustrating, overly abrasive, and seemingly incongruent with the self-proclaimed inclusivity of progressive Christianity at least INITIALLY (i.e. replacing one set of rules, traditions and code words with another, perhaps newer, or more modern set of rules, traditions, and code words).

However, once we navigated through those few weeks of deconstruction and the discomfort it brought to some in the group, we were able to get into some of what I have found to be the most postive aspects of progressive Christianity:

-social justice

-peace

-celebration of diversity

-embracing of mystery and metaphor

-faith as a journey rather than a false arrival

I must admit that I have found Marcus Borg's insistence on scripture as metaphor and as a "human product written to an ancient community" to be a bit challenging to unpack and sort out.

I have never been one to support so-called "inerrancy or authority of scripture" and yes I do recognize that it is a human product; however it seemed to me initially that Borg rushes far too quickly to proclaiming scripture metaphorical without really unpacking this concept.

That is where I have found the writings of John Dominic Crossan to be tremendously helpful. As I have worked through his book "The Birth of Christianity" as well as some of his other writings, he makes a very convincing case to me of how all these extra layers of tradition have been heaped upon scripture throughout history.

I am realizing that a large part of the problem in mainstream Christianity is that there is very little awareness among most people about the layers of history and source material as well as the influence of tradition upon scripture and its interpretation.

I think all too many people, particularly of the more conservative factions of Christianity believe that somehow that scripture was divinely handed down as it appears in the Bible today. Which any person who has done any kind of credible biblical and/or theological study knows is not the case.

I think, sadly, that in many of the more conservative Christian traditions, scripture itself has almost been elevated to the point where it is worshipped in a strange, dangerous and idolatrous sort of way. Sadly, it has also been co-opted if not hijacked by conservative politicians for their own political power-grabbing (i.e. the shameful so-called "Justice Sunday" and threats from certain pulpits against judges, moderates and Democrats)

So I definitely reject the biblical literalism, as well as the intolerance that Borg and others speak out against.

I guess what I am wrestling with at the moment is the apparent movement by Borg, Crossan, Spong and others away from acknowledging Jesus as Son of God and Messiah, toward just referring to him as "Jesus of Nazareth" or as a "Jewish mystic" in the same way that Gandhi, or Buddha or Muhammed were mystics and great faith leaders.

I have friends of many different faith backgrounds and deeply respect them all. I also believe that their "approach to the divine" is just as viable, legitimate and relevant for them as Jesus is for me in my faith journey.

I still struggle with some of the doctrinal interpretations I have heard from Borg and others regarding the meaning of the crucifixion, resurrection, salvation and sin. I agree with wholeheartedly how Borg and others describe these for the most part. I must admit that regarding the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection in particular, I connected more with what N.T. Wright had to say in the dialogical book he co-wrote with Marcus Borg entitled "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions."

I found this book to be a good window into progressive Christianity because it addressed the questions and beliefs that I had been taught in my evangelical (but socially progressive) Christian tradition.

Interesting conversation and journey. I am continuing to read Crossan, and may try to get into Borg's writings again next, as well as checking out what Cobb has to say about Process Theology.

Peace,

John

My wife and I recently completed the "Living the Questions" course and found it throughly enriching and an excellent perspective on progressive Christianity. I am American Baptist, and consider myself both progressive and evangelical.

I am very progressive socially as far as peace, social justice, acceptance and inclusiveness of diversity.

I am also of the mind that many of these labels and codewords for strands of belief within the Christian tradition have been overused and not accurately represented much of the time.

For me "progressive" means accepting of diversity, deeply committed to social justice and peace, and a more informed faith as a questioning journey rather than arrival at false certitude.

On the other hand, one of the things that concerned me about the Living the Questions series was that there seemed to be a very deliberate effort to deconstruct traditional Christianity without simultaneously raising up this so-called "new vision" or "new paradigm" that Marcus Borg speaks so much about.

It was almost as if they seemed to be saying "we won't tell you what we think is right, but we know what is wrong about traditional Christianity..."

This was initially frustrating, but as the series progressed, Borg, Ammerman, Crossan, Spong, Cobb and others continued to unpack this progressive vision of Christianity, which we both found to be refreshing and very congruent with our own beliefs.

Much effort is made to speak out against the "literalist-fundamentalist" strand of Christianity in progressive circles, and in LTQ, but what they failed to mention is that there are many forms of "fundamentalism" including "liberal-fundamentalism" and "secular-fundamentalism."

Fundamentalism (capital F) was a very intolerant, literalist, overly-simplistic movement of Christianity that has undoubtedly turned many people away from religion while giving its adherents that sense of false certitude that Borg speaks against.

There are many forms of fundamentalism (small f), however, which Webster defines as " a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles."

I suppose one of the main voices of progressive faith that I identify with is that of Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners. Jim is deeply committed to social justice and open to diverse views, but also remains firmly rooted in the Christian faith recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as not just a wise "Jewish mystic," as Borg refers to Jesus, or "the Jesus program" as Crossan refers to early Christianity, but that recognizes Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah.

So, I guess what I am saying is that, from the perspective of social justice, peace, inclusivity of all people regardless of gender, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, etc, I consider myself fully progressive.

Even on theological matters such as the person of Jesus and doctrinal questions like the atonement, kingdom of God, concept of sin, etc, I have found persuasive and compelling testimony in the statements and writings of Borg, Crossan, Cobb, Ammerman, and even Spong.

I suppose what I am sorting out now is what I perceive to be somewhat of a mixed message that I hear coming from the progressive movement- radical inclusivity of diverse people on the one hand, but a lack of tolerance or patience for people who may be struggling to find this tolerance and inclusivity.

Beyond my exposure to progressive Christianity through the Living the Questions series, I have been reading some recent books by Borg and Crossan. I recently finished reading Borg's "The Heart of Christianity," as well as "The Meaning of Jesus Two Visions" by Borg and N.T. Wright. I am presently working through Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity" and finding it very stimulating and engaging.

Well I guess I have shared enough for now, but I am hopeful that we can have some fruitful dialogue on progressive Christianity here and unpack this "new vision" or "emerging paradigm" a bit more.

Peace in the name of all that is Holy to you,

John

Southeastern Pennsylvania

peacemover@yahoo.com