Demas

I'm not sure that the BOTH-AND isn't the default Christian orthodoxy - I certainly haven't met any Christians who argue that the resurrection was a mere bodily resuscitation. Usually theologians distinguish between the resuscitation of Lazarus (who was brought back to normal human life - and presumably died of old age a long time ago) and the resurrection where Christ is risen and glorified, a point which is hammered home (so to speak) by the stories of the risen Christ walking through walls, yet normal enough to eat fish, yet not dying a second death a la Lazarus but ascending into heaven a la Elijah. So the resurrection is both bodily/physical and spiritual and more. The traditional liberal position that the resurrection was a true experience of the risen Christ but that, put crudely, the bunch of atoms that made up Jesus' earthly body didn't have anything miraculous happen to them is one step from that. It actually gels quite happily with the account of Paul's vision of Christ and his teachings of a 'new spiritual body'. It obviously clashes with the empty grave stories in the gospels, which are then considered to be either a later developing story or a mythic way of emphasising that the experience was *real* and not just a halucination brought on by the apostles eating too many gefilte fish. The third ('progressive'?) position suffers from having to face the original Pauline assertion - if Christ be not raised, is our hope in him in vain? That is, if Christ is dead, why should I place my trust in him or his teachings? I'm not saying that it can't answer this charge - but you will need an answer to give, because people are going to ask.

Hi jerryb! When you say that "there may have been no witnesses to the ressurection", what do you mean by 'the resurrection'? What do you think happened?

Ah, OK. So, if I understand you, you believe that Jesus didn't come back to life, bodily or spiritually and is (still) dead and the apostles didn't have what some commentators call the "Easter Experience" but rather they (or the people who came after them and wrote the gospels) inserted the resurrection into the story of Jesus' life to fit the pre-existing notions of what a hero/leader should be. I'm guessing that you would reject most of Paul's letters and John's gospel as being a distortion of Jesus' message and would look to a reconstructed Q and the Gospel of Thomas as being closest to the actual teachings of Jesus?

Well that was odd. Anyway, soma, the event that people call the resurrection is usually claimed to be a physical event in history; or if not that then a spiritual event in history. That is, whether I believe it or not, the grave was either empty or not on Easter Monday. Whether I believe it or not, Jesus is alive or he is dead. (This is obviously less of the sort of statement which is able to be proven by a suitably placed videocamera). My question is what people believe the underlying truth is - was Jesus bodily resurrected? Is Jesus alive (and self-aware) or not? Is the resurrection just a mythical way of talking about some other truth and is Jesus in fact dead, and if so what is that other truth?

Hi October's Autumn, Is that essentially my position 3?

Hi everyone! Now that Easter is over (at least for non-Orthodox Christians) I thought I would ask for your opinions on the Resurrection. Many Christians believe the resurrection to be at the heart of their faith, following Paul's statement that if Christ has not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain. My personal beliefs are not yet fixed on this, but I can see a number of differing interpretations that people I know have put around: 1. Christ was bodily resurrected, and the tomb was empty. The disciples witnessed his risen body. 2. Christ was spiritually resurrected, but his body remained dead. The disciples witnessed his living presence. 3. Christ remained dead, but his teachings lived on in the hearts of the disciples who used the language of resurrection to express their joy at the new life that Jesus had given them. I imagine there are others interpretations, and it strikes me that the difference between 2 and 3 is a matter of interpretation and belief, not a matter of physical events. What say ye?

So far on this thread I have met a number of people who have presented critiques of Progressive Christianity/8 Points, but none who have presented a strong defence of the 8 Points or the belief system they point to. Are there people on this board who are very happy with the 8 Points and Progressive Christianity, happy to the extent that they would want others to follow their belief system? If I were to go over to Beliefnet or (shudder) Christianforums I could find thousands of eager proclaimers of the truth of Calvinism, or Roman Catholicism. Are there such people for Progressive Christianity? If there aren't, doesn't that make Progressive Christianity more philosophy than religion? Or is that the aim? For those people who have posted critiques of some areas of Progressive Christianity, why are you here? What do you feel that this forum or Progressive Christianity has to offer you/the world? I must say I am enjoying the range of views expressed here; please do not feel that I am in any way motivated by hostility towards you - I'm just curious.

Would it be fair to say that there appears to be tension between two underlying concepts in Progressive Christianity - that all paths are valid, and the old paths are no longer credible/valid? (ie a Liberalism vs. Modernism split?) My initial reaction to the name "Progressive Christianity" was that it was a statement of superiority. To call yourselves Progressive is to call the others Reactionary. (It also has unfortunate connections with Left Wing in a political sense). I'm not sure that the 8 points undo that. On a tangent, the early Protestants thought of themselves not as changing their religion in the light of the knowledge of the world, but as reforming their religion to get back to the true roots, before the world had tainted it. It was the Reformed Church, not the New Church. Does Progressive Christianity hold itself in the tradition of Semper Reformanda, or does it hold itself to be something new?

Thank you for your answers - I'm going to have to think a bit before replying! In the meantime, I'd like to share another list, which has taken a different approach than the propositionally based 8 points. This is a statement of Core Values, made by a group of Christocentric Quakers - Friends in Christ. This list is in the form of a personal commitment, I Will ... as opposed to I Believe ... What think ye?

Hmm, OK will give it a go. At this stage I'm not talking about the truth or otherwise of the points, just the question of why those points were chosen. The biggest thing missing for me is an underlying sense of coherency - why, for example, is Point 3 so important? Point 8 seems very important - why is it last and not up with Point 1 which introduces the concept of Jesus in the first place? Who are these points speaking to? I can think of three groups: Non-Christians, Traditional Christians and Progressive Christians. Non-Christians are going to struggle, I think. I'm interpreting Point 3 as a technical statement about the Eucharist (I could be wrong), but how would a non-Christian know that? I also have a feeling that the elephant in the room is the Bible, which isn't mentioned. What do Progressive Christians think about the Bible? (Many varied things, I assume) Is there a consensus? After all, the Bible is going to be the primary source of information about Jesus, no matter what you think about its accuracy etc.

Hello everyone, I've been browsing through the tcpc site and reading the 8 points. I think I've got a handle on them, and agree with many of them (with some reservations). My question for you all is why those 8 points were chosen as being the most important facets of Progressive Christianity? Do you consider anything to be missing that should be there?