luthitarian

I understand your point, and that's why I struggle with this preoccupation with stuff. But how can you limit Abundance? Stuff happens...why resist it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I'm ambivalent about capitalism. It's the goose that lays the golden eggs, and I live in middle-class comfort. And yet, there's all that stuff Jesus said....... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah! I hear what you're saying. My issue is with the ones who live in excess of any possible need--such as the corporate heads who make hundreds of times what their average employees earn and who live in outrageous luxury. I can't think of one way to morally justify the imbalance and inequity there. There is no excuse for such conspicuous consumption. The "if you've got it, flaunt it" mentality bites. I have seen driving about my end of town a guy in a Jaguar with the personalized license plates, "FATCAT". It was hard for me not to feel contempt for this guy, and I didn't even know him at all! Envy? I don't think so. I tend to have fairly simple tastes and modest needs. I'm quite happy to have a recent model used Toyota Camry (actually, a Chevy Geo--same thing). I have my own home, though, admittedly, it could use some work that I can't afford, but we're compfotable in it, and the work is basically some remodeling that--if it doesn't get done any time soon''so what?!" My entertainment budget consists of the occasional overdue fines. And we're able to eat out now and then at a favorite Indian restaurant. If there is anything that I would want it is a job with decent and affordable medical and dental coverage. I just have a real problem with the shameful and steadily increasing gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'.

One thing we haven't talked about is prayer in wider contexts such as mindful action or being-as-invitation. To 'pray unceasingly' as Paul urged us to do clearly cannot mean to spend all our time in formal prayer. To develop the awareness that each moment is a gift for which we may be grateful, and to offer back that moment in dedication and service to God--whatever we are doing: caring for those in need, serving those who are hurting, walking a labyrinth, praying the Psalms or lectio divina, and even doing the dishes and the laundry--is, in my view, no less prayer than "Now I lay me down to sleep..." or "Our Father who art in Heaven..." As I understand living 'abundantly', it means no more nor no less than living fully in the moment--whatever it brings: joy or sorrow, peace or struggle, contentment or anxiety--whatever. And, it sounds to me, Fatherman, that this is a part of what you have experienced too. And I am not knocking material blessings. I have been grateful for them as well. My issue has always been with those such as you have been playing the back nine with (LOL) make central to their spirituality and their message. Many of these same preachers, New Age gurus, and others, would perhaps denounce the materialistic nature of evolutionary biology, but preach a message that glorifies materialism. It's an entirely different matter to simply be open to something without making the object of your intention or desire.

There are, like a number of denominations, various historical splits within the Society of Friends. One of these occurred in the mid-19th centery, and one group maintained the old ways following the simplicity and activism for which Quakers are noted. Ironically, they are the more liberal theologically. The other group in which I was raised, and which maintained the orthodox theology, became more modern in dress and manner, chose to have actual pastors rather than being a lay-led movement, and became much like, say, Nazarenes for example. This is the bunch in which I was brought up. If I 'd been raised as one of the other Quakers--who knows?--I might still be one. I'm definitely drawn to the silence and the contemplative manner of Quaker spirituality and to the social and political activism for which they have become identified. Heck! There is a Friends meeting house in my home town that sponsors or hosts a Zen meditation group. Seems appropriate to me.

I would say, though, that all great traditions began as an awareness of something beyond one's self--the Ultimate, the Tao, or whatever. In some cases it was a theistic transcendence, in others, perhaps, a sense of the human spirit as transcendent, or of the web of life, or what Thich Nhat Hanh calls 'interbeing', as transcendent. There is that awareness that we are part of--and related to--that which is bigger than we are. However, it doesn't seem to take long that belief becomes more important than that relationship to the transcendent. When I put my faith in a belief which points to a deeper reality, I make the mistake Buddhists call mistaking the moon for the finger pointing to it. I allow my belief to become a wall shutting me off from others even as I shut others out. Anselm's view of the atomement, for example, has become the belief by which many insist God redeemed humanity. To them, if you don't believe Jesus died for our sins in quite the way that Anselm laid it out, then, your belief is wrong and you are not Christian. Still, even in Scripture and in the witness of the Fathers (and Mothers) of the Church, Anselm's argument is hardly the only way of looking at the atonement. There are those today, who go way beyond anything that has been traditionally creedal in nature. If you have the wrong politics, you are not a Christian (just ask Ann Coulter or Tim LaHaye). If our faith is in one whose message included a radical inclusion of everyone unconditionally, then what if our allowing belief to dictate who is 'in' and who is 'out'? With our faith in the God to whom Jesus points, it seems hard to not be inclusive and openly welcoming in the same way, instead of allowing belief to create walls and put the Transcendent into a box.

I would argue that prosperity has it's place. This scripture hints as to where. "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." To Jesus, prosperity is not the goal. Godly living is the goal. This is how our needs are met. The blessing of prosperity is a byproduct of Godly or 'in tune' living. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True, but I think our needs were to be met by sharing. At least that's what the apostles and disciples did in Acts 4:32ff. And Jesus made it clear to those he sent out on missions (first 12, then 70) that they were to take nothing with them, but to rely on the householders they went to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would add, too, that we know Jesus spoke of having nowhere to lay his head, and that the only item he owned when he died was his single robe. Yet he was arguably one of the wealthiest or richest people ever to have lived, since he lacked for nothing and lived fully and extravagantly in the service of others...to the degree he would be accused by his detraactors as being a 'glutton and a drunkard'. Abundant living doesn't translate to having an abundance of stuff.

PS I used to really really like Wayne Dyer. Now I just sorta like him. I got a bit turned off when (it seemed to me) he started to focus more on getting what you want and less on spiritual ideas and God. It started to feel like "prosperity gospel" which makes my stomach turn. Many pagan authors are the same way, which is why I like Phyllis Curott. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's kind of ironic to be able to lump into one category many of the New Agers and pagans along with evangelical Protestantism, but there it is--it's all about me. It's all about my salvation, growth, enlightenment, or whatever. Self-centered spirituality has no particular face, but wears many masks.

I think it's sad. We get all wrapped up in much ado about nothing and overlooked completely the anniversary of D-Day (June 6, 1944), a date that deserves continued notice and respect. There were a lot of things in the media about 6/6/06 (most of it trivial and pure fluff) but I didn't see a thing about the anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy in W/ W/ II.

Bishop Spong once wrote a book, Honest Prayer. I don't even know if it's still in print, nor have I checked Amazon for its availability. But, in it, he uses the model of the Lord's Prayer (how apporpriate!) as a basis for considering the nature of prayer. One of the points that he makes is how prayer changes us, how in prayer we are opened up to that which is holy and transcendent. It's been quite soem time since I've read it, so I can't recall enough just now to give you much more on the book.

To hear many Christians talk, the opposite or opponent of faith would be doubt. There is such fear in doubting, fear that it might destroy one's faith. "Don't question God!" Don't ask any questions! Also, faith is often spoken of as if it meant 'belief' or 'creed', as in "What faith are you?" or "What is your faith?" But, I would suggest, and I'm sure this is something that will resonate with many of you, that faith is not about belief in a doctrine or proposition, but about trust in a relationship. And that relationship will sustain one in tough times when questions abound. There is the acceptance that we don't have the answers, that there may be no answers, but we are called and empowered to live in that space devoid of answers if necessary. Faith grants the courage to face the questions and to be the questioner. And in so questioning, grow in faith (something, I'm sure, many of us here have experienced on our journey to progressive Xianity.) So, what is the opposite of, or opposition to, faith? I would say 'certitude'. Where one is certain (or believes one is certain) there is no need for faith. Where there is certitude there is no room for growth, and certitude clings to the propositions and dogmas as fixed and eternal, so the possibility for future growth is virtually nonexistent. Faith, as certitude, is dead; whereas faith as open and questioning is alive and growing--just as our faith in those we love and trust grows and changes and as our relationships are grounded in more and more experience of one another. Questioning and doubting can be damned uncomfortable--painful even! Bt this pain amounts to the growing pains of faith.

Right! Not something you'll hear from Joel Osteen or Rick Warren--and sure as hell not from Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson! The theologies that are popular right now--and have been something the Church has struggled with throughout its history--are the Prosperity Gospel that emphasizes material blessing and wealth as sign of God's favor, and a kick ass Gospel with balls that makes Jesus the ultimate warrior. Jesus as Conan the Barbarian. Where does a Prosperity Gospel come from? Certainly not from the message of Jesus! The Book of Proverbs, maybe. But Jesus always focused on the very ones who had to do without--the 'preferential option for the poor' in the language of liberation theology. As for the macho Jesus model, we have the Book of Revelations (or its premillenialist misinterpretation) and the Hebrew Scripture view of the Messiah as one in the manner of David and establish an earthly kingdom, to thank for the picture of Jesus smiting the ungodly with relish and delight. Contrast that, again, with the Gospels, and we see a Jesus who rejected power and might as options again and again--first, in the Wilderness Temptation, again when Peter calls him the Messiah and Jesus essentially tells him, "Shut up, you don't get it! (I'm not that kind of Messiah)", and again, when he does not resist his captors who lead him away to his torture and death. Passive, non-violent, resistance all the way!

Thanks! I see what you mean. I may have to wander over to the Christian to Christian debate board on B'net to see what you are up to. Given some of the troglodytes over there, it's good to know there is a strong liberal witness in the midst of these folks who learned their theological debating techniques from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and I'm aware that Unitarians form an important part in the liberal religious tradition of Poland. Good to see it's still alive and well!

Sounds like a good one to add to my 'wish' list! Thanks for the heads up!

I think it is a weakness of progressive Christianity that we haven't been able to answer this reasonable question with a good resource. I can't think of any. Maybe I need to write such a book!! Or someone!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'd say, "Go for it! You're a retired pastor!" But most of the ones I know tend to be busier after retirement than they were during their time in the parish.

They may not be laid out like your typical chapter by chapter, verse by verse commentary, but we have several books by Spong, Crossan, Borg, Funk, and others dealing with Scripture and giving a pretty good start to onyone wanting to become biblically literate from a progressive Christian perspective. Add to the Borg title mentioned above: The Last Week co-authored by Borg and Crossan, about which I began another thread on the book discussion board, Spong's This Hebrw Lord and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, and Bruce Bawer's Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity. Those are certainly good for starters!

Been there. Looked around. Printed out the eight points discussion guides for future reference and reflection. Great stuff! This is all taking a lot of hard work, and, I'm sure, is deeply appreciated by those who have been around awhile. As a 'new kid' who can't really compare the new with the old, I'd say I'm still impressed!

Wow! I picked a good time to pop back in and look around! I had this site bookmarked, but it's been awhile since I looked in. Seems like great timing..."To everything, there is a time and a purpose under Heaven." Apparently that included a time to see what's up on tcpc!

The early followers of Jesus spoke of being followers of "the way", i.e., the way of Jesus. To me, following in the way of Jesus means following his example, his priorioties, his compassion and his single-minded devotion to his "Abba". Interestingly, he never said a word about homosexuality or gay marriage, never spoke of himself as "savior", never spoke of a prosperity gospel, never spoke of excluding those who came to him, and even sought out those who were excluded. He never said anything about starting a church, either! He did say a lot about the kingdom, which is all-inclusive, unconditionally, radically, welcoming, and embodies love and justice. His way was also the way to the cross or the way of the cross, which I believe means a whole lot different for some than for others. I believe it meant to risk and to be faithful to one's call to serve and to love, which is never easy. For Jesus, it meant being faithful to this vision of the Kingdom, no matter how dangerous it was, no matter who he pissed off, no matter that it led to his death. He could have said, "Uh, gee, guys! I've kinda got other plans for the weekend." Instead, he went to Jerusalem knowing the likely outcome if he remained faithful to his vision and his message; his "Way". And, there are many who do not observe Christian practices as such, do not worhip in Christian churches or communities, and do not even know of Jesus, but are nonetheless followers of his 'way' in that they practice compassion, seek to relieve suffering, and seek justice of those who are denied it. They are not Christians by their own definition, nor are they to be 'baptised' for their parallel paths, but they were certainly following the same way as Jesus. Witness Marcus Borg's Jesus and Buddha: the Parallel Sayings, and Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ for example.

Yeah, so what the hell are avatars? And how do some of you end up with favorite quote running through your threads at the bottom?

Actually, the biblical writers and those who assembled the Hebrew and Christian canons weren't hung up over contradictions either. Otherwise, why would there be two creation stories back to back in Genesis that are quite different. Kings and Chronicles covers much the same period of Israel and Judah, yet are quite clearly very different in their points of view: one pro-royal and the other anti-royal in sentiment. Also there are a number of variant details in the Gospels--even regarding Easter morning--which, one would think, the editors would want to be in full agreement to the point that they would edit out the contradictions...that is, if avoiding contradictions mattered. There are even some places in the Gospels where a careful reader could catch Jesus himself misquoting scripture! Were they bothered? Apparently not. Should we be? Hell, no!

LOL! The first time I read that I thought it said "The Gentile Weapon." Oy! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The 'Gentile' Weapon? Yeah!! Powerful stuff! It'll get 'em every time. (sort of the Hasidic equivalent of 'shock and awe').

As far as 'forming a new vocabulary' is concerned, I was pretty fed up with the conservative/fundamentalist Quaker sect in which I was raised and had a big problem with the traditional language, also. It didn't push any buttons; it just didn't speak to me or mean anything to me. Then, in college, in a course on contemporary Protestant thought, I discovered Paul Tillich. Then Reihold Neibuhr, Rudolf Bultmann, Harvey Cox, Robert Funk (in his pre-Jesus seminar days) and others who did not use the traditional language at all, or, when they did, used it in a thoughtful, well-defined, manner so that the message of the Gospel spoke to me in language I could relate to. It was a challenge, later, when I would step into the pulpit and try to convey my message without the traditional language (that pushed so many buttons for people and had such a variety of connotations and baggage) and without the theological language of seminary and theologians. How could I get the message of the text across without loaded language or theological jargon, but in simple, everyday language? It was great! It forced me to think!

I've been able to do it with who Jesus was, but not much else. Some of it can be done with word study of Greek or Hebrew -- for example "born again" is actually "born from above." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It doesn't help either when, to folks in mainline traditions, 'born again' or 'born from above' refers to their sacramental death and rebirth in baptism, and they wouldn't typically speak fo their baptism in those terms.

It's too bad that many good words of the Christian tradition have been hijacked, basically, by the Right wing of the Church, given specific, loaded meanings which have made using the language hard for those who don't reject the tradition of Chrisitanity but have difficulty with some of the language. The word, 'evangelical' is an example! Meaning 'good news', it has come to mean 'poliytical activist conservative Christian'--and much of what theyare about is hardly, in my estimation, good news! It's hard, even, to talk about "God", "Sin", "Faith", "Providence" and more! It's almost necessary to recover the broader, more meaningful definitions and rescue the words from the trash heap of knee-jerk responses

Hot doggie! Another new kid! I just came aboard this week, too. Luth