David

Soma, We may disagree in emphasis but not in essentials. I agree with your sense of unity and God's acceptance of all. I like: "God speaks to us all equally". My emphasis may be more on how the hearing makes a difference. I hope I am hearing you correctly. Good post. David

From a very practical point of view the ecumenical movement should be based not upon a vision of unity but should be based upon a vision of plurality. There is a huge difference. Plurality assumes that some people will assume that “the mere reading of the Bible will make them a Christian” and those people will somehow have to be included in the ecumenical movement. However, as I have said before we are not going to go to the same Sunday school class. DavidK and I can share not only the same name but we can share quite a bit in the name of Christianity as long as we accept plurality as a goal and not unity. The world of duality may not be “real” in the ultimate sense but it is sure effective in the ecumenical movement. Those that can only speak in terms of ultimate unity will not be able to actually, effectively bring people together. I am grateful the TCPC is talking in terms of plurality and not unity. One of the best discussions I have seen on topic is Diana Eck’s book “Encountering God, A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras”. She states “One can argue that the greatest religious tensions in the world in the late twentieth century are not found between the Western and Eastern traditions….they are the tensions that stretch between those at the opposite ends of the spectrum in each and every religious tradition….very often the religious conflicts that flare up have less to do with what one believes than with how one believes what one believes”. Progressives in every religious tradition have a different approach to “how one believes what one believes” than those that look to their scriptures for ultimate authority and end up making an idol of those scriptures. Although we may all at times feel that sense of unity that Soma talks about the real world of ecumenism will continue to be seen with this “dualism” and require pluralism as a response. I said this earlier. I would like to change my opinion. I do not think that the ecumenical movement has to include DavidK and we need to exclude those that exclude. However, more problematic is what do we do with the “inclusivists”, those liberals/progressives that have the tendency that I had in wanting to include DavidK. I am thinking that ecumenism demands that we embrace pluralism and that may mean some challenges dealing with “inclusivists” (again the difference is that the "inclusivist" does not demand much from the "exclusivist" other than perhaps "good process" whereas pluralism demands commitment to pluralistic thinking from all those that theologically disagree). I do think that "pluralists" and "inclusivists" can communicate well with each other and have worthy discussions on the importance of inclusiveness. However, in the world of ecumenism (and in other "worlds" also), I think pluralism works best.

You have the cart before the horse. You argue that you should base your epistemology upon your philosophy. That means that you are saying that you base "how you know what you know" based upon "what you know". So my method would differ from yours in that I would try to begin thinking about "how I know what I know" and try to relate that to "what I know". If "what I know" does not seem to correspond with "how I know" then I would suggest that you rethink "what you know" which implies to me that you think about epistemology first and not base it on your philosophy (sort of like saying don't say the Bible is true because my theology says it is true---think about how any writing is "true" and then apply that epistemology to the Bible). The basic epistemological questions are not based upon conclusions about "why do we exist?" or "does god exist?". The "grounding of beliefs" has to do with the sources of knowing such as perception, introspection and the possiblity of a priori intuition. Discussions such as inductive versus deductive are appropriate. Knowledge through observation is a well established epistemological method. It is open however to subjective points of view. So what is "objective" and what is "subjective" is an important epistemological question that you should think about before you make statements that imply that you know what is True beyond your point of view. Obviously you are correct that the subject is too broad for a comprehensive review in this kind of medium. So is theology. I have grown tired of trying to communicate with you in this medium. Good luck on your spiritual journey.

So to summarize your position: Your basic epistemological position is based upon “observation” as the way you know what you think you know. Based upon this way of knowing you have concluded that “that which is personal began everything”. And furthermore, if I can not agree with this then I must think that life has no meaning. Finally, you evidently have the ability to bring very complicated theological discussions to this message board but you are not able to deal with epistemology here. I will let you return to that theological discussion without explaining how you know what you think you know. Good luck with that.

DavidK, I am interested in your epistemology, not your theology. Theology is related to epistemology if you are talking about "knowing" in relationship to God. You have stated that belief in Santa does not make Santa "real". I assume you will also state that belief in a god dependent on a split between the "created" and the "uncreated" does not make that god "real".So tell me how you know something is "real"? I am interested in how you think you know (not what you think you know). David

As I noted before David, your concerns are wide and deep. I really do wish you well as you continue to work out your spiritual journey. I admire you for coming here to a progressive place and attempting to communicate. I do not want to “invalidate” your theology. I did want to challenge your epistemology as it relates to your theology. Certainly if one agrees with your definition of God then you appear to have the ability to make reasonable deductive conclusions. However that is like saying that if one believes in Santa Claus then one can reasonably expect to see presents at Christmas. I really do not want to get into a whole theological discussion with you. Others are better at doing progressive theology. Marcus Borg comes pretty close to my thinking. And I would recommend that everyone look for FredP postings on this message board (where are you FredP?). My main interests are ecclesiology and epistemology. Maybe others will want to speak to your theological questions. If you want to explore epistemology more could you consider starting a new conversation thread?

DavidK Apparently I’m not going to get you to move this to a separate subject. It’s like trying to move liberals which is like herding cats. From an epistemological point of view I wanted you to see that all of your logic and reason is deductively based upon a very major assumption that theologically has been challenged for quite some time. Your response is typical from the fundamentalist side. You have assumed that since I do not agree with your definition of God that I do not have any position in Christianity. I reject that. It is an illogical position. You can not define God based upon no epistemological basis and then say that you know that I have no position. From an ecumenical point of view you have taken the “exclusivist” position as described by Diana Eck. I think that many liberals/progressives take the “inclusivist” position and would respond to you that you are included in the oneness of God but you just don’t see it yet. I think from an ecumenical point of view that pluralism is a better alternative. However, it is very hard for an “exclusivist” to say on the one hand that they have the only correct vision of God and at the same time say that God is beyond anyone’s full comprehension and therefore it is possible to have a wide variety of visions (the pluralist position). So it really is up to you how to limit ecumenism. As I stated before we can do much in the name of Christianity if we accept pluralism. However, if you exclude me then we will try to do the best we can without you. David

DavidK I hope this is not your attempt at epistemology. I also wish that you would start another subject since I do not see how this relates to ecumenism. But just briefly: You seem to be attempting to claim something “objective” and “non-created” based upon a “super being” that created. There is no epistemological basis to support a division between the “created” and the “uncreated”. Liberals/Progressives declared such a “super being” dead some time ago. Perhaps you did not get the Time magazine. The “objective/subjective” epistemological discussion is more complicated but your epistemology appears to be a deductive approach starting with an incorrect assumption (the presence of an “uncreated’ super being). If that is the case our discussion obviously is not going to be very long. Again, however if you want to talk epistemology please start a new subject. David

I also am planning to eventually move in part based upon the ability to go to church. In the meantime I am stuck in the California valley "bible belt". I hope we are a part of the "demand" that will increase the "supply" of progressive churches. I forgot you were UU but then I saw again your John Murray quote. I graduated from Starr King but really took most of my course work elsewhere on holy hill. I will always be UU "in part" and hope that my criticisms are accepted as coming from someone who has been blessed by much within the UU world.

I’m wondering about that fragile ecumenical bridge. One of my reactions is that this seems to be a bridge based upon principles that could be the mission of any good civic or political organization. Another reaction is that some Progressives may limit expectations within religious groups to these goals designed for ecumenism. This reminds me of my history with the Unitarian Universalists who “on paper” attempt to be perhaps the most “inclusive” religious group in town while almost always being the smallest group in town. I think the UU Principles could be used by ecumenical groups as a “mission statement” for ecumenical dialogue. There is no demand for theological unity. However, the “real” UU world shows a lack of theology within the stated goal of searching for truth. So the goal is a great ecumenical goal but a lousy goal for a religious denomination. Accepting different paths to the top of the mountain is a great ecumenical goal but not offering any path to follow is a lousy goal for a religious denomination. I think there is a tendency in the UU world to be that “generic pluralist” that Diana Eck says is not possible (there can be Christian pluralists, Hindu pluralists,etc but not “generic pluralists”). A “generic pluralist” has nothing to bring to the ecumenical table if those around the religious table already accept pluralism. This can not be the center of a faith journey. The UU world is focused on process. The focus on process can tend towards the “lowest common denominator” of being a good neighbor or the “highest common denominator” of pluralism based upon an understanding of the Divine as One. The UU world has however rejected any theological foundation as being too divisive and is all about process which probably is more political than religious. That is not unimportant. It is important that we learn to be good neighbors, but that is not the foundation of a faith journey. Theological unity should not be the goal for ecumenism but theology is certainly the foundation of any religious community. Ecumenism is probably more political than religious. But a community without theology is not religious and would have no reason to be at the ecumenical table. Having said this, there are a great many UU people with solid religious foundations that may end up in the UU world because there is no other place to go. Depending on the UU group however they may be frustrated by the predominance of the political/process discussion and the lack of religious experience. Certainly, they are handicapped in any ecumenical discussion because they can only really speak for themselves after the process or “bridge” is established. Many persons who call themselves Progressive Christians may hope for no more than good process so they can speak for themselves. I think those people should take a good look at the world of UU and then start to think of different ways of “being together” so we can contribute religious content as well as political process to the ecumenical dialogue. I would hope that Progressive Christians would internally develop a progressive theological foundation and then ecumenically work for that "highest common denominator" of pluralism based upon an understanding of the Divine as One.

Thank you for this. Maybe a fragile ecumenical bridge between fundamentalists and progressives? (although equality between women and men may be an issue for some fundamentalists?)

I'm still not sure what DavidK's primary interest may be but if it has to do with Biblical authority I would again suggest looking at prior discussions. For instance, look at "Blinded by Belief" which I think is an excellent exchange started by JosephM.

David, (I love this, sounds like I am writing to myself—which may very well be), Your concerns are wide and deep. I am not sure that any response in this kind of medium can do them justice--certainly not within the topic here of ecumenism. My response “on topic” is first that I doubt that we would go to the same Sunday School class and the tension between us is because we tend towards the “opposite ends of the spectrum” within Christianity. As Diana Eck points out there is more similarity between our counterparts within other religions than there is between us. This makes any attempt at ecumenical discussion between some Christians more difficult than between Christians and other faith traditions. I am fascinated by your interest in epistemology. Diana Eck notes that beneath many (most?) theological divisions one will find the epistemological problem. Many discussions never realize that the point of disagreement is not so much what you believe but how you know what you think you know. Basically I would argue that if you can not agree on how you know what you think you know it is frustrating to discuss anything. You will see that some will try to play the game of trying to assume an epistemology and attempt to show why a position is “wrong” by the “way you know what you think you know”. I see some Progressives that attempt to “prove” a point by Biblical authority even though they do not accept that epistemological method in the same way as the person they are talking to. I do not see that as helpful. That is why I make it a rule never to argue with a fundamentalist and I see no hope for an ecumenical bridge between fundamentalists and progressives. Anyway, my main response to you now is that I would suggest that you start a new topic and attempt to limit that topic as much as possible while still speaking to your wide and deep concerns. I would be interested in a topic related to epistemology. You will find others who will respond more to morality or metaphysics. I would just ask that you review the prior discussions that have taken place within this message board and see if your concerns have been discussed already (this does not mean that you can not discuss them again with your own viewpoint). Good luck on your spiritual journey, David

The Christian Century reports: “The recently dismissed head of the United Methodist Church’s main ecumenical and interreligious agency says his forced departure was due to disagreements over the body’s future direction….Larry D. Pickens said of his December 5 dismissal as chief executive of the denomination’s General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns….that the action stemmed in part from disagreements between him and some commission members over his support for what he called the ‘social justice dimension’ of ecumenical work. He said the commission often dealt with doctrinal and theological issues. ‘But in my mind, there has to be a social justice aspect for ecumenism to have a real impact,’ added Pickens, the first African American to lead the United Methodist commission.” There is that word “unity” again used as the mission of an ecumenical group. I have no “inside” knowledge of what is going on here, but it seems that some wanted to come together based upon a theological vision and some thought that there was not enough emphasis on social justice. I would argue that the ecumenical world should be dominated not by a discussion of unity, especially theological unity, and the theological goal should be pluralism. This would allow different religious groups to focus effectively on social justice concerns. Such a dynamic seems to have the real potential to bring people together.

Soma, I agree with these comments and as always you have been able to say what you say very well. Without pushing the ship/fleet/ocean thing too far (certainly not to the point of making it violent or military), I am concerned that the Unitarian Universalist Association has rejected the “ship” called the Unitarian Universalist Christian Association. They will no longer be accepted as an Affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association. They have also rejected the UU Buddhist Fellowship, the Covenant of UU Pagans and the UUs for Jewish Awareness. The rules of rejection state that Affiliates of the UUA must have a “functional connection with UU congregations, a broad focus, and proof that they work in collaboration or coalition with other groups”. Evidently the UUA proposed that these “theologically based groups” should form an “umbrella group” and then that group may qualify as an Affiliate. This to me is a rejection of pluralism and a misguided attempt towards unity. If I was going to form a group of people to help define unity for an ecumenical movement you Soma would be the chairperson. But unfortunately the call to unity never really gets beyond the making of the mission statement. You see this so often with ecumenical groups. They have fun creating the great sounding mission statement but the people calling for unity and making that statement then “jump ship” when the real work begins. That is because the real work can not be done based upon unity. A case in point involved the Episcopal Church and the Disciples of Christ as they became involved in the Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC) formally known as the Consultation on Christian Unity (COCU) (I think the name change may show that the early hope for “unity” was abandoned—we can only hope for “uniting”, not “unity”). First of all, there were the creeds. The Episcopal people wanted the relationship based upon the Nicene and Apostles creeds which are very important to the Episcopalians. The Disciples however are founded based upon “no creed but Christ”. Then, there was the matter of Bishops. The Episcopal people have the idea that Bishops would have to be consecrated in the historic apostolic succession whereas the Disciples have a strong history based upon the “priesthood of all believers”. Related conflicts are obviously who has authority to officiate at the Eucharist/communion, etc. Yet having run into the “real work” of the ecumenical movement participants are hesitant to drop the expectation “that Christians should not be divided” and they revert back to those great sounding mission statements. But obviously that goal has to be thrown overboard back into that ocean of unity when the ships are really trying to work out how to sail the ocean. I think that the ecumenical movement needs to look at pluralism as a goal and drop those great mission statements that talk about unity. If this was done then the UU Christians could have a pluralistic relationship with the Unitarian Universalists. If this was done then the Disciples could have a pluralistic relationship with the Episcopalians. To hope for unity is needlessly discouraging for all. Having said this I should stress that my discussion of unity has been in relationship to the topic of the ecumenical movement. There are other discussions about unity that relate to an individual’s relationship to the Divine and Soma you have been most helpful to me during those discussions.

I would suggest that the different currents in the ocean represent diversity and not pluralism. I am frustrated about all of the talk about diversity as though the recognition of diversity is a grand religious goal. Diversity is simply a fact that is easily observed. It does not automatically call for any response. Pluralism however demands a religious response to the other. So I would suggest that the goal of ecumenism should not be diversity but pluralism. I like Soma’s ocean analogy and I certainly agree that the Divine is one. Again Diana Eck is on point and makes a distinction between the exclusivist, the inclusivist and the pluralist: “In the moments of quiet…I enter into my church…and pray. Ranjini, my Hindu friend, goes to the temple in prayer in front of the large granite image of Vishnu. Are these two acts of worship structurally or experientially the same, but theologically different?...There are at least three possibilities. Perhaps only one of us worships the “true” god, as the exclusivist would say. Perhaps only one of us sees God fully and the other but partially and dimly, which is an inclusivist position. Or, in a pluralist view, perhaps we honor the same God, whom Christians and Hindus know by different names, experience in different ways, and see from different perspectives and angles….God transcends our complete comprehension…this would leave room for the self understanding of both…and would be a pluralist view.” It may or may not be possible to "go beyond" ourselves at times and not be tied to the cultural names, the different ways of experience and our different perspectives and angles but, if that is possible, it is not possible, or as I noted before even desirable, in our ecumenical relationships. We may all be a part of the same ocean but we are on different ships sailing that ocean. I am not sure that those that jump overboard into the ocean are of much use to those trying to transverse the ocean waves in relationship to other ships. Certainly if you have no ship you can not make a fleet of ships which I think would be the goal of the ecumenical movement.

Diana Eck describes how pluralism stands between unity and relativism. She says: “Relativism…means a lack of commitment to any particular community or faith. If everything is more or less true, I do not give my heart to anything in particular. There is no beloved community, no home in the context of which values are tested, no dream of the ongoing transformation of that community….The pluralist, on the other hand, stands in a particular community and is willing to be committed to the struggles of that community….there is no such thing as a generic pluralist. There are Christian pluralists, Hindu pluralists, and even avowedly humanistic pluralists---all daring to be themselves, not in isolation from but in relation to one another….The challenge for the pluralist is commitment without dogmatism and community without communalism. The theological task, and the task of a pluralist society, is to create the space and the means for the encounter of commitments, not to neutralize all commitment….the joining together in a new “world religion” based upon the lowest common denominator or pieced together from several religious traditions is not the goal of pluralism. In some ways, it is the very antithesis of pluralism….We do not enter into dialogue with the dreamy hope that we will all agree….but to produce real relationship, even friendship, which is premised upon mutual understanding, not upon agreement.”

So far I do not see much discussion on topic (ecumenicalism or ecumenism, not ecumentalism). The history of ecumenism is filled with attempts to bring religious people together. The discussion does show why this is so difficult. I look at the difficulty at the level of “how we know what we think we know”. DavidK states that his source of understanding Christianity is the Bible. Without knowing DavidK I think that this represents a large divide between Progressive Christians and other forms of Christianity. Soma responds with a common Progressive Christian approach by stating that “the mere reading of the Bible does not make us a Christian” and Soma seems to lift up his goal for the world religions as being “Christ Consciousness”. My point is that Progressive Christians will tend to take some version of Soma’s argument and say that “the way you know what you think you know” is not by giving ultimate authority to the Bible. This is important for the ecumenical movement. There are obviously many issues to be discussed but a primary issue has to do with the role of the Bible. I think that Soma is being naïve if he thinks that “sooner or later everyone will be healed and have the ability to see through the illusion of duality and materiality”. From a very practical point of view the ecumenical movement should be based not upon a vision of unity but should be based upon a vision of plurality. There is a huge difference. Plurality assumes that some people will assume that “the mere reading of the Bible will make them a Christian” and those people will somehow have to be included in the ecumenical movement. However, as I have said before we are not going to go to the same Sunday school class. DavidK and I can share not only the same name but we can share quite a bit in the name of Christianity as long as we accept plurality as a goal and not unity. The world of duality may not be “real” in the ultimate sense but it is sure effective in the ecumenical movement. Those that can only speak in terms of ultimate unity will not be able to actually, effectively bring people together. I am grateful the TCPC is talking in terms of plurality and not unity. One of the best discussions I have seen on topic is Diana Eck’s book “Encountering God, A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras”. She states “One can argue that the greatest religious tensions in the world in the late twentieth century are not found between the Western and Eastern traditions….they are the tensions that stretch between those at the opposite ends of the spectrum in each and every religious tradition….very often the religious conflicts that flare up have less to do with what one believes than with how one believes what one believes”. Progressives in every religious tradition have a different approach to “how one believes what one believes” than those that look to their scriptures for ultimate authority and end up making an idol of those scriptures. Although we may all at times feel that sense of unity that Soma talks about the real world of ecumenism will continue to be seen with this “dualism” and require pluralism as a response.

For those looking for some great discussions on polity it is worth looking at Planting God Communities This comes from the current leader of the UU Christians. This is a group that seems to point to that Progressive Christian space between UU and UCC but I don’t think this group has filled that space yet. They may yet do so but I suspect that the forces in the UU will not let them succeed. Also, some within this group do not seem to associate with the “Progressive” label. In any case, Ron Robinson has some great resources and ideas about what the future Church may look like. He does not seem to conclude that a new denomination will be necessary but I wonder whether those UU forces will change his mind.

Well I’m back from the wilderness. Don’t get me started on which is the “real” world. I am pleasantly surprised that this discussion has continued which indicates that people are thinking about it even if they do not agree with me that we need a new denomination. I continue to hope that the future of Progressive Christianity will not be limited to people who are already somewhat satisfied with the current available organizations. My original post suggests that those Progressives that can find some place to be should continue in that place. My suggestion is that there is a bunch of us who have no place. I have tried but I am not able to go to the same denomination that accepts those who run their lives (and perhaps our country) based upon Rapture Theology, accepts those who think that evolution is theology and will not openly question those that maintain that the atonement is still open for discussion. There is no “middle ground” here folks. However, all of the major denominations cloud this truth by claiming Christ and so Christ becomes all things to all sorts of positions. The recent reference to Bob Funk is appropriate. It seems clear to me that Funk, Spong, Borg, and others are helping define what Progressive Theology looks like. Although Borg and McClaren think well of each other and would make great neighbors I think both agree that there is a basic divide between an atonement based theology and Progressive theology. This “theological fight” is not over yet but I am of the opinion that the rejection of the Rapture and the Atonement will be one sign of a Progressive Christian. We will continue to have great neighbors that teach their kids this stuff, we just can’t be in the same Church. However it is one thing to recognize that there is no theological “middle ground” between Rapture Theology and Progressive Theology and quite another thing to think that there is a Progressive Theology that can organize Progressives into a new denomination. I have suggested that it may not be possible for Liberals/Progressives to organize based upon theological agreement. I’m not sure that Evangelicals organize based on theology although it seems that way from the outside. People are looking for a religious experience and they will often ignore theology in order to have that experience. Many of us would like to have some consistency between the sought experience and theology but I think that the motivation to look at religion comes from the need to have that religious experience. Although theology may help one be more open to a religious experience I think for the most part theology comes “after” the experience as an attempt to understand what is “known” via experience. I have suggested looking at what comes “before” theology in an attempt to organize liberals/progressives. I have suggested that “religious knowing” is more important than what one thinks they know. In fact the liberal history supports this---we have stressed how one knows more than what is known. We have suggested that a “liberal education” is all about how one learns to know anything. I think that the same applies to religion. It is more of a process than a product. It is not the same process as a “liberal education” that seems to stress the process of rationality to the exclusion of “religious knowing” but my point is that the process is what leads to and makes important any resulting “product”. So in this Church that I envision the process of “religious knowing” would lead to what decisions are made about worship, education, etc. Although many liberals/progressives may want to limit the knowing process to rationalism there are many who recognize that much is “known” that can not be put into words/concepts. This “religious knowing” does not contradict what we can know rationally but it is more based upon awe/wonder/etc which seems to me to come from a process that is “prior to” rational reflection. I suspect that most of us will want to “check out” those experiences with our rational thinking process so that we do not end up like the Native Americans who thought that their religion could save them from the White Man’s bullets. The process of “doing theology” is more important than what theology you end up with. The fundamentalist has a way of “doing theology” that is repugnant to a liberal. This is what really divides us. The Episcopal church shows this division not based upon sex but based upon how theology is done. It seems to me that we need to form a new denomination based upon this evident division of “how one knows” not based upon specific theological positions. Central to organization is the process of inclusion/exclusion. Before I left for the wilderness we had some discussion which confirmed that the worst thing that a liberal could do was to be a gatekeeper. Yet I continue to think that gatekeeping is a natural and necessary process. We need to be honest and open about the fences that we want and create. Those that think they do not have fences will not create any organization and paradoxically will end up speaking only for themselves. When we refuse to think about fences and organizing groups we end up being only individuals who may or may not meet occasionally. The fences create the ability to have a place which is larger than any one individual. Liberals are wary of fences because so often organizations fall in love with their fences. Certainly a fence can be used in an abusive way (i.e. damning to hell those outside the fence). However, potential abuse is not reason enough to avoid the fencing and gatekeeping process. What I am suggesting is that on the one hand religion is all about what can not be fenced with words/concepts/theology but on the other hand religion works better in groups than when it is limited to individual egos. Groups need fences. We may preach that “in the end” our fences do not matter and we are in fact Universalists (despite my hating Rapture Theology and the like I continue to believe in Universalism). In this way we do not fall in love with the fences. However, fences are needed to create a safe place for even Universalism to happen since those that are not open to Universalism can quickly destroy the group that is attempting to come together. Before we can create a Progressive Christian Church we need to think about who will be included and who will be excluded. I want to start with those that can see the potential of building programs based upon lifting up “religious knowing” more than what is known (while at the same time not ignoring our rational minds and becoming victims to persons and concepts that lead away from rationality). Both Evangelicals and Progressives hunger for that religious experience. In that way we are not divided. I think we need to start a new denomination based upon where we are divided at the most basic level of how we know what we think we know. That is where I would start. There are other “starting places” for Progressives. There may be some out there that think that theology can bring people together. There seem to be more Progressives that see ethical action as the way to bring people together. There can be groups for several alternatives. There is no reason to think that Progressive Christianity will be limited to one form. It now takes many forms and there is no reason that it can not take on many more forms including more than one denomination. But first we have to get over the fear of organizing. We need to think about fences that are effective at bringing us together and signs that point the way without falling in love with the fences and signs. I loved the recent reference to “market share” and doing Church in response to unmet needs. There is a large group of people who are either members of the Church Alumni Association like me or who are in fact potential Progressive Christians who can not go the Church just because the UCC “accepts everyone”. I continue to hope that we can learn to talk about polity because the potential is there.

The Jesus Seminar and others would say that Jesus never said "I and the Father are one". I think that being separate is more than a feeling. But I think we have agreed to carry this discussion on within the Debate area and so those that are interested should look there.

Thank you for these thoughts. I would not totally equate being a “part” of the whole as being “separate” from the whole. I think there is an element of being “separate” that explains more than just being a “part”. Being “separate” implies a qualitative difference in how well the “part” participates in the whole. The “qualitative” moves us from more separation to less separation (one can argue whether one ever truly loses that separation). Without separation the concept of quality becomes somewhat meaningless whereas I think quality helps point us towards the whole. Some experiences reveal to us more about the “whole” than others. I appreciate the fact that science is moving towards a theory based upon unity. We may eventually understand how the cosmos arises from some basic “structure” however I can not imagine that this overcomes the line that separates the finite from the infinite. One can argue that all matter is energy and when matter “dies” it is just transferred energy. However this line of thinking ignores the basic separation that is shown in the death. I have more hope for wisdom coming from mystics than I do from scientists. However, I am not convinced that a mystic does not to some extent ignore the separation evident in his/her life in order to experience the unity. This does not mean that the unity is not “real” but it raises the question as to whether a finite part can lose that finiteness and fully experience the infinite. If the finite is not lost then I think you have to conclude that separation continues. If separation continues then you have the issue of quality which leads to the importance of choices such as the choice between fundamentalist Christianity and progressive Christianity. Well this has all been interesting. I think I should go back to “New Denomination” where I belong. Please feel free to provide “negative” feedback there if you do not agree (can I give you permission to break the rules of “supportive” comments?)

I actually had intended to be a “single issue” contributor (see “New Denomination”) however I have appreciated Soma’s contribution to that discussion and I am confused by this post from Soma. I decided to ask for clarification (by the way, I notice the “rules” for this part of the message board and I am wondering how much “debate” is supposed to take place in this section. These rules may explain the lack of negativity in “New Denomination”. Anyway, forgive me if this is too much “debate”). I want to “piggy back” my response to Soma with something I found from FredP: FredP Oct 20 2005, 06:20 PM Post #7 Group: Validating Posts: 710 Joined: 22-March 05 Member No.: 322 BroRog: I was inspired by your typology, so I thought I'd take a crack at summarizing my own ideas under those same headings. I grouped a few together, and probably left a couple out, but it's a decent start. ===== Nutshell Description Christianity is a matrix of images, ideas, and practices; perceived and constructed by the human intellect and imagination; from within the limitations of specific historical, cultural, and personal horizons; under the inspiration and illumination of God. Emphasis on the deep understanding of the conditions of existence (personal, social, and cosmic); on the transformation of these modes of existence in accordance with the concerns of harmony and justice; and on the liberation of the Divine element within all things. Boundaries and definitions are essential, but never final, as God is infinite, and we are not. God God is ineffable, inexhaustible, thoroughly beyond all forms and concepts. God is perfect unity, “One without a Second.” It is, however, a unity which also contains within itself inexhaustible dynamism and relationship. In perfect freedom and power, it pleased God to manifest this dynamic relationship by way of an “emptying out” into the form of the Cosmos: the supreme act of self-limitation and self-sacrifice, simultaneously generating both the painful condition of separation, and the seed of reconciliation necessary to overcome it. Jesus/Bible Jesus is that seed of reconciliation. There is little doubt that Jesus was a historical figure, and that he turned the first century social and spiritual world upside-down; but the story of Jesus is foremost a spiritual allegory. Far from being an exaggeration of the “facts,” this “greatest story ever told” weaves epic themes into mundane biographical details in an entirely novel way, to create a prism through which the entire Cosmos can be seen. In Jesus, we see the soul’s battle with darkness, and its journey into God. In Jesus, we see all the world’s claims to power challenged, and a new life of justice promised. In Jesus, we see the very universe shaken to its core, and lit on fire with the Spirit of Truth. Salvation/Heaven/Eschatology Salvation is nothing less than the transformation and liberation of the Cosmos, already accomplished in the act of creation itself, and perceived in the mysterious and awful image of the Cross. While personal and social wholeness on Earth, and the joy of union with God in eternity, are certainly to be welcomed, they are simply the fruit of this great work in which God bids us participate. Sin/Hell If salvation is the transformation and liberation of the Cosmos, then sin is willfully persisting in the condition of ignorance and separation once one has seen the truth. Having the same metaphysical scope as salvation, it is a spiritual neurosis that takes personal, social, and cosmic forms. Cross The cross is the juxtaposition of opposites: the symbol of the condition of our existence. It is the state of separation, and paradoxically, the only way out of it. It is the “victory” of self-sacrifice: a snare for the evil one. In the horizontal dimension, it is a restoration of the balance of power. In the vertical dimension, it breaks the cycle of vengeance, bringing healing and forgiveness. The depth of this magical image has probably barely begun to be comprehended. Humans Humanity is a peculiar Divine self-expression indeed, capable of monumental greatness, matched only by his colossal wretchedness. We have borne the great burden of being close enough to see the light, but not quite close enough to touch it. We are charged with the task of crossing the threshold. We’ve seen the Cross. We saw it in the Garden, and shirked away, and the world will never be the same. FredP Oct 20 2005, 06:20 PM I hope the FredP does not mind but I find this to be as close to what I would say as I have ever heard. So it would be “my theology” in my proposed Church that would not be dependent upon theology. I see a major difference between this theology and Soma’s suggestion that “It all be true”. The main difference is the presence of sin/separation. I would suggest that the fundamentalists are in fact more “separated” from what they are talking about than Tillich and others that suggest a much different theology. I would suggest that the Islamic fundamentalists are more “separated” than those who believe that Islam does not lead down that road. I find it very important that "Progressive Christianity" be very public about the differences based upon "both can not be true". Having said this I am a Universalist that would agree that “in the end” all can be and will be “one” (“the end” being more ontological than teleological). I also would agree that the mystic has much to tell us about “becoming one with the one/all”. However, I agree with Tillich that we can not and do not “live” in either of these states of “oneness” within our cultural self. As FredP says we are close enough to see the light without becoming the light. Therefore I would suggest that we need a theology that talks as much about separation as it does about union. If need be we can transfer this discussion to the Debate forum (and even transfer the “New Denomination” discussion there also). But somehow I think this is a discussion among friends so I would appreciate Soma’s response (and others also).

And I thought this conversation was over…..welcome back from vacation Mystical Seeker. I have really appreciated your contributions. I am thinking that any group that Mystical Seeker would join would be a group that I could love. Both of us seem to be caught between the likes of the UCC and UU. The UU in me also is attracted to rationalism which is grounded in logic, reason and appreciates the fruits of science. That includes the work of the Jesus Seminar which has so brilliantly shown us how the historical Jesus can, in part, be seen differently from the early Church. There are rational methods here and the fruits of this work have given us the ability to have this conversation about a new denomination. However the Jesus Seminar is really struggling with what difference their work makes for the Church. It seems to me that being rational is necessary but not sufficient (showing us a historical Jesus does not “rationally” lead us to how to do Church any more than knowing the rules of music leads to great music). The UCC in me responds to Borg as quoted by Mystical Seeker. The rational person may also tend to be “literal” and may not appreciate the metaphor/symbol. Mystical Seeker shows us that this is not necessary, but my favorite is Tillich. In “The Courage to Be”: Absolute faith, or the state of being grasped by the God beyond God, is not a state which appears beside other states of the mind. It never is something separated and definite, an event which could be isolated and described. It is always a movement in, with, and under other states of mind. It is the situation on the boundary of man’s possibilities. It is this boundary….It is not a place where one can live, it is without the safety of words and concepts, it is without a name, a church, a cult, a theology. But it is moving in the depth of all of them. It is the power of being, in which they participate and of which they are fragmentary expressions. Being “grasped by the God beyond God” is not described in “rational” language. Yet it does not contradict the rational. This “points to” what I would say is “religious knowing”. Tillich provides the basis for my suggestion that we not come together based upon a common theology, but instead come together with an attempt to provide better opportunities to be “grasped by the God beyond God” knowing full well that this lives “without a church”. We need a church based upon “Absolute Faith” knowing that this does not lead to a church or even an agreement on theology. Having said this some options are clearly better than others. Make a choice between the religious right and Tillich to begin with. Then look at practical alternatives--some of which clearly “invite” the “God beyond God” and others which clearly are not receptive. Although many UCC people would say “amen” there is nothing that I have found in the UCC that would make Tillich’s way a test for including and excluding. One such UCC church sums it up by saying “We believe the Kingdom of God exists wherever Christ is accepted”. This is a pitiful attempt to be all things to all people. We need to be clear that the Christ we are talking about is not anything close to the Christ of the religious right. The religious right has a Christ that can be named clearly, has the safety of a clear theology and is supported by a huge cult/church. Mystical Seeker---can we go to the same Church? (I will go to the music services and you can go to some other services—our Church needs to be large enough to be inclusive but small enough to be effective).