David

Your mission/purpose is related to theology. So secular organizations such as the United Way would not be included (nothing wrong with this but excluding the secular world takes out a lot of people--also a theologically related mission implies that somehow people have to learn theology or learn the "unity" version so you have to know where your "customers" are coming from).

So how would this mission be different than the Unity Church? Have you had experience in the Unity Church? If you did not want to be a member why not? If you have been a part of a Unity Church how did you find their ecumenical work? If you were not satisfied with the organization of the Unity Church could you take that Church and change the organizational structure to make it more ecumenical or more like the network that you envision?

I like your mission/purpose and some form of that would be appropriate for my dream of a new denomination called the Progressive Christian Church which I think should be locally controlled with the abililty to be flexible and dynamic in response to cultural needs and changes.

Again thanks for your love of unity and dreaming about how to implement it.

The United Way may be a model for the organization that you are thinking about. They are a network of groups that “operate on parallel levels but may never work together”. Yet I see a mission or a purpose with the United Way that I do not see in your suggestion. One can pretty well tell whether a group is going to be included in the United Way or not. I can not tell how a group will be included/excluded in the network that you are talking about. The mission or purpose will include/exclude. If your network has no mission or purpose it will not include at all. No one will see the point. If your network has such a broad mission or purpose then there is no way to see how “value is added” to our world by such a network then people will not be motivated to spend time with that network versus the United Way, the local peace group, etc.

I sense that you are trying to take your love for unity and make it practical. I encourage you to keep thinking along those lines.

Wayseer,

Very well said. Thank you.

That is easy to say, the hard part is how to implement it.

You are singing my song Soma.

I think that the primary problem with group-making is leadership. I would be perfectly fine with creating groups and levels of understanding.... as long as I am the one making the lists. When other people make lists, I tend to disagree. Then back to the same old same old.

This part of your post just jumped out at me. I know it is based upon my experience in the UU world. The UU world has a history of “anti clergy” and has a history of passive/aggressive behavior towards “leaders”. Somehow they realize they need to have leaders, but there have been some pretty bad experiences for “leaders” coming from those who do not want to be led.

I’m wondering how you envision a community without leaders. Is a message board a community? I don't know. Certainly not a Church. I guess it would meet a minimal definition of a community. We may have gatekeepers on message boards, but there are no formal “leaders”.

However, you don’t have to go very far on this internet location to find leaders. You have leaders making decisions that affect the face of Progressive Christianity. I would suggest that those leaders will have more impact on Progressive Christianity than anyone posting on this board. This internet location does not appear to be designed to reflect that “one table” that you talk about. It appears to relate to the table of Progressive Christianity. Not only that but it appears to relate to a particular definition of Progressive Christianity (say as opposed to those definitions that focus only on justice issues).

I don’t disagree with your goals of peace, etc. and I support the challenge to change starting with our self. I just do not see how the cause of peace, etc will happen without leaders. And obviously leaders will only happen if people are willing to be led.

I'm going to shift the discussion slightly with some (sort of) random thoughts.

 

Ecumenism is with us in the form of many organizations supported by several congregations. Here in Ann Arbor there is the Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice (ICPJ). Most of the congregations that are involved in it are toward the progressive end of the scale theologically, but not all. Also, there are individuals from churches over a very wide theological spectrum who participate in ICPJ's programs.

 

My religious experience has included working with Presbyterians, Methodists, Disciples, UCCs, Episcopalians, Lutherans, American Baptists, Quakers, U Us, and Catholics. Some of these experiences were brief, but others lasted for decades. Some of my graduate work was in a seminary consortium that included all of the groups mentioned above.

 

I no longer see much point in one big progressive denomination. People have too much invested, both financially and personally, in staying with what they have. When congregations become marginally viable, their members should give serious thought to merging with other congregations that share the social and theological perspectives, without regard to denomination. There are greater variations within the denominations than there are from one to another.

Do you think there is any basis for doing ecumenical work beyond justice issues? In other words has "ecumenism" just become another word for getting together to do the right things? What about having your local group attempt to do interfaith worship services? These have had some success in some places.

I guess I'm, one of those who are not mature enough to recognize the maturity in other people and will not, therefore, be invited to the table.

 

I'm sorry that it is all us poor people who are dragging the chain - holding the whole thing back - stopping progress etc .....

 

The church has no one to blame but itself. The church has been caught short by an increasing educated population that can now tell the difference between mushrooms and a compost heap - it has keep its parishioners in the dark and feed them of half-truths, if not outright lies.. The church is now busy trying to work out how to play catch-up. But I fear the horse has bolted - no one is listening any longer to what the church has to say. It is in danger of becoming irrelevant. The rather interesting, if not unfortuate, aspect is that science appears to adopting a somewhat similar blinkered process - it shows little interesting in talking to the 'poor' - now claiming that mantle previously held by the church.

 

Someone did say all things go in cycles.

I am not at all clear about what you are saying. Are you saying anything more than was already been said with our discussion on boundaries and the possibility for hope for the Church?

You want to identify with those that may not end up at the “mature” table. Valid point. Again I would suggest that because the Church has not been perfect and will never be perfect does not mean that we should not attempt to “do Church”. Again I would suggest that “doing Church” requires boundary sensitivity. Knowing that there may be “closet progressives” among those that exclude does not mean to me that we should not exclude those that exclude. But we have had this conversation.

I wondering if you picked up on the idea of “levels” and that is what you are responding to. Are you asking how anyone can “define” maturity and so you object to having a separate table for children? If that is your point I would suggest that pluralism provides that “definition”. If one is not mature enough to recognize that a person with a different faith may also be experiencing the same God then they are not mature enough to come to the “mature” table. That may seem like an “arbitrary” boundary to you. Well yes and no but we have had that conversation.

At times you give me the impression that you think that you have “progressed” beyond the need to sit at the table at all. You don’t need others to help you understand yourself. That individualism keeps coming out. To the extent that this is true then you may have no interest to relate to others around the table and so the invitation would be meaningless to you anyway. “No one is listening to the Church” means certainly that you are not. Whether the Church has a future is still up in the air. Certainly some people are interested. Spong is interested. I am interested. But why argue about who is right? Either support the Church or not. Seek to change it or not. I will not judge you for not seeking to change/support the Church. I can certainly understand that position. I would just suggest that you not judge too harshly those that still have hope for the Church and are trying to figure out better ways of doing it.

David I like what you wrote. From time to time I think I need to sit at the Children's table for different reasons. Maybe it is to show unity?

Maybe.....

I would just say I would sit at that table and listen to that part of me that still has the faith of a child.

Point is however that you may be able to sit at the children's table, but the invitation to the other table is based upon maturity.

Reading David's post I could not but help to think of those words - The poor will always be with you. I recognise those words as I'm pretty poor myself.

If this is not a Zen koan meant for my enlightenment then it must be related somehow to my post. Give me a hint. Just say it’s like one hand clapping and I’ll know what you mean. Maybe the poverty of my ability to understand?

Soma,

I have always appreciated your posts. But many times they do not address how we take theology/philosophy to a “practical” level which is mostly always my concern. This last post does and I thank you for that.

I wanted to respond before DavidK comes back and refuses to be a tadpole because I think your idea, if I understand it, has merit. I thought of you when I started to read about Ken Wilbur’s “Integral Spirituality”. Wilbur’s point is that there are “stages of development” and each stage represents a level of organization or a level of complexity. Wilbur makes the statement that I think you made elsewhere that with his “theory of everything” he sees “all views are correct” in the general sense that every level has its own important truths that not only disclose that level, but also act as important and necessary ingredients of the higher levels. Wilbur argues that there is a hierarchy as one “moves up”. “Moving up” involves a dissonance with the level one is on and a willingness to let go or “dieing to” the present level. (I should say that Wilbur’s use of the “death” image is not entirely descriptive because he wants to say that “moving up” may involve differentiation, integration, transcending or including the “lower” level). Wilbur says that “a rational scientist who despises every variety of mythology because it is a lower level is simply someone out of touch with his or her roots”.

My “practical” response to Wilbur and perhaps to you is that this “what makes sense” seems inherently tied to the level that you are involved with. In other words the “faith of a child” makes sense from the viewpoint of a child. We can argue that some never get to the next level and so nothing beyond the “faith of a child” makes sense. You can see that many liberals/progressives make this claim about fundamentalism. Wilbur would suggest here that even within the same "level" there are "better" choices than others so that the "faith of a child" has better choices than fundamentalism.

But for me the practical question is what we do with this understanding in the ecumenical world.

One response is not to talk negatively about levels that may seem “lower” than the one you are “on” not because it is not “respectful”, but because that level is really still a part of you. This is where I think you have a valid point (if I am understanding you with the help of Wilbur). There is much about the “faith of a child” that still speaks to me because it still is not only a part of me, but it gives added dimension to my present spiritual path.

However, I still have “practical” questions.

The practical issue for the “spiritual elders” is how to relate to those who think they are not only as much of an “elder” as you, but even more of an “elder” than you (like my teenagers acted). Plato would argue that we need “philosopher kings” and I would not disagree. However, by default the system that “works best” is democracy. However, democracy only can work if we do not let children vote. There is a parallel I think in the ecumenical movement which I would suggest is pluralism. Pluralism suggests to me that some immature persons will never make it to the ecumenical table. In other words those persons who are not mature enough to recognize the maturity in other people will not be invited to the table. Like at Thanksgiving, there will be a “children’s table”. That will be an important table because we all set there at one time and we can enjoy being in the same room with that table, but it will not be the table where we will want to set.

Also, at the ecumenical table there will not be a place setting for the “highest” spiritual elder and “lower” spiritual elders. Each will recognize that there is hierarchy, but that hierarchy can not be the basis for ecumenical work. We each will return to our own spiritual communities where that hierarchy maybe more recognizable and we will be more comfortable talking about “levels”. So for me the ecumenical world really is involved only with the difference between the children’s table and the adult’s table. In our own spiritual communities we can talk more about what Wilbur is talking about.

I said earlier: 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”.

I keep making the same point. DavidK keeps posting. He is lately the most active poster on this message board. Some have decided to exclude those who exclude. Others keep talking to DavidK. Some have evidently decided to stop talking at all. So far there is only one active DavidK. I do fear that the urge to include will draw others. Maybe the message board could survive, but I do not think the ecumenical movement survives the mix.

This message board is not the ecumenical movement but you can see the difficulty of attempting to include in the ecumenical movement those who exclude. The "inclusivists" will continue attempting to bridge a divide that can not be bridged. I have seen some Churches attempt to deal with this by creating a “discussion group” kind of separate from the main mission of the Church in hopes that the consequences of the divide could be diffused—sort of like this message board does with the Debate versus Progressive sections. But that does not work.

I continue to watch with interest how people deal with DavidK who is not going away as long as he feels included. So you are sitting around the ecumenical table with DavidK and attempting to plan the next project. What are you going to be able to do? Is it worth it to include all of those groups that exclude around that ecumenical table in hopes that one or two groups contain “closet progressives” trying to get out? Does that not result in a stalemate? For DavidK stalemate is the goal as long as he “reaches” someone reading this message board. For DavidK’s Church stalemate of the ecumenical movement is the goal. Why give them that goal?

I think DavidK said somewhere that we use the same words but with entirely different meanings. I have suggested that this is because we do not share the same epistemology. It is not so much a matter of disagreeing with “what you know”, it is a basic disagreement in “how you know”. Diana Eck has made the same point and I have noted that earlier.

I have also noted earlier that it is not helpful to quote the Bible to someone who sees the Bible as DavidK does when you do not share the same epistemology. Has this ever worked for anyone? Why do it here? Why do it within the ecumenical movement?

Sorry to keep making the same point.

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.

David:

Let's be accurate. The basic groundwork for knowledge is that something really exists. And it is, first of all, observable.

 

Epistemology; the study of the method and grounds of knowledge esp. with reference to its limits and validity.

 

Jean Paul Sartre said the basic philosphic question is that something is there rather than that nothing is there.

I listed all the logical positions from there(with some editorial comment) in the discussion of existence (post #78) of which 2c is one of the three logical positions.

The second basic philosophical question is mans dilemma, morality. Again, as Sartre put it, if a finite point does not have an infinite reference point, it is meaningless and absurd.

The third is Epistemology. Let's go further back in time to Plato, who said the basic problem of knowledge, as in morals, is there must be more than particulars (any individual thing) if there is to be meaning. That is universals, absolutes. (see Sarte's position on mans dilemma).

 

In order to discuss epistemology one needs to answer the first two in order to develop the proper groundwork and methods to even approach the third. We need to establish those in order to give epistemology validity.

 

I did not mean to imply you thought life had no meaning. But the philosphical position, whether it's yours or not, could not rationally justify any meaning to life. This is not a personal attack, it's a discussion of philosophical and logical positions. If you disagree, Where's your why?

 

What is the groundwork or method from which your epistemology arises?

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.

The Borg were the ultimate in human unification. The individual was meaningless. Sort of like what Soma said today,

Jan 16 2008

 

Now this, I agree with:

 

Let me add; that does not make them any less true.

 

To repeat your quote from before; "to say anything at all of the Infinite, is to actually say nothing about the true Infinite." To be honest in your position why do you continue to talk about the infinite? By your own words you are not saying anything.

 

First, by observation we know that the universe is there as opposed to its not being there. That is as simple as I can state it.

 

A thorough epistemological discussion really requires more room than available here. But, if you review my post (#78), and you cannot consider 2c as an option (the only option that does not dehumanize man or ignore the facts about what man knows about man), then you have come to a dead end, where man is meaningless, along with all else, and no amount of epistemological reasoning would make any sense to you.

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

David:

How does one say there is no uncreated being and believe God is the creator without Him being the uncreated (beginning)?

 

You also proposed, "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 if one believes in Santa Claus then one can reasonably expect to see presents at Christmas."

I believe you have completely misdiagnosed because you didn't understand what presupposition means. I was never asking for agreement on the definition of God. I was offering a basic logical presupposition. That is: IF the subject were true then the predicate would also be true.

 

Your Santa Claus statement is illogical. It should be constructed properly, as follows. If Santa Claus is real then one could certainly expect to see presents at Christmas. That makes it logically consistant. That is more to the point. Besides, I am not certain what your position on God is, so how could I disagree or say you have none ?

 

DavidK,

 

Epistemologically what is the difference between saying you believe in Santa Claus and saying that Santa Claus is “real”? How you answer this question may flesh out your opinion as to what is “subjective” and what is “objective”? Obviously there is a parallel question on how you know God.

 

Epistemologically all of your theology starts with an assumption or a presupposition as you call it. There is no epistemological basis to create a division between the “created” and the “uncreated”. That again is derivative of your theological assumption/presupposition. God as “before” or “separate from” the universe is based upon a god as some kind of super/separate being. There is no epistemological basis for this understanding. To say that I can not understand God without creating a division between the “created” and the “uncreated” is a circular argument—it presupposes the answer with the question.

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

That describes me exactly I am a bit frustrated with what I see as little real spirituality. I'm moving next fall and when I get to my new location I'm going to look around for a liberal/progressive Christian church, where at least I know God will be mentioned!!

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.

Well, obviously fundamentalists and progressives are pretty far apart on the theological spectrum and often the political spectrum as well, so they would interpret the above ideals pretty differently...but I do think that a statement such as this could become the basis for such a bridge, yes. It would take a lot of time, patience, and dialogue to work from there in terms of interpretation. But I think it would be worth it

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