Jump to content

AslansTraveller

Members
  • Posts

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by AslansTraveller

  1. Sorry I've come to this discussion so late, but the line that hits home for me is: "Scripture is narrative that moves (hopefully) one to a relationship with the Divine;" That's the key. Our spiritual life is a pilgrimage, a story, a journey. The Scriptures is the telling of the story of a particular people to whom Christians belong by their choice. The Bible is not a book of propositions and rules (I've always thought the development of numbering the lines of the Bible was unfortunate. What other type of book has such numbering? Law Books.) It is not just rational mind, but heart and feeling and will and body and companionship and all aspects of our humanity. God speaks to us through all these aspects. All is grist for the mill. In His love, He works hard to reach us no matter where we are. He works to find a way to us and that way may be different for each of us as we are all different people.
  2. Excellent! And for me that is a key point. It isn't just referring to Jesus for a set of proposed ethics to which to give intellectual assent, but to be involved, related and relating to a living Person, Someone who guides, loves and comforts here and now. Turning to Jesus just for a set of suggestions about how to behave is, in my experience, pointless. The world is full of great ethics, great and wise sages and their ideas and guidance. Big deal. But as a Christian, I believe that Christ will work with us, directly and lovingly through the Holy Spirit to give us what we need to follow Him. It isn't just a matter of "being a nice guy". There of plenty of nice guys, Christian and not Christian. Christ offers a reality and relationship which is far more than that.
  3. Prayer is an excellent subject, all too often neglected or oversimplified ("Prayer is where I give God his marching orders, isn't it?"). A couple of very good resources I've found: 1) Prayer by Richard Foster. Excellent overview of the many types and purposes of prayer. Written by a man who knows his stuff. 2) Prayer of the Heart by George Maloney. Personally, I've found great peace and blessings with the basic "Jesus Prayer" as used by the Eastern Christians and a bunch of other folks for about 1500 years. Lord Jesus Christ (on the inhale) Son of God (on the exhale) Have mercy on me (on the inhale) A sinner (on the exhale). The real value isn' t just what's being said, but when used as a meditative prayer (simply keep repeating it, anywhere at any time). It sort of "clears a spot" in the mind so that you can quiet some of the ever present mental noise and quite possibly hear God when S/He's talking to you with that "still small voice"
  4. I can understand and sympathize with this idea, but I wonder about four things: 1) How does this fit in with the idea of being "yeast"? Would we want a denomination where all the progressives gather, emptying their influence from the other denominations? Isn't better that we be scattered about, keeping other denominations from being dominated with theocrats to whom we've given a clear field? 2) One of the problems with some denominations (UU and UCC come to mind) is that their voices can all too easily be dismissed "oh, yeah, those liberal nut cases!". 3) A "progressive denomination" could all too easily fall into it's own symbols, language and jargon and become 'seperate' from other Christians and thus unable to influence them. This is already a problem in the type of jargon used by many progressives, and an unwillingness to use 'traditional' Christian language, thus alienating non-progressives. We want non-progressives to hear us and get our message, don't we? If we become to seperate, we wind up only preaching to the choir and what's the point in that? 4) If this should be done, how about gathering in one alredy established denomination? The UCC or MCC or UU? Why go to all the work to build a structure, administration, etc. when such structures already exist?
  5. Very well put. I especially like the phrase you use "transformation centered Christianity". That is what real Christianity is about: NOT having a set of intellectual propositions to which you give intellectual assent, but a relationship of trust (another word for 'faith') and loyalty which moves you to a life of change and development. This is, fortunately, being reborn with works like Dallas Willard, Richard Foster and the reborn interest in the disciplines of the Christian life, the work of the Desert Fathers, the Orthodox monastics, even more esoteric folks like Gurdjieff, Mouravieff, Ourspensky, the Sufis and the like. It's the idea that being a Christian involves being changed. Not just in some hard-to-detect metaphysical way (being "born again") but in the day-to-day operations of life and heart and mind. It's a change of consciousness. This, of course, wouldn't be popular with more conservative folks, since the key to this sort of thing is "no more business as usual". What comes under examination is not just surface or exoteric matters (abortion, sexual morality, etc.) but the deepest assumptions of how we live (the profit motive, the place of political power, the place of ego, etc.). This is where St. Paul's phrase "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" is made real: not just saying the sinners' prayer and going back to business as usual, but the hard work of cooperating with God in the reshaping of who we are at the deepest level. When you're doing that sort of work everything is up for grabs. Very hard, very dangerous, very challenging, but very worthwhile.
  6. I've stumbled across Mr. Cutsinger in several books of Schuon's he's edited and an excellent book Paths of the Heart based on a conference between Eastern Christians and Sufi's (with a strong Traditionalist element) which took place not long after 9/11. I've found his work very readable and clear. I find the work of men such as Cutsinger and Smith especially good because they give an approach to religious pluralism/tolerance which doesn't involve any sort of "tossing the baby out with the bathwater" i.e. sacrificing elements that are valuable in any religion for the sake of some sort of ecumenical goal.
  7. I have come to the conclusion that I will never find a single church which will meet all my needs. Maybe that's unreasonable. Every denomination has something I don't like and every one has things I do like. So I think it's going to become a case of going where I need to go based on what I need at the time while maintaining my own personal spiritual practice on my own. In other words, I have to hunt for and gather what I need and not expect anyone to "give" it to me.
  8. "imperfect words"? No, I think you are speaking great wisdom. I have kept after this question"are all religions true?" and found much wisdom I hadn't realized before. What you have to say speaks volumes. In a way it was a conflict of head vs. heart. In my heart I couldn't really believe that others were all heading down the wrong road. Especially since I have found great wisom in other religions (the Sufi's especially). Meanwhile, my head (or actually, a fairly rigid and literal intepretation of the Bible) was saying "There is only one Truth! How can conflicting ideas all be true?" I did some diggiing and came across the work of Huston Smith and Frithjof Schuon, both of which have an approach I can handle: all religions are right in claiming exclusive truth (on the exoteric level, the worldly level of form) and all religions are united as expressions of the Absolute (on the esoteric, mystical, metaphysical level). Now this sounded contradictory at first: all are true, yet all can claim that only they are true. But in studying, it made sense. I was especially comfortable with it because it wasn't the sort of "ecumenism" I've run into before (often in the liberal context) which buys peace at the price of denigrating other religions (i.e. all religions are equally true because they're all wrong. or "I can believe in the truth of other religions by assuming mine is mistaken") In other words, my problem wasn't with the idea of all religions being true, but with the simplistic and shallow explanations of that idea. Thank you for your ideas. They are keepers.
  9. Or we could just call it, "Great minds think alike"
  10. YES!! That's exactly where I was. I had wonderfully consistent, logical and well defined categories and ideas that I treated as God, but had lost contact with the living God. You know what helped put me back in perspective? The movies of Kevin Smith Yep, the guy who made Dogma, Clerks and the like. I was reading a review of his new movie "Clerks II" and the reviewer had a line, something like: "The characters spend their time discussing sex and life in such obscene tems both as a way to fight boredom and to deal with the messy and surprising reality of being human." "The messy reality of being human". That phrase hit me right between the eyes and I found my self faced with the contradiction of my life: what I believed and how I lived, the reality of the life around me and the life I was looking at through a filter. From there I began to examine and let go of a lot of my categories and certainties, urgent to push aside all the filters and come face-to-face with that living God, the one Jesus revealed (you remember Jesus, the guy hanging out with the hookers, drunks and criminals!). Smiths' movies keep speaking to me (whether he intended that or not) by celebrating life in all it's woundedness, fallenness and messiness. "Here's life" , they say. And I realize, this is the life, the people, the reality God loves and Jesus died for. Not the clean, well scrubbed (and all too fictional) life of so much conservative theology, but the real one that hits me in the face every day. As Andrew Greeley liked to say: "God writes straight with crooked lines."
  11. Yep, Russ, I think we agree on what's really important. Good words.
  12. Can it all be true? That's a question I'm wrestling with now, growing out of a fairly conservative Christian theology. Best people dealing with this question so far: Huston Smith and Frithjof Schuon. Interestingly they both base it on the exoteric/esoteric distinction. From the exoteric point of view it is right and proper for each religion to claim exclusive truth, because for it's followers, it is and any other mind set would undercut the power and benefit of the religious practice. From the esoteric point of view, all religions grow out of the one Absolute, thus all are true, in a sense. Strange: exclusivity and inclusivity at the same time. Something of a paradox, but it seems to make sense to me (to the extent I've been able to understand it so far) Which is why you can have a meeting of religions where the theologians and ministers are in the main room yelling at each other and the mystics are down at the local bar enjoying each others company.
  13. Thank you Rivanna. I was tempted to continue arguing the point, but realized, it doesn't matter. I think Russ and I are on the same page where it's important: Jesus calling us to live out the Kingdom day-to-day. I don't want to turn into one of those people I dislike: the one's who lose sight of what's important simply to make some debating points (one of my biggest temptations, let me tell you.) How is it Churchill defined a fanatic: "Someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Whatever disagreements Russ and I would have, I think we'll be standing side-by-side when it comes to the question of "What do we do?" I especially like what you've said about the hope for a wide spectrum of beliefs in Progressive Christianity. I don't like conservative groups with a rigid and narrow definition of who's acceptable. I'd like a liberal group with a narrow definition even less!
  14. Yep, a very messy and human process. God seems to like to work through these. (Of course, he's working with us, what choice does he have?). My only disagreement is the conclusion that when a decision was reached, it was a "winners" imposing their opinion on the "losers". You could make the same argument about scientific progress, as the creationists often do: the Darwinians are the "winners" who have imposed their ideology on teh "losers". I would maintain that what is today called "orthodoxy" triumphed because it solved the most problems and questions. The others didn't. Not all the ideas about Christ and God were equal. Just as not all ideas in science are equal. Some solve the problems, others don't. It was a messy process, but that doesn't make it's conclusions inherently false or illicit, any more than the fact that the scientific community accepts evolution as a whole make that conclusion false or illicit (which is a fallacy the creationists refuse to give up )
  15. Got to disagree Russ. The divine status of Jesus was held and taught very early (check Paul's letters, the earliest of which was written within 20 years of the crucifixion then check the early Church Fathers). The same with the Trinity. They aren't human ideas, but human discoveries about God and Jesus that solved problems of understanding that the early church faced. The Councils you mention officially confirm what was already the shared belief of the Christian church community. The leadership wasn't imposing a theology on the people, but stating concisely the theology the people already held. It is often held that somehow the idea of Jesus' humanity/divinity gets in the way of people actually living out the Kingdom values that He taught. I just can't see that. I for one find it easier to follow the Kingdom ethic because it is being taught and represented by someone with divine authority. Otherwise what's left is an ethic which seems counter-intuitive, counter-commonsense and counter-survival. Taught by a guy whose teachings just got Him killed. Not much of a recommendation as far as I'm concerned. The teachings of Jesus have a certain "sentimental" attraction to our society, but aren't followed very closely, you are right about that. And I agree, the following of these teachings, the living of the Kingdom, not just nice words about Jesus and God, is what is paramount. What has allowed the church to make societal changes throughout history has been the fact that the rabbi we follow doesn't just speak with the words of a good and reasonable man, but with the authority of God. That means He isn't just another guy with an agenda, not different than you or me, but someone, Who when He says "love your neighbor", "pray for your enemies", "turn the other cheek", etc. has the authority to testify that these commands are the best way to live. But without the authority which the Man/God Jesus holds and the supernatural help offered by the Holy Spirit, following those teachings are not only difficult, but nonsensical. Without the Resurrection, you have a prophet Who taught very unusual stuff, got killed for it and Who (if He wasn't divine) was seriously misunderstood for the next 2000 years. I couldn't agree more. If I had to make a choice (although I don't think I do) I would prefer to see someone who doesn't believe in Jesus' divinity following the way of the Kingdom over someone who does believe and doesn't follow. But I don't think it has to be one or the other. And I will certainly be more willing to stand and work with the first person than the second.
  16. Very wise. The only caveat I would put on Point 6 is this: I am absolutely certain that I am loved by a personal, loving, passionate God. I have no doubt about any of that. What that means in all the chaos of my life and world I'm learning little by little. The above quote from the scholars explains why so many people don't worship a living God, but a straw man, a limited God, a set of characteristics or rules or ideas which can be easily manipulated and controlled. We cannot control God. To the extent that we think we can, what we are controlling can't be God. But the history of religion is of the offer of freedom and love being turned into Law, Rules, Philosophy, Ideology, you name it. We are more comfortable with those things. They fit our expectations, rest easily in our little boxes and don't challenge our categories. But the real Yahweh . . .! "The Spirit blows whither S/He will . . . " And who was it in the Bible who said "It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God!"?
  17. My wife (a professional counselor) gave me a key concept: one of the ways we know someone is healthy is if they have strong and appropriate boundaries. In other words: s/he knows the difference between hirself and others. That is one of the greatest problems in dealing with differences: realizing the extent to which the differences of others are none of our business and something in which we shouldn't poke our noses uninvited. Too many churches foster a "false intimacy" which is often just an excuse for dumping judgements on others. If someone isn't hurting me directly and I have been informed (one way or another) that the person doesn't want my interference, then I should just butt out! Pray for that person, give them the same loving regard I would to anyone, the type I would want for myself, but give them their space. Part of loving anyone is to also respect them.
  18. You miss my point, David. If Jesus was just a man who wound up getting killed for all his trouble, then his story is just another case of injustice. But if Jesus was God incarnate, come to be one of us, to save us, to heal us . . . then that's the story I want to hear and that's the man I want to follow. The traditional way of seeing the atonement may not be right . . . or it might be. We will find out eventually. But the argument I will not tolerate is to see Jesus as a "nice guy" some sort of only human prophet who came to say nice words and got killed for it. That's not enough. As for all the things you say about Paul and the Spirit, you really don't understand. I am not just a rationalistic theology machine. I pray, I offer my prayers to God and wait for answers . . . and I get them. But both sides are important: Word and Spirit, prayer and theology (as you have acknowledged when you use Scriptural references in your posting). As for my ways of talking about God, that's between He and I, as you say. You might not speak about Him that way, but He's my Daddy and He understands what I mean. Who Jesus is and was is a serious issue to me. I can't ignore what the Bible teaches, I have to deal with it, to wrestle with it. Remember the story of Israel wrestling with an angel of the Lord all night? That is the model of the spiritual life: a wrestling with Word and Spirit.
  19. If I may, let me jump in here. Not that I have much to offer in the terms of substantive debate, I don't. But this whole issue of homosexuality is one that I'm dealing with as I go through a paradigm shift which seems to be taking the social/political expression of my faith from a conservative place to a more liberal one. First, a resource suggestion: The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Robert Gagnon, a New Testament scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary. His arguments deal with Scriptural, social and cultural issues. No matter what side you are on, if you are not aware of his work and this book, you are out of touch with the present debate. He also has an excellent website of articles (don't have the address onhand, you could google it) Now my problem: I know all the arguments on both sides backwards and forwards (I was hip deep in the debate in the Episcopal Church in 2003). I saw excellent reasons to object to approving of homosexuality, both Scriptural and social. Now . . . I'm having doubts. Why? Because someone came in with some great arguments? No. Because I am beginning to feel the pain of the gays and lesbians in our society and am wondering if it is justified. Is this what being a Christian is about: holding up rules that are only causing pain and suffering? Holding to a line on homosexuality that, in practice, the church doesn't hold for so many other things (war, greed, lust, hey, look at the statistics for how Christians really live). Is this what Christ would want? Does it really matter to Him? Should it really matter to me? The social question of "How should we treat homosexuals?" is easy (even though I overlooked this key for so long): Do Unto Others What You Would Have Others Do Unto You. D'uhh, right? If I want freedom, I must give it. If I want people to stay out of my sex life, I must stay out of others. If I don't want to be hurt or discriminated against on issues that are irrelevant (what does sexuality matter in 99% of jobs?) then I can't do that to others. Simple . . . now. As to the religious issue, I keep thinking of the story of the woman taken in adultery (somewhere in John). The crowd wanted to stone her, Jesus said "He who is without sin . . . ". She lived, uncondemned. Now get this: the crowd was right, Jesus was wrong!. By all measures of Law and society (what does it do to society to let sinners run around free?) they were right and he was wrong. They had logic, Law, society, etc. on their side. What did He have? 1) Compassion 2) He's the Son of God That story sticks with me. Yes the conservatives can wield all these laws, traditions, Scriptural authority, etc. What have I got to hold up to that? My heart and the example of my rabbi and . . . maybe the Holy Spirit (who's always blowing wither He will, darn it) See where I'm at? I don't need the rules and arguments and debates, I know all of them and got the scars. Maybe too many scars have made my heart hard. Maybe I jumped on board a certain side out of a love of debate and argument and logic and authority and not enough compassion, love and empathy.
  20. But then it wouldn't have been God on the cross and that's important. If it was just God-in-the-sky putting requiring some schmuck to die, then to hell with Him. But if it was Yahweh Himself coming and suffering and dying and thus uniting the divine and the human in a way which would change the world . . . ahh, that's different. And Jesus didn't have all the powers of God. Where does Paul say: "He was equal with God but didn't find equality something to grasp onto?" (rough quote from memory). The Son of God emptied Himself to become one of us. He wasn't like Superman dressing up like Clark Kent. As for the rest of your argument, I'm a little troubled. Yes, you may hear the Spirit and have all the gifts that Paul lists, but not all of us are so "blessed". Some of us are just muddling through (which, if I am reading the Bible correctly, is how just about everyone does it). Jesus' words do matter and Who He was. The world is full of good words and wise wo/men. Has been for a long time. So what? What has drawn me to Christ is something different, that God so loved us as to become one of us, to close that gap that has been between us and Him for so long. Think of that: God-as-Lover. Not in some theoretical and "spiritual" way but in such a way as to have God-in-flesh. God didn't remain up in heaven, too holy to be with us. He joined us here in this messy, sloppy, crazy world. He could have just washed His hands of the whole thing, or remained aloof and apart. But He didn't. Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection has changed the world, heck, changed the universe and changed my life. How exactly does that work? Example or bloody atonement? I don't know, I can see advantages to all the different theories and I'm willing to bet that it's more than just one. But I also don't really care. He saved me, He loves me, I'll follow Him in my flawed, sloppy, imperfect way. Along with the whole crazy caravan of misfits that we call the church. Yeah, maybe I don't have all the gifts of the Spirit. Maybe my life is hardly the example of Christian perfection that I'm called to. Maybe I'm just another one of the vast group of losers and disappointments who calls Jesus "friend" But . . . I have been invited to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb while many who are "better" than me have left their invitations sitting on the kitchen counter unopened. That is what is key. That is what matters. That I will sit with friends and strangers at the Banquet at the End of Time. Hey, gifts and ethics and doing nice things are important, but if that's all there is to being a Christian, there are easier ways. I want that seat at the Table.
  21. Of course. I focused on Jesus because this was a discussion of Progressive Christianity. And you are right, you don't have to offer people a dogma they can't accept, but IMHO you do have to offer them something greater than themselves, than their own opinions and ideas, something beyond themselves. You may have to pull them out of their comfort zones and into a new way of seeing things. I can certainly undrstand that. My experience with my local UU church was of a group of aging leftist intellectuals who met every Sunday to talk politics. And they wondered why their fellowship was dying.
  22. 1) You might try a house church, which seems to be where you're headed. I doubt you can do the "from the top down thing" you'll just find a lot of people whose attitude will be: who are you to tell me what to do/believe/think? Check out House Church Central for folks who have been doing it for a while. House churches are very controversial now, especially among more conservative folks who see it as a threat to large churches and denominations. 2) I'm afraid you've set yourself up to fail for the simple reason that it looks like you won't be dealing with/teaching/worshipping/etc. anything bigger than your own set of opinions and ideas. It may attract a few folks who like the novelty, but ultimately they won't feel themselves bound to give/serve/participate/get-up-on-Sunday because the thing that urges them to do so (their own tastes and opinions) will be the same things that eventually will urge them to sleep in. It's one reason why the mainstream denominations are in trouble: there's such rhetoric about how Christianity is not better than any other religion, you can get saved without it, you are the guide to your own life, etc. that a lot of folks wind up saying: "Why bother?" 3) Jesus formed his church by challenging and offering an adventure, not by trying to find out what would make the most people happy. You like the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar, fine. He makes a great intellectual study. But most people wouldn't follow him to the corner grocery. Why do you think so many of the conservative churches are growing? Because people like being told what they can't do? No. Because they are convinced they are on a pilgrimage of otherworldly adventure and wonder. Why do you think Lord of the Rings and Narnia were so popular among Christians? Especially conservative ones? Because it's how they see their lives. For these people Jesus isn't a curious and pleasant wandering sage with a good line to be deconstructed. He's a lion, a wizard, a wonder worker, a king. He's Arthur, Aragorn, Aslan. He's eminently and wonderously attractive. 4) If Progressive Christianity is to be more than a plaything of bored liberals (and I think it can be, there's a lot of power in those 8 points), you have to have a Jesus people are willing to follow. Not just one that can get them out of bed on Sunday for a lecture, but one who can get them on the picket line, in the voting booth, in the soup kitchen, opening their homes to the poor, opening their pocket books for the needy, raising their voices against injustice, standing side-by-side with the gay, the black, the single mother, the illegal immigrant. Historic or not, the Jesus of the gospels is that Jesus. You can take Him apart all you wish, but all you'll be left with is a bunch of academic papers and empty churches. And if Progressive Christianity can't get people to go out and follow Christ (with all the pain and challenge and trouble that will entail), then it's just a liberal discussion group and will fade away . . . justifiably If you can't challenge people, urge them to reach beyond themselves, to push their envelopes, to give them wonder and awe and majesty, then don't even bother. Logic, rationality and high academic standards are nice (and I don't want to have anything to do with a church without them) but it's not enough on which to build a life.
  23. It would change everything for me. 1) It would make the world uglier. Here was Jesus a great guy who spoke beautiful words and god killed for it. After which his message and life were totally misunderstood and twisted. Mmm, yep, nice guys finish last. 2) God remains the abstract glowing cloud in the sky. If Jesus, the Son of God (i.e. God) incarnated and suffered and died, it was because He loved us enough to want to be with us, to share our lives, our pain, our dangers, our joys. If He couldn't be bothered to do that, if He is the abstract, uncaring "First Principle" in the sky, then I have no use for Him. 3) If Jesus wasn't the God Who came to be one of us, then His words have no more authority than that they are "nice" and sentimentally attractive. But if they are the words of just another wandering philosopher . . . so what? Others have said most of the same things, but He was stupid enough to get Himself killed. Yep, I want the sacrificial Jesus Who loves and cares enough about me, about all of us (Christian or not) to want to be here with us, no matter the danger.
  24. This is so well put I had to quote it completely. That is what differs a living faith from dry and dead legalism. We don't follow Paul slavishly, but we do pay attention to what he did and how he dealt with the issues he faced. Modern New Testament studies show that Paul wasn't a systematic theologian, but was a pastor and church founder dealing with specific issues and problems as he came upon them. I especially appreciate your refusing to toss Paul in the dumpster (as so many do) simply because it can be difficult to blend the different parts of the NT into a nice, systematic whole. It's a living document which was formed over time in a living process, not a well planned out book by one author. Do I think it's inspired and the Word of God? Yep, but as the Old Testament shows in the messiness of God's dealings with the Hebrews, even inspiration can be an uneven process.
  25. Thank you for your gracious and kind words.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service