fatherman

The New Oxford is currently my favorite, especially when I want to read the most accurant, non-biased translation. If I'm looking for beauty and poetics, I put it down though.

Thank you, Jesus. I will be pondering these words in private. Jen, I appreciate the clarity of mind it took for you to facilitate that.

Questions for Jesus: 1.) How did you come to know Jen in this way? 2.) What did you mean when you said

I agree, Lolly. I equate the losing of self/ego to the Christian notion of dying and being born again. Surrender is especially hard when you've been taught to raise the intellect higher than any other human attribute. Intellect is a great gift from God, but it can also be likened to the Tree of Knowledge. It is what creates the illusion of separation. At least for a little time every day, I try to surrender the ego and the intellect if only to remind myself that I'm not just a walking brain.

Canajeh, I found your post to be fascinating. I like the idea of mindfullness and self-examination as a practice (very Buddhist, but very Christian as well). Have you ever considered yourself to be a mystic? You ought to check out this forum as well Christian Mystics. Fatherman

I suppose another issue is that progressives and conservatives both call themselves Christians. So, how do you interfaith? Conservatives often refer to other denominations as different religions (or was that just in high school...."What religion are you?" "Well, I'm Christian", "No, I mean what church do you go to?" "Oh, Presbyterian, but that the same religion" ) Is it? Is it the same religion? Perhaps we should come up with a new name ("Christies", "Christers", "Christites", )

My wife came from Free-Will Baptist (conservative) and I came from Presbyterian (moderate). I've had quite a lot of positive dialogue with conservative Christians (Church of Christ, Non-denom, Catholic, Baptist) over the last few years. The most helpful dialogue tools that I've used is 1.) finding a common language and 2.) finding a common ground. Progressive, Evangelical, Mystic, and Catholic Christians each speak with a different jargon. It struck me as interesting that one definition given for 'jargon' is : We are very attached to our words, but if we give a little we will quickly find common ground. We basically say the same things, but we tend to get hung up on terms like "saved", "born again", "cleansed in the blood of the lamb", "repentance", "evil","sin", etc Common Ground. For me, the common ground is usually in talking about the Holy Spirit. I've also managed to find common ground in talking about Grace, Salvation (sometimes), Forgiveness, Surrender, Love, Compassion (all the good core stuff). It's the more political issues that are more difficult to talk about (abortion, homosexuallity, school prayer) or who receives salvation that are trickier. In those cases I prefer to listen more than I speak (I find that very valuable). Once they see that I don't have a "watered down" faith, that I read the Bible, and that I'm not going to try to shove anything down their throat they are usually very receptive (and a little surprised!)

I suppose we need a champion....someone who articulates progressive Christian values without betraying them and in a way that captures the hearts and minds of Americans.

My knee-jerk response is this: I hear this kind of talk a lot; unfortunately, I don't think it works that way. Just who are we articulating our values to? Other Christians? Non-Christians? Politicians? Other Christians know what they believe already. Non-Christians are the minority. Politicians are elected by the people. The vote says it all. The majority of Americans support so-called "traditional" values. People aren't confused about their own Christian values. True, Democrats could run a better campaign, but we are truly experiencing a cultural struggle. After giving it some thought, though, I think progressives have their own cultural struggle that is hindering the proliferation of progressive values. 1.) As a whole, we don't feel comfortable with evangelism. We wish that more people believed what we believed, but it goes too much against our belief in pluralism to try to make it a reality. 2.) We feel anger, frustration, and contempt, but we don't feel comfortable using it to sway the minds of other Americans, because it goes against our values of peace, love, and compassion. 3.) We don't see the world as black and white. Black and white is much easier to articulate and much easier to grasp (sells better). I also have another comment on this issue (as if it weren't already complicated enough). We are willing to see folks of other religions and value systems as friendly neighbors who deserve our respect and acceptance, yet we see our own Christian brothers and sisters as enemies. I suppose this is true of families in general, but I see it as incompatible with progressive Christian values and the 8 points (see points 2 and 5). (Boy, that sounded awfully dogmatic!) There is reason to hope, though. What we are seeing with conservative Christian political forces is their first solid grasp of power. As soon as they are seen as a part of the power structure, their power will be challenged. The Universe has a way of bringing balance.

I, too, have never heard a strong answer to this question from a fundamentalist. What I usually hear is "There may be grammatical and syntactical errors, but if you read it it's obvious what the writer (God) means." I watched an interesting debate on Larry King Live late on Christmas Eve. There were theologians of call all sorts (including Deepak Chopra) speculating about the Christmas story. The fundamentalist rebuked the liberal Episcipalian by saying, "If the Bible isn't fact, it isn't true." Ironically, he rebuked the liberal Jew's assertion that "the phone book is factual but contains no truth" with "The Bible is not just a bunch of facts!...it contains the Truth. Inerrancy is it's claim!". Someone started to ask, "Which book in the Bible claims that all of the others are inerrant?" The good thing about a Fundamentalist approach to the Bible is that because they go only to the Bible for the Word of God, they go very deep into it. They, like Jesus, meditate on it, pray on it, memorize it, breathe it. We are Christians. The Bible is our holy scripture. We should know it regardless of how we view it. I'm sure you would agree, BrotherRog.

I'm often fascinated by interpretations of the Bible from a non-western, non-christian perspective (especially considering that Jesus was neither Western or Christian). The following excerpt from Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda gives an interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion that is at least interesting (if not mindblowing). It fits in with the "Atonement" category. Yogananda is narrating a story about his guru and how he healed many of his disciples during a period of illness. He breaks from the story to explain how and uses Jesus as a prime example. I often think of this before dismissing the notion that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world (or his disciples).

Merry Christmas to you, too! This is bizarre. I almost posted the exact same thing. I'm glad someone did!

I'm entirely too fond of dictionaries! Let's step back for a moment. This is a very politically and emotionally charged issue because we all have a deep desire that everyone be welcome. It's possible that a religion can welcome every person, but it is not feasible for a religion to consist of every belief. It would be truly meaningless. Let's drop the word "boundaries". I'm not talking about walls that keep people out or separated. If someone entirely foreign to Christianity (also illiterate) asked you to introduce the religion to him. What would you say?

Another core Christian practice is Worship. There's another challenging one. One of the things that we all have in common here is that we are willing to evaluate the bedrock of the Christian faith, so the basics like worship, prayer, and scripture get a good looking over from time to time (or even constantly). Do we worship God, Jesus, anything, anybody? Is worship even appropriate? Sure, their's "worship services", but are they really supposed to be for worshipping? My thoughts: God does not need worship. God does not need. We need. We need to behold something (anything!) with Awe and Wonder and be filled with Gratitude for it. It nourishes the soul. How do we do that in a typical Sunday morning service? If we're lucky, we have leadership that is skilled at guiding the congregation into an environment that is at least conducive to it. Ultimately, though, it is up to the worshipper. It doesn't work very well if we spend the whole week with no sense of awe, wonder, or gratitude. The worship service can be a culminative (new word?), corporate expression of worship for the preceding week's living as well as a tone-setter for the week of living to come. This is something that Evangelical Christians do very well. We (progressives) are often hindered by our own inner philosophical/theological/christological/cosmological debates to the point that we just don't know what to do.

Prayer is one of the most fundamental Christian practices. I think that is why every one of us here has probably spent considerable time trying to come to terms with it. My views on prayer have shifted several times. Looking back, I believe each approach has been valid and worthwhile. I've had a dilemma with prayer that is similar to yours, Aletheia, but I get to it differently. I believe in divine intervention/participation, but I don't believe I yet have the wisdom to know what intervention to pray for. I'm probably in the minority here, but I believe that when we tune ourselves to God we add momentum or a spin to God's will. Working with God, our prayer can cause change in the world. When we choose to do this, though, we are also choosing to take some responsibility in the outcome. But if we have not yet tuned ourselves fully to the Wisdom of God, the outcome can become disastrous. So....that leaves me where you are. If prayer isn't asking for what we want, what then is it? My personal approach to prayer these days is to become calm through meditation, hold the person in my mind, kindle love in my heart for them, surround them in love or light, ask that their highest need be met, then let them go. Interestingly enough, it actually seems to work (theorize all you will about how).

BeachofEden, Thank you for this post. You may or may not be responding to my use of the word "cult" in reference to the Self-Realization Fellowship. I did not mean it as an attack on SRF. It, as does my own Kriya community, has many qualities of a cult. Cult, as in ... Given the way cult has been used, it was innappropriate of me to use it. My apologies to any SRFers out there. You have my utmost respect. My only complaint is that SRF has used legal litigation to invalidate other non-SRF kriya communities.

A couple years ago, I read the Dalai Lama's book How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life. I was fascinated by the notion that a religion could be as much or more about practice than belief. I was led to ask the question, "How do I practice Christianity?". I was disappointed to discover that my list of practices was significantly shorter and less frequently practiced than that of the Dalai Lama (imagine that! . ). I've spent my time since exploring traditional and non-traditional ways of practicing Christianity. How do we, as progressive Christians, practice Christianity?

LOL!! I practice a form of meditation called Kriya Yoga. The "official" organization of Kriya in the U.S. is SRF (Self Realization Fellowship) to which I am not associated. SRF practices Kriya as a religion (or cult), but the original purpose was to enrich your chosen faith. It is not something that you can teach yourself. It requires instruction and initiations from a guru or an initiated teacher (for free or with a donation). The details of the practice are only discussed with fellow initiates. This is not to be exclusive, but to insure that the practice is preserved in its most original state. It has been passed down this way for centuries (or millenia) from teacher to student. A Kriya yogi/practitioner is called a Kriyaban. Paramahamsa Yogandanda is responsible for bringing the practice to the U.S. He was best known for his book "Autobiography of a Yogi"

awww chucks....

~ AletheiaRivers I agree. I sometimes use it for myself because no other word I would use has any meaning to most folks. If I called myself a Kriyaban Christian I'm afraid I would only confuse people.

Can you share a little more on the historical complaint. This is still new territory for me. Please reveal the "logic" here. It is not obvious to me.

PantaRhea, I always a appreciate your thoughtful and exhuberant posts! I would like to make a comment given that the focus of the thread is on theological boundaries (of Christianity I assume). A religion, by nature, has boundaries. Love, by nature, is boundless (as you have beautifully stated). Our hope, as progressive Christians, is that all people who wish it will be unconditionally included in our Christian communities. The question I would like to us to address is (and it's and admittedly loaded question): is every theological position that a self-identified Christian hold a Christian belief? I'll admit that some positions/beliefs that I hold are not Christian beliefs, but I still call myself Christian. My second question is: Is there any single belief that I must hold to call myself a Christian? I'll say that I believe no one here including myself has the right to judge whether or not a self-identified Christian is truly a Christian or not (we'll leave that to the conservatives). But for the sake of discussion....

BeachofEden, I'll be 32 in January. I think Jeep is 85 (I read his profile once). All, I wrote a little bit about myself in my profile a while back. The only thing that's really changed is that I no longer attend the TCPC UMC church. Their Christian Ed program was not what we wanted for our kids, so we joined the big mainstream UMC in our city (Norman, Oklahoma). We love our new church, but it's is an adjustment. There is a much larger spectrum in belief at this church. My wife and I are growing from the challenge of worshipping with liberals, moderates, and conservatives alike. I've used the handle of "fatherman" for years. It doesn't have any theological meaning. It comes from a book that I read when my wife and I were expecting our first child: Pregnant Fathers. In the book, the term was intended to encourage men to redefine fatherhood for themselves as an integral part of their manhood. It just kind of stuck with me. I've been on this forum since before the new forum went up (since maybe 2001 or so?). It's too bad we lost all that good archive material. Beautiful and wise things have been written here. Peace, Fatherman

Welcome, RevsBox. I invite you to consider reading the TCPC mission statement and the TCPC 8 Points before you continue. You are not likely to convert many folks here to your conservative viewpoints. God Bless you and happy posting.

BrotherRog, Thank you for those excellent resources. I'm reminded that one of the central messages of this season is 'humility'. Here are some more thoughts on Advent/Birth of Christ We must make our hearts like the manger. Humble in stature Filled with Love like Mary’s and Mercy like Joseph’s We must be like the Wise men. Following the star Leaving our land of comfort Bearing our precious gift We must be like the Servant shepherds. Listening to the angel song Hearing the invitation When Wisdom meets Service in a Humble Heart that is filled with Love and Mercy, Christ is born. Offer your gift. Kneel before him. Receive Peace on Earth.