Common Sense Christianity

[minsocal]

From Ross:

 

"I have by now dismissed as wrong the beliefs of a vast number of Christians. But please note: I have not said that these beliefs are unchristian. All too often, lacking the charity and wisdom of him whom we call the Christ, we have labeled as unchristian those who do not believe as we do. We call into question the faith of those who do not follow with us, those who do not echo our particular doctrinal line. But it is very evident in the lives of those around us that there is no necessary connection between believing correct doctrine and living a life of faith. You know as well as I do that the two cannot be equated."

 

This is a statement that could reasonably be "called into question". It is part of why I wanted to bow out earlier in the thread. There is a pattern to 'postemodern' academia that surfaces here. In the first sentence, Ross has "dismissed as wrong" something unrelated to truth conditions. Had he simply said "This is what I believe ...", it would have been much better. He leaves me confused. Has he "dismissed as wrong" any of my beliefs? He does follow with a good point, that is certainly to his credit, but he places himself on an unequal footing with those of different views first.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"Thus it is our faith that informs us that the most important goals in life are to love God and to love other people as Ourselves. It is our faith that tells us that right relationship with others is more important than personal gain, and that honesty, integrity and kindness are more important than comfort, pleasure and wealth. These and similar presuppositions are obviously of crucial importance in determining our actions and our other beliefs."

 

This is what I like about Chapter 8. I have always felt that where our faith leads us is more important than squabbling about theological details. it is why I can be such good friends with an evangelical, and I would never say the Mormon thing in the way Ross did. When I read the Book of Mormon, I didn't find anything that would add to my faith, but I agree with Ross wholeheartedly that Mormonism can teach people to love God and love their neighbors.

 

By the way, I am leaving for a famiy reunion tomorrow, so won't be posting for awhile.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Thanks for waiting for me. Are we ready to go on?

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Does anyone have any more comments on Chapter 8? Or are we ready to proceed to Chapter 9? I read it and was a bit surprised, and am thinking about my response before I reply. The title Christ meant something different to me than to Ross. I hope Ross can help me reclaim it, because right now I rarely use it.

[JosephM]

Janet and All,

Chapter 9

As for the author Christ to me is not a proper name but a title. The title Christ to me brings me back from the Greek word Christos to the Greek word of Chrio which is often translated anointing which infers to me (anointing of God) and akin to the word chraomai through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil. To me, Christ is as a smearing together with God as in direct contact. To be in Christ is to me to be connected to the presence of God. So when I look at it as a title it was Jesus, the Christ or Jesus the connected with God. Having said that, in my experience Christ is that Oneness of God that Jesus is recorded speaking of in John where he said he was One with the Father and that we also could be One even as he was One. (that they may be one, even as we are one John 17:22 (KJV))

 

Just a view to consider from my experience.

 

Joseph

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Joseph,

 

I could go with that interpretation of the term "Christ." I knew it meant annointed, but in Paul's letters, he uses "in Christ" a lot, when referring to justification through salvation. I agree with Ross that requiring Jesus' death to pay for our sins in order to forgive us does not paint a picture of a God that is supreme. In fact, there are several instances in the OT, where God forgives without sacrifice (the town of Ninevah in Jonah). I don't personally believe that Jesus was the Messiah, long expected by the Jews, even though a lot of work was done in the writing of the Bible to tie them together.

 

I don't understand Ross' dismissal of the term "Lord." If one decides to put God first in their life, and they believe their clearest picture of God comes through Jesus, they have chosen to submit, as if to a Lord. Putting aside their own selfish desires, they willingly obey the teachings of Jesus that will help them reflect God's glory.

 

I think "Son of Man" is the title Jesus used most often of himself, but it is the most cryptic.

 

I don't mind calling Jesus "Savior," since the risen Jesus has helped to set me free from many destructive patterns of behavior and thinking. However, others think I am talking about something else (an exclusive way to heaven), so I avoid that title in public.

 

For me the risen spirit of Jesus is a cherished teacher and guide and friend. Jesus' example of pure LOVE is the Way and the Truth and the Life for me. Interesting that those titles were ignored by Ross.

 

Other thoughts?

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

(snip)

I don't understand Ross' dismissal of the term "Lord." If one decides to put God first in their life, and they believe their clearest picture of God comes through Jesus, they have chosen to submit, as if to a Lord. Putting aside their own selfish desires, they willingly obey the teachings of Jesus that will help them reflect God's glory.

(snip)

 

Janet,

 

Submitting to another as a master, authority, teacher, or such as the term "Lord" in the NT may mean even to the "putting aside of ones selfish desires to willingly obey the teachings of Jesus" indeed has a show of wisdom. But to me, God's glory is not reflected in this but rather in the anointing of God in Christ whereby the divine nature works through us rather than us following a teaching or ordinance or law. Perhaps, as in my experience, the teachings of Jesus point us to something that when apprehended replaces the teachings with the divine nature that is the glory of God found in Christ. Perhaps, this is what Ross' dismissal of the term "Lord" was about. I don't know for sure as I can't speak for him. I think Paul said it well when it is recorded he said...

 

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. Col 2:20-23 (KJV)

 

Perhaps my words above may be a bit confusing to many but I see God's glory not as an act of man willfully obeying the teachings of a man or Lord no matter how wonderful those teachings but rather as an extension of God's presence working in and through creation which may in the physical mimic a teaching yet is not the same as obeying a teaching.

 

Just a view to consider,

Joseph

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I like it! Thanks for the reply!

[jerryb]

Bill and Joseph,

 

With a degree in philosophy, I'm confident that Ross is well aware of Whitehead and his views on change. Briefly, Whitehead agrees that change is inevitable and usually desireable. Whitehead adds that there will be those whose ideas are not yet ready for a new era, but these views lay a foundation for others who will take them into the future at the appropriate time. Whitehead agrees that we need to "honor" the past in the sense that the past contains the work of those who moved us into the future. To paraphrase Whitehead, "that which was important becomes trivial, and that which was trival becomes important." At times, Whitehead becomes almost poetic. He describes a God that "tenderly intervenes" at those moments of transition from one age to the next. He also describes the teachings of Jesus as a "light that has flickered uncertainly down through the ages". I take this to mean that Jesus captured that which was important from the past and provided the groundwork for generations to come. From a psychological perspective, I fully agree.

 

My own views align farily well with Ross. I am in agreement with the poet Robert Bly in that what is true "wisdom" will pass from one generation to the next. Like Whitehead, he is saying that we cannot destroy all of the past, only that which no longer applies. Where I differ from many on this board is in the value of inherited characteristics passed on from generation to generation by our DNA. Antonio Damasio, a highly regarded neuroscientist, sees "wisdom" in the very structure and function of the evolved human brain. This is exactly what Jung claimed.

 

In the end, it is a matter of balance and patience. As John Searle has noted, these days we just have to know a lot more to keep up.

 

Myron

 

 

Greetings myron,

 

I was hooked on the study of this book when I read this statement in the introduction: " This common sense does not remain static. It changes from age to age and from culture to culture."

 

If we present-day 'seekers' could really embrace that statement,it would drastically change our dialouge with each other,and our attitudes about spirituality.

 

 

blessings,

jerryb

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Welcome to the discussion, Jerry! There are many statements in this book that have stuck out for me and caused me to think. The one you've quoted is a new way of thinking for many. So, do you want to take time to share your thoughts on Chapters 1-8 as you have time?

[rivanna]

I agree with Ross’ chapter 8, especially on this point:

“Faith includes trust. It is an attitude, a way of relating to people and to the world, a basic orientation that cannot be adequately captured in any group of statements….we can disagree on doctrines and still share this faith. What matters most is the centrality of the Christ in our lives, not the doctrine with which we explain this centrality.”

 

Chapter 9, on the various titles, reminded me of Spong’s This Hebrew Lord: “Jesus was human, finite, limited; Christ is power that is divine, infinite, unlimited. Jesus was of history, Christ is beyond history. To be in this Christ is to come alive, to dare to love, to dare to be, to escape the bondage of our selves, to escape our estrangement. In Jesus of Nazareth, men and women saw the fullness of life being lived, the depth of love being shared, the courage to be revealed. He revealed God, and whenever God is seen in human life, that power is called Christ.”

[jerryb]

Welcome to the discussion, Jerry! There are many statements in this book that have stuck out for me and caused me to think. The one you've quoted is a new way of thinking for many. So, do you want to take time to share your thoughts on Chapters 1-8 as you have time?

 

 

 

Greetings All.....,

 

 

Yes, I am interested in joining the discussion. I welcome the message that I see arising from this book,and look forward to your thoughts and insights.

 

blessings,

 

jerry

[glintofpewter]

Hi,

 

Thought I'd jump right in.

 

Dutch

 

4.

"For another thing, those who did look for the Messiah expected a very different kind of person than Jesus of Nazareth."

 

One analysis of the Gospel texts concludes that Jesus did see himself as the Messiah who would overthrow the oppressors. In time Jesus came to understand that his call was to a different path.

 

 

5. "When I say that Jesus is the Christ, I mean to claim that this person is the one through whom we as Christians focus our understanding and our faith. - - -"

 

I label myself as Christian because that is my heritage, but these days I am not comfortable with "Jesus the Christ." Jesus was. He started with one idea about his ministry, Messiahship, and was changed by that ministry and the people he met, then he showed us "the way of the cross." What does that mean to me? I am looking.

 

(In "Lamb, the Gospel according to Biff," by C. Moore, Biff claims to know Jesus's middle name as in Jesus H. Christ.)

 

Peace

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Welcome, everyone, and thanks for your insights, rivanna. I think Spong put that very well.

 

Let's read Chapter 10 and comment on it, okay?

[glintofpewter]

But if we cannot locate the sacred in particular places or objects outside of us

 

Isn't everything, every experience, potentially sacred if we open ourselves to the in-breaking of the divine?

 

Jesus lived in such a way as to allow God, who is always striving for the actualization of certain goals, to achieve self-revelation.

 

Seems like a good description of process theology's understanding of what takes place in the life of Jesus, whose life is a model for how we encounter the Divine and complete God.

[rivanna]

Ross’ chapter 10 seems to revolve around the concept of Jesus as the Truth: “We are saying that these insights of Jesus of Nazareth are the Truth, and that by this Truth we define the purpose and meaning of our own lives.”

 

The only part that confuses me a little - which is perhaps the same point Glintofpewter refers to - is where he distinguishes between the divine and the sacred-- “choosing to follow Jesus, someone for whom we claim neither divinity nor infallibility” yet he affirms the function of Christ as sacred (if I read it correctly).

 

To me Paul Tillich speaks more profoundly on the subject of truth – an example:

 

“When Pilate the cynic asks Jesus. ‘What is truth?’ he means the truth that matters, that makes us free. Certainly there is no freedom where there is self-complacency about the truth of one’s own beliefs. There is no freedom where there is fanatical rejection of other ideas and ways of life. There is no freedom when one’s own truth is called the ultimate truth.

 

When Jesus says, ‘I am the truth,’ he indicates that in Him the ultimate reality is present; that God is present, unveiled in his infinite depth and mystery. Jesus is not the truth because his teachings are true. But his teachings are true because they express the truth which his life is, more than his words and more than any word said about him. The truth which makes us free is neither the teaching of Jesus nor the teaching about Jesus. They point to the truth, but they are not a law of truth. Distrust every claim for truth where you do not see truth united with love.

 

How do we reach this truth? By participating in his being. The truth which liberates is the power of love, for God is love, liberating us from our false self to our true self which is grounded in ultimate reality.”

[JosephM]

Hi Rivanna,

 

Thanks for sharing that quote of Paul Tillich. I have never read his book but the quote seems to me to be very profound indeed.

 

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

Rivana wrote

How do we reach this truth? By participating in his being.

First - my former pastor kept saying I should read Tillich. Maybe he was right.

 

what do you mean "by participating in his being?"

In the book

Jesus lived in such a way as to allow God, who is always striving for the actualization of certain goals, to achieve self-revelation.

This seems to say that God "needed" Jesus's actions so that God could reveal God's self.

Does our participation in [God's] being allow God to continually reveal God's self.

 

 

 

Dutch

[rivanna]

Not sure I understand your second question, but you can read most of Tillich’s work at religion-online.org. That excerpt on truth was from chapter 8 of The New Being.

 

It seems like Ross develops three aspects of Jesus as “the answer” to the deepest questions about life’s meaning and purpose, without defining him as divine or perfect or atonement for sin or God intervening in the world. I haven’t read enough of Tillich to know whether they’d be in agreement on this.

 

One thing that struck me is the way this passage from chapter 10 goes beyond Christianity as “common sense” toward what Marcus Borg called “radical wisdom”--

“We are making the audacious and even outrageous claim that the essential nature of God is love, that loving God and loving one’s neighbor as oneself are the basis for all right action, that returning love for hate and forgiveness for injury is a greater victory than vengeance or conquest, and that giving of oneself for others is the highest achievement.”

[glintofpewter]

What if we substituted I/me?

I [Jesus] lived in such a way as to allow God, who is always striving for the actualization of certain goals, to achieve self-revelation.

 

Dutch

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Sorry, Guys! I have been gone again (to a funeral/family reunion)! If I keep leaving, we'll never get through this book!

 

My questions as I ponder Chapter 10 again are:

 

Do you agree that the search for meaning is the most important focus of the sacred today? My church group had a discussion about the search for meaning about a month ago, and it has become a topic that fascinates me. I can't remember the source, but one idea intrigued me: Meaning is a combination of finding connection with other people and finding a way to live on after we die. Jesus gives us meaningful connection with other people, and working toward His kingdom is something we can collectively do, which will be carried on after we die.

 

"But the sacred is not entirely within us. It is rather in the focus-giving relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and us who are Christians, in the role that he plays for us, that makes him the Christ." I know some on this forum believe the sacred IS entirely within us. Did that quote bother you?

[glintofpewter]

Do you agree that the search for meaning is the most important focus of the sacred today?

I think that experiencing sacred moments should be the focus of my life.

 

 

Ross made Jesus the subject of the sentence but I think we might strive to be the subject of the sentence.

 

I want to be like Jesus.

I want to live

... in such a way as to allow God, who is always striving for the actualization of certain goals, to achieve self-revelation.

 

I think the Holy experience is when we and the Divine join in the Now. That for me is the sacred.

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

 

(snip)

 

Do you agree that the search for meaning is the most important focus of the sacred today?

 

Janet,

 

No. It seems to me that the search for that which separates one from the truth of who you already are and what you already know in the depth of your being is the most important focus for today. To me, the search for meaning leads to endless theories, beliefs and intellectual discussions. What we search for is a dimension inside yourself that is infinitely deeper and without thought, beyond words, and is the end of all theories, beliefs and intellectual discussions.

 

(snip)

 

"But the sacred is not entirely within us. It is rather in the focus-giving relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and us who are Christians, in the role that he plays for us, that makes him the Christ." I know some on this forum believe the sacred IS entirely within us. Did that quote bother you?

 

Why should it bother one? It is just another innocent conditioned view that leads, in my personal view, to disappointment. It seems to me that it was not Jesus of Nazareth that was most important but rather his words. Is it not recorded he said "my words they are Spirit and they are life." And "I speak not my own words but the words of Him who sent me".

 

Just another view to be taken lightly,

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

Do you agree that the search for meaning is the most important focus of the sacred today?

 

While I have no problem with talking about how this happens - how we live on in other's memories and how the seeds we planted will be a harvest for others I have also been thinking about Allen Dyer's comment in "The Knowledge of God and Evil:"

 

Man’s self-awareness in face of this fear [of mortality] is so fragile that he must create symbol-systems to defend against this unbearable reality.

 

So I have this tension between (1) seeing that I could give up this fear and stop letting it control my actions and thoughts - or - (2) continue to talk about living on in memories and seeds planted which creates the reality of immortality. (Yes, I mean a reality. We all create reality by our language, our words, our conversations. This reality is real.)

 

A couple years ago I considered suicide because the landscape behind did not look worthy and because the way ahead did not look promising. My contract with God was over so why couldn't I just quit altogether. Focusing on memories and seeds planted did not lift me up. What does lift me is the next moment. Knowing that in the next moment God and I might join in the sacred Now of becoming does lift me up. Meaning (significance), eternity, immortality, the Holy are in that flash of lightening we call Now. That is where heaven comes to earth and love conquers death. The Apocalypse.

 

For each of the 39 days of radiation treatment for prostate cancer, which was not a factor in my thoughts about suicide, I took a rose. Each day was a day with a rose and, oh, yeah, radiation treatment. I gave the rose to the nurses and sometimes to people in the waiting room. It wasn't only the radiation that conquered cancer but is was also the rose that brought wholeness and meaning - and the sacredness of Now.

 

Have I told you how much fun this is; how enjoyable it is to see what I think by writing it?

Dutch

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Thanks, Joseph and Dutch!

I'm taking it lightly, Joseph, but while the recorded words of Jesus are a starting point, the experience of Jesus now is more powerful to me, even though his words and the now experience both point me toward God. I believe we are collectively and individually learning about God, and that the Bible is just a starting point.

 

Dutch, I appreciate your sharing your personal experience. The example of the rose was beautiful, amd I agree we can create reality based in love for others.

 

I think this may hae been the intent of the author -- we create meaning in our lives by infusing our lives with love for God and love for others. Then, even if we suffer from cancer, or depression, our lives are worth living and we can see a sense of purpose.

 

Chapter 11?

 

Janet