Common Sense Christianity

[glintofpewter]

Janet,

 

I haven't read the book . It looked interesting so I just ordered it from eBay. Thanks.

 

Dutch

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Chapter 15:

 

I had been exposed to these ideas before by other writers. I used to be insulted by the idea that Christian stories were "myths," because I thought that myth meant "untrue" and "wrong." It is freeing to be able to see that the greatest truths are often conveyed through myths. I thought Ross was fairly comprehensive discussing some of the Bible's stories that may be better interpreted now as myths than factual accounts. However, I don't think he addressed Jesus' teachings on Hell, which I hope are not factual.

 

When I think that the Bible was written by people with a pre-scientific worldview, by people who were students of students of the disciples, I'm amazed that we have something that is as good as it is. However, I think that being able to communicate to others how we are able to reconstruct the old ways of thinking is one of our greatest challenges as progressive Christians today. Many have become frustrated with stories that have long been considered factual (and are still considered factual by some today), but seem so implausible or irrelevant, that they have just thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

 

Your thoughts?

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Dutch,

I hope you like The Shack. Most people I know who have read it have parts they treasure and parts they don't like so much. The things we glean from it seem to tell me more about the reader than the author. It would be an interesting one to discuss on this message board. It was recommended to me by an evangelical friend, and after I read it and enjoyed it so much, she decided it wasn't that good after all :-)

 

Janet

[JosephM]

Chapter 15

 

It seems to me good to acknowledge there are myths in the Bible as there may be in other religious books but in my opinion, i seriously doubt that there will be an agreement by church organizations on what is or what isn't myth. Then there is the question of who, what and how to tag it and when to change it. Perhaps it would be best not to try to change it or tag them on a universal scale but rather just admit that the Bible is a complex and useful document created by men for society that contains stories and data that men have used to attempt to point to God in alignment with their culture and times and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions. After all it is each man/woman that must eventually work out his/her own journey for them-self.

 

It seems to me it is the compelling to accept it by organizations as the inerrant truth that creates all the division and conflicts in the first place. If it is read without compulsion to accept, it is this writers opinion that it will be a more effective means of communications and perhaps people will get more out of it when they are ready.

 

Joseph

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Good points, Joseph! I think my church is at the place you've described (the Bible is complex, etc, and classes help people figure out how to interpret the Bible in their own way). However, I'm not sure that those outside the church know there really are followers of Jesus who think this way. In fact, it is often a surprise to them that someone who could see the Bible as myth would attend a church.

[rivanna]

On Chapter 15 – I appreciated that Ross says, “throughout this book we have assiduously pursued the use of gender-free language in speaking of God. This is important, for certainly God is neither male nor female.”

It’s interesting how Ross affirms Jesus’ resurrection while questioning all the specific details -- the angel, the stone, a post-resurrection Jesus eating fish, showing nail holes or walking to Emmaus. “What we claim is that the person of Jesus of Nazareth survived the death of his body on the cross and made himself known to some of his disciples. We do not claim to understand exactly what happened or how the disciples experienced it.” He seems comfortable with a certain level of mystery, which resonates with me.

It’s true Ross doesn’t deal with Jesus’ references to hell, which I’ve always thought were alluding to a state of mind rather than implying an actual place.

I like the fact that he (like most PC theologians) interprets atonement not as payment for sin but as reconciling us to God.

You could see the gospel as a myth describing humanity’s evolving awareness of God not as an inaccessible deity on the far side of the cosmos, but immediately and personally present to us here and now. God doesn’t stand outside the universe working miracles that defy the natural order, because he/she is manifest thoughout the natural world.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Karen,

I like that! I'm comfortable with a certain amount of mystery as well :-)

Janet

[glintofpewter]

Obviously there is some agreement here as Joseph wrote

Perhaps it would be best not to try to change it or tag them on a universal scale but rather just admit that the Bible is a complex and useful document created by men for society that contains stories and data that men have used to attempt to point to God in alignment with their culture and times and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

 

Let me suggest an approach different than Ross's based on how we engage that scriptures: Studying and playing. By studying I mean the kind of work that Ross has done in this chapter and throughout the book, or engaging in an historical-critical reading, a feminist reading, the Jesus Seminar, etc.

By playing I mean art in general, Christmas pageants, Noah's Ark plays, Vacation Bible School themes - and "Bible study" which enters the story as story with its multiple meanings. To ask questions about how it feels to be part of the story, in a particular role experiencing that weather, etc. To allow interrogating the story from a Taoist viewpoint, a Jungian view. Playing would also include meditation and lectio divina, any form of non-critical participation.

 

I feel that this approach allows both an intelligent critique, study, and heart filling experience, play, without always having to be certain - of anything.

 

Dutch

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Thanks for reminding us of the importance of play! Chapter 16??

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

CHAPTER 16: I didn't think Ross did a very good job yet detailing the diffrent life to which Christianity calls us. The things he talks about here would be agreed upon by most of the population, I think.

 

The gems I gleaned from this chapter:

"Once our own self-worth is not dependent upon being better than others or on being admired by others or on winning over others in one way or another, then we are able to accept other persons and accept them for who they really are. We are able to offer what Henri Nouwen calls "hospitality": a space in our lives where other people can feel at home, where they are given room to be themselves.2We need also to care enough to try to discover who these "others" really are. "

I thought this was BEAUTIFULLY PUT, especially the Nouwen part about "hospitality."

 

"obviously we cannot be intimately acquainted with the ups and downs of thousands of people."

Believe me, I've tried! And this is one of my greatest struggles - to figure out what my part is in loving all the suffering people of the world. How do I do a good job, without spreading myself too thin, when there are SO many people out there hurting?

 

"This means sharing in another way: an openness to the ideas and insights and contributions that these people can bring to our lives, a willingness to receive and try to understand their experience and their wisdom"

This is one of the lovely parts about helping others -- you generally find much commonality and learn so much from them. Being able to articlate how the other is helping me as well is vital to the relationship.

 

"This perspective... enables us not to invest ultimate importance in any human endeavor, and so not to get discouraged when our efforts fail to bring in the kingdom of God."

I have often been blinded by my passions, so I needed to hear about the perspective check.

 

Your thoughts?

[Guest billmc]

Janet, I visited a UCC church yesterday (my first time in a UCC) and I was pleasantly surprised to feel right at home. These folks were very welcoming to me. Of course, they don't know me yet. But here is what impressed from their service:

 

This small church (about 150 folks or so) wants to cooperate with 4 other churches in that immediate area (downtown Fort Worth) in order to discover what the residents of that area need and are concerned about. The 4 other churches are 2 hispanic Baptist, 1 Disciples of Christ, and 1 Episcopalian. They want to form small teams that go door-to-door, not to "evangelize" or advertize their respective churches, but to discover what that neighborhoods needs really are and then, using that information, find a way for that neighborhood to connect with and help each other.

 

None of the methodology is carved in stone, this is still in the planning stages. But it is part of what these 5 inner-city churches want to do to discover who these "others" are. While the 2 Baptist churches serve this neighborhood, the other 3 churches are "drive-in" congregations that feel out of touch with the communities where their churches are -- and they want to do something about it. The two ladies who gave the presentation yesterday sounded much like you (were you there?), they want to make a difference for those who are hurting and struggling, but they are overwhelmed and somewhat at a loss as to exactly what to do. They simply said, "We feel God wants us to do something, and this is a start." Awesome!

 

Have you read any of Nouwen's books? He greatly impresses me. The deeper he went into his relationship with Christ, the more he helped the hurting.

[JosephM]

These things taken from Chap 16 seem to me very profound..

"the choice of how to live our lives, is not a matter of reasonableness. This is true for two reasons: first, because this choice is not based on reason, but is based instead on value. And basic value is felt, not reasoned."

 

Ross also speaks of the importance in self acceptance to be able to accept others which I also perceive as important. Though I would like to express it differently like this...

 

You are exactly as you have been created. You are not a mistake or imperfect as your mind and many others would like to tell you. You are not a broken piece of creation. Neither are others. With what you have been given genetically and otherwise and the unique conditioning and experiences you have had, you can be no other than what you are at this moment in time. Hypotheticals can be spoken concerning this but have no existence in reality. They are just hypotheticals. You are now what you are. It could not be otherwise. You can accept this or reject this and that decision will affect your life. It will bring change one way or the other. Yet the fact remains, your choice to do either or none is as the hair on your head. They are all numbered. You are an evolving creature connected and intertwined with the totality of all things. Accept yourself as you are and others as they are in this moment and you will see more clearly to go from there. Acceptance is not the same as apathy or indifference. It is merely acknowledgement and non-conflict with the moment so that real creative change can be allowed to flourish in your life which affects the life of all others.

 

Just some thoughts spurred by the chapter,

Joseph

 

[rivanna]

Chapter 16 is Ross’ best one so far, for me – the part about acceptance (resting on grace, the forgiveness we receive, rather than on our own efforts and achievements) and on finding a sense of purpose.

 

As Janet said, Ross makes a good point about balance: “Without perspective, passion is too likely to result in missing the achievable good by aiming without compromise at the unachievable perfect.” My own passion for the beauty of language led me to faith and belief, but that same passion has also drawn me into some confusing and hurtful situations, for myself and others, several times in my life. Some of us need to be reminded to use our hearts more, others to use our heads more, I guess.

 

Nouwen is a favorite with me also, like that part about making space –God dwells only where we step back to give him room.

As far as wanting to volunteer help when there are so many in dire need, perhaps the Good Samaritan parable points out who the neighbor is - the ones whose brokenness we can identify with, whose shoes we’ve been in, whom others might ignore. Nouwen talks about his own switching from a large somewhat abstract mission to a smaller more personally fulfilling one. “Often we are not always able to cure, but we are always able to care…One does not need to be useful as much as to be present.”

[Guest billmc]

Chapter 16

 

This chapter in Ross’ book made me think of, more than anything else, Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan. Despite the fact that almost everyone knows this story, I still find it to point to timeless truth and it is my favorite story in the scriptures. To me, the Samaritan lives out the kind of faith that Ross writes of.

 

The Samaritan lives out self-acceptance in that, unlike the Pharisee and the Levite, he did not stop to think of how his interaction with the man in the ditch might make him unacceptable to God or to the religious institutions of his day. He could help and offer hospitality to the injured because he was not too preoccupied with his own standing in society or religion.

 

I don’t know enough about the Samaritans to know exactly how they viewed their relationship with God. I suppose that they worshipped God as best as they could understand and that they, like the Jews, expected a messiah. Even the woman at the well knows that messiah was supposed to reveal all things to them. So I think they were being as faithful to God as their own religion would allow them to be at the time.

 

But the important thing to me is that whatever doctrines/beliefs the Samaritans may have held about God and messiah, the Samaritan in Jesus’ story was a person of caring and compassion. It is reasonable to assume that, as Ross says, the Samaritan hurt because the man in the ditch hurt. He went beyond empathy (feeling for someone) to compassion (doing something about the hurt) and had the wounded man’s care and needs charged to the Samaritan’s own account. He didn’t seem to care what the wounded man’s religion was or what his social standing might be. He only knew that the man had been robbed and left for dead. And he didn’t even stoop to the evangelical question of “Do you know where you will go if you die today?” He just did what he could to ensure that the man didn’t die that day. To me, that is the embodiment of “living the faith.” It isn’t about beliefs, it is about being faithful to God by being faithful to one another.

 

I get easily overwhelmed with all the suffering and hurt in our world. The media and the internet make it so easy to become aware of all the pain and injustice, not just around us locally, but on the other side of the globe. And I feel helpless to be able to make much of a difference. How can I care about so many without being sucked into despair?

 

Then I remember a parable I heard a few years ago. It was told to me from the point of evangelism, but I still think it is applicable to all who are hurting:

 

Two young boys were walking along a beach that was littered with wash-up starfish. As they walked along, one of the boys was reaching down and picking up starfish and tossing them back into the ocean. “There are so many starfish here,” said the other boy, “what does it matter how many you throw back?” As the first boy threw another starfish back into the sea, he said, “Well, it matters to this one.”

 

God doesn’t call me to do everything. But I think God motivates and empowers me to do something.

[rivanna]

billmc,

 

Good points, nice to see you back.

 

On a lighter note – after reading Ross’ statements about not serving two masters, and putting God before career success, isn’t it a touch ironic that he left the ministry to become a big city lawyer?!

[Guest billmc]

Karen,

 

Actually, you hit upon the Good Samaritan parable before I did! I just didn't see it until AFTER I posted.

 

I don't know the man, of course, but perhaps he felt that he could make a larger difference in issues of justice as a lawyer rather than as a preacher. But I tend to think that we are all "in the ministry", just some of us, right or wrong, get paid for it.

 

Just stirrin' the pot a bit.

 

bill

[Guest billmc]

And basic value is felt, not reasoned."

 

Joseph, Ross is alluding to the terms head and heart in this chapter. While head is certainly literal, heart is a metaphor. IMO, the "heart" is still in the head, it is just a deeper consciousness. If that is true, how would you personally make a distinction between head and heart?

 

Or, to put it another way, how does one know that decisions are based upon the heart, not the head, and vice versa?

 

In your opinion, must their be a dichotomy between the two?

[glintofpewter]

Wm. Paul Young in "The Shack" provides a good motto for Living the Faith/Coming into right Relationship.

 

"Learning to live Loved"

 

Ross wrote

It is the head's job to understand and explain, but the head must be given direction by the heart. It is this heart-given direction that the head must render understandable.

I think that this is the head's explanation of the relationship between heart and head because it is something I would have said. My wife always goes by her heart and she thinks it is great that I can provide theological back up but she doesn't really care.

 

 

Bill wrote

While head is certainly literal, heart is a metaphor. IMO, the "heart" is still in the head, it is just a deeper consciousness. If that is true, how would you personally make a distinction between head and heart?

Bill I think both heart and head are metaphoric. For me dichotomies don't bear much meaning or scrutiny and a hierarchical relationship doesn't seem complex enough.

 

I don't have an answer. What I know is heart/consciousness is my "opportunity for growth".

 

What I know is that for some people their heart is way out in front leading the action and for others their head takes to them to places their heart has to catch up to. And at times these two different people are walking in the same place on the same road - in the shoes of the Good Samaritan.

 

Ross's articulate understanding of right relationship will help some heads bring their hearts up to speed and may affirm some hearts and help them with focus or direction.

 

 

Rivanna,

 

On a lighter note – after reading Ross’ statements about not serving two masters, and putting God before career success, isn’t it a touch ironic that he left the ministry to become a big city lawyer?!

I was thinking that part of the problem with Chapter 15 Christian Myth was his distance from the field.

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

Joseph, Ross is alluding to the terms head and heart in this chapter. While head is certainly literal, heart is a metaphor. IMO, the "heart" is still in the head, it is just a deeper consciousness. If that is true, how would you personally make a distinction between head and heart?

 

Or, to put it another way, how does one know that decisions are based upon the heart, not the head, and vice versa?

 

Bill,

Some would say the heart as a metaphor is in the head and is the seat of the human mind. Others would say it is the seat of thought or reason rejecting the value of the brain. Some might say the heart was the seat of the soul. Some would consider the heart to be the seat of emotions. Still others might say the heart is the place of resolve in humans. Personally, I do not say where the heart is and make no distinction.

 

You ask, "how does one know that decisions are based upon the heart, not the head, and vice versa?" I find it unnecessary to make the distinction. If there is conscious awareness of the thinking mind then actions/decisions naturally come out of that awareness instead of identity with the thoughts and reasoning of the mind as mine.

 

 

In your opinion, must their be a dichotomy between the two?

 

No, in my opinion there need not be.

Joseph

[Guest billmc]

My wife always goes by her heart and she thinks it is great that I can provide theological back up but she doesn't really care.

 

Ha ha! My wife is much the same. She is Southern Baptist and on a certain level, doesn't care about my episodes of "cognitive dissonance". She doesn't question nor wrestle with her beliefs. She just "knows in her heart" that it is all true.

 

What I know is that for some people their heart is way out in front leading the action and for others their head takes to them to places their heart has to catch up to. And at times these two different people are walking in the same place on the same road - in the shoes of the Good Samaritan.

 

Makes sense to me, Dutch. Of course, I think we are a combination of head and heart. But for my particular makeup, my heart cannot believe what violates my head. This doesn't mean that I can't live with mystery or transcendance, just that contradictions drive me batty.

[rivanna]

About head vs heart in Ross’ chapter 16– the context was that of trying to make a positive difference as Christians. He defines passion (corresponding to the heart) as intense devotion to a cause, the necessary fuel that drives us to reform the world - while perspective (corresponding to the head) means “the realization that things will never be perfect, that only God deserves our ultimate loyalty.” This perspective, which Ross says comes from accepting God’s love, prevents us from giving up too easily -- keeps us going in an imperfect world.

Perhaps Ross’ decision to practice law turned out to be the best way to carry out his own ideals of social justice.

[glintofpewter]

But for my particular makeup, my heart cannot believe what violates my head.

Bill, For me, exactly.All my head journeys are begun by these moments of dissonance.

 

Dutch

[Guest billmc]

About head vs heart in Ross’ chapter 16– the context was that of trying to make a positive difference as Christians. He defines passion (corresponding to the heart) as intense devotion to a cause, the necessary fuel that drives us to reform the world - while perspective (corresponding to the head) means “the realization that things will never be perfect, that only God deserves our ultimate loyalty.” This perspective, which Ross says comes from accepting God’s love, prevents us from giving up too easily -- keeps us going in an imperfect world.

Perhaps Ross’ decision to practice law turned out to be the best way to carry out his own ideals of social justice.

 

Perhaps. I know that, in my life, it is hard to me to stop and try to discern as to whether my judgments are by head or heart. If I saw someone in an automobile accident calling me for help and their car was leaking gas, I would like to think that my heart would cause me to help despite that fact that my head tells me my life would be indangered by a fire. When it comes to suffering or pain, I definately seem to be a heart-person and, therefore, can't watch too much news about human suffering without going into a sort of depression.

 

But when it comes to theology, because I have not had a Damascus road experience, I rely more on my head and what I would call "a small still voice". Perhaps if I was more of a mystic, I would be less a skeptic. And I know that PC seems to have a subtle divide between the rationalists and the mystics. I suspect that divide is a strength as long as we keep on talking. But I think both persuasions would agree that actions speak louder than words, whether those actions come from head or heart.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I'm SO so glad everyone is back!! I read your replies with great interest! Is there a particular Nouwen book you recommend I start with??

 

Hooray about the UCC church banding with others to help the community. For too long churches have said we are open, but we haven't considered meeting the needs of our closest neighbors outside our walls!

 

I really appreciate your thoughts about the "Good Samaritan" parable being a guide for how I spend my energy helping others. In this past year I have chosen to be more personally involved in the suffering of specific people. One is a friend's mom who recently moved here and has lung cancer. At some level she and others feel she deserves lung cancer, since she was a smoker until the day she was diagnosed. It has been beautiful to be in her life, because I have learned as much from her as I have helped by driving her to appointments. The other person I am trying to help is a close neighbor who has been suffering from bipolar depression since a divorce. I felt moved to help since there is such proximity between her house and mine -- literally "love your neighbor." These experiences have been different than my work with disadvantaged children across town, because I have become more intimately involved in the suffering. School district protocol prevents deep relationships between volunteers and children.

 

I thought Ross should have talked more about how "Christian" living calls us to go beyond what society expects and love even our enemies -- how we are called to "turn the other cheek." These are not fashionable ideas in society today and would have better demonstrated the difference between following Jesus and just being a nice person.

 

I agree that this was one of my favorite chapters so far. I guess we'll have to move on anyway.

 

Janet

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Chapter 17: Money, money, money

 

This chapter didn't move me much when I first read it, because I was thinking I was in the uncomfortable middle, but that my choices have been intentional about how to help those who are less fortunate.

 

Then I started to think that I give much more time than money, because it is my hubby who earns the money, and he feels differently about the disadvantaged than I do. He sees a lot of giving as handouts rather than hand ups. AND he thinks the impoverished are in that place because of their own choices, where I don't see an even playing field up front. Rather than squabble, I just mostly give what I have -- time. However, I know people can overdo the gift of time as well, so that they have no time left for family responsibilities.

 

The chapter asks us to consider the main questions about what is appropriate for us (personally) to give. I think that is good to think about seriously and on a regular basis.