Hijacking "christian"

[DCJ]

There is a Catch-22/contridiction amoungst the fundamental protestantism's interpretation of salvation in which they 'say' Jesus died for ALL...but in reality to THEM even if one claims to have accepted Jesus as savior if they are Catholic or Mormon or anything OTHER than an Evangelical Protestants, then these Evangelicals will deny that your salvation is valid or real..and that IS the catch-22 or the "Members-ONLY" salvation theory.

It's not about belonging to a group, it's about having the right beliefs. The required belief is summarized nicely by Paul in one sentence (with context):

 

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes ... 9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

 

So it's about belief, not group identity. The fact that many Protestants and many Catholics and others believe this just shows that this belief is part of their doctrine.

[BeachOfEden]

"It's not about belonging to a group, it's about having the right beliefs. The required belief is summarized nicely by Paul in one sentence (with context):

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes ... 9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

 

A progressive Christian or any non-Evangelical protestant can passionately state they DO this..but the Fundamental Protestants will still reject their claim and still tell them that their "beliefs are wrong", Unorthodox", that they are NOT REAL Christians, NOT saved,ect...

[des]

Yes, Tea (and others) I would agree. There is a big difference between the "my country right or wrong" stance by some conservatives (and interestingly in the Fundamentalists-- given they think we are all miserable sinners) and saying-- "yes, I love my country, basically warts and all." I have seen churches displaying signs of "God bless America" (period). To quote the recent UCC ad campaign of not putting a period where God has put a comma. It should have been God bless America, or God bless all nations. I don't feel we are God's select. But as I can't remember who said, representive democracy is a very bad form of government but all the others are so much worse.

 

Beach, those are good points you make as well. Yes I think we could all agree on most of those, also many moderates as well. I think your idea of conversing with moderates is a really good. I'm not sure how it would be done (I gave some ideas on another thread).

I have a feelign that moderates are the great silent minority of church going folks.

Conservatives tend to be pretty active (not all of course, I'm sure the many who attend those megachurches are pretty quiet) and then you have the vocal liberal/Progressive churches. I knwo the one I came from in Chicago was amazingly active. But I think it come to what moderates are going to do. They are kind of the solid citizens in everyday life, but they don't have either evangelizing or social justice activity to get them active. I don't see them as really active seeker types. I don't think they feel a need to figure stuff out.

 

There are also more cautious fundamentalist people. You won't see them posting on our forum (with exceptions), but they don't buy into everything. For example, the friend of mine who would say, "well God didn't really make the world in 6 days-- days meant time periods". Or appropos to the place fo women "If God wants us to be quiet in the church, why are we allowed to sing in the choir or teach Sunday School"?

 

I also think there are Progressive lights. I have a friend who feels similarly to me on many issues. She goes to church occassionally. We have long discussions, but I get the feeling that she has never had these with anyone else-- at least commonly. I couldn't imagine her at a march or something (something I have done countless times, but am a little out of the loop her in NM).

 

BTW, I think the correlation between Christian Conservatism and the conservation record is a little known secret. I just found out about it after the election.It would have been good for people to have known this ahead of time. I just read a little local rag that had an article on it. Theocracywatch.org has a very long article, as well as reasons why this is the case. Things like the End time is near, so we don't really need to worry about the environment!! Or we have dominion over the Earth (translated to pillage and plunder apparently). Or God provides so we just need faith in Him (sic). A lot of them look on science with distrust, so any science about global warming is just like discussion on evolution.

 

--des

[BeachOfEden]

The far fundamental right's power is that the Protestants Fundamentalists AND The Protestant Evangelicals have joined forces. Therefore, wouldn't make sense that Progressive Christians and Moderates join forces on what WE DO agree on? Whether Progressive or Moderate we all agree ALL agree that the way the far right Fundamental Protestants like Jerry Felwell and the Southern Baptists Convention has approuched gays is wrong and hateful and that they way they have expressed thier views on women and other raciest does not reflect the Golden Rule aka Social Justice. We agree that this war is wrong. We do NOT view our Catholic or Unity Church or non-Protestant church going family members and friends as doomed or unsaved. Should we not astablish a common ground and force of unity with Moderates based on these common points of views?

[SweetTea]

Des.... That paraphrased quote is by Winston Churchill.

 

I think reaching out to moderate church members is a GREAT idea. In my church, for example, there are ALOT of people who hold liberal political views, fundementalist religious views, and manage somehow to reconcile that rift in their own minds and hearts. The trick is whether someone who is less moderate in their approach can understand and embrace that concept. I think progressives are in a MUCH better place to do that than fundies.

 

I also believe that the "6 days" story was meant as a metaphor..... Imagine if God had told Moses all about evolution, microbiology, and the "big boom", and THEN imagine if Moses had written what REALLY happened. Do you REALLY think those ancient people would have taken Creation and God's brilliance seriously, or would they think Moses a babbling idiot talking about things that don't exist. See my point? I think it's possible to believe in the fundemental moral messages in the bible without taking every word literally.

 

Another good example of this are the leviticus laws. Most of them are public health directives for a time when modern sanitation, anti-biotics, vaccines, etc. were not available to the general public. Think of it as I giant wellness plan. Chiropractors and dieticians, as well as many doctors in the mainstream medicine community emphasise preventative medicine and wellness as the BEST way to ensure good health and long life. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that kosher foods, skin inspections, laws about sexual uncleanliness..... All of those a prevenative for any number of major health problems, which the lack of medicine made almost impossible to treat after the fact.

 

Now in a day and age of modern medicine, x-rays, MRIs, transplants, modern cooking technology.... Well, the laws are somewhat obsolete, but what we CAN derive from those laws is that God has always protected His people, even when they did not understand what He was protecting them from. If we can open this kind of dialogue.... Discussions of scriptural interpretation, perhaps we can discover even more common ground spiritually.

 

And that's where the bridge between moderates and progressives can open up. It worked in the Jewish community, when orthodox rabbis started studing holy texts with Reform Jews. What emerged was a fantastic resurgence of a Jewish sect founded firmly on the mysticism of Judaism.... Perhaps you've heard of it.... Kabbala. Kabbala has brought many people into the folds of Judaism, including Madonna and Britney Spears.... I'm sure that's been just HORRIBLE for the faith.

 

-Tea

Edited January 21, 2005 by SweetTea

[BeachOfEden]

Another thing that moderates and Progressives can agree on is that both would agree that they disagree strongly with Fundamental Protestants on how they view nearly all passages in the Bible as literal. It has already been confirmed in the offical beliefs statemtns of the mainline churches like Luthern, United Methodists, and Presbyterians that they do NOT interpretate hell as a litreal place of eternal fire and also these same mainline do not embrace the "Left behind" theology though they still may believe in a form of millennialism.

[des]

I had an interesting moderate to progressive exchange today that happened totally without attempting to have it. I had the book that I am reading "Stealing Jesus" out on the table when someone who does my water filtration came by to deliver a filter. He saw the book and said, "What's that?" I said well if you are a fundamentalist you wouldn't like it. He said he was a Christian, believes in the Bible, and all, but he had grown up in a fundamentalist environment and really didn't agree with it. I told him briefly that the book talks about how fundamentalists are taking the name of Christianity and saying it only applies to them. He said that he did not agree with anyone who is judgemental as to who is saved and who doesn't. He said, that puts us on the same level with God. Only God can judge, and he has no idea (nor do I) about what is after this life. There was more to our discussion.

 

I think the comment about "not judging" is another strong thing that we share. I might not have put it the same way, but we certainly have the same feelings about this.

You might add that one to your list, Beach. :-)

 

 

Tea, the quote that UCC is using is from Gracie Allen, at least says so on the webpage: "Never place a period where God has placed a comma."

 

 

--des

[BeachOfEden]

See? Who's says the Progressive don't spread the Gospel? That is a prefect example on HOW Progressive Christians can spread the Gospel of Christ.

[BrotherRog]

Rescuing Religion From the Right

The Rev. Jim Wallis says gay marriage and abortion aren't the only values-related issues religious people care about.

 

Interview by Rebecca Phillips

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15988_1.html

 

Who's Who on the Religious Left

Beliefnet's guide to some of the major figures on the liberal side of religion and politics.

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15998_1.html

[BeachOfEden]

Thanks for this article.

 

Beliefnet Reporter:

"You shy away from the term "religious left." Why?

 

"Left" is a political term, and I don't think religion fits neatly in the political category. "Progressive" is OK, but it still sounds kind of like a substitute for "liberal."

 

I find this view/comment to be a problem. First, for myself I much perfer to be mistakenly indentifed with "liberal" rather than "evangelical." Jim Wallis seem to be embarrased to be indentified as or fully with Progressives. More troubling, he greatly desires to hold on to and claim the word "Evangelical" as his own. Not just because he thinks the Far Right branch of protestnatism has taken it..but also because it appears that even though he finds with this community which has crowned itself the "Orthodox" bullhorn for "Christianity", but because he wants to be accpeted by them and thus be considered "Orthodox" too.

 

 

Jim Wallis also said:

 

"I probably line up with the left on some issues. If the left is against war in Iraq, I'm against the war in Iraq too."

 

Ok I understand this part perfectly and I agree.

 

"But for theological reasons, I'm not with the left on other things. I'm an evangelical, my theology is quite biblical, I'm even conservative and pro-family, pro-marriage."

 

What does this mean? These are vauge statements. "I am Evangelical". "My theology is quite bibical", and "I am even conservative."

 

These '3' quotes or phrases need to be explained.

[BrotherRog]

For clarity:

 

Jim Wallis is a progressive Evangelical Christian. He would not likely subscribe to all of the 8 points of tcpc. He is best viewed as an ally rather than as "one of us."

Or perhaps, what we mean by "us" might be more generously inclusive..

 

Wallis takes the Bible probably more seriously, and a tad more literally, than many in this community do. He is conservative on some matters, and yet, what he means by conservative actually embraces what has come to be called liberal these days.

[BeachOfEden]

Maybe Jim Wallis agrees with us more than he is willing to say..but then again maybe Unlike Progressive christians, maybe he thinks that all Non-Evangelical Protestnats are truely Christian and also thus not saved? If so, this would explain why he perfers to indentify himslef with "Evangelicals" instead of "Progressive Christians."

[Cynthia]

This is the trouble I have with the left (of which I am a part) and the reason Bush is still president. When we have a well-spoken, well-informed, spokesperson we pick them apart instead of supporting them. The right often goes the other way and supports people who they don't agree with in the name of party or philosophical unity. We need to get along. GOOD GRIEF - I sing Jim Wallis' praises every chance I get. He is the best chance I see for Godly people to unite on what is important rather than on the party lines. His being a conservative (theologically) evangelical allows people to listen to him that would never listen to someone who called themselves a progressive.

 

He also gets the people who see christian as a 4-letter word a pause and perhaps (per his email from sojo.net yesterday - posted here somewhere) the opportunity to even consider faith as a viable choice.

 

ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH (ok, deep breath)

 

Give peace a chance folks. We have a lot of common ground and that's what it's all about... not walking in lockstep.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Cynthia

[AletheiaRivers]

Beach

Jim Wallis also said:

 

"I probably line up with the left on some issues. If the left is against war in Iraq, I'm against the war in Iraq too."

 

Ok I understand this part perfectly and I agree.

 

"But for theological reasons, I'm not with the left on other things. I'm an evangelical, my theology is quite biblical, I'm even conservative and pro-family, pro-marriage."

 

What does this mean? These are vauge statements. "I am Evangelical". "My theology is quite bibical", and "I am even conservative."

 

These '3' quotes or phrases need to be explained.

 

Whoa! Deja Vu! (This same conversation is going on in the Evangelical thread.)

 

Cynthia

He is the best chance I see for Godly people to unite on what is important rather than on the party lines.

 

Yes!

 

Just because somebody is "Evangelical" doesn't mean they are automatically evil.

 

I don't agree with all of the "8 points". Does that mean I'm not a "progressive Christian"? I don't know. I'm sure tired of labels.

 

Nice rant.

[Cynthia]

Thanks A - I like this board to get away from all the us vs. them mentality that seems, to me, to have so much to do with human nature (fallen or not! :>) and so very little to do with God.

 

God is big. Plenty of room for everybody. Have you heard the song - no facts about it - but the lyrics go something like: Come. and go with me. to. my father's house. It's a big big house with lots and lots of rooms. and a big big table with lots and lots of food. There's a big big yard where we can play football. It's my father's house.

 

Cynthia

[AletheiaRivers]

I don't think I'm familiar with the song you mentioned, but it made me think of one that is kinda similar. Here is the last stanza and the chorus.

 

He can see the beauty

Beneath the dust and grime

He can see potential

Where the rest of us are blind

He will polish the grey

Until it shines clear blue

And if you know my Dad

He won't give up on you

 

So if you need something

And times get hard

You can probably find it

In my Dad's yard

And if you need love

If you're coming apart

You can surely find it

In my Dad's heart

[darby]

Just because somebody is "Evangelical" doesn't mean they are automatically evil.

(not sure if I did that right)

 

I sure hope not....

As evidenced by this post, it is obvious that the term "christian" means many things to many people. Probably more so in America, or the West, where many use that term as a common identifier similar to "I'm a Jew" or "I'm a Native American." These people could not tell you what they believe, they just know they're "christian" because Ma and Pa were, and they went to church every Easter and Christmas, and they certainly weren't Jewish, Muslim, or anything else, hence they must be "christian." Obviously, we see alot of this in the south.

 

I think this is why some are choosing to use the term "Christ follower" now instead...they feel "christian" really does not mean anything anymore.

[Cynthia]

I think you're right Darby - but, a rose by any other name... I know a lot of people who would not call themselves christians (some other religions, some none) who exemplify Christ in a way I cannot yet match by deed, compassion, and love of others.

 

Joesph Campbell talks about levels of concepts. The 1st level - perhaps the divine, cannot be discussed in words. The second level can only be alluded to with language, and by the time words are meaningful, we are already down to the 3rd level of things. I'm not explaining it well, but basically I think we have to be careful about getting trapped in language when language is ever so much more limited than we usually realize.

 

I'm a big believer in concurrent validity. Basically, if you find the same information in a variety of sources/perspectives it is more likely to be true. I think that while I attend a christian church and (in the South) identify as a christian, and find truth in the bible, I also find things that bring me much closer to God in other religions and traditions.

 

an open question - perhaps another thread???

 

What practices do you find helpful in creating thin spots ( a la Borg)?

 

For me, right now, it is time in nature, meditation, and zen koans.

[AletheiaRivers]

I'm a big believer in concurrent validity. Basically, if you find the same information in a variety of sources/perspectives it is more likely to be true.

 

Huston Smith calls this primordial or perennial truth and is one of the reasons I came back to Christianity instead of continuing the path I was on.

 

As mentioned in "The Heart of Christianity", when a Christian seeker asked the Dalai Lama whether she should become a Buddhist, his response basically was: "No, become more deeply Christian; live more deeply in your own tradition."

 

"Heart" goes on to mention Huston Smith who used a metaphor of digging a well: if what you are looking for is water, better to dig one well 60 feet deep than to dig six wells ten feet deep.

 

By digging more deeply into our own tradition we become more centered onto and into the One to whom the tradition points and not so much on the "finger" doing the pointing.

[BeachOfEden]

What I would like to know about Jim Wallis is...is he progressive enough to NOT tag us Progressives or any non-Protestants as 'CULT'? This is a very important issue. There are many Progressive Christians who are NOT considered 'orthodox' by the non-Protestnat churches. For example The Unity Church. Now if you are going to get Progressive Christians or Progressive faiths in gneral, say like Bahia and UU Christians and Unity church to back Jim Wallis..they need to be reasurred that he won't call them UnChristian 'CULTS' or else they will onbiously pull their support.

 

I am not trying to nick pick..I just want to make sure that Jim is not cozy with those who attack us..the right wing.

[BrotherRog]

FYI, numerous Jim Wallis speaking events have been held in U.U. venues, and many more have been sponsored by Unity Church and U.U. congregations. I personally coordinated Jim's last speaking engagement in Denver (from the Denver end of things) so I know whereof I speak.

[BeachOfEden]

Oh good. I am VERY glad to hear this! Has Jim Wallis ever spoken about how he feels about the terms and meanings of "Progressive Christianity" and "Moderate Christianity"? Does he consider himself as either a progressive or Moderate?

[BrotherRog]

I don't recall Jim speaking directly to this question. However, I he self-identifies as a Bible-believing, evangelical Christian. He is frankly more conservative than most of the people in this forum. But, he is clearly an ally that we would do well to learn about and work with.

 

----------

On a related note:

 

Christianity in Chains?

Pulse of the Twin Cities

Thursday 20 January @ 12:52:25

An interview with progressive clergy

by Brian Kaller

http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1594

[BrotherRog]

To learn more about Jim Wallis, visit http://www.sojo.net;

read Sojourners Magazine; and check out some of the books he's written:

e.g.

The Call to Conversion (the book that put him on the map)

The Soul of Politics: Beyond Religious Right and Secular Left

God's Politics: Why the Religious Right is Wrong and why the Left Doesn't Get it

 

Learn about them by reading the reviews at http://www.amazon.com

 

FYI, here are the Sojourner Community's equivalent to TCPC's 8 beliefs:

 

1. Hope is believing in spite of the evidence, and watching the evidence change.

&

2. the following which has been attributed to Ghandi:

 

The Seven Deadly Social Sins:

 

Politics without Principle;

Wealth without Work;

Commerce without Morality;

Pleasure without Conscience;

Education without Character;

Science Without Humanity;

Worship without Sacrifice.[/b]