Why Call Ourselves Christians?

[GeorgeW]

Which of these subjects centered on Jesus do I need to believe in order to be a Christian and what must I believe about these different aspects of Jesus?

 

Any.

 

I think that a theology or philosphy centered on Jesus is Christian. One centered on Muhammad is Islam, centered on Torah is Judaism, etc. My definition is a big tent. But, it has disqualifying features.

 

As I said, this is descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

I get that we could say because we're centered on Jesus, but then why not say we're Jesusites? If we center on Christ, what does that mean?

 

How about a definition by Merriam-Webster: "One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."

 

Wikipedia: "A person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament."

 

George

[GeorgeW]

WS,

 

I think this discussion points to the need for a broad definition. Some people have a pschological need for certitude with specific, concrete beliefs. Others are able to deal with fuzziness, ambiguity and uncertainty. Some people can live with Gob (ground of all being), while others need a God with clear attributes.

 

This is one place in which I differ with Bishop Spong. I don't think he recognizes or respects the varying psychological needs of people. His New Christianity, is IMO, as restrictive as that of the Southern Baptists.

 

George

[JenellYB]

To me, there is signficance in something at stage beyond accepting and following Jesus, Jesus's teachings, to through that, seeking toward something Jesus was teaching of, about, something to which He pointed to way toward in His teachings and life example.

 

I see that as not accepting or following Jesus as an end in itself, but as a means toward a greater end, beyond His own example per se.

 

Perhaps I'm saying, Jesus is the way, but not the destination? Or perhaps, that Jesus points to Christ as the way bit still neither Jesus nor Christ the destination.

 

Jenell

[Mike]

Hello Matt,

 

What I get from Marcus Borg is that he has his views. He presumes that what he thinks is what the early church thought, thinks that Jesus is not the Son of God and was not resurrected. He pontificates about words saying he wants to get back to their original meanings, but imposes his modernist views on those words and projects them onto the past. His views on Paul are interesting, but I have to say, so what? Who cares what he did or didn't supposedly say. It really doesn't matter because what matters, for me, is the TRUTH that they convey. And in the contradictions therein lies a tension that we need to have. We need to wrestle with scripture like Jacob wrestled with the angel. That is what the personal Christian God wants from us - to engage him. And if not like Jacob, then through the words.

 

 

Thomas Merton took a similar stance on scripture. I think there’s something to gain from it.

 

I think Borg is trying to deepen the sense in which we use certain words. I’m not sure where Borg presumes to think what the early church thought. I see him trying to touch on some aspects of religious faith that have often been overlooked within a modernist intellectual setting, and carry them over into a post-modern setting. Therefore, Borg tries to draw out metaphysical and metaphorical significances of Christian stories, doctrines, etc. He tries to define faith more existentially and practically -- not because “faith” hasn’t traditionally been doxic, but because it has also been more than this, and we often lose sight of this. Modernity has brought a historically unique challenge to “faith.” Borg has attempted to make an affirmation of faith beyond those challenges.

 

I like the way you use the word "revealed" Don't you think that the Bible is a revealed text? Don't you think other wisdom traditions don't think their texts are revealed as well? Christian apologists make the mistake of thinking that only Christianity makes the bold statement that their text is a revelation of God, when that is not true. You know that. The Buddha does appeal to Indra, doesn't he do so in the Avatamsaka Sutra and isn't that part of the Huayan School? The Bhagavad Gita is as revealed a text by the Divine as any of the prophetic book in the Bible. That makes it dogmatic to some extent. Dogma isn't a bad word and I think there's too much anxiety with how people associate it with their beliefs. All beliefs, even non-belief is dogma to some extent.

 

 

You’re correct about the Bhagavad-Gita (and Hinduism). Buddhism is a little iffy, in that, while you are fully right about the “divine origin” of certain texts (Asanga, for instance, is believed to have received dictation from the Bodhisattva Maitreya), the Buddha also established his teachings in opposition to the dogmatic tendencies of his parent religion/culture of Hinduism. However, Buddhism and Hinduism are so large and diverse that I think any attempt to characterize it will have its limitations.

 

All of this gets a little unclear. Although it’s clear that people of all religions (and rival schools of religion) have attempted to buttress themselves by claiming origin from a higher authority, it is not so clear in just what senses “dogma” can be used to describe what is going on. If all beliefs (and non-beliefs) are dogma, then the word becomes much less potent. This is why I attempted to define it as I did. Although, in the sutras, an appeal to a high authority is always made, what we readily find being argued for within the text is a worldview and a philosophical method, endorsed by highly realized minds, but not fundamentally inaccessible to anyone who undertakes the practice. In other words. A philosophical method and a way of seeing is not “dogma” in the sense that I have tried to define it. If the teachings themselves are meant to be transcended, if they are a “skillful means” with no ultimate validity given according the particular attainments of the disciple (as you will find countless times in the Mahayana), then are they really “revealed truths”? They are believed to be expressions of an enlightened mind, but are not themselves enlightenment; nor is this enlightenment something beyond the inward wisdom of the ordinary being. Really, the teachings come from within oneself. The teachings don’t exist for their own sake or for their own absolute validity.

 

 

This is not, however, what you find in, say, the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not a “skillful means” and is not of relative validity. “Dogmas” have a different purpose. They are articles of faith in their own right, they are not pointers to anything beyond themselves. The Trinity as such doesn’t articulate a philosophical perspective -- though one may be needed in order to allow it to have meaning for our lives. The Trinity gives life a certain meaning, rather than life supplying content to the word. It is in itself a revelation of Divine Mystery; there is nothing more to give it and nothing to take away from it.

 

Now, in this I have created something of a hard and fast distinction between “dogmatic” and “non-dogmatic” theology. I’m aware that any worldview rests on unproven (and perhaps improvable) assumptions. Theology finds its inspiration in the pre-rational and pre-objective mysteries of reality. I don't think "dogma" is a bad word either. Nor are doctrine, beliefs, teachings, theology etc., bad words. Dogma is one approach to religious faith. Perhaps I don't have it in me at this point to approach it that way.

 

Thanks for the interesting dialogue so far.

 

Peace,

Mike

[BillM]

I think this discussion points to the need for a broad definition. Some people have a pschological need for certitude with specific, concrete beliefs. Others are able to deal with fuzziness, ambiguity and uncertainty. Some people can live with Gob (ground of all being), while others need a God with clear attributes. This is one place in which I differ with Bishop Spong. I don't think he recognizes or respects the varying psychological needs of people. His New Christianity, is IMO, as restrictive as that of the Southern Baptists.

 

This resonates with me also, George. That's why I mentioned in a previous post that I think we find in Jesus what we feel we need (savior, protector, deliverer, etc.). There was a time in my life when I identified myself as, primarily, a sinner. Therefore, I needed a savior. I needed forgiveness for my sins and I felt that Jesus' death and blood provided that. That theology worked at the time. But I slowly came to see that I was living my life at the metaphorical laver and altar. I was constantly in need of washing and forgiveness. And the Jesus story I was told was pretty much confined him to this limited understanding and view - solely a means of keeping myself forgiven and clean.

 

Where I am in my journey now, I am not overly concerned about my sins. What I am concerned about now is my failure to love as I know I should. So I now see Jesus as a pattern (and perhaps as an enabler) for me to live a life of love. What I need from the Jesus story is different now than what I needed from it years ago. What I need from the Jesus story now is the power to live in the metaphorical Holy of Holies where I no longer feel separated from God and my fellow human beings. Where I feel God's presence with me and even in me. And I think the Jesus story can meet this need in my life.

 

I'm just writing off the top of my head, feeding off your posts and those of others in this thread, so I have no answers as such. But I would agree with you that I don't think it is enough, especially for newcomers, for PC to say "We are Christians..." and then expect them to poll each and every one of us to get our specific interpretations of Jesus and his story. I certainly don't want to pursue the over-used tactic of our more conservative fundamentalist brothers and sisters and present Jesus in only one vein or one aspect. Rather, I like and appreciate what you said, George, about us needing a broad definition, although I might word it as saying that we recognize that Christianity has a broad spectrum of belief and interpretation where Jesus is concerned and, therefore, of what Christianity entails.

 

If we took that approach, and, again, this is just off the top of my head, I would recommend something like: "We recognize that Christianity is a multi-layered religion made up of numerous views. We recognize that Christians come in many different shapes and sizes and think this is variety to be celebrated, not erradicated. We recognize that people find in Jesus and in his story many different meanings and interpretations that help them in their journey. Therefore, we seek to honor a broad definition of Christianity and a broad spectrum of meanings as to the word Christian."

 

I realize that the above statement is ungainly and awkward. I'm just trying to illustrate the principle or thought behind a way for us to present how, unlike traditional Christianity, people are free here to find in Jesus and his story what they need. Imo, they will anyway. But it is always nice to know that people understand.

 

On a more personal level, I agree with you about Bishop Spong. He does a good job in deconstructing the "savior myth." But in my opinion, he doesn't offer much more about Jesus once/if we let go of the "savior myth." He doesn't really explore all the other myriad and life-changing aspects of this carpenter from Nazareth. I think they are worth exploring and, for all of my critiques (and sometimes criticisms) of PC, I think the PC community is in a good place to do that work. The question is, will we?

[JosephM]

In other words, the goal here is not to determine who are and who are not Christians, but to allow people who self-confess to be so (as well as those who don’t) to talk about what this means to them.

 

Bill, personally I think you have spoken well in this.

 

We all experience Jesus differently. It has always been so. Our Bibles reflect four central experiences of Jesus from the early church with enough congruity that it can be safely said that there was something transformative about the man that made people think him important to humanity. But there are also enough differences between the gospel writers’ views to make it extremely difficult to get at the “human Jesus.” And when we add in the apostle Paul’s experience, not of the human Jesus, but of the risen, deified Christ, we get another view yet. Christians have, somehow, always found ways to hold these different views in tension, even complementary.

 

When the story of Jesus hits our heart, we must each determine for ourselves what that story means and what place he will have in our lives. It’s my conviction that the Jesus story has resulted in people experiencing him, just like the prism analogy, in a myriad of ways – as shepherd, healer, exorcist, door, bread of life, light, savior, salt, enlightener, protector, comforter, guarantor of afterlife, etc. Traditional Christianity tends to want to portray Jesus as only one “color” – Savior (with overtones of Lord throne in).

 

And also in this.

 

PC, imo, wants to leave the issue open, wants to allow for people to experience Jesus in whatever “color” (or colors) that are meaningful to them. It doesn’t want to narrow or nail Jesus down. That’s been done once and, if rumor is correct, he didn’t stay there. But in allowing for all the different colors of Jesus, as I mentioned in another thread, the light and colors get diffused, less distinct. This is going to bother people who want to know *exactly* who Jesus was/is, especially with a crowd as diverse as we are.

 

It seems to me that as humans, such will always have people bothered by this. (not knowing exactly) I am not saying that one can't know exactly who Jesus is but i think personally that that is of lesser importance than the teaching recorded by him that do speak to the individual and i feel PC as practiced here agrees with this..

 

So I can’t tell you why PC calls itself Christian or Christianity. It seems to have something to do with Jesus, but I’m unsure of the relationship. But it’s that way in my own heart also. We have the fun and responsible task of deciding for ourselves who Jesus is, what he means to us, and what it means to call ourselves Christian if we so choose.

 

Perhaps you can not tell us as you have indicated but it is no mystery to me that regardless of differences in answers to each one of your questions a few posts above this,the first point is clear that those who consider themselves PC according to point 1 is because they have found an approach to God through the teachings of Jesus known as the Christ. Which teachings one might ask? Whatever recorded teaching(s) of his that worked for the individual claiming such to find their approach to God.

 

So to anyone who might ask....what do you need to believe to call yourself a Christian? I would ask... Why is it so important to set narrow and exact parameters? Is everyone the same place in their journey? Do we really need to set up what one must believe other than to be try ones best to follow Jesus in ones present understanding? If we set the requirements so specific, how then will each journey for themselves? Will they then not be compelled to accept that which they have not yet ascertained for themselves? If we do then have we not taken the progressive out of their journey and instead just set up another related belief system called Progressive Christianity? I sure hope it doesn't come to that as in my view when the end of the journey has been reached, we will all be united anyway at which point all those creeds and narrow definitions of required beliefs and labels will not really matter.

Just my own thoughts on the matter,

Joseph

[JosephM]

Ultimately, imo, *everything* is about belief. Even in orthopraxy, we believe that certain behaviors and attitudes are better than others. We believe it is better to be compassionate than to be dispassionate. We believe it is better to be loving than hateful. We believe it is better to forgive than to bear grudges. We believe it is better to work for a better world than to let it go to hell in a handbasket. Imo, all orthopraxy comes from what we believe to be true or what we believe to be better or wiser. I don’t think there is any such thing as orthopraxy without beliefs. Beliefs are, imo, how we conceptualize things to really be, and then our orthopraxy is our way of testing our beliefs to see if our beliefs stand the test of reality or morality.

 

Bill,

While your statement to me seems to be logical , i think that what we do and what we say we believe or even really believe are often in conflict. Perhaps because emotions and other factors become involved. Therefore i believe the fullest expression of our deep beliefs may not always be in our actions. Perhaps that is why as humans we might feel the need to ask for forgiveness so much.

 

Where I think the PC movement has erred is in thinking that if there is no supernatural God (a God who breaks the laws of the universe or who plays favorites with humanity through divine revelation), then there is no other choice but to reject God outright or to think of ourselves as God. The first leads to atheism. The second to self-deification or New Age religion which is, imo, demonstrably false. As I said previously, we didn’t create the universe nor all the laws that keep it together.

 

I must say it seems to me this is a bit presumptuous in that you have boxed the PC movement into such a small box of two self defined choices and concluded the end point of both of them.

 

Allow me to, briefly, take it a step further. Jesus seemed to believe in God as a person-like Spirit. Jesus addressed God as a “who”, not as a “what”. Jesus claimed unity with a “who”, not with a “what.” If the teachings of Jesus are as important to PCs as the Eight Points say, then why are PCs so eager to change God into a “what” or to imply that in addressing God, Jesus was really just talking to himself, suffering narcissictic delusions? How far can we go from Jesus’ own point-of-view and still call ourselves Christians?

 

It seems to me Jesus spoke in a language that people of that time were familiar with. As you know, language is a convenience and in things of the Spirit cannot be exact. Parables, and metaphors are often used.. In the context of all Jesus taught it seems obvious to me that he knew God was so much more than can be described by the word Father, Him or a "who". I am not aware of a PC standard. term aqnd i believe it is useful to keep it such. I use the word God, some PC's use Him, some use G_d, some use She, some use Mother, some Father, some it or other abstract terms. PC's to me, are not eager to change God into anything, only to find words to better express their experience of God. PC's are free to express God as they see God in words at this moment of their walk. I think some are merely seeking more meaningful words for themselves while , in my view, no words are adequate but that is just my own view and not PC's as a whole. Can these still call themselves Christians. As you are already aware, of course they can and it seems to me that all may not agree but agreement doesn't seem to be required nor would it be appropriate to use ones belief, if one believes they are not Christians to accuse them of such here. (You have NOT done this by your questioning. i merely mention it for the sake of new members reading these posts and not familiar)

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts on your comments,

joseph

[BillM]

I must say it seems to me this is a bit presumptuous in that you have boxed the PC movement into such a small box of two self defined choices and concluded the end point of both of them.

 

I don't think I've boxed the PC movement in, Joseph, but I do enough reading of PC books and listening to PC messages that, yes, I have "sampled impressions" of the movement.

 

For instance, in a local UU church, which is very progressive socially, they don't speak of God or Jesus, not in any of the sermons that I have heard while there. But they do speak of the Divinity within, repeatedly. They refer to this Divinity within as our guide for life. Why don't they call it God? Is God too loaded of a term? Perhaps. But they are referring to "something" by using the term Divinity. I suppose it is left up to the congregants to decide for themselves what that is.

 

Another church (or former church) that has (or had) PC podcasts recently decided to pull down their cross from their building and declare that they are a house of worship for all religions. Their more recent podcasts also speak of this Divinity within while avoiding God-language. Jesus is still sometimes mentioned in some of the podcasts, but equal time is given to Buddha, the Dalai Lama, and other luminaries.

 

Please, Joseph, don't think I'm against these "progressions" of religion or faith or whatever it is that it is. If there was not a need for communities like this, they wouldn't exist.

 

But...what I'm seeing from my "sampling" is the tendency for the PC movement to move away from God-language and the Jesus story. And I think that this is what Yvonne is concerned about in her OP -- will PC keep progressing to where it loses God and Jesus completely?

 

It's my opinion that it's the traditional Christianity of our past that forces us into boxes. It's that kind of Christianity which says, "If you don't believe in God and Jesus exactly as the Bible portrays them, then you are not a Christian." As you well know, the PC movement has responded, gently, with, "No, there are other ways of believing in and experiencing God and Jesus other than blindly, uncritically accepting what the scriptures say. There are other ways of being a Christian than what popular Christianity tries to impose on us." I think this is laudable.

 

But these "other ways" are, imo, different from saying, as my sampling of some of those in PC movement seems to tell me, that God doesn't exist, that Jesus didn't exist, or that the human Jesus and his message is irrelevant. I'm not a prophet saying, "This is where PC will go." All I am asking is, "Is this the direction that PC wants to go?" For some, the answer is yes. They are now progressive communities of faith (or many faiths), but they no longer are associated with God, Jesus, or Christianity.

 

I think some are merely seeking more meaningful words for themselves while in truth to me, no words are necessary but that is just my own view and not PC's as a whole.

 

I agree with you, my friend, when it comes to the experience of God. It goes beyond words. To me, experiences of God are experiences of the heart where deep calls to deep and it's foolish to think that we can ever capture those experiences in exact words. In fact, I suspect the more we try, the more we have to resort to metaphors and similies rather than concrete language.

 

But we are part of a community (or communties). Despite all of my years of watching Star Trek, I've not yet perfected my ability to Mind Meld. I've come close - I've got a working Mind Melt. But until/unless we do that, all I have available to me to tell you of *my* experiences of God and Jesus are words. Yes, they fall short, but they are all we have, especially on a forum like this. Nevertheless, they can be very powerful for communicating ideas.

 

I still think that it's pop Christianity that tells us that there is one and only one way to define/experience God and Jesus. They tell us that if we don't line up with this one way, we must abandon our God-language and the story of Jesus. And some PCs have done so. I say that we don't have to give up our God-language or the Jesus story. We can do what the gospel writers did and creatively say, "This is our understanding of God, this is our understanding of Jesus." Will there be personal biases involved? Certainly. After all, we claim that our relationship with God and Jesus is personal. But we don't have to lose the language or the story...unless we want to. I, for one, don't want to.

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts on your comments, joseph

 

Thanks for sharing them.

[JosephM]

For instance, in a local UU church, which is very progressive socially, they don't speak of God or Jesus, not in any of the sermons that I have heard while there. But they do speak of the Divinity within, repeatedly. They refer to this Divinity within as our guide for life. Why don't they call it God? Is God too loaded of a term? Perhaps. But they are referring to "something" by using the term Divinity. I suppose it is left up to the congregants to decide for themselves what that is.

 

Just to present a slightly different view, comparing my limited experience of UU with your experience of UU. My brother is very active in TN in a UU church. He informs me that many of its members participate in sermons and Jesus and his teachings are mentioned quite often along with Buddha and others they find speaks to them. Many of them even consider themselves PC. There seems to me to be such a wide range of views in UU concerning Divinity and God that there is to me in UU difficulty to define a standard, similar to what PC's experience..

 

But...what I'm seeing from my "sampling" is the tendency for the PC movement to move away from God-language and the Jesus story. And I think that this is what Yvonne is concerned about in her OP -- will PC keep progressing to where it loses God and Jesus completely?

 

Perhaps that is so but to define it as such or second guess where it will go for next month or next year i cannot say and i believe that is not a main concern of PC. As i think you know it is more an individual way of life and journey than a religion. Where it takes one it takes one, and personally, i would not be overly concerned as it is the freedom of the Spirit for each to work out their own salvation.

 

 

But these "other ways" are, imo, different from saying, as my sampling of some of those in PC movement seems to tell me, that God doesn't exist, that Jesus didn't exist, or that the human Jesus and his message is irrelevant. I'm not a prophet saying, "This is where PC will go." All I am asking is, "Is this the direction that PC wants to go?" For some, the answer is yes. They are now progressive communities of faith (or many faiths), but they no longer are associated with God, Jesus, or Christianity.

 

A sampling in PC personally tells me little because there are turns and detours i have experienced that tell me there are possibly a myriad of roads within PC itself that eventually will lead to that which no longer will require the tools and steps and beliefs that were taken to so call "arrive" at unity . Now this is only my view and i choose not to disagree with you if you might see it differently.

 

I still think that it's pop Christianity that tells us that there is one and only one way to define/experience God and Jesus. They tell us that if we don't line up with this one way, we must abandon our God-language and the story of Jesus. And some PCs have done so. I say that we don't have to give up our God-language or the Jesus story. We can do what the gospel writers did and creatively say, "This is our understanding of God, this is our understanding of Jesus." Will there be personal biases involved? Certainly. After all, we claim that our relationship with God and Jesus is personal. But we don't have to lose the language or the story...unless we want to. I, for one, don't want to.

Thanks for sharing them.

 

I also think as you that is not necessary to give up your God-language. PC does not require such even though some might choose to do so. The freedom of PC expression allows both and perhaps we are both pleased with this?

 

Thanks for your additional comments to my response. I only commented on parts i felt i might have something to clarify or add of my own view,

Joseph

[JenellYB]

I think perhaps that just as we have sometimes talked about here how it is important to not see Jesus or the Buddha or any other person, or even religious philosophy of set of beliefs as the "goal", but as all "pointers to something else", so might it be of the PC perspective. What any of us believe or not believe in, no matter what the differences that make it impossible to pin down, box in, "this is what PC believe", as a common doctrine, may actually be of little relevance or matter....the actual common relevance being that for all the differences, all are doing their best to "point toward", "point at", something else, something greater, and trully ineffable.

 

Jenell

[GeorgeW]

Does Unitarian Universalism even claim to be Christian?

 

George

[BillM]

I appreciate your input, Jenell. It helped me coalesce my final thoughts on this subject for the time being. To me, what PC comes down to, in my opinion, is that all we really have is *our* opinions. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

The upside of this, for some of us, coming from the backgrounds that some of us do, is that we find great freedom in this. We are no longer told what our opinions are or should be according to the Bible, the Church, religious tradition, our parents, the creeds, our denominations, etc. We are truly free to explore what *we* believe and what works for us. We are our own authority.

 

The downside of this is that all we really have is our *own* opinions. No matter how much we may use the language of "pointers to something else" or "pointers to the More", none of our opinions carry any weight because, after all, they are merely human opinions. And we all know what they say about those. And because our opinions are all human, they are all equal.

 

Because, at the end of the day, all we can really say is, "It's my opinion..." or "It's my view that...", then, from a very practical standpoint, there is no God or authority outside of us. We are our own gods. We each rule our own little universe of opinions. That's all we have left to us because our theology won't allow us to posit a god outside of us. While we may speak of something else, something greater, something ineffable, because all we can lay claim to is our opinions, that "other" is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible to us. So I don't see the difference between atheism and "opinion theology". The first says that there is no God. The second says that God is so far beyond us that all we are left with is human opinions. It may be interesting to discuss all of these opinions (and it is), but there is no real transcendent truth to them because they are true only for the person holding them.

 

In "opinion theology", God is whomever we want God to be. It is the same with Jesus. All we have is opinions, personal views. And, going back to my prism analogy, because they take on so many different definitions and views, they mean so much that they mean almost nothing.

 

It is an interesting phenomenon.

 

Of course, the above critique is, as usual, only my opinion. :lol:

[BillM]

Does Unitarian Universalism even claim to be Christian?

 

Both Unitarians and Universalists used to be progressive Christian denominations. But it seems that they no longer are. Reference:

 

Are UUs Christian?

 

The answer to this question varies among UUs. Unitarians and Universalists, once liberal Protestant Christian denominations, drew away from their Christian base to embrace the principle of individual freedom of belief. Although some churches are still liberal Christian, today only about 20 percent of UUs would call themselves Christian. Thus Unitarian Universalism cannot be considered a totally Christian religion.

 

http://www.uunashua.org/100q/c2.shtml

 

A Christian Deist friend of mine, John Lindell, was a Unitarian minister until, when they merged with the Universalists, the new denomination removed "Love for God and love for fellow men" out of their bylaws. For John, he couldn't see how any group could claim the label Christian while discarding Jesus' two commandments.

[BillM]

Does Unitarian Universalism even claim to be Christian?

 

There is, George, a branch of the UU denomination that still holds to its Christian roots.

 

Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship: http://www.uuchristian.org/index.shtml

[JosephM]

The downside of this is that all we really have is our *own* opinions. No matter how much we may use the language of "pointers to something else" or "pointers to the More", none of our opinions carry any weight because, after all, they are merely human opinions. And we all know what they say about those. And because our opinions are all human, they are all equal.

Because, at the end of the day, all we can really say is, "It's my opinion..." or "It's my view that...", then, from a very practical standpoint, there is no God or authority outside of us. We are our own gods. We each rule our own little universe of opinions. That's all we have left to us because our theology won't allow us to posit a god outside of us. While we may speak of something else, something greater, something ineffable, because all we can lay claim to is our opinions, that "other" is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible to us. So I don't see the difference between atheism and "opinion theology". The first says that there is no God. The second says that God is so far beyond us that all we are left with is human opinions. It may be interesting to discuss all of these opinions (and it is), but there is no real transcendent truth to them because they are true only for the person holding them.

 

In "opinion theology", God is whomever we want God to be. It is the same with Jesus. All we have is opinions, personal views. And, going back to my prism analogy, because they take on so many different definitions and views, they mean so much that they mean almost nothing. You say "It may be interesting to discuss all of these opinions (and it is), but there is no real transcendent truth to them because they are true only for the person holding them" while i would add that as long as one views oneself as separate from creation that would seem to be the case, but it seems to me to be necessary step to pass through to extinguish views and expose Truth.

 

It is an interesting phenomenon.

 

Of course, the above critique is, as usual, only my opinion. :lol:

 

WS,

 

That is certainly one way to look at it. However, i for one think at the end of the day i still have that which is beyond opinions whether of mine or someone else. That "something else " you refer to that opinions only point to is precious. You may conclude as you say that then from a practical standpoint there is no God or again as you say " that "other" is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible to us". I would testify otherwise and you could say that is then only my opinion and my answer would be, your conclusion is fine with me even though i do not share it.

 

By using labels such as this is "opinion theology" and seeing it as no different than atheism, i feel you have put a label to something that limits its understanding and assumes that is all there is and leaves no room for God. In my experience, it is opinions and views and recognizing them for what they are that exposes that which they point to. This of course just my own experience.

 

Joseph

[JenellYB]

WS wrote: It may be interesting to discuss all of these opinions (and it is), but there is no real transcendent truth to them because they are true only for the person holding them.

 

If that be so, then what is this...whatever it is....that even so differently so many of us might try to describe it, our experiencing of it, of which others listening 'recognize', even through the different words, different symbols, different images and metaphors each many use in trying to capture and express the essence of it, and from the heart of their being, respond, "Yes! Yes! That's IT! That's what I'm talking about too, what I experience too! Yes! That's it!"

 

Jenell

[BillM]

If that be so, then what is this...whatever it is....that even so differently so many of us might try to describe it, our experiencing of it, of which others listening 'recognize', even through the different words, different symbols, different images and metaphors each many use in trying to capture and express the essence of it, and from the heart of their being, respond, "Yes! Yes! That's IT! That's what I'm talking about too, what I experience too! Yes! That's it!"

 

If one accepts the notion, Jenell, that all we have available to us, all that we really know and can testify to, is our own opinions and/or experiences, then these commonalities are little more than just that, common human opinions and experiences, perhaps on the level of the awe we experience when we first hold our newborn children or when we see the ocean for the first time. I think it is reasonable to assume that most atheists and agnostics would explain these things in much the same way, that being human means a shared humanity and many shared commonalities.

 

I don't find that notion convincing. For me, there is too much serendipity going on for me to ascribe it all to mere humanity. That's why, for me, God is not just a figment of my imagination or my own ego magnified or my spirit deified (i.e. Christ-ified). I don't (and can't) deny my own subjectivity of my opinions and experiences of God; to do so would be foolish. But unlike what I see portrayed by the far left PC authors, I still think my internal opinions and experiences can be linked or related to the God who is more than I am, to a God who is real, not just a "metaphor of our best human virtues and values." To me, there is a vast difference in describing God with metaphors and saying that God is nothing but a metaphor. But, again, that's me and I suspect that I'm in the minority on this -- which is okay. C'est la vie.

 

This is why the far left of PC has left me empty, unsatisfied, restless in my spirit. It did a good job in helping me to admit to myself that I didn't believe in the "old man in the sky" god, the god who is primarily a book-keeper of our sins and our judge. But it has, in my opinion, thrown the baby out with the bath water and tells us that all our notions and experiences of God are all "in our head" or, as Spong describes it, human ways of dealing with the angst of being. According to this theology, if God does exist, it is because *we* are the creators and have dreamed him up in our heads to allow us to cope with life, or God is just the label we use for our own internal sense of divinity with, again, humans as the source. Therefore, because we are the source, all we have is human opinion. I simply don't find this convincing and I certainly don't think it reflects Jesus' view of God.

 

I can never go back to being a conservative fundamentalist. But I don't think that my journey out of that kind of Christianity means that I have to give up God or that all I'm left with is metaphors or mere human opinions. I still believe God is greater than we are, our designer, and that God has a will for us. Again, this seems to put me in the minority, but that's where I am.

[JosephM]

WS,

 

Where you are i think is fine. If you feel Spong is too far left that doesn't have to affect you and your journey. Spong may be well known and widely respected and you may now feel you are in the minority but his views are his expressions within PC but not PC. It seems obvious to me from your words that his writings have struck a chord perhaps along with others that has left you as you say "unsatisfied" and " restless in spirit ". It seems to me that this is just another room to pass through in your journey. I believe through patience and tolerance and living for now with some uncertainties, you as all of us on this journey will pass through such times and come out stronger and with a clearer inward understanding of things that surpass our words and definitions. I as you also believe God is greater than i and that God has a will for us. Does that put us both in the minority? If so, sobeit. Are we not one in God except perhaps not in thought?

 

Joseph

[JenellYB]

WS, now i'm really confused. I thought you were saying you think there is nothing any of us have but opinions, andthen when i defend that for at least some of us, there is something beyond merely own opinions, a common experience that we can attempt to share and recognize others' attempts to share, which to me, for me, is whatever some call "God", you seem to differ and say you DO believe there is something more? I think I lost you somewhere.

 

Jenell

[BillM]

Sorry, Jenell, I didn't mean to lose you. Beginning with post #113 and continuing with post #118, I was "thinking aloud" of my view of PC and my place in and relationship to it. This is reflected in the first part of #113 where I wrote, "To me, what PC comes down to, in my opinion, is that all we really have is *our* opinions."

 

What I was primarily thinking of is the two extreme ways of thinking that I've journeyed through.

 

In the Christianity of my youth, nothing was said to be opinion. Everything in the Bible was God's words, as if he had dictated it. Everything Jesus said in the Bible actually came from his lips, and Paul's writings all came directly from God. The Church's doctrines were God's doctrines. To disbelieve them was to disbelieve God. There was no room for me to question things in that paradigm because everything carried Divine authority with it. As the bumper sticker says, "God said it, I believe it." The problem for me was that I couldn't believe God said some of that stuff or did some of the stuff attributed to him.

 

But the other extreme that I find associated with PC is that *everything* is said to be human opinion. The Bible was written by humans, so it is no more inspired or sacred than this paragraph. Nothing Jesus said in the gospels was actually said by him, if he even existed at all. Because all we really have is our own opinions, there is no God to either believe or disbelieve in. God, in this paradigm, is a metaphor for our best human virtues and values, nothing more.

 

And that, Jenell, is my point -- for me, God is something More than notions and concepts that we make up in our head. I agree that we are subjective creatures, that we experience things internally and find most of our meaning in how we process and relate things internally. But I don't think that God is *only* internal, only a concept in my brain. I think our best notions and concepts of God, especially as found in the teaching of Jesus, point to a *real* God who is both "out there" and "in here".

 

Speaking only for myself, I'm not comfortable with either extreme. I don't agree with conservative Christianity's view that everything within the faith is foundational, that everything carries "divine weight." Nor do I agree with the PC theology that says that nothing is foundational, that nothing carries "divine weight", that all we have is human opinion or human opinion deified. I think there is a "middle ground" where some things are foundational but we acknowledge that other things are indeed only opinion.

 

What is foundational? Well, that's another question and another subject. But there is enough "Christian" left in me where I tend to think that it is what Jesus both said and demonstrated about loving God and loving others. To me, this would be a sturdy foundation. But it isn't a foundational or divine teaching if, as the more popular PC authors seem to think, there is no *real* God to love, no real Jesus, and no real words of Jesus in the Bible. To me, there is nothing foundational in "opinion theology". This is why, for those who hold to it, agreement or disagreement with "opinion theology" doesn't matter. There is no higher Truth or Reality. Nothing is foundational, all we have is human opinion. So everything is allowed. Obviously, some are comfortable with this paradigm. But my heart tells me and my life experiences convince me that there is a More, a God, a higher Truth and Reality. If that is really the case, we do indeed have more than just human opinion.

[BillM]

Joseph,

 

Spong may be well known and widely respected and you may now feel you are in the minority but his views are his expressions within PC but not PC.

 

I know that. There is no one person that speaks for all of PC. But PC does have its influential writers (as do all religions and strands of Christianity) and they not only reflect what some people are thinking, but also influence the future thinking of their respective groups. Otherwise, they wouldn't write.

 

It seems obvious to me from your words that his writings have struck a chord perhaps along with others that has left you as you say "unsatisfied" and " restless in spirit ". It seems to me that this is just another room to pass through in your journey.

 

I suspect you're correct, Joseph. Going back to analogy that I used earlier, the good Bishop (and other PC authors) have removed the wheels, the engine, the transmission, the seats, and the doors from the car of Christianity and then said either, "I am STILL a Christian!" or "Now, THIS is the new Christianity!" And I ask, as Yvonne did in the OP, how so? And the answer comes, "Because I say so." Hmmm...

 

I believe through patience and tolerance and living for now with some uncertainties, you as all of us on this journey will pass through such times and come out stronger and with a clearer inward understanding of things that surpass our words and definitions.

 

I agree. Or I strongly hope so. I don't mind living with some or even a large portion of uncertainties. Experience tells me that such is life. But I'm not comfortable with the way I sense these authors and shapers of PC are going, the premise that *all* is uncertain, that nothing is foundational. This "new car" that they are offering us make be a good place for some of us to sit in a meditate, but with no engine and wheels, I doubt it is truly "progressive" or going anywhere.

 

As I've said, the more esoteric authors and shapers of this movement obviously find a "sympathetic chord" with many people, probably especially with those who have been hurt or disenchanted with the Church and its overbearing form of foundationalism. Otherwise, these authors/shapers couldn't sell books or find an audience. But, for me, while I appreciate their critique of excessive foundationalism, I think they err in their own extremeism that nothing is foundational.

 

I suspect that I will probably find a happy "middle ground" somewhere. I certainly hope so.

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

I suspect you're correct, Joseph. Going back to analogy that I used earlier, the good Bishop (and other PC authors) have removed the wheels, the engine, the transmission, the seats, and the doors from the car of Christianity and then said either, "I am STILL a Christian!" or "Now, THIS is the new Christianity!" And I ask, as Yvonne did in the OP, how so? And the answer comes, "Because I say so." Hmmm...

 

Bill,

I would suggest that PC is only a vehicle. The parts of which will one day no longer serve ones need. The destination is unity or as Jesus is quoted saying "Father, I pray that they may be one even as we are One." (whatever that means, i am not saying here) So I would suggest asking oneself does the words from Spong (and other PC authors) really matter to me? Whose journey is this? Is it Spong's? It is wonderful that he expresses himself and has been instrumental in helping so many break free from tradition but in my view, he cannot describe accurately in your terms that which you seek. How important is it to you to be able to say you are a Deist, Christian, PC or whatever. It is a label as you know and when it comes down to 'brass tacks' it really is of little consequence in experiencing unity with God as Jesus did. Yes?

 

 

 

I agree. Or I strongly hope so. I don't mind living with some or even a large portion of uncertainties. Experience tells me that such is life. But I'm not comfortable with the way I sense these authors and shapers of PC are going, the premise that *all* is uncertain, that nothing is foundational. This "new car" that they are offering us make be a good place for some of us to sit in a meditate, but with no engine and wheels, I doubt it is truly "progressive" or going anywhere.

 

Being not comfortable with the way you sense those authors shape PC is in my experience just a detour in the journey. (IMO, the long way) In my view, they no longer can offer you anything. Other than encouragement and love from others on the way, you are on your own. Its you and God all the way. I would ask, as a religion, rather than a vehicle, what does where PC is going have to do with your journey? (excuse the boldness of my questions and statements please) Sure, we both have our ideas concerning it , and they may be the same or different, but as you know Love which is Unity is what really matters. To me, PC has its function and we each have ours.

 

 

As I've said, the more esoteric authors and shapers of this movement obviously find a "sympathetic chord" with many people, probably especially with those who have been hurt or disenchanted with the Church and its overbearing form of foundationalism. Otherwise, these authors/shapers couldn't sell books or find an audience. But, for me, while I appreciate their critique of excessive foundationalism, I think they err in their own extremeism that nothing is foundational.

 

Personally i don't concern myself with the motives of others such as PC authors. They have there own journey and mountains to move. I can only change myself and in doing so perhaps it will assist others in their journey. I would suggest to those who would listen that when the cataracts have been removed one can see more clearly to do the most good. What that good is for one is known to him by that unity and cannot be seen by much of the masses. That is at least my experience and that is all i can do is share and love. I cannot change that which is not broke and i leave the authors of which i have been one to themselves.

 

I suspect that I will probably find a happy "middle ground" somewhere. I certainly hope so.

 

Yes. In my view, you are as i and others not alone in that hope.

 

Joseph

[matt67]

Joseph

 

Thats the problem with PC Joseph, it doesn't speak with authority. To me it accommodates the modernist mindset that the supernatural doesn't exist, that God is not as God is (as is revealed in scripture) and more like the way we want him to be. We feel the need to go to other traditions (as they are more correct in their worldview) and are in fact ashamed that we are Christians to some extent.

[soma]

“I can only change myself and in doing so perhaps it will assist others in their journey. I would suggest to those who would listen that when the cataracts have been removed one can see more clearly to do the most good. What that good is for one is known to him by that unity and cannot be seen by much of the masses. That is at least my experience and that is all i can do is share and love. I cannot change that which is not broke and i leave the authors of which i have been one to themselves.” Joseph

 

The quote above leads me to the thought that God is just an idea or thought that each one of us thinks and develops. We develop our thoughts by reading different enthusiasts on the subject, progressive or not because God is in the mind, but also beyond our thinking. It seems Christianity and our minds get stuck in the thoughts and not the transcending of our mind. When I read, I feel the author is referencing the transcendent. In my old age I am tired of meanings, I seek the spiritual experience of being alive, which I feel Joseph expressed very well above. I feel the different ideas of God do support our life and religion by giving us inner meaning, but the inner meaning usually becomes an ethical tradition and loses it true meaning which is a clue to spirituality, a metaphor pointing to the consciousness that can’t be known, the transcendence or spiritual potentialities of our life. I look at the different authors and their bodies of work as mantras or micro themes to raise the consciousness to live in the world and beyond it at the same time, which I call living my life. Christianity and human mentality seems to naturally get stuck with the thoughts developed into religions and forgets the Divinity within or consciousness without.