David Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Paul, I would love to have you as a neighbor. In our community we would not want to cause harm to anyone and would like everyone to be genuine. For those who want to be Jews it may mean more than just being a good neighbor. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Paul, I would love to have you as a neighbor. In our community we would not want to cause harm to anyone and would like everyone to be genuine. For those who want to be Jews it may mean more than just being a good neighbor. David I'm also a realist though David - 13 years of policing taught me that there are a number of nasties out there! I'm not sure of your point though - does the TCPC site need to be tailored more for Jewish members? If we reinstate the previous 8 points that will be acceptable to all Jewish believers? Edited May 7, 2012 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Joseph, I don't understand your response to my request for some evidence that any leading progressive theologian supports that the word God does not work for them. I have watched Ian for a while. I used to get his services via DVD and kept up with his group as much as possible including via email. David David, If you will look at the Staff here at Progressive Christianity.org you will find Borg, Spong, Armstrong and many others. I have heard no objections from them. Joseph Ian is no more of a spokesman for PC than you or i. I do not know his intent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Good question Paul. Does the TCPC site need to be tailored more for Jewish members? What would be gained? What would be lost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Joseph, I would love to see any evidence that Borg, Spong, Armstrong support the current eight points. I have heard Borg, Armstrong, and Spong on many occasions and have read many of their books. The only time that I can remember that any one of those persons actually mentioned TCPC was when Borg said that he did not like the term "progressive Christianity" and preferred to use other ways to describe a new reformation. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Good question Paul. Does the TCPC site need to be tailored more for Jewish members? What would be gained? What would be lost? I don't think it does. It's available to anybody of the Jewish faith just as it is available to anyone of any other faith/belief/religion. I guess the question would be 'which' Jewish members opinion do you value over others, as clearly not all Jewish people hold the exact same opinion when it comes to describing and knowing that which cannot be described (and the same would go for just about every religion I should imagine). Perhaps there will never be a resolution to all people's preference in this matter, simply because such a diverse range of opinions, as is found here, make it almost impossible to be all things to all people. I am fairly relaxed about it, but I must admit I might not be if things were going a way that I didn't want. What would I do? Probably the same as we're doing here - debating and discussing the pros and cons, the ins and outs. If it came to a point where I simply couldn't reconcile with what was being said here and/or wasn't getting something out of it, I wouldn't be here. But also that might be taking things too seriously. After all, it is just a website where people who have some things in common come together to discuss and help one another in their journey in life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) David, Click here and scroll down to Staff. These people are not outside of this organization. You can second guess their feelings all you like and assume about them and how they feel about the new 8 points from your interpretations of their past writings and speeches but i have no more to add to the issue you have with the new 8 points. As far as i know the Staff has no issue as you do as they are now presented. I feel no need to prove anything more than i have offered you. Joseph Edited May 7, 2012 by JosephM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Although I am not an Old Testament scholar nor an expert on Jewish theology I have always been under that understanding that NORM is correct here when he states that in Jewish tradition there was needed a word that was unlike any other word in that it was a symbol for what words could not describe. There was a need for a word that was unlike any other word because it could not be spoken. Y.H.W.H. is a word written over 7000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and there is not a single prohibition about speaking it. And, it was said many times by characters in the scriptures. The notion that Yahweh is not a name is not widely held in Judaism. However, it is widely held that it should not be said because it is sacred. Some also say they don't know how to pronounce it because it is unvoweled in the Masoretic texts. The fact is that nothing was voweled in Hebrew texts until the 8th or 9th centuries C.E by which time this tradition had developed. But, it is a post-biblical development. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Correction. of last post by me. Scroll down to Honorary Advisors. These people are advisors to this organization . Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Joseph, I am not trying to "second guess" Borg, Spong, Armstrong, etc. They are very public people. Many people have heard them and read their books. Has anyone read anything they have written or heard them say anything that would indicate that the word God does not work for them? As I noted with Borg: just because Borg has allowed his name to be used does not mean that he is active within TCPC. As I noted he does not prefer the term "progressive Christianity" according to the one time I heard him talk about it. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 George, I will have to pull out my Von Rad's OT Theology books and Noth's History of Israel, but evidently you concede that there is the tradition that not speaking the name because it is sacred is correct. Given that then my point would be that you would not want to substitute the word Sacred for the word Yahweh as being better because the word Sacred describes Yahweh. You keep the word Sacred as a normal descriptive word. You keep the word Yahweh as that which can not be spoken. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I know Spong uses 'ground of all being' alot, which I understand comes from Tillich. Whilst I have not heard any of the people you mention David, specifically state that the word 'God' doesn't work for them, my thoughts are that none of them would particularly object to a variety of words pointing to what they consider to be God, based on their writings and how I perceive their belief/undersatnding to be. I actually don't expect, from what I have read by them, that either Borg or Spong would have a problem with using Sacred/Oneness/etc. Not being an ancient Israelite myself, I don't feel the slightest compelled, obligated, or responsible to use the word Yahweh, Y.H.W.H., or God. I can't imagine God, whatever she/he/that may be, getting hung up on whether we speak out loud or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Paul, You are a great neighbor. And you are right about Tillich. Spong was a mentor of Tillich and likes Tillich's "Ground of Being". Nothing is wrong with many words to help point towards what we are talking about. I find that many secular words used in song or in poetry are very effective and those words are very private and/or very symbolic. I would encourage you to read Tillich more in order to understand Spong. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) It might be important in this discussion to look at the notes that accompany the 8 Points on the TCPC the front page. "From the beginning of TCPC, the intention of the '8 points' has been to present an inviting expression of a particular approach to the practice of Christianity. Our hope is that this series of ideas will be appealing especially to those who do not find a comfortable fit with traditional understandings of Christian faith, and result in thoughtful conversation on basic themes throughout the Progressive Christian network and beyond. We will continue to present the original version along with other more recent versions for comparison in our various printed and electronic venues. As always, we want to avoid a dogmatic and literalistic understanding, including in our own written articulations of the faith. You will no doubt find your own ways of articulating the nuances of Christianity expressed in the 8 Points. We encourage you to find creative ways to live out those expressions in your daily relationships and routines." Bob Ryder, Former TCPC Executive Council member And these comments taken from TCPC's 'Mission - To Reach Out': The people the Center's programs will target include those who think of themselves as agnostic or skeptical or dubious -- questioning people who cannot accept church doctrines when it is presented as absolute, beyond discussion, or exempt from multiple interpretations and cannot accept miracles as historical events. Many are like the person U.S. Representative Amory Houghton described as one "who recoils at churchy gibberish, uses the Bible as a bookend, gags at the sanctimonious, squirms during the Creed--in other words thinks the church is a waste of time." My point being, I think the general thrust of one of the reasons TCPC exists is to help/invite/encourage people who otherwise have 'hang-ups' with the 'traditional' understanding of things, things such as the word God. Edited May 7, 2012 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Personally, I like the word "God" and include it as part of my thoughts, meditations, posts here, etc. I hope that doesn't offend anyone. There is something comfortable, familiar with the word "God" that works for me. I also, particularly in conversation, will use "the universe" instead of "God," usually to be more inclusive and not sound like a nutbar. As for everyone else - have at it as you please. As long as everyone is being respectful, I don't mind what words people use. It's worth pointing out though, I think, that people form attachments to terminology, both out of comfort (as I stated above) and out of habit. I tried for twenty years to get my grandmother to stop saying "Oriental" - I never succeeded. That attachment, that habit, that comfort zone - it's hard to break out of it. (In ESL we call that "fossilization.") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Paul, I fully support working with "hang ups" about the Christian faith. If someone can not understand God in any other way except as a super and separate being who magically lives in a three tiered universe then if possible let's help that person. If we find other words for God to help in this process let us do that. People like Borg are trying to revision God while using the word God and using other words also. In my mind it would be like saying a Jew can not see Yahweh except as that super and separate being who magically lives in a three tiered universe. Let's help that person understand that Yahweh can not be spoken as a thing and therefore can not be that magical being. Every progressive theologian is fighting this battle. I don't see any one of them who still claim the Christian name saying that the word God does not work. So take a look at how Borg approaches this battle and then compare it with the current eight points as defining the battle. What is gained and what is lost with each approach? David Edited May 7, 2012 by David 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Raven, It is a symbol of how bad it has gotten that you think that you may offend someone by using the word God. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 George, I will have to pull out my Von Rad's OT Theology books and Noth's History of Israel, but evidently you concede that there is the tradition that not speaking the name because it is sacred is correct. Given that then my point would be that you would not want to substitute the word Sacred for the word Yahweh as being better because the word Sacred describes Yahweh. You keep the word Sacred as a normal descriptive word. You keep the word Yahweh as that which can not be spoken. David I have never said, or intended to imply, that most modern Jews refrain from saying the name Yahweh. That is an indisputable fact. What I do disagree with is the claim that it is not a name in biblical Judaism or any sizable element of modern Judaism. Jews use circumlocutions (which are substitute names) like Ha-Shem. I have zero objection to this as it is a benign practice. And, I really don't care what theological reasons are asserted. However, I would object if historical data is misconstrued or misstated. The English word 'God" does, IMO, carry connotations of a theistic being who is actively involved in affairs of this world. Although I don't object to using the word 'God,' I think that someone who doesn't hold this concept should then carefully explain to their audience or interlocutor how they define it. And, I can see the benefit of using substitutes like Divine, Sacred, etc. which do not have the traditional connotation and, in fact, imply otherwise. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) David, Nobody is saying that the word God doesn't work for them. Neither TCPC nor anyone here. Those are your words or assumption based on the revised 8 points.. This Progressive Christianity site desires for you to use what works for you. I hope that is understood and was made clear to most all here.. The title of this thread is the godless 8 points and except for Bill, i do not see anyway saying that the eight points have removed God. Your issue seems to be with a preference for the word God. Even the old eight points remain for those who are more comfortable with the word God. Anyone is welcome to use it here. Your Tillich point is well made, but i am simply not convinced it is applicable to this change which is being forced on none. I am personally comfortable with either the old or new version and members using whatever symbol they prefer in expressing the Divine. Progressive Christianity is simply not a dogmatic religion that considers words more important than actions. I personally see no need to make a big issue of words alone that are not meant to limit PC's. Reading all of the points in context i believe will make this point. Joseph PS Obviously this is a big issue to you as revealed in this quote of yours from this thread. perhaps I can join this discussion and then again return to silence since I can no longer support the eight points in their current version. You might note that one does not need to support the 8 points or be silent to be a member and participate in this community but we respect your right to do so if you must.. Edited May 7, 2012 by JosephM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Raven, It is a symbol of how bad it has gotten that you think that you may offend someone by using the word God. David David, As you yourself have demonstrated here, people can get hung up, very strongly, on using this word or that word. I don't mind what words people use here to talk about God, the Divine, their Higher Power, or whatever - and I would hope people would extend that same courtesy back to me. The word "God" works for me. Apparently, it works for you too. Why concern yourself with what other people are doing? No one's journey is the same as anyone else's, and (according to my interpretation of this space), PC is open to ideas, interpretations, facets, and so on. Removing "God" from the 8 points only renders them "godless" if you are too attached to the word instead of the meaning. If the word "God" works for you, fabulous - embrace it. If other people have a word that works for them instead, why worry about it? The intent and the spirit behind the journey matters more, I believe, than vocabulary choice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I think the problem when using any word is whether others will understand you. Using God depends, on whether I will be understood or not. If the group I am in is in general agreement that it does not reference a theistic God then I am comfortable with using God. In worship my problem is usually with the rest of words around "God": "Blood of the Lamb" "died for my sins" etc. Spong does use the word God but he works very hard making sure everyone knows what he means by "God". I think many of us are doing that work here: trying to understand what we believe and how to talk about it. These Spong quotes are from a conversation with Michael Dowd So my choices are either to close my mind to the realities of the modern world and to the learning of the last, say, 500 years, in order to be a Christian—that would make me a fundamentalist, where I do not want to engage the new thought of the new world—or I reject everything about my religious heritage and join what Harvey Cox called “the secular city,” and what I call “the Church alumni association,” and be free of this religious superstition that we call Church or Christianity or God. (Spong chooses to live in the tension.) I define [my experience with God] as being part of the source of life that flows through the universe and that comes to self-consciousness in human beings: this power of love that is also a power that’s always present I think many here would agree. Because I was trained by Paul Tillich, I see God in Tillich’s terms as the ground of being. I don’t see God as a being at all, external, above the sky, with supernatural power. All of that is mythological thinking and pre-modern thinking. I see God as the ground of being in which everything that is, is rooted and lives. At the churches I have attended in the last 10 years others knew that I did not refer to a theistic God when I said "God". When I dropped my truck off for repairs the staff like me because I think about God and they may think I mean their theistic God. I don't see that as a problem. So, God to me is the source of life, and I worship God by living. God to me is the source of love, and I worship God by loving. God to me is the ground of being, and I worship God by having the courage to be everything I can be. And this is the God that I believe I see in thedescription of the life of Jesus. I like this 'short confession'. From what i have read David is correct about Ian Lawton. I didn't know about the fall out. But he replaced the cross with a heart on the outside of the building. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 At the churches I have attended in the last 10 years others knew that I did not refer to a theistic God when I said "God". When I dropped my truck off for repairs the staff like me because I think about God and they may think I mean their theistic God. I don't see that as a problem. Sometimes ambiguity, or even benign deception, may be desirable. Do we want to get into a deep theological discussion with everyone, especially when it would accomplish nothing positive? George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Joseph, The title of this thread is the godless 8 points and except for Bill, i do not see anyway [anyone?] saying that the eight points have removed God. I think you misunderstand me and my initial point, so please allow me to try to clarify just a bit, okay? Please notice how, in my initial post title, "godless" is in quotes. FWIW, I tried to capitalize it but the forum engine lower-cased it. So what I was referring to (and still am) is that TCPC took the word "God" out of the new 8 Points. When something is in quotes, it is generally understood to be a word or phrase written or spoken elsewhere, and this is what I was (and am) reffering to - the word "God" has been removed. This is undeniable fact. Now, does doing this mean anything? This is where, obviously, much opinion comes in, right? You make the case, and I would certainly agree with it, that the word "God" carries a lot of baggage with it, both in our world and in traditional Christianity. Granted. And, as you and I both know, much of this baggage is not helpful. It seems to me that there can be at least two basic approaches to this baggage problem. One is to, as you and TCPC seem to favor, remove the "offending" word because it is unhelpful and perhaps a barrier to many people. So, if this is the approach that TCPC is taking (and it is *certainly* their right to do so), then what I am asking is, "Will they also, at some point, remove other "traditional" words like "Jesus", "Christian", and "Christianity" because these words, like "God", can also have negative connotations for people? This is, as has been mentioned, analogous to what Ian Lawton and his community have done. They are very pluralistic, but they have pretty much disassociated themselves from being "Christianity". If that is their desire and "market niche", more power to them. The other approach to the baggage problem is, instead of removing the "offending" words, to go deeper into them as metaphors or similies. In other words, we could speak of "God as love" or "God as the source of life and being" or "God as ultimate reality." In using this method, there is a bridge there for people who already "know the language", but found the language to be too constricting or limiting. As I've mentioned, this is what Borg does. He goes deeper and wider into these terms, rather than discarding them. But, of course, that is Borg. That is also what I am for. And that, of course, is me. Lastly, Joseph, yes, I understand the other terms for "God". But, and this is just *me*, I find that I cannot relate to whatever or whoever it is that we call "God" unless I do so personally, as a person. God, for me, is simply more than an it or a concept. I'm a person (most of the time) and I relate to God in personal terms. But this doesn't mean that I picture God as God is rendered on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel. Nor can I picture Jesus saying, "The Lord our Oneness is one." So I am, again, asking a question: Is this being faithful to what Jesus taught? Thanks for listening. I am not trying to argue. I am just trying to be clear and to understand what TCPC desires its kind of Christianity to be like. Sincerely, Bill Edited May 7, 2012 by Wayseeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I am just trying to be clear and to understand what TCPC desires its kind of Christianity to be like. TCPC isn't a creedal kind of denomination so it welcomes with expectancy any who come. There are no expectations. When Spong was asked about the Trinity in Greeley last week he said there is the ineffable mystery for which there are no words, there is the personal relationship with the ineffable for which there are personal, loving words and there is the pull to have the same personal relationship with the world. Call it as you experience it. But TCPC desires nothing except to open the door in welcome, perhaps to those who have found no such welcome elsewhere. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Thanks for the clarification Bill, It was your comment at the bottom of that opening post that i thought was rather brash and gave or insinuated the impression that we here by changing the 8 points were removing God from Christianity and now the eight points doesn't " have anything to offer people that they can't get in a Hallmark greeting card" ... your quote follows.... . .. I am all for reconsidering how we interpret or reinterpret the traditional language that has been passed down to us through both the Bible and the institutional Church. But I'm not removing it. A Christianity without God, again in my opinion, not only betrays its legacy, but betrays even Jesus' own understanding of his life and mission, and doesn't have anything to offer people that they can't get in a Hallmark greeting card. So again, thanks for the clarification in meaning in your last post. Joseph PS As far as any concern that we will remove the word Christianity or Jesus in the future, i think it is a bit premature and useless to second guess or speculate. But even if it did, nothing is lost. Hopefully ones faith is not in a group of words or organization titled Progressive Christianity but rather in a relationship with a living God where all are free to go where their journey takes them. If members are being encouraged and supported on their journey for now, that is enough for me. Edited May 7, 2012 by JosephM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.