A "godless" 8 Points

[BillM]

Joseph,

 

Yes, I suppose my last comment in my opening post is rather brash. If I could revise it, I would say, "If progressive Christianity as a whole, in its efforts to be inclusive of all people, ends up removing all traditional Christian language, references, and meanings, I'm not sure what would still be distinctively Christian about it."

 

Sincerely,

Bill

[JosephM]

You just did.... and your point is well taken. Thanks,

Joseph

[NORM]

Norm,

 

I beg to differ. This may be a theological interpretation by a select group of Jews, but this does not have a historical or universal basis. In academia, YHWH is considered a 'name.' Some examples:

 

The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Harris and Platzner): "Yahweh: A translation of the sacred name of Israels god, represented 7000 times in the canonical Hebrew Bible . . . ."

 

The Anchor Bible Dictionary: "In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh (yhwh)"

 

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon: "Yhwh: Yahweh, the proper name of God of Israel."

 

Hebrew for Theologians: "One of the most striking uses of Qere (the correct reading) is the Divine name (y.h.w.h.) which should not be read as it is written, . . ."

 

Further, it is explicit in the Hebrew Scriptures:

"God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, `The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you': this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations." (Ex. 3:15) (BTW, the Hebrew word here is shem 'name')

 

George

 

Those are all Christian / Western sources. It does not represent a Jewish / Eastern perspective. And, it is not the view of a "select group of Jews," but something taught to every child in Shul.

 

YHWH is NOT G-d's name!!!

 

From a modern Christian perspective, you are correct. YHWH is what they think the Jews named G-d. Christians began to adopt (there is much debate as to when this happened) a more Western perspective as it morphed from Judaism into what we now know as Christianity. However, that is not the Jewish perspective. We don't think that YHWH is G-d's "name."

 

NORM

[NORM]

David,

 

I could suggest to Norm that Sacredness could replace Yahweh, but it would only be a suggestion and up to Norm if he sees value in it. If Norm wants to use Yahweh I guess that is his business, but in my opinion people can move past a word that has previously held significance, into a future with new words, if those new words means something more to that person.

 

Please don't misunderstand. By explaining what I've learned of the Jewish perspective (as a Jew), I am not suggesting that that is how I refer to G-d. I have no mental construct for such a being.

 

I use the affectation only out of respect for those who taught me during my year of conversion. For them, YHWH has a profound meaning that goes WAY beyond a simple name. That was my only point.

 

I don't think that TCPC needs to worry about offending Jews. The ones who would be offended more than likely will not log onto a website with "Christianity" in the title.

 

NORM

[GeorgeW]

Those are all Christian / Western sources. It does not represent a Jewish / Eastern perspective. And, it is not the view of a "select group of Jews," but something taught to every child in Shul.

YHWH is NOT G-d's name!!!

 

These are not Christian sources, they are academic sources. In any event, please cite an authoritative 'Jewish' source for your claim (one that speaks about Judaism generally).

 

How do they explain away Genesis 3:15 and the thousands of other biblical passages in which Yahweh is the name used?

 

George

[GeorgeW]

Norm,

 

I decided to consult “Jewish” source for information about the use of the Divine Name (or no name according to you) in Judaism - Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages by Abraham Cohen. In it, there is a section titled ”The Ineffable Name.” Below are some excerpts that summarize the history of the tradition:

 

“To the Oriental, a name is not merely a label. It was thought of as indicating the nature of the person . . . For that reason special reverence is attached to ‘the distinctive Name (Shem Hamephorash) of the Deity which He had revealed to the people Israel, viz. the Tetragrammaton, JHVH.

 

“In the Biblical period there seems to have been no scruple against its use in daily life […]

 

But in the early rabbinic period the pronunciation of the Name was restricted to Temple service. The rule was laid down: ‘In the Sanctuary the Name was pronounced as written; but beyond its confines a substituted Name was employed.” [. . .]

 

There was a time when the free and open use of the Name even by the layman was advocated. The Mishnah teaches: ‘It was ordained that a man should greet his friends by mentioning the Name […]

 

The custom was soon discontinued, . . . A third-century Rabbi taught: ‘Whoever explicitly pronounces the Name is guilt of a capital offense.”

 

George

[Harry]

I've read this discussion from top to bottom and I don't think many minds have been changed very much but the arc toward truth and understanding bends slowly. None of us understand the whole truth. I usually learn the most from rephrasing my own thoughts in the light shed by others repeating their understanding them. This is how I came to my current understanding of the Life Force being the prime cause of all that exists.

 

Life force is to me what God or the various words and symbols used to describe the indescribable are to others; the source of all natural forces and the laws that govern them. I submit that the life force is a triune force of Love, Truth and consciousness. It is the "ground of all being" from quantum size to microscopic to mesoscopic and on through macroscopic cosmology. Life force is the ultimate energy completing and connecting all that exists. We are all one in the Life Force.

 

I think the mythical Jesus of The Bible understood the Life Force and the universal connection of all things and the benefit of living the mortal part of our lives in love, truth and consciousness of good and evil. He understood that birth and death were the beginning and end of our personal mortality and that the life force within us would go on in other expressions after leaving our mortal remains.

[David]

Joseph,

 

You have said that the word God is “no longer a word that cannot be described because many PC’s do not share in its given definition through use”. Furthermore you say that “PC here does not want words that through teachings and programming of members have made it (the word God) not an abstract symbol but more a symbol that points to something more concrete that takes on the image of a man and the attributes of humans”.

 

It sure sounds to me like you are saying that the word God does not work anymore for you and the sponsors of this forum. So I don’t understand “Nobody is saying that the word God doesn’t work for them”.

 

If you mean that nobody is saying that they do not use the God word then certainly I agree. If you mean that the sponsors of the eight points and the use of them to administer this forum is not related to the God word then I would disagree. The lack of the God word in the eight points seems to be related to the conclusion that the word God is not working as you have described.

 

In response to your PS: You have offered that it is my choice to feel excluded by this website. If you are talking about the debate section then I understand. But it is clear that this forum defines being a Progressive Christian as being a person who agrees with the eight points and that if you do not agree with the eight points you can not post as a Progressive Christian. So when I consider myself a Progressive Christian but cannot post as a Progressive Christian because I do not agree where does the exclusion come from? Certainly I make the choice as to whether to agree with the eight points or not but you/TCPC provide the eight points to which I am responding. To say that the process of inclusion/exclusion is only based upon the response is not ok when you do not accept responsibility for your part of the process.

 

I have argued elsewhere that the inclusion/exclusion process is a necessary process. A mission statement is the best way to include/exclude. So I don’t bemoan the exclusion according to the current eight points for TCPC as long as you acknowledge your part in the process.

[David]

 

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.

 

Joseph,

 

 

This response seems consistent with the response that I received from Ian Lawton’s group. They saw no future for themselves inherently related to the future of Christianity. Spong once took a personal interest in this group when they called themselves Progressive Christians. I hear Spong as being committed to the future of Christianity arguing passionately for reformation. Lawton’s mission now is obviously much different.

 

This raises a much wider issue than the use of the word God. This wider issue has to do with the mission of the supporters of this forum and the mission of this forum to the extent that the forum has a different mission. Although Spong is on the pages within this forum I don’t see Spong’s passion for the Christian Church and its future within this forum. I see much more evidence of the path that Lawton has taken. Lawton took the position that "nothing is lost" when he took that fork in the road. For those who share Spong's passion for the Christian Church and its future much would be lost. One can certainly either agree with Lawton or Spong or neither and still have a relationship with the living God. What is at stake is the Christian Church and the future of Christianity. I am wondering how many people think that this adds up to "not much".

[David]

I've read this discussion from top to bottom and I don't think many minds have been changed very much but the arc toward truth and understanding bends slowly. None of us understand the whole truth. I usually learn the most from rephrasing my own thoughts in the light shed by others repeating their understanding them. This is how I came to my current understanding of the Life Force being the prime cause of all that exists.

 

Life force is to me what God or the various words and symbols used to describe the indescribable are to others; the source of all natural forces and the laws that govern them. I submit that the life force is a triune force of Love, Truth and consciousness. It is the "ground of all being" from quantum size to microscopic to mesoscopic and on through macroscopic cosmology. Life force is the ultimate energy completing and connecting all that exists. We are all one in the Life Force.

 

I think the mythical Jesus of The Bible understood the Life Force and the universal connection of all things and the benefit of living the mortal part of our lives in love, truth and consciousness of good and evil. He understood that birth and death were the beginning and end of our personal mortality and that the life force within us would go on in other expressions after leaving our mortal remains.

 

Harry,

 

I like “Life Force” and I like your explanation of it. If I was going to make a list of words that relate to the word God I would want to include your words. This would be a very long list for me. One problem with the eight points as now defined is that they have made this a short list of words in lieu of the word God which has been used by many progressive Christians as a substitute for the long list. I think that many progressive Christians use the word God with a recognition that it is a symbol word for the indescribable.

 

David

[David]

Please don't misunderstand. By explaining what I've learned of the Jewish perspective (as a Jew), I am not suggesting that that is how I refer to G-d. I have no mental construct for such a being.

 

I use the affectation only out of respect for those who taught me during my year of conversion. For them, YHWH has a profound meaning that goes WAY beyond a simple name. That was my only point.

 

I don't think that TCPC needs to worry about offending Jews. The ones who would be offended more than likely will not log onto a website with "Christianity" in the title.

 

NORM

 

Norm,

 

 

I am very interested in seeing whether you see any bridge here between the word that can not be spoken in the Jewish tradition and my suggestion that Christianity needs a similar word. Can we apply this same process to being Jewish? How many Jews would want to substitute the word Sacred for Yahweh? How many temples would not want to have Yahweh used in telling people what it meant to be Jewish? If you can see the problem from a Jewish point of view can you see the problem from a Christian point of view?

 

Thanks,

David

[BillM]

For me, my relationship to and with God still has a Thou component to it, a You that I relate to. I tried Spong’s understanding of God and what I could understand of Tillich’s view, but these just didn’t work for me. I ended up feeling like all I was doing was either talking to myself or in speaking to a creation that could never respond. By respond, I don’t mean “intervene” or “tinker with”. I guess I mean to influence. For instance, no one on this forum intervenes or tinkers with my life, but people here to influence me. And that is kind of how I see God, as an influencer.

 

I also find that, for me, this is closer to Jesus’ own understanding of God as a Father. Jesus addresses God as a Thou or a You or as a some-One. Certainly he was conscious of his union with God, but he still addressed God as some-One other than himself, as some-One, in his own words, “greater than I.” In doing this, God was more than just Jesus’ self-consciousness or just the material creation. This also lines up with my own experiences of God in that, though I am not God, I sense and live in the one God. Granted, some of this may still be within a traditional framework, but it continues to work for me, to give my life meaning and direction.

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

You have said that the word God is “no longer a word that cannot be described because many PC’s do not share in its given definition through use”. Furthermore you say that “PC here does not want words that through teachings and programming of members have made it (the word God) not an abstract symbol but more a symbol that points to something more concrete that takes on the image of a man and the attributes of humans”.

 

It sure sounds to me like you are saying that the word God does not work anymore for you and the sponsors of this forum. So I don’t understand “Nobody is saying that the word God doesn’t work for them”.

 

Good point David. Poor phrasing on my part and i stand corrected.on the second quote. If you read all my responses you would understand that PC here has kept both versions and are saying that whatever works for one is fine. I said I have no problem with either version and people are free to use either or as Bob Ryder said ....articulate their own nuance of expression for the 8 points. Its no big issue here either way.

 

If you mean that nobody is saying that they do not use the God word then certainly I agree. If you mean that the sponsors of the eight points and the use of them to administer this forum is not related to the God word then I would disagree. The lack of the God word in the eight points seems to be related to the conclusion that the word God is not working as you have described.

 

We agree.

 

 

In response to your PS: You have offered that it is my choice to feel excluded by this website. If you are talking about the debate section then I understand. But it is clear that this forum defines being a Progressive Christian as being a person who agrees with the eight points and that if you do not agree with the eight points you can not post as a Progressive Christian. So when I consider myself a Progressive Christian but cannot post as a Progressive Christian because I do not agree where does the exclusion come from? Certainly I make the choice as to whether to agree with the eight points or not but you/TCPC provide the eight points to which I am responding. To say that the process of inclusion/exclusion is only based upon the response is not ok when you do not accept responsibility for your part of the process.

 

There is only ONE reserved area you are asked not to post in out of all the individual forums here and that is the Progressive Christianity forum which is reserved for people who are in general agreement with the 8 points. Differing on the use of an alternate symbol for expression of the word God in no way eliminates one from that forum. What you call yourself as a label is irrelevant if you agree in principle. If you feel strongly that you can no longer agree in principle with the the new eight points but accept the old eight points, you are still welcome to participate in that area. I hope that is clear.

 

Joseph

[JosephM]

References...... PS in post #50

Joseph said.....

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.

,

 

This response seems consistent with the response that I received from Ian Lawton’s group. They saw no future for themselves inherently related to the future of Christianity. Spong once took a personal interest in this group when they called themselves Progressive Christians. I hear Spong as being committed to the future of Christianity arguing passionately for reformation. Lawton’s mission now is obviously much different.

 

This raises a much wider issue than the use of the word God. This wider issue has to do with the mission of the supporters of this forum and the mission of this forum to the extent that the forum has a different mission. Although Spong is on the pages within this forum I don’t see Spong’s passion for the Christian Church and its future within this forum. I see much more evidence of the path that Lawton has taken. Lawton took the position that "nothing is lost" when he took that fork in the road. For those who share Spong's passion for the Christian Church and its future much would be lost. One can certainly either agree with Lawton or Spong or neither and still have a relationship with the living God. What is at stake is the Christian Church and the future of Christianity. I am wondering how many people think that this adds up to "not much".

 

David,

 

How other people feel is their opinion. I was speaking for myself. i personally have what i consider more important things than to be concerned or worried about a future of what if's, what will be or won't be for Progressive Christianity. I'm doing my part for now and content with that uncertainty of future. Your suspicions and view of a possible future may be correct and seems from your words to be important to you and possibly others . It changes nothing for me of major importance. God still remains the ground of my being and i will continue allowing God's spirit to serve in me. Progressive Christianity to me is more a way of life than any dogma or doctrine of words or labels. Take away the label and i am not changed by it.

 

Joseph

[David]

For me, my relationship to and with God still has a Thou component to it, a You that I relate to. I tried Spong’s understanding of God and what I could understand of Tillich’s view, but these just didn’t work for me. I ended up feeling like all I was doing was either talking to myself or in speaking to a creation that could never respond. By respond, I don’t mean “intervene” or “tinker with”. I guess I mean to influence. For instance, no one on this forum intervenes or tinkers with my life, but people here to influence me. And that is kind of how I see God, as an influencer.

 

I also find that, for me, this is closer to Jesus’ own understanding of God as a Father. Jesus addresses God as a Thou or a You or as a some-One. Certainly he was conscious of his union with God, but he still addressed God as some-One other than himself, as some-One, in his own words, “greater than I.” In doing this, God was more than just Jesus’ self-consciousness or just the material creation. This also lines up with my own experiences of God in that, though I am not God, I sense and live in the one God. Granted, some of this may still be within a traditional framework, but it continues to work for me, to give my life meaning and direction.

 

Bill,

 

I have walked with you at times on your spiritual journey. I have always appreciated your passionate honesty.

 

I hope that I have not overstated my vision of God in this discussion that you started. That was not my intent in joining this discussion. If anyone wants to know more about Tillich/my theology they can look at that thread.

 

The nice thing about the God word for progressive Christians is that there is no consensus on what the God word means nor whether any such understanding can be equated with the God word. There perhaps is more agreement as to what the God word does not mean. At any rate, I think a real loss here with the eight points is that ability to use one word that progressive Christians understand means different things to different people.

 

Thanks for starting this discussion.

 

Best wishes,

David

Edited May 8, 2012 by David

[NORM]

Norm,

 

I decided to consult “Jewish” source for information about the use of the Divine Name (or no name according to you) in Judaism - Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages by Abraham Cohen. In it, there is a section titled ”The Ineffable Name.” Below are some excerpts that summarize the history of the tradition:

 

“To the Oriental, a name is not merely a label. It was thought of as indicating the nature of the person . . . For that reason special reverence is attached to ‘the distinctive Name (Shem Hamephorash) of the Deity which He had revealed to the people Israel, viz. the Tetragrammaton, JHVH.

 

“In the Biblical period there seems to have been no scruple against its use in daily life […]

 

But in the early rabbinic period the pronunciation of the Name was restricted to Temple service. The rule was laid down: ‘In the Sanctuary the Name was pronounced as written; but beyond its confines a substituted Name was employed.” [. . .]

 

There was a time when the free and open use of the Name even by the layman was advocated. The Mishnah teaches: ‘It was ordained that a man should greet his friends by mentioning the Name […]

 

The custom was soon discontinued, . . . A third-century Rabbi taught: ‘Whoever explicitly pronounces the Name is guilt of a capital offense.”

 

George

 

You just quoted a Jewish source for me: Rabbi Cohen.

 

Please consult a dictionary for the definition of ineffable. Only the mystics believed there was a "magical" name that only the priests knew. Kabbalism is regarded as somewhat kooky.

 

I think that you are confusing the English understanding of name with the Jewish understanding. G-d to the Jew is not a physical being. It is a spirit. Spirits do not have bodies and they do not have SPECIFIC names because that would deny the Spirit from manifesting in different ways, i.e.; L-rd of L-rds, King of Kings, Shepherd of Shepherds, Mother of Mothers, etc...

 

In ENGLISH you have to use the word "name" because there is no equivalent to describe the tetragrammon. So, you can quote me sentences in English that use "name" till your blue in the face. I'm still going to tell you that the Jews do not refer to G-d by name.

 

Look, I don't even think that G-d exists. I'm just telling you what I was taught by a Rabbi when I converted to Judaism. He didn't consult a textbook. Actually, he did reference the Talmud, but I've long since forgotten the text. Besides, it was in Hebrew, so that wouldn't do you any good unless you can read Hebrew.

 

There are some Tanakhs that actually leave a space where G-d should be as an illustration of the concept. I'm sure if you go into a local Synagogue and ask to visit the library, you will find some of them.

 

BTW, this is not a very big deal in the Jewish tradition today. The emphasis now is on doing acts of mitzvah and "advancing the Kingdom" on Earth. The only Jews who obsess about YHWH are the Kabbalists and Numerologists.

 

I think we've sidetracked this thread enough with this discussion. The point I was trying to make was that the "name" one ascribes to the Ground of Being isn't at all important. So, to take the word GOD out of the 8 Points is not abandoning the human created "idea" of what the name God, G-d or YHWH is trying to express.

 

NORM

[NORM]

Norm,

 

 

I am very interested in seeing whether you see any bridge here between the word that can not be spoken in the Jewish tradition and my suggestion that Christianity needs a similar word. Can we apply this same process to being Jewish? How many Jews would want to substitute the word Sacred for Yahweh? How many temples would not want to have Yahweh used in telling people what it meant to be Jewish? If you can see the problem from a Jewish point of view can you see the problem from a Christian point of view?

 

Thanks,

David

 

I think that those folks who are mystics, and see meaning in these words, will not want to substitute Sacred for God / G-d or YHWH.

 

But for those whose faith is in action, I don't think it would be a problem.

 

NORM

[BillM]

David,

 

If anyone wants to know more about Tillich/my theology they can look at that thread.

 

Believe it or not, I hadn't even been on that thread since my first comment there, so starting this thread had nothing to do with what you said elsewhere. But I've now taken the time to go read most of the posts on that thread on Tillich's book. As I mentioned previously, Tillich doesn't work for me but that's not due to Tillich, it's due to me. It's not that I disagree with him, it's that I don't understand what he is saying. I got to chapter two and found it way over my head. I need a "Tillich For Dummies." Spong, I usually understand, but, imo, he is better at deconstruction than reconstruction. He tries though, so I admire him for that.

 

The nice thing about the God word for progressive Christians is that there is no consensus on what the God word means nor whether any such understanding can be equated with the God word. There perhaps is more agreement as to what the God word does not mean.

 

That seems to me to be an accurate assessment. That's why my critique has tried to illustrate that while words are certainly limited and never fully capture truth, we don't necessarily have to remove them or insist that they all mean the same thing. In my opinion, some words are better descriptors than others. Some words make better "handles" for ideas and concepts than other words do. Probably much of it is, as with beauty, in the eye of the beholder. But this is why I suggested that though the word "God" has a lot of theological baggage associated with it, it might be better to remove the baggage rather than to supplant the word with something else. But, again, this is only my opinion.

 

At any rate, I think a real loss here with the eight points is that ability to use one word that progressive Christians understand means different things to different people.

 

I do understand and appreciate how difficult this can be, especially with a group with such divergent beliefs and contexts as this one has. From my perspective, while sacredness and oneness and unity can certainly describe what we call God, these other words just don't carry the "weight" or the import that the word "God" does. For many people, this may well be a relief, "God" is too heavy. For others like me, people like Borg come along who can give us other "handles", usually metaphors, by which we can still use the word "God" but recognize all the diversity that exists - biblically, historically, and experiencially - with that word.

 

Sincerely,

Bill

[GeorgeW]

Norm,

 

According to Merriam-Webster, ineffable:1 a : incapable of being expressed in words : INDESCRIBABLE <ineffable joy> b : UNSPEAKABLE <ineffable disgust> 2 : not to be uttered : TABOO <the ineffable name of Jehovah>

 

As I have said, I have absolutely no problem with anyone Jewish or otherwise refraining from speaking the name of God. My objection was to the claim that it is because he/it has no name. This is not supportable in Judaism generally or historically. I have provided both academic and "Jewish" sources ad nauseam that make it quite explicit that the being (however one wants to conceive of he/it) is because it is considered too divine, not the absence of a name.

 

Since this is leading nowhere productive and consuming way too much of this thread and my time fruitlessly checking sources, I agree that we should drop the subject.

 

George

Edited May 9, 2012 by GeorgeW

[NORM]

I have provided... "Jewish" sources ....

 

LOL! My grandparents were my Jewish "source."

 

Don't worry, we are used to having Christians explain our religion to us! No hard feelings.

 

NORM

[NORM]

Spong, I usually understand, but, imo, he is better at deconstruction than reconstruction.

 

What?????

 

Bishop Spong has spent the better half of the present decade forging a new way for Christians to experience G-d. I couldn't disagree more with your opinion.

 

Have you read any of the following:

 

Liberating the Gospels; Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes, Jesus for the non-religious, Born of a Woman, Reclaiming the Bible for a Non-religious World, The Hebrew Lord, Eternal Life: A New Vision: Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell, Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love, and Equality.

 

I don't think any one of those books is destructive or "deconstructive." Quite the contrary, for me; they hold the last possible hope of redeeming the Gospel message.

 

NORM

[BillM]

Norm,

 

If religion is summed up, as Jesus taught, in loving God and loving others, then I'm not sure how Spong could make Jesus or the Bible palatable to people who are not interested in loving God and loving others. And the Gospel message, as Jesus preached it, was about the kingdom of God, something that, again, becomes pointless if, in going beyond theism, God is removed from the paradigm.

 

FWIW, I've read "Why Christianity Must Change or Die", "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism", "A New Christianity for a New World", "The Sins of Scripture", and "Jesus for the Non-Religious". I've also listened to Jack in a number of podcasts and debates. As I said, I think he is good at pointing out what is wrong in Christianity. But, in my opinion, the "new Christianity" that he offers has lost the transcendant so that what remains isn't much more than humanism. Then again, that may well be the direction that PC goes, taking a more and more UU bent. Who is to say?

[PaulS]

If religion is summed up, as Jesus taught, in loving God and loving others, then I'm not sure how Spong could make Jesus or the Bible palatable to people who are not interested in loving God and loving others. And the Gospel message, as Jesus preached it, was about the kingdom of God, something that, again, becomes pointless if, in going beyond theism, God is removed from the paradigm.

 

Maybe I can help here, as I am probably one of the few that participate here that doesn't believe in God or a God. I am open to an existence of God, I just don't know what to make of God, if anything.

 

I can authoratively say that Spong has made both Jesus and the Bible much more palatable to me, even though I am not particularly interested in loving God (how can I be when I don't even know if God exists?). God could not exist for all I care, but I now find value in much of the bible. A major reason for that I attribute to Spong. If at the end of the day the bible is nothing but words by men and God simply doesn't exist in any way shape or form, then it changes nothing for me in relation to much wisdom and words worthy of comtemplation, coming from the bible. That is what I have taken away from Spong. And I love others not from any belief in a God, but because it is the right thing to do in my opinion. Why? - because it feels good, it makes me happy, it makes the world a better place - God or no God.

 

As for the gospel message about the Kingdom of God, again, even if there was no such thing as God, I still like what Jesus says concerning such a kingdom. Removing God from the paradigm, makes faith in the righteousness or benefits of such a kingdom, irrelevant in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the kingdom is a good idea even if God doesn't exist. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus could be wrong about God, like others he might have believed in God, but he might be wrong too. That doesn't reduce his message concerning the kingdom as far as I'm concerned.

[glintofpewter]

Then again, that may well be the direction that PC goes, taking a more and more UU bent.

How many times does this have to be said?

How many times will PaulS's personal experience, which brought him closer to the bible, maybe to God, be pushed aside.

How many times, Bill, will you condemn the door that so many find welcoming?

How many times, Bill will you say, tcpc is moving in the wrong direction?

How many times, Bill, will you block people from coming to God because the right words are not used?

We know that it is your personal opinion, why do you have to say it over and over and over and over?

What do we have to do help you feel heard?

Do we have to agree you before you stop repeating yourself?

Do we have to say that yours is the only correct view before you stop?

Will you not allow anyone to have another valid opinion?

 

Dutch

[David]

Well I have not been active but I don’t understand this response to Bill. Dutch were you not the one that just posted the unqualified welcome with no expectations?

 

Joesph clearly indicates a mission for this website if not the sponsors of this website that tends towards the UU so Bill’s observation is right on. I know the UU world well having graduated from a UU seminary. Anyone who is interested in the potential future of progressive Christianity should look at the history of UU. UU started out as being Christian. Unfortunately they did not change their Christian names (Unitarian/Universalist) when they took that fork in the road and “progressed” to humanism. Lawton has clearly taken the same fork in the road with every indication that he thinks he is a pioneer. Been there, done that. He is not a pioneer. Joseph reflects the same lack of concern about the future of Christianity that Lawton has displayed. Joseph gives the impression that he has “progressed” beyond any need for Christian context. Been there, done that. This is a well worn path.

 

The basic question in my mind is who are you going to include and who are you going to exclude. Clearly Dutch you would seem more comfortable without Bill here unless Bill changes. This is the typical UU problem. The UU folks say that we do not want to include/exclude based upon what you believe but instead based upon how you act (actions are more important than belief). I suspect you have heard that here before. Been there/done that. Nothing new. Well worn path. Look at UU and learn.

 

What happens in this environment is that instead of including/excluding based upon a strong sense of mission the process is based upon personality. Strong personalities are the gatekeepers. The same actions are interpreted differently according to personality. Actions are contextual within a complicated structure. You just can’t objectively evaluate actions. Progressives should know that the world is largely subjective. So when personalities rather than a strong sense of mission dominate then that accentuates the already difficult subjective problem.

 

The argument seems to be that the eight points should be more inclusive. Been there/done that. Look at UU and learn. The most inclusive group in any town is always one of the more smaller groups. Personalities can not control large groups so the group tends to the level of effective control.

 

Bill is right on. You all are looking at UU in the face but you don’t seem to see it because you think you are pioneers. Sorry. Been there/done that.