Am I A Christian? ...or Even A Progressive Christian?

[SteveS55]

Hi Soma,

 

It’s good to run into someone who is also interested in the Christian mystics. My favorite is Meister Eckhart, although much of his work was destroyed by the Church of his day. He doesn’t speak in such flowery language as many of the others, and he makes me think. I guess a lot of these people wrote in the “afterglow” of their mystical experiences and found it hard to express in words. So, many times it sounds awfully “fluffy”.

 

I agree that certain Eastern ( Buddhist) practices can be a very effective means of reaching these advanced levels of contemplation. Christianity doesn’t seem to provide much guidance in this regard.

 

I once read an article by a Buddhist monk about “addiction as a spiritual path”. I found it fascinating. It is strange how hard knocks and suffering can lead to authentic gratitude and compassion. I’m guessing you have experienced this for yourself.

 

I always enjoy reading your posts, Soma, and I look forward to reading many more.

 

Peace.

Steve

[SteveS55]

Hi Luvtosew,

 

Yes, life in the present moment, or "choice-less" awareness in the moment was something Jesus often taught. To look upon, or to experience a thing without thought, judgment, or comparison, is true freedom.

 

Peace.

Steve

[matteoam]

Steve

 

If you read the church fathers it can be seen they wrestled with understanding how Jesus was seen as God. I do think he was fully human and fully divine. Chech out the book by Michael Casey of the title Fully Human, Fully Divine. I do believe the Bible reveals truth and I don't think God wants us to kill one another or sanctions killing in a theistic or even dualistic way. I don't think God is as we say God is but all we have is language and relations to authority which we create, so we apply that through history. I don't agree with the more conservative, traditional, or orthodox traditions but they all have their place at the table, or should. My continual study of the desert fathers and mothers and the theology of the east and west church as well as my disciplines of meditation and other disciplines that bring me into spiritual community with God and temporal community with others I agree and disagree with all are enabling me to trascend the paradoxes in scripture about the mystery of Christ Jesus. I am committed to all that the PC paradigm offers in terms of social justice, etc. and living the gospel. And sharing in that Divine Light within us all - Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Atheists. I love Jesus. I don't need to compare him to Buddha or Krishna. They are all manifestations of the I AM. As all of us are. Why god as all that is manifests itself as it does in maya? I don't know. Rather I'm not conscious of yet. PC is just a garment I wear.

[SteveS55]

Hi matteoam,

 

The doctrine of the shared natures (human and divine) of Jesus was based on a little known doctrine first proposed by Ignatius of
Antioch, I believe, referred to as the “Communicatio Idiomatum” (Communication of Idioms, or Communication of Properties).
You can find it on Wikipedia, and if you can make sense of it, more power to you!

 

Basically, it says that anything of either nature, divine or human, can be said of, or attributed to the one divine “person” of God –
Almighty God. Since God’s human nature was given the label “Jesus”, then anything Jesus said or did means “God said”
or “God did”. So, all references to Jesus’ dual natures are references to God as their sole, divine agent.

This was a doctrine, mind you, that was “invented” for the sole purpose of “proving” that Jesus was both fully human and fully
divine. As I said, it is something very few Christians are aware of, but it is a matter of early Church history. It was officially sanctioned by Pope Leo in
the fifth century. It wouldn’t be so bad, I suppose, but it completely confuses the philosophical understanding of the “universal”
with the “particular”, and “nature” with “person”.

 

Well, that’s all just what I remember from early Church histrory.

 

Peace.

 

Steve

Edited September 21, 2013 by SteveS55

[NORM]

Growing up, my best friend was Roman Catholic, and he was one of the many altar boys (this was a rather large, inner-city church). My family was Baptist, so it was an interesting relationship.

 

Both of our respective families believed in the infallibility of their chosen faith expression. My friend and I reasoned this couldn't be possible, since both my parents and his parents were equally adamant in their dogmatic stances, and both were "good people."

 

I recall most vividly the vastly different approach to Communion / The Eucharist Mass.

 

In our Baptist church, Communion was treated with solemnity, but in a non-ritualistic way. How, you say, could a church ritual be non-ritualistic? Well, my parents were the ones who prepared the communion meal (yeast-free wafers and Welch's grape juice), and no one but them knew which Sunday communion would be served - thus, it wasn't a ritual since no one but my parents knew when it would take place. It could happen two weeks in a row, or only one Sunday in a month - or EVEN on a Wednesday evening!

 

The preamble prior to the communion ceremony - er; meal - made it clear that this was symbolic and in NO WAY the actual body and blood of Christ (i.e.; NOT CATHOLIC).

 

In my friend's church, the Mass was MOST DEFINITELY a holy ritual. It was ALWAYS served each Saturday and Sunday. The procession included flags, banners, censors, small cymbals, large Bibles held high overhead and one of the most ornate and elaborate monstrance I have ever seen! It took FOUR high-school age altar boys to wrestle it to the front. It was HUGE, and the little chariot that housed the Host was solid GOLD!!!

 

The preamble prior to the Mass made it clear that the Host and Wine was in reality the actual physical presence of Christ (thanks, Steve, for explaining the difference between Christ in the Host and not Jesus). CLEARLY this was to be taken quite seriously.

 

Being the adventurous types, my friend and I risked eternal damnation and siphoned off some wine from one of the barrels stored in the cellar on occasion.

 

In an interesting twist, we discovered that my grandfather was keeping a secret from us. His parents were Jewish. In fact, his father was a Rabbi in a New York City synagogue. LOL! This rocked my parent's fundamentalist world, for sure.

 

I no longer believe in either Christian "systems," but have embraced a non-theistic expression of Judaism (a nod to my dearly departed grandpa).

 

I relate the above observations to make the point that we all come to G-d in our own unique (however ensconced we may be in our particular institutions) ways, and that all are acceptable, I think, should there actually be a deity paying attention.

 

NORM

 

 

[soma]

Steve I love what you wrote.

 

I also experience God the abstract pure consciousness of everything through Jesus Christ which enables my unit mind to arrive gracefully
at the source of thought, the pure consciousness of God where everything is united and one. This spiritual experience for me cleanses my mind and directs it again to God the Father who is beyond all thought. Christ’s love of God leads me to the practice of merging my mind with the subtle states of Christ consciousness where the ultimate state of unity and harmony are experienced. This Reality has a profound influence on the individual and the world because it produces harmony, happiness and the environment for the individual to grow in the understanding of God, Jesus and who one really is. As we come to know the nature of God, His unity and Reality we also know more of our own true being as His reflection.

 

When an understanding of God’s unity increases, the concerns about the effects of differing opinions diminish because spiritual reasoning includes the recognition that God is one, everywhere, and that there is no power or presence that can separate us from Him, His unity or anything else. God is all that matters, not what others think because the truth that God is one is fulfilling, universal, available and applicable to all. Spiritual harmony may be hidden from us for a while, but it cannot be taken away because sooner or later everyone will be healed and have
the ability to see through this illusion of duality and materiality. I feel this experience is what is lacking in most churches so they are still trying to
prove their God is better than other Gods which I feel is promoting the thought that there are other Gods, and I think this is against the 1^st
commandment. I am the Lord they God thou shall not have strange God before me. The people who profess their God is better than other Gods are bringing up strange Gods instead of talking about the one God.

 

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Jesus is pointing the way to the macrocosmic mind and is the tangential point between the macrocosm and the microcosm. The joy is that their are more than one tangential points. In fact in the infinite, there are an infinite number of tangential points. By using Jesus as my personal model and a focal point, I can taste Christ consciousness. It is the perfect consciousness for my human model because it has attained all of the possibilities in the human state. In it all potential is actualized on this earthly plane so it becomes the prototype of my being for the Christ conscious mind. It admits and supports the idea that there are varied upward paths to pure consciousness, and the diversity in different world faiths diminishes as one approaches Christ consciousness. Evolution and all spiritual
paths lead to pure consciousness.

 

This is basic Bhakti Yoga. The devotees of Krishna, Shiva and others have noted similar experiences. It is one of many different yoga paths that lead to love, devotion, and worship. Christian Mystics have this intense love for God. Yogis teach the personal development of this love of God so it naturally leads one to love all beings, to see the "god" in all forms of creation. By practicing Bhakti Yoga, the individual lets go of feelings of hate, jealousy, and vengeance; and instead embraces compassion, tolerance and love.

 

 

 

[matteoam]

Steve, check out Br. Casey's book Fully Human, Fully Divine for a more pragmatic and accessible understanding in true Benedictine fashion. As soma points out too its Bhakti yoga. Fore God is the subject of my desire, not the object. The desert fathers and mothers also helped me "see" past the paradox.

[matteoam]

Here's a thought that came toy mind. I think PCs are as much caught up in the literalism toward scripture as their supposed opponents - which include fundamentalists on the one hand and atheists on the other. What then makes PCs so Progressive? For me it is a virtually meaningless term. They argue with other Protestants and defy the catholics (by which I mean the Roman Catholic Chruch and the Orthodox). I find it somewhat ironic that Protestants today - moderate or emergent - are looking back to the spirituality of the catholics. PC is just another reactionary term that wants to justify itself and that is stuck in the limiting rationalism of the enlightenment. I used to be so gung-ho about being a PC and now I don't care about this label given my awakened devotion to God (Bhakti) as I rembraced catholic theology and spirituality being fully aware of the limitations of those who invented it. Yes they thought it out and came to a conclusion. We all do that. They were also aware that their reason had its limitations and they had FAITH in something beyond it. This should be the driving force of PC as they are supposed to ENCOURAGE inquiry. I see most PCs always complaining about what this or that type of Christian says or always speak of scripture in the negative and wanting to dismiss it. Then why bother at all? For me I take the most seemingly horrible verses of scripture and I meditate long and hard on them. I become aware of what arises in me and I realize that what violence is in the text exists in me. If the OT gives me anything it's the reflection if human nature. If we reject that then we reject what is IN ALL OF US and we have to contend with that to see its illusory nature to get to the I AM that is in us. I for one am not so beholden to the past that I make an idol of it. I won't be Lot's wife looking back to the past. At its best PC can be a way to transcend the paradoxes of the Christian faith. At its worst iris nothing more than another dogmatic denomination.

[PaulS]

Not wishing to sound like I'm complaining, but I found PC to be a 'relief' really. Having been raised a fundamentalist but turned my back on it at 19, I think i have always carried some baggage. PC introduced me to a new way of looking at the bible and God. It's not the be all and end all, but in my darkest hour I am certainly glad I found it. Rather than just another reactionary term, I think the term PC is a useful term for indicating to others that there is another way to look at Jesus and Christianity. If it wasn't given a label of sorts, how would people recognise it or find out more information about it?

 

Sure some people complain about other Christianities, although I haven't yet met the types that are always complaining. Similarly, I see very little of people here always speaking negative of scripture or dismissing it.

 

I think that probably one of our biggest failings as people - we generalise and categorise too much. PC is not a clearly defined religion or movement. It is a bunch of thoughts and views loosely brought together under a label. Just like the terms Protestant and Catholic cover a wide and diverse range of views, so does PC.

Edited September 21, 2013 by PaulS

[SteveS55]

I think I agree with Paul. It seems to me that many ex-fundamentalists enter into a period of recovery. There is a certain amount of
grieving implicit in this process, part of which is working through one’s anger. Personally, I think this is perfectly natural. I don’t come from a fundamentalist background per se, but I would suggest that dogmatic Catholicism runs a very close second. And, this is something I had to recover from myself, anger included.

 

My main criticism of fundamentalism is what appears to me as its insistence on believing that one “must” believe. While I’m sure this is too simplistic an
explanation for the fundamentalist’s state of mind, I think it carries with it at least some truth. This insistence on the primacy of belief at all costs runs counter to both our penchant for rational thought and our desire for intellectual, emotional and spiritual integrity; things that are distinctly human characteristics in the post-modern world.

 

So, it is this aspect of fundamentalism (if I have it right) that I find most troubling, and where I am able to find my compassion for those who are searching for new possibilities, and the vision of Progressive Christianity seems to be one of those possibilities.

 

Peace.

 

Steve

 

[matteoam]

Steve, you make a good point. Belief is fundamental. I understand the transition from one belief to another can be traumatic and I accept that in others. But a key component I think in being PC is not simply replacing one belief system with another without a realization of ones self in relation to what other one rejects. PC gives me breathing space but it doesn't leave me room for being dogmatic, decisive, or angry towards the other. I trust that those who express anger towards what some other Christian says or believes May be necessary but I sense that most PCs have an ax to grind just as most fundamentalists do. If PC makes the claim that they are better then they need to act like it.

[JosephM]

(snip)

I trust that those who express anger towards what some other Christian says or believes May be necessary but I sense that most PCs have an ax to grind just as most fundamentalists do. If PC makes the claim that they are better then they need to act like it.

 

Personally i do not sense that most PC's have an axe to grind. Perhaps it is true at first during the transition from fundamentalism while there is still lingering emotional pain from rejection from their past peers. After all, progression is not an instant thing. However, i find that those who continue on their journey, whether by PC or by a different self label, shed that anger and replace it with compassion, understanding and love for those still trapped.

 

PC, as you know is not dogmatic. Anyone who over time refuses to shed their anger for others will in my view not survive with the progressive label.

 

Joseph

[matteoam]

The irony of the message board under debate and dialogue is that the PC complains about conservatives, the orthodox tradition, and fundamentalism. I have no sense that there is any understanding and discernment of contradictory views which are preached to the choir. Where is the dialogue if there is no real exchange of ideas? I for one understand why those who are labeled as fundamentalist believe what they do. I disagree with them but am tolerant of them. I disagree with how too many PCers give the impression that these others can do no right. I understand that some PCers come from negative experiences and can respect and tolerate their positions, but I also think that if progression toward something else includes more than letting go of negative anger. I have yet to read any comments by PCers about forgiveness, forebearance, patience, and compassion toward others who don't share the PC view. PC can be as intolerant and dogmatic as fundamentalist in using the 8 points as doctrine-lite. I believe that PC can be most successful if PCers get over their PCness and really challenge themselves by being ore inclusive toward more conservative, orthodox, traditionalist, fundamentalist Christians. I challenge PC to say that these people can sit in worship beside them without having to adopt the PC motto, or that PCers be willing to sit in worship with all those Christians they oppose in practice and belief. An important part of being genuinely spiritual hasore to do with being with people who don't agree with you any genuinely loving them more than being with like-minded people.

[JosephM]

matteoam said directly above....

 

I have yet to read any comments by PCers about forgiveness, forebearance, patience, and compassion toward others who don't share the PC view.

 

Perhaps you might try using the search function on this site for such words as forgiveness, compassion, etc. as i do not share that perception and have been reading the forum board for more than 7 years. Granted, we have quite a few transient people who come here and are quite vocal about their past treatment and disdain for many fundamentals but over time i believe those old wounds heal and are replaced by forgiveness, compassion and understanding. I think your first impression or perception here is understandable but i think you will come to see there are many loving , forgiving and compassionate people who remain and grow here over time. We do put up with a certain amount of venting here as that is a natural and sometimes necessary step in the healing process for PC'ers which disappears with time and is usually replaced by more appetizing fruits if you know what i mean..

 

At least that is my take on things,

Joseph

[PaulS]

I think you sum it up nicely, Joseph. I think the negativity towards fundamentalism is often a very real part of the healing process, but one that which the victim moves past over time. I say victim intentionally, because many of these people feel harmed & deceived by fundamentalism. I think as they come to new understandings of the bible, myth, metaphor, Christian history, etc, a new way of looking at fundy Christians emerges, and personally I think it is a view that includes compassion, forgiveness and understanding.

 

Like Joseph suggests Matteom, there is a lot of positive discussion at this forum as well.

[matteoam]

This us true but I think the negativity is a symptom of something deeper. Even if there is no God, that there was no historicity to the events, the stories reflect a deep seated existential need on the part of human beings that should be meaningful to secular humanists.

[PaulS]

Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with the stories, and I think many of them do reveal useful truths. Clearly though how one views and interprets those stories can be harmful to themselves or others.

[matteoam]

Yes but why can't you cut people a break to work our their own karma? Why not pray for them or be willing to be vulnerable toward them so you can make a discernment and not a judgement? Why create another camp that considers them an enemy? If we really loved our enemies.

[PaulS]

I don't think anyone here considers any other to be an enemy. I try to love everyone regardless of the views they hold. That doesn't mean I can't disagree/discuss/challenge another's views, or even question the reasons why they might hold them.

 

As for cutting others a break - what break are they not being cut? I myself do not see PC as a united force trying to dismantle or attack. Rather i see PC as a very loose and imprecise label that encompasses more what it is not, than what it is. So I don't see it as a clearly delineated 'camp'.

[BillM]

In my experiences here on this forum, I have found Progressive Christianity to be the opposite of dogmatic. Although the 8 Points exist, PC does not say what it means to be a PC. For instance, one can be an atheist and be a Christian here. One can be an agnostic and be a Christian here. There is no agreed-upon consensus of what is and what is not Christian. That determination is left up to the individual as a matter of conscience. This, in a practical way, makes everyone a Christian, no matter what they believe and do or what they don't believe or do. If you say you are a Christian, then you are a Christian, no matter your beliefs or actions. The only no-no is to tell someone they are wrong. That, in PC, is improper netiquette. How not believing in God could be "following Jesus" (Christianity?) is beyond me as it seems to me that God was at the center of his life.

 

So I've found Progressive Christianity to be pretty much just like the Unitarian Universalist Association. The UUA has "progressed" and are no longer Unitarians. They have "progressed" and are no longer Universalists. They are an association of different beliefs, religions, and philosophies whose primary message is that there is no such thing as religious truth or reality. All that is available is opinions and all opinions have equal merit and value. So it was a bit odd for me when I first visited these assemblies and found that they were no longer Unitarian or Universalist. They held onto their old name out of background and tradition. But the way they exist today has little to no ties with their roots.

 

In my opinion, Progressive Christianity is much the same. It has the label "Christianity" but it can and does mean everything...and, therefore, nothing.

 

(BTW, none of this was written from a point of hostility, merely as an observation. But I'm honest enough to admit that my beliefs are no longer Christian.)

Edited September 29, 2013 by BillM

[soma]

Today, I feel many Christians are searching for an inviting spiritual experience different from what they experienced and were provided with in the past. It seems most of us grew up or were raised in the richness of the Christian tradition, but are looking deeper for a spiritual ceremony or experience that captures the joy and excitement of the soul that sees no differences in faith, values or beliefs. The location for the wedding of the body, mind and Spirit is entirely our choice. Ceremonies can be held out-of-doors at the beach, the mountains, hotels, churches, mosque, synagogues, temples, museums, churches or private homes. They are all wonderful possibilities for this spiritual experience, a marriage ceremony that enhances our awareness of the soul. The ceremony of consciousness is inside the individual. The place is only a spot to temporarily park the body and get away from the mind so the pervading consciousness of life can be recognized.

 

Progressive Christianity I feel works with us and all faith traditions including individuals with and without a tradition of their own making. Similar to this forum, together we are creating a
unique and wonderful ceremony for the wedding of dreams that is ours and ours alone. The spiritual community we have here is a life supporting community that is progressive and inclusive. We are expanding and enlightening our individual experiences in an integral spiritual community that celebrates the Spirit in all of life. This forum with the label Progressive Christian is an open-minded, accepting, and non-judgmental community that laughs, learns, disagrees, excites, relaxes, and grows together. We all are in this community. It is a kind of path I label spiritual that invites anyone to join whether they are on a journey or not. For many of us, relationships within ourselves and the communities without are the catalyst for our spiritual development and unfolding. We seem to be a spiritual home that emphasizes spiritual wisdom over religious dogma and loves anyone who is willing to be a part of our life and impact our community that we call progressive. We are a mixed bag of individuals who recognize a personal divinity in everyone and it seems empowered to disagree and struggle for change in the world in the name of social justice. With progressive hearts, we grow, change and impact our own lives by thinking, contemplating, meditating and serving others physically, and mentally. Yes, we disagree externally while respecting at the same time the Divinity within our open hearts because that is how we impact our lives. The traditional Christian institution of individuals rejects me and my ideas, but I still call myself a Christian. It is funny that their resistance has made me a better Christian. I feel our resistance to their exclusion makes them better Christians so life goes on skipping, singing, competing and dancing together.

 

Edited September 29, 2013 by soma
format and alignment problem

[NORM]

Well stated, Soma!

 

I think that a religion or philosophy worth having is one that is allowed to evolve as our knowledge increases, and to acknowledge that we don't have all of the answers. Worldviews that dig in their heels and resist change because they believe they have found "truth" are only useful for those within the walls of their confinement.

 

There is an old joke that goes something like this:

 

G-d is conducting a tour of recent arrivals to Heaven.

 

He leads them to a long, long hallway with many rooms with no doors on the outside, and people are wandering in and out of each one - over a hundred thousand!

 

Each one, G-d tells the group, contains members of the world's religions. There are Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Shintoists, Sikhs, Hindus, Taoists, and even Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists.

 

As everyone expresses approval at the inclusiveness of the divine being, they pass by the only room with its doors closed tightly. There is a huge sign posted on the door that says "Quite Please."

 

Someone in the group asks G-d, "Who is in there?"

 

"Oh," G-d laughs, "we have to be very quiet around that group - they think they are the only one's here!"

 

NORM

[soma]

Norm, I love that parable. Thanks Joe, John, Soma

[BillM]

That's a good story, NORM, it made me laugh.

 

Of course, some of those groups in Heaven neither believe in God or in Heaven, which makes it all that much funnier. And Bishop Spong, one of the leaders of PC, states quite emphatically that God is not a divine being.

 

But this story does illustrate why I am no longer a Christian. Jesus did say, in the gospel of John, that no one comes to the Father except through him...and I no longer believe that. In fact, I don't believe we need a mediator between us and God. See how non-Christian I am?

 

But then, I'm don't agree with Soma that each person is God, either. In my "merely opinion", God is the Creator and we are the creation. We can be indwelt by God, but we never become God. This is where I believe Christianity made a huge mistake, in deifying Jesus of Nazareth and elevating him to Godhood so that he could be worshipped. And the obligatory "in my opinion." Somehow, mysticism has moved from "I experience the reality of God in my life" to "I am God, I am Divine." To me, in my opinion, that's a category mistake...unless a person can do what God can do.

 

All of the above is, of course, just my opinion...just my 2 cents. Worthless, isn't it?

[soma]

Bill, Just to clarify. I feel we live in infinity, eternity and can experience it. I don't think we are the ocean if we swim in it, but I feel we can feel the vastness and power the ocean emits. I don't think that makes us the ocean or God. The Quantum Physicists say we can't conduct an experiment without affecting the outcome that we are not the observer, but a participant in the experiment because we affect the outcome. That makes us a participant in the eternal infinity that we live in. In my mind I feel Jesus also didn't feel that God was a divine being, but beyond words. To communicate to the people he spoke their language using symbols to relate an experience of diving into the ocean of the unified field. I don't think Jesus is God, but one with God or the ocean of pure consciousness. Words limit so confuse, but also point. I don't even care if Jesus was a real person, I just want to find the path down to the beach to enjoy the view, the power of the waves and the beyond mind/body experience of surfing. It is funny because the ocean is vast so all paths are in it, pointing to it in duality, but part of it in unity. I hope I didn't say we are God, but maybe that was communicated. I don't think we can do what God can do, but I do feel since we are participators in infinity than we are co-creators. I see you surfing on the wave next to me so enjoy the ride.