Why I Am Not a Progressive Christian

[thormas]

Agnostic is useful in that some agnostics are not believers, however a Dali would always be included under both believer and agnostic.

Not sure of the concern. The principles talk about building community with all and mention some of those who would be included such as agnostics and believers. However, all or everybody is covered and it acknowledges it is only a partial list not limited by those mentioned. 

What does including the term atheist or non-believers add that is not already in the principles?

 

 

[romansh]

Being explicit?

[JosephM]

Rom,

I'm fairly certain that no one way to word the 8 points would satisfy everyone who identifies as a progressive Christian. The main organization changes the wording as time passes. They are not the words i would personally choose but i really don't have any problems with them unless i nit-pick. The plant one needs some explanation as to what the writer had exactly in mind and if you go to the main site you might find some explanations. I'll have to check myself also. Personally,  i don't consider any of them dogma. (a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true) That should be obvious by their changing every few years.

[JosephM]

Quote

2020 8 Points

By calling ourselves progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who…

1. Believe that following the path of the teacher Jesus can lead to healing and wholeness, a mystical connection to “God,” as well as an awareness and experience of not only the Sacred, but the Oneness and Unity of all life;

Personally i feel it did for me. I find many of his reported teachings have helped me on my journey of life toward a connection to the whole or "God". Therefor my subjective experience has no problem with this point . One could always say well some of the reported teachings may be in error and that could well be so, but it doesn't say all his reported teachings are accurate or change the point statement for me.

Quote

2. Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness, Oneness and Unity of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom, including Earth, in our spiritual journey;

I like this one. I have no problem with wording.

Quote

 

3. Seek and create community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:

Conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
Believers and agnostics,
Women and men,
Those of all races, cultures, and nationalities
Those of all sexual orientations and all gender identities,
Those of all classes and abilities;
All creatures and plant life;

 

The adding of all creatures and plant life in context is there not to exclude in our communities that which provides a balance for us and the earth

Quote

4. Know that the way we behave towards one another and Earth is the fullest expression of what we believe, therefore we vow to walk as Jesus might have walked in this world with radical compassion, inclusion, and bravery to confront and positively change the injustices we experience as well as those we see others experiencing;

I have no problem here with wording.

IRom,

I guess i don't understand how 

Quote

5. Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning with an open mind and open heart, than in absolutes or dogma;

No problem with wording here and i don't believe this is dogma but rather just making a point.

Quote

6. Work toward peace and justice among all people and all life on Earth;

General and part of inclusiveness.  I Can't fault wording.

Quote

7. Protect and restore the integrity of our Earth and all of Creation;

General and what fault can one find with this

Quote

8. Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love on this journey toward a personally authentic and meaningful faith.

Can't see any problem with a person choosing to follow this point.

Rom,

I guess i fail to understand why you would have a problem with any of these points except perhaps the exact words used would not be your choice.

Joseph

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

3. Seek and create community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:

Conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
Believers and agnostics,
Women and men,
Those of all races, cultures, and nationalities
Those of all sexual orientations and all gender identities,
Those of all classes and abilities;
All creatures and plant life;

 

It might be helpful to add "and the world or the universe" after All people but I get it and on other PC sites like Spong's old site, many contributors like Matthew Fox are passionate about the our relationship, respect and living in tune with the universe, thus creatures and plants, the universe itself is included in ALL.

Some of the contributors call themselves eco-theologians or speak of wild awakening and the order of the sacred Earth, creation spirituality and on and on. So they are big into creatures and plant life - sometimes I think more than humans.

Edited February 4, 2020 by thormas

[Burl]

PC is not particularly inclusive to conventional Christians.  

In fact, it is often openly averse to conventionally Christianity and have seen it stated on the main site that PC feels conventional Christianity must be destroyed.  Spong has definitely written that.

[thormas]

44 minutes ago, Burl said:

PC is not particularly inclusive to conventional Christians.  

In fact, it is often openly averse to conventionally Christianity and have seen it stated on the main site that PC feels conventional Christianity must be destroyed.  Spong has definitely written that.

I get Spong's concern in that he felt he experienced how a more conventional Christianity had caused harm or created angst among people. And he sought to make changes. I do believe that sometimes Spong overstated and was a bit too 'passionate.' 

I also remember that there seemed to be a good number of conventional Christians on Spong's old (and new) site (also run by Fred) - evidenced by their comments and no one was excluding them.

Seems to me that if we are to be inclusive to ALL then All means all. I do think that sometimes Conventional Christians are questioned on this site - including by me - and if a PC states their belief clearly, many times it look (and perhaps sometimes is) diametrically opposed to a CC's position. So people need to be aware of this, realize they are in the minority but they still should be welcome and let the debates continue or go to a safe zone like PC and it should be more understanding or welcoming. 

I know Ranger and I have had number of discussions and it is like each translating a different language but that is okay as long as we can state clearly and honestly our own positions and beliefs.

 

[JosephM]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

PC is not particularly inclusive to conventional Christians.  

In fact, it is often openly averse to conventionally Christianity and have seen it stated on the main site that PC feels conventional Christianity must be destroyed.  Spong has definitely written that.

While i would admit Conventional Christianity beliefs often clash heavily with those of Progressives, to me, it is folly to think we can destroy this persons  conventional view of religion  by words. The very opposing words themselves seems to me to only strengthen the others resolve. It is by living and interacting in peace, patience and compassion in ones own beliefs that stimulate the other to  become open to that which might be attributed as beneficial to the other by such beliefs.

[thormas]

Spong was forceful at times and perhaps at times he was out to destroy the CC view but he also sought to explain his (new) view. I think it worked for PCs and it seems to have worked for a number of CCs and fallen away Christians who 'heard' what he said and liked what they heard.

Many people never met Spong and didn't know him except in his writings, in his words yet at times his compassion and peace were bodied forth in his words and hit the mark. They did for me. 

[JosephM]

31 minutes ago, thormas said:

Spong was forceful at times and perhaps at times he was out to destroy the CC view but he also sought to explain his (new) view. I think it worked for PCs and it seems to have worked for a number of CCs and fallen away Christians who 'heard' what he said and liked what they heard.

Many people never met Spong and didn't know him except in his writings, in his words yet at times his compassion and peace were bodied forth in his words and hit the mark. They did for me. 

I admit it seems that way but a man doesn't start to look for these new words until he becomes disappointed with the old in himself. He perceives the absence of uncertainty in the other or a hope of more certainty and peace perceived in the other else he would not even look. It is unhappiness or emptiness in oneself (in my opinion) that moves one on from CC and the new words one hears are a hope/promise that the words will change that. IMO words themselves carry no such power with a content person.

[thormas]

Depends on the man or woman: some seek the new because they are disgruntled with the old while others are always seeking the new or further insights and some aren't even conscious of what they have or don't have when they discover the new or different. This last has been the experience of many when they go off to college. 

I do agree that, regarding CC, there might be an unidentified restlessness and a Spong like teacher presents something 'out of the blue' that speaks to a person. For me words can always  be powerful and can speak to the discontented and the content. 

Perhaps it is that the human being is, by nature, a transcendent being who is always, conscious or not, open to the new when it calls. Even the most content of us can be moved and called by another person, a new life, one in need, etc.

 

[romansh]

On 2/4/2020 at 4:30 AM, JosephM said:

Personally i feel it did for me. I find many of his reported teachings have helped me on my journey of life toward a connection to the whole or "God". Therefor my subjective experience has no problem with this point . One could always say well some of the reported teachings may be in error and that could well be so, but it doesn't say all his reported teachings are accurate or change the point statement for me.

This point moves teachings to teacher … going back to a more literal stance. And it reintroduces "God", whatever that is.

On 2/4/2020 at 4:30 AM, JosephM said:

The adding of all creatures and plant life in context is there not to exclude in our communities that which provides a balance for us and the earth

The subject of the sentence is community of ALL people. This is simply shoddy prose.

On 2/4/2020 at 4:30 AM, JosephM said:

I have no problem here with wording.

Have you taken your vow Joseph?

On 2/4/2020 at 4:30 AM, JosephM said:

No problem with wording here and i don't believe this is dogma but rather just making a point.

I did not have a problem with this either … but taking a vow … the whole thing to me starts to read like more like dogma. 

On 2/4/2020 at 4:30 AM, JosephM said:

General and part of inclusiveness.  I Can't fault wording.

Fine … the only change was work for strive. Not a major problem here either.

On 2/4/2020 at 4:30 AM, JosephM said:

General and what fault can one find with this

"Protect all of creation" really?  Does the universe need protecting? 

On 2/4/2020 at 4:30 AM, JosephM said:

Can't see any problem with a person choosing to follow this point

Meaningful faith? Believe in stuff meaningfully without evidence … How is this new version better than the original?

"Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love"

 

I get a sense that the previous version had become to secular and there has been a pushback from more conservative Progressive Christians. 

 

[JosephM]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

This point moves teachings to teacher … going back to a more literal stance. And it reintroduces "God", whatever that is.

The subject of the sentence is community of ALL people. This is simply shoddy prose.

Have you taken your vow Joseph?

I did not have a problem with this either … but taking a vow … the whole thing to me starts to read like more like dogma. 

Fine … the only change was work for strive. Not a major problem here either.

"Protect all of creation" really?  Does the universe need protecting? 

Meaningful faith? Believe in stuff meaningfully without evidence … How is this new version better than the original?

"Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love"

 

I get a sense that the previous version had become to secular and there has been a pushback from more conservative Progressive Christians. 

 

I call that nit-picking which is acceptable here but fails to arouse my interest or move me to even respond to each of your fault findings. Perhaps you could write the 8 points to your liking and post them here to see if others might prefer or have interest in them?

[romansh]

8 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I call that nit-picking which is acceptable here but fails to arouse my interest or move me to even respond to each of your fault findings. Perhaps you could write the 8 points to your liking and post them here to see if others might prefer or have interest in them?

Done in this very thread

I agree it is nit picking …  the nits moved in the wrong direction though.

 

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, romansh said:

I get a sense that the previous version had become to secular and there has been a pushback from more conservative Progressive Christians. 

I have to say, that is my sense too on the changes. 

I don't mind too much - I guess at the end of the day somebody has to commit to something on paper if they are trying to express to a broader audience the approximate values of the collective, and with PC being so wide and varied as it is I doubt anybody can land on a point that all will agree.  When a group genuinely welcomes people from all walks and understandings of life it has to be a challenge to maintain a particular identity.  I don't rely on these definitions to tell me who I am or what I have to be, but treat them more like general guidelines to respect and acknowledge.

[thormas]

I'm comfortable with either version of the 8 Points.

The alternate version (Done ) is fine for a general progressive site but as this is a Progressive Christian site and that is why most tune in to both this and the PC.org main site - the points are more than appropriate.

[thormas]

The following Fred Plumer video answering the very question is available to all on the main site and very helpful. It is definitely religious or spiritual centered with his repeated mention of Christology, Theology and Biblical scholarship.

 

 

[romansh]

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't mind too much - I guess at the end of the day somebody has to commit to something on paper if they are trying to express to a broader audience the approximate values of the collective

I get it too Paul. But I preferred the previous version. To be fair the latest version is still 'better' than the old version that haunts the forum home page. Not being a Progressive Christian I don't mind too. The previous step was a step to far apparently. Which of the three versions do you prefer?

The other thing is if the differences I pointed out are nit picking then why may the changes? ( A question for Joseph)

[romansh]

6 hours ago, thormas said:

The alternate version (Done ) is fine for a general progressive site but as this is a Progressive Christian site and that is why most tune in to both this and the PC.org main site - the points are more than appropriate.

It's not an alternate version it is a version that I was asked to post. Which of the points were inappropriate for a Progressive Christian?

[thormas]

alternative  

Not inappropriate per se, simply not enough for a Christian.org and thus the 8 points are more appropriate.

[romansh]

14 hours ago, thormas said:

Not inappropriate per se, simply not enough for a Christian.org and thus the 8 points are more appropriate.

So it would appear it is essential for a Progressive Christian to have a belief in the Sacred, Oneness and possibly "God"? An atheist who does not believe (or even disbelieves) in these things, but happens to think the scriptures can point to a 'decent' way of living life cannot consider themselves a Progressive Christian? Here I fail on points 1 and 2. The newer version ups the ante with "God", whatever that is.

It also now seems to imply we need to think of Jesus as fact, whereas before we could we could think of the teachings of Jesus in the same way we might think of what the Iliad might teach us.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by romansh

[thormas]

That is the interesting question. I know there are some highly recognized people like Gretta Vosper who are Christian but also identify themselves as atheists. Yet even in this they still 'follow Jesus.'  I do not remember if their atheistic belief is also a statement that they don't believe in oneness or whether that oneness is considered sacred. I do know she is highly thought of within PC and is a favorite of Spong's.

It does seem to be a bit of a contradiction and makes for an interesting discussion: accepting Jesus but not accepting him 'fully' - meaning his relationship with God - given that he accepted and his entire reason to be was God.

So it would seem that Gretta and others consider themselves PCs (whether they would be able to contribute on this site in the PC area is a question, it would seem - but not sure) but if one accepts your version, which has no mention of Christ why would one even want to be considered a PC? Thinking the Bible has some relevance to leading a good life is the equivalent to thinking that Plato has such relevance (which I believe he does) but merely because one thinks either thing, it doesn't follow that s/he is either a (progressive) Christian or a Platonist.

As for Jesus, Christians do think of Jesus as 'fact' which they believe gives greater relevancy to his teachings. To not think of Jesus as a historical person is to be a mythicist (and I don't know if mythicists, like Price, consider themselves Christians or not). 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by thormas

[romansh]

2 minutes ago, thormas said:

As for Jesus, Christians do think of Jesus as 'fact' which they believe gives greater relevancy to his teachings. 

Are you speaking for all Christians? Is it necessary for Christians to think of Jesus as fact?

I have had the pleasure of seeing and listening to Gretta Vosper in 2017. If I recall correctly she is United Church minister back in Eastern Canada. She talked about her experiences and the scrutiny she was getting from the United Church hierarchy. And the then potential heresy trial:

from Wikipedia:

In November 2018, before the hearing could take place, Vosper and the United Church reached a settlement that allowed her to continue the work in her ministry, effectively ending the matter. Her lawyer, Julian Falconer, offered this comment: "Both parties took a long look at the cost-benefit at running a heresy trial and whether it was good for anyone (and) the results speak for themselves. They recognized there's a place for Gretta, and that there is no reason to separate the minister and the congregation."

 

 

[romansh]

Was Jesus in fact a Christian?

[thormas]

Jesus was a Jew of the 2nd Temple period and believed by his followers to the the Messiah, i.e. the Christ - thus his followers were eventually thought of as followers of the Christ and eventually called Christians - which continues to today. Thus progressive Christians are in that number.

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by thormas