AletheiaRivers Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I'd have to say that your impression closely mirrors my own. I owe a huge debt to Borg for offering me an alternative to fundamentalist Christianity at a point in my life when I wouldn't have entertained a Christian theological position any further to the right than his. However, in the past year or so, I've been creeping slightly to the right in my own beliefs and have been delighted to find authors like Yancey and Campolo who, although more conservative than I, come a bit closer (not on all points of course) to my current views. CS Lewis, Brian McLaren, Harold Kushner (Jewish) and Keith Ward are favorites as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOW Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 My exposure to JS scholarship is very limited . I've read" Honest to Jesus" by Funk and the Gospel of Q by Mack, so I'm no expert. My concern with Progressive Christianity is how do we respond to the wounded? What do we have to offer those addicted to meth or crack, the person whose daughter commited suicide, the 58 year old man who just got laid off and only knows how to do one thing? All this scholarship is great, but if your mother dies, or any of the events I mentioned above happened, you're going to want more from your religion. Discussions about the Mosaic authorship of Pentatuach, the three levels of the Gospel of Q, or the Synoptic Problem are fine but sometimes people want to feel something. Lord knows I don't want religion to be an opiate of the people (or an amphetimine ). But what do we have to offer ordinary people in these situations? MOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacemover Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Aletheia, I have really wrestled with the questions and claims of the Christian faith, and while my heart is firmly committed to social justice, progressive politics, and liberal democracy, I also have been feeling that Christian moderates like McLaren, Yancey and Campolo, and even Ron Sider are closer to my beliefs as a moderate Christian evangelical with a social conscience. I read a lot from the progressive school- Borg, Crossan, even Spong, and while I heartily embrace the questions and scholarly inquiry they raise, I am coming back to believe that there needs to be some basis of truth that one needs to accept to call oneself Christian. The challenge is, that where that truth resides is not a clearly demarcated line (as much as our more conservative sisters and brothers would like to have us believe)... it is a nebulous gray area, but there are truths that I believe are distinctly Christian for me: -the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, the son of God (not just 'Jesus of Nazareth') -the validity of the resurrection as an actual, believable event (not just 'a metaphor'), even though we can't historically prove it, I still believe it -the validity of the Crucifixion, not as a sort of Anselmian blood atonement for sins(which I definitely do not believe), but rather as God showing us a new way- putting to death the sacrificial, domination system, and instituting a new way of peace -the Christian life as a new way, that leaves behind old patterns of selfish living -the Bible as being a reliable source for teaching and learning for today, not just an antiquated, politically incorrect, seriously flawed collection of writings to and by an ancient community (which may be the case to some degree, but I cannot totally discard the authoritativeness/relevance of scripture offhand, as Borg and others would have us do as I understand it) Those are the major distinctives of the Christian faith for me, that come to mind... that many of the more progressive Christian scholars discount. I am still reading, and interacting with the progressive Christian school of thought, but so far have not found these writings to be as inclusive as the writers would like for us to believe... How about others? Peace, John I'd have to say that your impression closely mirrors my own. I owe a huge debt to Borg for offering me an alternative to fundamentalist Christianity at a point in my life when I wouldn't have entertained a Christian theological position any further to the right than his. However, in the past year or so, I've been creeping slightly to the right in my own beliefs and have been delighted to find authors like Yancey and Campolo who, although more conservative than I, come a bit closer (not on all points of course) to my current views. CS Lewis, Brian McLaren, Harold Kushner (Jewish) and Keith Ward are favorites as well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacemover Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Excellent questions, MOW. By enlarge, I did find the segments from 'Living the Questions' to be sensitive to the compassion to which you seem to be referring. The possible exception was the segment on prayer, in which Marcus Borg seems to almost mock anyone who believes in the efficacy of intercessory prayer. John Cobb, John Crossan, John Shelby Spong, Nancy Ammerman, and others showed much sensitivity to the issue of a compassionate response to sufferers, though.... I thought... Peace, J My exposure to JS scholarship is very limited . I've read" Honest to Jesus" by Funk and the Gospel of Q by Mack, so I'm no expert. My concern with Progressive Christianity is how do we respond to the wounded? What do we have to offer those addicted to meth or crack, the person whose daughter commited suicide, the 58 year old man who just got laid off and only knows how to do one thing? All this scholarship is great, but if your mother dies, or any of the events I mentioned above happened, you're going to want more from your religion. Discussions about the Mosaic authorship of Pentatuach, the three levels of the Gospel of Q, or the Synoptic Problem are fine but sometimes people want to feel something. Lord knows I don't want religion to be an opiate of the people (or an amphetimine ). But what do we have to offer ordinary people in these situations? MOW <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 What I think about all this, for what it's worth, it that we're continuing to treat "conservative" and "liberal" as the only two points of reference from which to extrapolate an approach to Christianity. And the "moderate" label, rather than opening up the field as one might expect, actually serves to reinforce it. A "moderate" position is a "middle" position -- a position somewhere between the same two reference points. However you look at it, we're talking about a tiny little line-segment on the great plane of the Christian experience. The Jesus Seminar has done a good service by questioning the assumptions of religious orthodoxy, yes; but it does so from within the assumptions of liberal-critical orthodoxy, which includes, among other things, modern scientific orthodoxy! So Genesis is either science or fable. The gospels are either history or social statement. Theology is either truth or power. The either/or's go on and on. Can't we see that these aren't the only two choices? Anyway, the JS'ers are probably "right on" insofar as they have sought out the historical core of the gospel sources. The wiser of their number will admit that this is all they've really done, or tried to do. They may even be, to a lesser extent, right about some of the social ramifications of Jesus' ministry. I think Crossan and Borg especially fall into this category. But when it comes to grasping the essential meaning of the texts, I personally think they fail at least as miserably as the conservatives they rail so loudly against. Funk failed spectacularly to grasp it when he suggested in Honest To Jesus that we do away with "the creed with the empty center" -- scrap the dogmas about Jesus' birth and death and resurrection, and focus only on his view of the kingdom of God as it was exemplified in his life and mission. Crossan has also suggested this on numerous occasions. They apparently didn't stop to notice the cosmological, philosophical, psychological, or spiritual significance of these doctrines, as their academic committments allowed them to see only superstition and suppression. Anyway, I'm officially breaking out of the two-dimensional cage. Who's coming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Sheesh, I've re-written this post a thousand times and still am not sure what I want to say. I don't particularly care for the term "moderate", but it's a term that many understand. I would like to break out of the two dimensional cage, if I only knew what that meant. My involvement in this discussion is my attempt to express that I'm trying to do just that and perhaps using the term moderate doesn't convey well what I glimpse with my minds eye. I definitely know that "liberal" (as defined by many liberals and convservatives) doesn't convey my beliefs anymore. I do hold the stories of Jesus to be more historical than metaphorical, but that doesn't mean I believe they literally happened exactly the way the scriptures say they did. I, like peacemover, do believe in a literal resurrection. Does that mean I have to leave the progressive club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 Gee Fred, I thought you'd never ask. How about this as a starting point. Jesus always referred to himself as "the son of man". What does this mean? It's ok to "have a belief" that he was the son of God, but this belief defies the existing poetic and narrative evidence that we have access to two thousand years later. I believe that He, if ever, referred to himself only once with regard to the divine son aspect. I have always been a devotee' of science fiction, and to me there are few sets of stories that border as often on science fiction as much as the stories in the Old and New Testaments do. Yes Fred, I believe that most of the stories ARE both science and fable. After my long term and intimate exposure to the inner workings of a great research university, I have come to a supposition that Jesus just may have been a genetically engineered being sent backwards through time to teach us all what it will take for us to live in harmony in the far future. It's the only reason for his visit that makes long-term sense to me. Or maybe he was just the first, and the herald that announced the coming of many others like him in the future. Maybe that's what's so scary for the fundies. I have no evidence for this, for if this is the case, the creative activities that begat him and those to follow are still a few hundred years in the future, even today. When people ask me what I really believe about all this I tell them that God is the most accomplished genetic engineer in the cosmos, possesses the most efficient quantum computer in the cosmos, has the ability to send animate and inanimate materials through time and space; and, most importantly, God starts in the middle and works both ways at once. The past is the "kingdom" for it is defined by the interactions of the "rulers and the ruled", and we are all involved in the process of determining just what the future will hold for us and our descendants. But, God is clearly in charge of it all in my opinion. Fred, I detected a certain note of frustration in your inability to find any alternative to the liberal/conservative conundrum. When this philosophical-religious battle is fully joined and catches us all up in its consequences (and they will be vast and far reaching) then we and our descendants will have to take a swing at the plate to determjne our own futures. We were designed to educate ourselves to the realities we exist in and to choose the best way forward for ourselves and for those we love. In the mean time, I suggest survial, love as much as you can, pass on to others as much as you can of what you learn, and most importantly, trust God. I've survived on a day-to-day basis for about twenty years now believing in this set of presumptions, as screwy as they may seem to be; but, they work for me since "1984" really was "1984" in my life. flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Sheesh, I've re-written this post a thousand times and still am not sure what I want to say. That's good! I made you think then. I don't particularly care for the term "moderate", but it's a term that many understand. I would like to break out of the two dimensional cage, if I only knew what that meant. I didn't want to beat anybody up for using the term. For many, of the three alternatives, it's still the most accurate. I'm just throwing out the term "two-dimensional cage" as a metaphor for thinking about all our options in terms of how they relate to orthodoxy or liberalism. "Do I believe {some orthodox or liberal claim X} or not?" It's not a course of action so much as a deshackling. I, like peacemover, do believe in a literal resurrection. Does that mean I have to leave the progressive club? You can belong to any club you like, as long as they're willing to issue you a membership card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 After my long term and intimate exposure to the inner workings of a great research university, I have come to a supposition that Jesus just may have been a genetically engineered being sent backwards through time to teach us all what it will take for us to live in harmony in the far future. That certainly qualifies for "breaking out of the two-dimensional cage"! Fred, I detected a certain note of frustration in your inability to find any alternative to the liberal/conservative conundrum. On the contrary, Flow, I'm swimming in alternatives. My frustration is with the stronghold these two perspectives have on religious thought and experience today. Their competitive presence is systematically stifling the world's religious and spiritual imagination. Something bigger awaits. Knock, knock, Neo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 After my long term and intimate exposure to the inner workings of a great research university, I have come to a supposition that Jesus just may have been a genetically engineered being sent backwards through time to teach us all what it will take for us to live in harmony in the far future. That certainly qualifies for "breaking out of the two-dimensional cage"! Fred, I detected a certain note of frustration in your inability to find any alternative to the liberal/conservative conundrum. On the contrary, Flow, I'm swimming in alternatives. My frustration is with the stronghold these two perspectives have on religious thought and experience today. Their competitive presence is systematically stifling the world's religious and spiritual imagination. Something bigger awaits. Knock, knock, Neo... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Precisely Fred. Appreciate your comments. That is why diologue and ideas are important. Stifling arrogant liberalism can be as bad as stifling arrogant conservatism. Spong's "no credible scholar disagree wth me" can be as damaging as "anyone that disagree with conservatism is a cancer on Christianity" approach. This is why some conservative scholars came to Boyd/Pinnock's Defence when the Evangelical Theological Society was about to throw them out for their Open Theology beliefs about God's sovereignty. One of these scholars said something to the effect that to remain fresh evangelical theology must continue to have alternate voices. This same rationale is why I enjoyed seeing a little of the liberal Spoto's critique of the lack of academic rigour of Crossan. Crossan has almost been given saint hood by many progressives who unquestioningly accept his theories and he is paraded across many TV specials. Indeed we need alternate voices. This is why I was fascinated by reading about Open Theology as much as it was initally a disturbing concept to a former Calvinist. North Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 After my long term and intimate exposure to the inner workings of a great research university, I have come to a supposition that Jesus just may have been a genetically engineered being sent backwards through time to teach us all what it will take for us to live in harmony in the far future. That certainly qualifies for "breaking out of the two-dimensional cage"! On second thought, I take it back. This theory actually rests solidly upon two pillars of modern scientific orthodoxy (plus I was reading the BB help page, and I needed an excuse to make a bulleted list): human advancement, conceived in social terms, must come from the temporal future, not from an eternal spiritual realm; human advancement, conceived in personal or spiritual terms, must come from superior genetic makeup, not from an eternal divine spark in each individual soul. It turns out that the historic Christian myth transposes it into spatial categories -- either way, you're stabbing at the truth analogically, which is useful for some purposes, misleading for others. I wouldn't take either version literally, but it's an interesting approach nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacemover Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Anyway, I'm officially breaking out of the two-dimensional cage. Who's coming? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds good to me! I can't stand labels, but because of the polarization of the conversation, every position stated is compared against the liberal/orthodox paradigm... I don't even like the buzzword "progressive" because it can circumvent the needed articulation of what exactly this means... Peace, John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 I don't even like the buzzword "progressive" because it can circumvent the needed articulation of what exactly this means... The Tao which can be named is not the true Tao. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 On second thought, I take it back. This theory actually rests solidly upon two pillars of modern scientific orthodoxy (plus I was reading the BB help page, and I needed an excuse to make a bulleted list): human advancement, conceived in social terms, must come from the temporal future, not from an eternal spiritual realm; human advancement, conceived in personal or spiritual terms, must come from superior genetic makeup, not from an eternal divine spark in each individual soul. It turns out that the historic Christian myth transposes it into spatial categories -- either way, you're stabbing at the truth analogically, which is useful for some purposes, misleading for others. I wouldn't take either version literally, but it's an interesting approach nonetheless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You can't take it back. I won't let you. Actually it's a four dimensional cage we are talking about breaking out of. There are the flat-earth two dimensions, with which we are all familiar (ad nauseum); there is length, breadth, and depth (3) which merely heightens, widens, and deepens Shakespeare's stage; and then, there is the fourth which is the timeline of earth's history, including the primordial times before we appeared to start screwing everything up. Your first bullet implies that we "receive" backwards flows of intentionality that lead us to the construction of viable social infrastructures over time. Or to say it another way, we tend to create the future we collectively desire. Having been somewhat involved in this process when evaluating new technologies and scientific discoveries for development and licensing, I can tell you that all the good intentions in the world are ALWAYS foreshortened or trumped by dollar considerations. If wonderful things were anticipated for an innovation, chances were that it would be limited in scope fairly early on because of investment limitations. However, I also found that those of us involved in such negotiations were usually very mindful of our collective obligations to the "eternal spiritual realm". It was a very tenuous thing, but those of us who did these things for a living acknowledged these feelings of obligation more often than not in private. This was especially so when the first research contracts involving the development of genetically engineered food crops were developed in the 80's. Your second bullet first came to prominence at the beginning of the twentieth century when "eugenics" began to rear its head. Of course one could argue that it reared its head because of the tenuous backwards flow of intentionality mentioned under the first instance. But of course, later on in the mid-part of the century it became just another excuse to push racist and facist (gee I never noticed how similar the spelling of these two words are!) attitudes upon the public bolstered by pseudo-scientific underpinnings. Of course having the appropriate genes has a lot to do with any creative process, but I will take exception to the second part of the second bullet. Having done a considerable amount of original writing over an extended period of time; and, acknowledging that I can only speak from my personal experiences, there are times when the writer/creator is really not in control of what is said or how it is said. You may call it a divine spark that connects you to a vast spiritual realm. In any art form, graphic, musical, lyrical, etc. it is the voice of the eternal speaking "through" you, and that makes all the difference. Whether it is accepted or not by those who might gain access to the completed work becomes secondary. Getting it down in the "correct" version and form is all that matters to a creator. So I guess the bigger picture we are defining is how to balance scientific objectivity, creativity, and progress, with traditional and well-known spiritual concerns? My main contention is that in today's technologically-driven existence, the existing spiritual philosophies just don't operate very well anymore flow..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 My bullet points were what I took to be some modern scienfic assumptions of the theory of Jesus you're suggesting -- not assumptions I take to be true myself. I'm arguing for, not against, the eternal spiritual realm and divine spark. I'm not quite sure from your response whether that was clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 Fred: We're on the same wavelength. As you like to do, I was only picking apart some of the structure in order to make my understanding of what you wrote clearer based upon my experiences. That's how I learn also. I'm just an old school, learn-by-doing codger. It's hard to break old habits in this modern world. Besides, we're having an intergenerational discussion since you are about my childrens' ages, and you know what happens in these, MISUNDERSTANDINGS. It's always wonderful to know that there are other devoted science fiction afficianados out here, outside of the cages. flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystictrek Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 As I read these posts (well skim these posts) I think of Hegel's philosophy of history: thesis and antithesis leading to a new synthesis. We are progressing toward what I like to call "the new church for the new age." I believe that there is a lot of spiritual energy in both the Conservative Church and in the New Age Movement. As far as I know, they can't stand each other! Thesis - antithesis! God is involved and will find a way to bring it all together. I sure don't know how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 As I read these posts (well skim these posts) I think of Hegel's philosophy of history: thesis and antithesis leading to a new synthesis. We are progressing toward what I like to call "the new church for the new age." I believe that there is a lot of spiritual energy in both the Conservative Church and in the New Age Movement. As far as I know, they can't stand each other! Thesis - antithesis! God is involved and will find a way to bring it all together. I sure don't know how. I couldn't agree more. (The Hegelian dialectic shows up a lot in my thinking.) There are crucially important realizations in both viewpoints -- even if, as systems, I think they're dead ends. I'm convinced that there are philosophical places to stand, from which those realizations can be seen to interlock, rather than conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 (The Hegelian dialectic shows up a lot in my thinking.) They call me the "yin/yang kid" out here in the wild wild west! (Which is easier than the "thesis/antithesis/synthesis kid".) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 They call me the "yin/yang kid" out here in the wild wild west! (Which is easier than the "thesis/antithesis/synthesis kid".) Howdy Yin/Yang Kid. It's neutral to have you here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Hehehehehehehehe, philosophy humor! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystictrek Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 (The Hegelian dialectic shows up a lot in my thinking.) They call me the "yin/yang kid" out here in the wild wild west! (Which is easier than the "thesis/antithesis/synthesis kid".) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for the LOL opportunity. I love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted October 21, 2005 Author Share Posted October 21, 2005 Yin/Yang and other cosmic principles aside ( I've got to be careful of this curved black and white imagery stuff. My son recently married a very wonderful Chinese-American lady from a wonderful family.) we might wish to consider that another thread on the site pays homage to Scotty Peck. His landmark work helped many of us deal with the cruelties of the world's realities in the past, and much of his philosophical grounding was in the Hegelian Dialectic. Scotty's work was very "Christian" in its nature because of its compassionate approach to the problems of others and his willingness to personally "assume" and carry a portion of their difficulties in therapy sessions. A very Jesus-like thing to do in my opinion. Of course, also, it is this that the best of our ministers and pastors do among us to ease our day-to-day pain and longing. This direct "participation" in the realities of others is usually uncomfortable, but is necessary today in order to bring about some unifications in this divided world. It all just goes to show that "truth" takes on many forms and versions in the world and larger cosmos. Understanding some small portion of that "truth" has to do with entering into dynamic dialogue with others ( if they allow it to happen), and extrapolating what information is gleaned into some sort of scalar patterns that have universal meanings. I am convinced that we all reflect both our distinctive differences and similarities when we are not "acting out" some role or other. But how do we as a people negate deceptions and get into some sort of honest and fully transparent dialogue in ways to determine the underlying patterns and essential "truths"? Very hard to do when the vast majority of humans in modern urban areas usually limit their pursuits to entertainmant and/or escape once they reach a "certain" standard of living. By the way DES some who study such things believe that the Yin/Yang symbol may well represent an end-on view of the 10 dimensional cosmic string in which our particuloar realities are embedded. Really bright people those ancient oriental seers. I believe you should be proud of your nick-name out here in the wild,wild west. flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 (edited) By the way DES some who study such things believe that the Yin/Yang symbol may well represent an end-on view of the 10 dimensional cosmic string in which our particuloar realities are embedded. Really bright people those ancient oriental seers. I believe you should be proud of your nick-name out here in the wild,wild west. You talkin to me, aletheia, the yin/yang kid? Or to my sis, Des, the hokie-pokie kid? Them dern mormons dunt know wat to thunk of my nick out here in Utarh. I think after I finish with my Philip Yancey books that I'll read Peck. Edited October 22, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 (edited) Thanks for the LOL opportunity. I love it. You're quite welcome mystictrek. Now I need to figure out how to incorporate Wittgenstein into a pun. Or perhaps Kierkegaard? Heck, might be easier to try and make Descarte amusing. Got Kant? Edited October 22, 2005 by AletheiaRivers 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.