Why Those 8 Points?

[FredP]

I avoided reading anything outside of the Jesus Seminar for so long because the way the JS talked about other Christian beliefs, you would think that the only other option was fundamentalism.

When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

 

I think your experience is practically universal among the relatively few who have come to see that literal and liberal Christianity are both dead ends. I, too, credit Crossan, Borg, Spong, and others with giving form and shape to my own process of unraveling the absurdities of the literalism I grew up with, and with helping me to get beyond the theological straitjacket of fundamentalism. And I, too, grew weary of the arrogant polarizations of liberalism -- as well as with its willingness to swallow the modern scientific worldview whole. I think I had accomplished a pretty decent synthesis for my own purposes the last few years; but in true Hegelian style, far more interesting antitheses than liberalism have been entering into the mix lately. Now when I see the "progressive" JS or TCPC-types adamantly going off on some conservative literalist wild goose chase, I can't help but wonder how much debunking people are going to put up with before saying enough already. Let's hear something interesting for a change.

[AletheiaRivers]

Demas

 

I'm here because I feel comfortable here. For the most part nothing I say here is considered shocking. If I tried to work out my faith in print on other forums, I imagine I'd be called a heretic or apostate or even just unfaithful.

 

Truth is, I don't know exactly what I believe, and on this board that is OK.

 

I sometimes get a craving for theological discussion (which has been rather scarce here lately) and so I'll wander over to the Christian to Christian debate board on bnet. I go to theologyweb sometimes or opentheismboard.org. Theologyweb intimidates me. I'm just not that theologically educated. I like opentheismboard.org, but it's a quiet place (even quieter than here).

 

So I just hang out here, biding my time, and hope that some of the new members that sign up will actually stick around and contribute. Maybe someday we'll even talk about Jesus or God. Who knows?

Edited October 31, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[flowperson]

I agree that we do censor ourselves with our laziness and apathy, however that is not the phenomenon that I'm talking about here.

 

In this instance I'm talking about a purposeful governmental intervention in a process that has served civilization brilliantly for at least a century and a half, and that has engendered all sorts of "progress" for the collective good, and to an extent, bad.

I hear what you're saying, but I just don't think that governmental intervention into the information web has created the problem we're facing. If We The People would actually take some responsibility for our minds, there is no government in the world that could stop us from creating a world worth living in. Where the government is at fault is in granting corporations practically unlimited freedom to opiate the minds of Americans to satisfy its own greed. (I guess I just imported this from another thread, but hey it fits!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thoroughly agree with you on this Fred. But there aren't many niches left for rugged individualists left in this interconnected world. The words of promise may still ring true in the documents drawn up by the founders of this great country, but I think that anyone who participates actively in today's world would agree that they can seldom apply in a full measure unless one possesses a reasonable amount of assets.

 

What I contend is that the institutions that have traditionally encouraged the development of critical thinking individuals are slowly morphing into service sectors for corporate and governmental interests. The governmental intervention I'm talking about is currently being proposed for implementation, and it is this set of regulations that carry the potential to deliver critical impedences of the development and implementation of new knowledge by American research institutions. You are right about the slow poisioning of the well of freedom by corporate interests, and it all traces back to a 19th century supreme court decision granting corporations the same rights as individuals under the constitution. Corporations will always have more assets than individuals. This action only worsened the ability of indivuals to make a difference in the future, and it all seems to be coming to a head today.

 

After reading the content on the web reference you provided, I also agree that both views are equivalently insidious, but they were fiction, although very prescient. I certainly see my share of the pleasure effects while participating as a small cog in the service-industrial complex that is sin city. But then when you consider all the crap that people have to put up with in their everyday lives elsewhere, I believe that it is a good thing that there is a place where they can go and do whatever as long as they have the time and money, and don't hurt anyone. This is also a large part of what it means to be human, enjoyment and pleasure, as long as it does not contol one's life.

 

I'm really sorry to be so cynical and dark side about all this, but it is what I see developing before my eyes, and to see is to believe.

 

What we really need are some new Jesus stories that ring true for us in the middle of the belief dilemma. I read the other day that Anne Rice is taking a stab at that, and no, it's not going to be a vampire story.

 

flow....

[FredP]

Thank you for asking good questions, Demas. The asking and answering of good questions is what makes this place interesting and fun, I think.

 

I'm here because, despite the label's negative connotations, I still like the notion of a Christianity that hopes to progress toward a fuller understanding and expression of itself. But I guess that's not so very different from remaining a Christian, at all, despite that label's negative connotations.

 

I don't think "Progressive Christianity" means to be a particular system of thought, like Calvinism or Catholicism. I suppose the biggest target of my criticism is the way it has become, or is becoming, that.

[AletheiaRivers]

I think I had accomplished a pretty decent synthesis for my own purposes the last few years; but in true Hegelian style, far more interesting antitheses than liberalism have been entering into the mix lately.

 

I'm interested in what antitheses have been entering into your personal mix. I'm always on the lookout for new books, new thoughts, new ways of looking at things. Like I said on another thread, I've almost finished my last Yancey book, and although I have "What's So Amazing About Grace" to read yet, I think I'd like to take a Yancey break. (I'm looking forward to reading the book North recommended as well.)

Edited November 1, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[des]

Demas, I think the reason you see critiques rather than complete satisfaction or happiness with something like the 8 points, because the 8 points are positions that the group TCPC came up with on progressive Christian thought. They are NOT progressive Christian thought. They point to the thing, rather than being the thing (as they might say in Buddhism). I don't think you will find any two people here who believe the same identical things. I have found others here who I feel pretty comfortable with what they think (maybe agreeing with upwards of 90% of what they write). And some people who I don't even understand 90% of what they read. Yes that might be you, Fred. :-)

 

Some of us-not all-- are in churches with a historically progressive/ liberal views (myself in UCC and others as well); UMC; Episcopal; etc. Some of these churches (like UCC) don't have a set doctrine. And others have a few points and people tend to believe those things. But to get a fomulaic type response to specific points would be distinctly not progressive. I think independent thinking and evaluation would prob. be one unspoken point we might all agree on. ??? :-) (Just hedging my bet.)

 

 

--des

 

So far on this thread I have met a number of people who have presented critiques of Progressive Christianity/8 Points, but none who have presented a strong defence of the 8 Points or the belief system they point to.

 

Are there people on this board who are very happy with the 8 Points and Progressive Christianity, happy to the extent that they would want others to follow their belief system?  If I were to go over to Beliefnet or (shudder) Christianforums I could find thousands of eager proclaimers of the truth of Calvinism, or Roman Catholicism.  Are there such people for Progressive Christianity?

 

If there aren't, doesn't that make Progressive Christianity more philosophy than religion?  Or is that the aim?

 

For those people who have posted critiques of some areas of Progressive Christianity, why are you here?  What do you feel that this forum or Progressive Christianity has to offer you/the world?

 

I must say I am enjoying the range of views expressed here; please do not feel that I am in any way motivated by hostility towards you - I'm just curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[darby]

For those of you who are new, here's my disclaimer...I'm coming from a conservative/evangeical view, simply making observations.

 

It seems this type of post occurs routinely..."What do the 8 points mean"..."Which ones are most important"..."What can we agree on"...etc. I think it's common knowledge that this type of agreement is next to impossible in Progressive Christianity. As des has pointed out, this "lack of agreement" is almost a core belief of PC. Kind of hard to then turn around and get agreement on something. As you begin to build a movement, or start a church, etc., those type of defining questions will come up. What do we believe about communion? Christ? Easter? Sin? Eternity? Can every member just choose how they feel about those and other things? If not, who does the defining?

 

Even as Fred pointed out, I think, the term "progressive" implies that you are progressing towards something. But I don't see much agreement as to what. Rather, it just seems like you are all joined by what you are progressing away from...namely, conservative Christianity. I liken the Progressive Christianity movement somewhat to the Republicans in the 90s. The people said, "OK, we've got it....we know all about what you are against." "Tell us what you are for." Admittedly, perhaps this is not important to the PC movement, by it's very nature. But I think it's hard for any movement to build steam, if that is the goal of PC, without knowing what you are for.

 

Finally, Alethia, I had to chuckle about you wondering if we'd get around to discussing God or Jesus. I'll have to say, when I first joined the forum, I figurd I'd find a board where we were mostly in agreement on the basics of Christianity, differing in social areas, government's role, etc. I thought the discussions would be centered on Jesus, how he would have us act today, etc. I've been surprised that many on this board probably feel more aligned with a liberal Buddhist, Pagan, New Ager, or other than a conservative, evangelical Christian like myself. It seem that for many here, "progressive" is more important than "Christian" as a label. Do you guys see that? Do you think it's true?

[AletheiaRivers]

I've been surprised that many on this board probably feel more aligned with a liberal Buddhist, Pagan, New Ager, or other than a conservative, evangelical Christian like myself.

 

I've noticed that as well, and while that was also true of me in the past (I felt a deep connection to pagansim for example), it's not anymore.

 

The frustrating thing is, while I might feel more connected to an evangelical, conservative Christian than I do to a Buddhist, the Buddhist is probably more likely to be willing to talk to me about what I believe than the evangelical, conservative Christian.

 

As a general rule (and I certainly don't blame them for this), conservative Christians are more concerned with whether a person believes the "right" things and with trying to convince those that don't see things their way that they need to believe exactly the way their particular denomination teaches or they are going to Hell. That doesn't lend itself to conversational openess very well.

 

I've never had an issue talking to you. Why is that?

[MOW]

" I've been surprised that many on this board probably feel more aligned with

a liberal Buddhist , Pagan , New Ager or other than a conservative Evangelical like myself "

 

Some random thoughts from a very liberal African-American Christian on this subject.

 

I've had a very unusual musical career due to my dual interests in African Drums ( for over 25 years I've played for African dance companies and dance classes) , and a love for classical music and church music both organ and piano. I've been a church musician for over 30 years . This has allowed me to form long term friendships with people who run the gamut from initiated Yoruba priests, and black nationalists , to conservative white suburbanites with "support our troops " decals on their cars. I try to see Christ in all of them to the best of my ability.

 

 

One of the influences in my life was a young woman I read about in the book "Choosing Simplicity " by Linda Breen Pearce. She had been a Evangelical Christian but left after some negative experieces she had there. She embaced Buddhism and became more global and less patriotic in her world view. She said something in the book that stuck with me." After all, I could have been born anywhere, China , Russia ,India, what would I believe in then" It's for this reason that I consider myself multi-cultural . Sure I'm a Christian and I wouldn't change that for the world , but if I had been born a Yak herder on the side of a mountain in Tibet who knows what I'd be doing today ?

 

 

How one sees Jesus seems to depend on the person observing him rather than Jesus himself. Conservatives might see him as a defender of traditional values. Liberals might see him as fighter for social justice. New agers might see him as a New Age Guru. Anarchists might see him as an anachist. Philosophers might see him as a philosopher and so on . Its like the nine blind men and the elephant story. Each one of the men grabs a part and thinks he's describing the whole .

 

MOW

[FredP]

Even as Fred pointed out, I think, the term "progressive" implies that you are progressing towards something.  But I don't see much agreement as to what.  Rather, it just seems like you are all joined by what you are progressing away from...namely, conservative Christianity.

I don't think PC, as loosely defined by the 8 points, really sees itself as offering a particular alternative to conservative Christianity, so much as creating a space to explore different alternatives -- and do so allegedly within the space of the Christian message. A person wouldn't say, "I'm a PC," the same way one would say, "I'm a Calvinist," or some such, because PC isn't a particular viewpoint. At the same time, many in the "official" TCPC movement do tend, in practice, to share a committment to the form of theological liberalism promulgated by the Jesus Seminar types. For me personally, I am not part of official TCPC-dom, I do not share this committment, and, as I've been making relatively clear, I don't find the progressive label that useful. I'm just here for the free food.

 

I've been surprised that many on this board probably feel more aligned with a liberal Buddhist, Pagan, New Ager, or other than a conservative, evangelical Christian like myself.  It seem that for many here, "progressive" is more important than "Christian" as a label.  Do you guys see that?  Do you think it's true?

That depends entirely on whom you ask. I feel aligned with all the aforementioned groups insofar as they express the eternal truth of G-d, heard and remembered by all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. I criticize all the aforementioned groups insofar as they distort and compromise this truth for the love of lesser things. In other words, I don't accept or judge anyone's faith or understanding based on their religious or spiritual affiliations alone.

[darby]

The frustrating thing is, while I might feel more connected to an evangelical, conservative Christian than I do to a Buddhist, the Buddhist is probably more likely to be willing to talk to me about what I believe than the evangelical, conservative Christian.

 

Point well made. This is one area I think conservatives have made a huge mistake. Being principled and resolute doesn't have to mean coming off as hateful. I think that's changing, fortunately, in some areas. In my own church, we "fling the doors wide open," as my pastor says. And we try to be welcome to all. And people say they really sense that. And yet, we're very upfront and firm about our views on the Bible, Jesus, etc. I heard something that really stuck with me one time, and it's how I try to operate, and our church as well. Basically, "If people are offended by the message in the Bible...the cross, repentance, the words of Jesus...not alot we can do about that. But never let them be offended by you, your methods, your actions, your demeanor, etc." Basically, don't apolgize for the gospel, but be kind and generous to people.

 

I've never had an issue talking to you. Why is that?

('cause you're slowly coming over to our side!!!--just kidding)

Hopefully because of the above. As I've mentioned before, I'm not OFFENDED by another's view. Even though I might completely disagree with them. Also, I always remind myself that I'm the outsider, or guest, on this board. Not the other way around. I just like to present a different view, from time to time.

 

How one sees Jesus seems to depend on the person observing him rather than Jesus himself

 

I understand what you're saying, MOW. But "how I see Jesus" is the wrong question to ask, I think. All of us, myself included, ought to be asking "Who is Jesus" in totality. Including the things that don't fit into my little world. Otherwise, we all make our own Jesus....and the end result is a Jesus that is at best incomplete or at worst, not real. WE need to adjust to HIM...not the other way around.

 

Sorry, I realize we're way off topic now.

[AletheiaRivers]

I feel aligned with all the aforementioned groups insofar as they express the eternal truth of G-d, heard and remembered by all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm just curious Fred. When and why did you start putting the dash in? I have a few Jewish friends and one online friend who is a "Jewish Christian" who use this form of respect towards God when they write. It's totally cool with me. I just wondered if it was on purpose and if so, what prompted the change?

[AletheiaRivers]

I heard something that really stuck with me one time, and it's how I try to operate, and our church as well.  Basically, "If people are offended by the message in the Bible...the cross, repentance, the words of Jesus...not alot we can do about that.  But never let them be offended by you, your methods, your actions, your demeanor, etc."  Basically, don't apolgize for the gospel, but be kind and generous to people.

 

I've never had an issue talking to you. Why is that?

('cause you're slowly coming over to our side!!!--just kidding)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Give in to the Dark Side Luke ..."

 

In the book I'm reading it said something similar to what you said above. I'll quote:

 

"As my class in Chicago read the Gospels and watched movies about Jesus' life, we noticed a striking pattern: the more the unsavory the characters, the more at ease they seemed to feel around Jesus. People like these found Jesus appealing: a Samaritan social outcast, a military officer of the tyrant Herod, a quisling tax collector ... In contrast, Jesus got a chilly response from more respectable types ...

 

I remarked to the class how strange this pattern seemed, since the Christian church now attracts respectable types who closely resemble the people most suspicious of Jesus on earth. What has happened to reverse the pattern of Jesus' day? Why don't sinners like being around us? ...

 

Somehow we have created a community of respectability in the church, I told my class. The down-and-out who flocked to Jesus when he lived on earth, no longer feel welcome. How did Jesus, the only perfect person in history, manage to attract the notoriously imperfect? And what keeps us from following in his steps today?"

[flowperson]

MOW

 

I always enjoy the viewpoints expressed in your posts. I was especially intrigued by your descriptions above about the variability of the images and natures of Jesus.

 

I am currently thinking alot about the things that evidently create fear and loathing in the eyes, brains and hearts of fundamentalists. This lack of tolerance is very un-christian on its face. It's almost as if it is painful to them to accept even the idea of homosexuality and its accompanying activities amid their memberships and certainly not in their ministerial positions, even though it is all around them in the real world.

 

And, of course, they are not alone in this. Just the other day we had a brief series of comments regarding the variability among UMC congregations. There is also a case in the news regarding the defrocking of a UMC minister for being a partner in a lesbian relationship. The UMC regional council ruled in her favor for retaining her position, but that ruling was overturned by the UMC national governing council, again just the other day.

 

Now this sort of thing is getting very serious in a lot of Christian sects that have always been considered middle-of-the-road and accepting. The schism in the Episcopal Church regarding the new Bishop in New Hampshire (?) last year is another example. The Catholic hierarchy has been consistently rigid lately in its rejection of any homosexual participation in its clergy, and recently announced a program to interview those who are studying to enter the priesthood on this issue. On the other hand the UCC national meeting last year affirmed the welcomed participation of homosexuals in the church's activities and clergy.

 

The earliest descriptions and images of the supreme being in the roots of belief around the world point to the fact that the deity was more of an androgyne than anything else, neither male nor female, but portraying the traits and appearance of both genders.

 

Another set of early beliefs point to the concept of the deity being able to magically shift his/her appearance and shape at will and instantaneously. There are references to this phenomenon in the Gospels. The name "shape shifter" was the term used in some discussions I witnessed and participated in among leading theologians (some of them conservatives) in the 80's.

 

So I guess I'm saying (again) that the first page of the TCPC website is about asking questions and about searching together, not about finding consensus right away. There is little we can agree upon right now other than something's wrong and it needs to be addressed before any real progress into the future may be made.

 

At the risk of repeating a suggestion I made on another thread some time ago, ( you know how much I dislike repetition!) I strongly suggest that some of you read Morton Smith's book, Jesus the Magician. It explores this aspect of Jesus' nature by focusing upon some obscure textual discoveries that Smith found regarding Jesus' encounter with the young man in the garden before he was betrayed and sacrificed.

 

 

flow....

[FredP]

I'm just curious Fred. When and why did you start putting the dash in? I have a few Jewish friends and one online friend who is a "Jewish Christian" who use this form of respect towards God when they write. It's totally cool with me. I just wondered if it was on purpose and if so, what prompted the change? 

I noticed this a long time ago -- also in Jewish usage, inspired by the fact that the divine name is not prounceable in Hebrew -- and really liked it. I try to do it whenever I'm conscious of it, and especially when I'm speaking about the more mystical, unitive nature of G-d that surpasses expressibility. My wife and I will often write Love as L-ve to connote the same idea.

[FredP]

I'm interested in what antitheses have been entering into your personal mix. I'm always on the lookout for new books, new thoughts, new ways of looking at things.

My antithesis of late has been Gnosticism. I'll go start a new thread under "Other Wisdom Traditions" for it though.

[flowperson]

The Hebrew language is of this nature. It only is written with consonants, with inflection marks included to denote vowel sounds.

 

Also, the Sumerian-Babylonian-Chaldean unerstanding of the G-d word was Jah, pronounced Yawww. Interestingly this appelation is still used by our Rastafarian (mostly from Ethiopian culture) brothers and sisters in their religious services and practices, but they pronounce it in the english understanding, Ja. The word is used extensively in Reggae music of the old school.

 

The Sumerian-Babylonian-Chaldean word usage is also that which is included in the Hebrew language dictionary that appears at the back of The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. OT reading becomes magically more understandable when you look up the words and trace their meanings in the ancient understandings.

 

I believe the prohibition on the use of the name of G-d stems from early Hebrew rituals and practices since they believed that naming G-d was an impossibility because of his/her infinite nature. Ancient cultures believed that when you named something you established a degree of control over its destiny, even people. In S. American cultures this concept was very prevalent. Since G-d was/is all powerful and omnipotent, there was just no way to name him/her since mortals cannot control supernatural forces/ beings.

 

The ancient Hebrews also believed that the male version of G-d had a female consort, and there are even ancient pottery fragments from about 1000 bce that show depictions of Jahweh and his consort in masks and headresses. By the way Jahweh was considered to be the G-d of the south of the holy land (nearest to Africa), and El was considered to be the deity of the north of the holy land (nearest to Europe and Asia).

 

 

flow.....

[des]

BTW, as a reading teacher I would like to make a way outta there comment on the pronouncation of g-d" or anythign else without vowels. It has nothing to do with anything.

But gosh darn it sort of fit in! You can indeed *pronounce* a word without vowels.

If you take the word Pat and take out the vowel. Without the vowel the "word" is not voiced (no vibrations in the vocal cords), so that you get "/p//t/". If you want to yell out your friend's name you wouldn't be able to, as pt doesn't carry without the vowel. It is also difficult to say.

 

Perhaps the ancients were somehow aware that g-d or a consonant only word was more silent, so the experience of pronouncing it would be reverential and personal. Having it be very hard to say would mean that people would not "talk" Yahweh.

 

Just a thought.

Or maybe very far out there as I said.

 

--des

 

 

--des

[flowperson]

des

 

Your comments are right on. It is also known that the oldest language existent today, that of the bushmen people of the south of Africa, not only is made up of mostly consonant sounds, but includes seemingly wierd tongue clicks and whirring sounds that bring differing sorts of emphases to what is being communicated.

 

Researchers in linguistics have determined that this language, among the Xhosha people, is likely closely related to a proto-language that arose in this part of the world about 100,000 years ago and then spread from there around the world in differing evolutionary versions over time.

 

If you want to access a sample of what I'm talking about, rent the 80's movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy, a comedy that is very entertaining; and, if I'm not mistaken, won or at least was nominated for, awards in the foreign film category of the Academy Awards.

 

flow....

[des]

Yes I have heard these languages. I am guessing that the click or whir sound substitutes for the vowel and makes them more pronouncible (to bushmen) if not us. Of course all humans are born able to say any and all sounds and lose that ability as they grow up.

 

On the flip side, since I have a fellow linguist (at least by hobby :-)) around, there are languages that are low in consonants. I think Hawaiian would fit here but I haven't really heard it spoken except in a song which I am not sure is really Hawaiian. OTOH, I have heard Navajo. I wouldn't say it has no consonants but it is heavily vowel.

 

Now I wonder what all that does for world view? Your word for God sounds maybe if we were to take the word God and switch it around like "awahgawwwdah". You could say it quite loud and it would be quite musical. It might bounce off the canyons in NM and Arizona. Just some thoughts.... don't know what (if anything) they have to do with Native religions.

 

You can hear just about any language you want (at least a sample anyway). Google "Navajo (or whatever) language sample" and listen to a piece. I think !Kung is a commonly transcribed language.

 

--des

Edited November 4, 2005 by des

[LibChristian]

Hmm. I think everyone is trying to take the Eight Points far more seriously than we intend them to be.

 

There needed to be some kind of explanation (not definition but explanation: big difference) of progressive Christianity so people could understand what we're talking about. Are we un-fundamentalists? Are we fundamentalist Democrats? No. But these are common misconceptions if you just give the phrase "progressive Christianity" to people and then say "Um....well...we can't really put our faith into words so we're not gonna try."

 

Its not mean to be an exhaustive list, or even a definitive list.

 

That is why TCPC:

 

1) Plans to revise the 8 Points every few years, to keep it from becoming a stagnant creed to anyone. It already has 1996 and 2003 versions.

 

If anyone thinks they have a thoughtful comment for the board to consider in their next revision, PLEASE post it under the appropriate point here: https://www.tcpc.org/about/the_8_points_1.html

 

2) As part of the affiliation process, churches are asked to study the Eight Points and then write their OWN version of them that describes who they are as a unique community. Church versions have had more than 8 points, less than 8 points, and radically different language.

 

Its not supposed to be an exhaustive definition or even a definition. But you have to have something written down to explain to people who you are.

 

To give an analogy, its like the Faith & Practice books for Quaker Yearly Meetings (I'm Quaker). We are a noncreedal church. You don't have to recite any statement of faith to belong to us. But we have to explain who we are so that newbies get a sense, a feeling, of what kind of community they're coming into. We just understand from the very beginning that truth is only imperfectly captured in words. The Faith & Practice book doesn't define us, but it does attempt to explain us.

 

But if you don't even have a loose explanation (again, not definition) of progressive Christianity so people get a feeling about who you are...what's the point of trying to become a larger community instead of lonely fractured people and churches at all?

 

:-)

 

Oh yeah, and I love the Eight Point being about social justice. It has the last word. I do wish the 2nd point will be revised in its explanation of pluralism, and it probably will be and maybe in the direction I want. But PLEASE leave comments on the webpage!!! You can see that the early comments were taken into consideration when making the 2003 verson.

 

~ Lib

[FredP]

But if you don't even have a loose explanation (again, not definition) of progressive Christianity so people get a feeling about who you are...what's the point of trying to become a larger community instead of lonely fractured people and churches at all?

 

:-)

Good question. What is the point of trying to marshal a larger community around such a vague conception of Christianity? I'm sincerely not trying to be mean here, I just genuinely don't see what PC offers as a constructive alternative to traditional Christianity. There are many alternatives to traditional Christianity that, while not being monolithic, are sufficiently fleshed out for me to say, Yes, that is my view; or No, it isn't; or some combination thereof. Not insisting that other people believe as I do is all well and good: in fact, it's the foundation of a free democratic society. But to help me uncover, explore, and define what I believe requires different approaches to actually be built upon that foundation.

 

The funny thing is, I really don't disagree with anything in the 8P (except maybe #6 -- I'm not sure what the "search for understanding" is, if you don't intend to actually find it). I just don't really find anything compelling enough in it to say, Yes, here I stand.

[mystictrek]

I just don't really find anything compelling enough in it to say, Yes, here I stand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think ever one has to write their own "Here I Stand" and maybe keep revising it. Community statements always lack a little of that individual passion which excites us and motivates us deep down to the bones.

 

Here's one I wrote in the 80s which I shared with my congregation, of course. They never got as excited about it as I did! But that's my point. I wrote these 7 Good News Ambassador guidelines mainly for myself. I think there is a lot of consistency with the 8 Points in them. Would love some feedback. Yes, I would change some of the language, too, but it worked for me in the 80s and for the most part still does.

 

READ > http://www.abundancetrek.com/gnaguidelines.html

[flowperson]

mt

 

I would have liked being in your congregation!

 

flow....

[mystictrek]

mt

 

I would have liked being in your congregation!

 

flow....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And I would love having you in my congregation! Thanks.