SOCIAL GROUP: Discussing Progressive Christianity

[Onceuponatime]

I don't know if anyone here has read The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (am I really the last one on Earth???), but p. 117 of my 1994 edition is somewhat relevant here, IMHO. "Because the church is a formal organization made up of policies, programs, practices, and people, it cannot by itself give a person any deep, permanent security or sense of intrinsic worth. Living the principles taught by the church can do this, but the organization alone cannot." There is more, but I don't want to violate copyright. :)

 

I haven't read it. :)

I like the quote.

[elfgivas]

my friend and colleague, Jim Burklo, writes and speaks a lot about Progressive Christianity. He is currently at USC as chaplain.

 

here's a link to his website.

 

http://www.jimburklo.com/

 

Jim married us, and baptized our babies. he has a poet's soul. :001_smile:

 

 

 

enjoy - in joy,

ann

[Amethyst]

Oh my goodness. Now I have sooo many books I want to read

[elegantlion]

I've been reading in Living Buddha, Living Christ.

 

One point he brings up with talking about living out our faith is mindfulness we use, which is this case he states mindfulness as the practice of peace. The quote that stuck out to me is:

 

"But no one can practice these precept pefectly....If we want to head north, we can use the North Star to guide us, but it is impossible to arrive at the North Star. Our effort is only to proceed in that direction."

 

I find a certain peace in that statement, even though it could be restated as a quest to have a more Chris-like faith. It seems to point to inward effort and our own assessment, rather than outward judgment from ourselves or others.

[Amethyst]

 

One of the things I'm doing to help me define where I am theologically and kind of ground myself as I follow this slightly scary path is to keep a log of quotes that particularly strike me as I read.

This is something that I've recently been thinking about doing. Now that you've said it out loud, I think I'll go ahead and do it. The act of writing things down seems to help cement things in my brain.

[Onceuponatime]

The latest book I have read on religion/spirituality is The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. He draws from many traditions of enlightenment and from his own experiences. I found most of it very thought provoking, even though a few times I felt a little uncomfortable with his way of looking at things. His basic premise is that all we have is this very moment in time (the present) and we need to live in it fully. Most of us waste our presents dwelling on our pasts or our futures that may never come. He encourages us to live fully in the present as a path to enlightenment. He differentiates between our consciousness and our minds. Our minds, he says, operate on an unconscious level, not aware of how we are allowing our pasts, our desires, our resistance to what is, to affect our lives. He says many of us live with tormenter in our head that continuously attacks us and punishes us. This is not our real self, it is our mind. Our real self is our consciousness. It can look at the tormenter and examine what it is doing, without judgement, and when we begin to do that we begin to become self aware.

 

Heady stuff. :)

 

It has actually helped me to pull myself out of a funk a couple of times. I ask myself to look at the moment in time and say "Is there anything really wrong or bad with this moment? If there is, what can I do do about it right now? (Then do it!) If there is nothing I can do, I must accept what is."

 

It's amazing how often I find I am just dwelling on the past or things I wish I had. I find it is very effective with one of my children who tends to be emotional. I just ask him to pull himself into the present and tell me exactly what is wrong or bad with this moment. I had to laugh when he recognized that there wasn't actually anything wrong but he said, "Can't you just pity me?"

[Amethyst]

What do you (meaning anyone who happens to be reading this) think of the difference between faith and religion? Same? Different?

 

 

For me, faith is what I believe in. Do I believe in God or a Spirit or Allah? Whatever it is I believe in, that is what I would call "faith". That is why I would say that I'm lacking faith. I constantly struggle with believing.

 

Religion on the other hand, is a more formal way of expressing one's faith. Religion is generally done in a group setting, but I would also consider some private things (for instance, saying the rosary alone) part of a religion.

 

(I'm sorry. I know my responses to things from page 4 are probably way out of line. I'm trying to make my way through this thread, but I don't want to wait until I get to the end to start responding. I hope that's okay.)

[Onceuponatime]

For me, faith is what I believe in. Do I believe in God or a Spirit or Allah? Whatever it is I believe in, that is what I would call "faith". That is why I would say that I'm lacking faith. I constantly struggle with believing.

 

Religion on the other hand, is a more formal way of expressing one's faith. Religion is generally done in a group setting, but I would also consider some private things (for instance, saying the rosary alone) part of a religion.

 

(I'm sorry. I know my responses to things from page 4 are probably way out of line. I'm trying to make my way through this thread, but I don't want to wait until I get to the end to start responding. I hope that's okay.)

 

Hey, you are welcome to chime in any time, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I never even answered the question about faith and religion. I'm still trying to figure that out. I used to think that faith is what I believe, but I have had trouble with that because I can't nail down my beliefs any more and I'm not sure I want to try. I feel as though I am evolving. Does that mean I am unfaithful? Whew, that is a big no-no in some circles. I like defining faith as more trust than belief, but even that makes me wonder. What do I trust? In conversation , I still use the word faith to mean what I believe. I just tend to avoid conversations of that sort anymore.

 

I also think that religion is how we express our faith. I'm rethinking whether this is necessarily public or group oriented. We have had some discussion here about practicing religion alone. I am not used to the idea of solitary practice and have been trying to think of what that would mean to me. We do hear of "living our faith." In the book of James it says that true religion is taking care of widows and orphans (those in need) in their distress and keeping oneself unspotted from the world. That is a lot simpler idea than form and ritual.

[sunflowerlady]

I just picked up a couple of Marcus Borg books from the library. :) Yay! Thanks to this thread, I was able to be pointed in the right direction about books to help me out with my faith and working through it. Our library system has several of Borg's books, and I was not sure exactly where to begin, so I just chose two that sounded like good 'starter" books. I got "The God We Never Knew-Beyond Dogmatic Religion To A More Authentic Contemporary Faith" and "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time". If these are helpful, I want to read the one he wrote about the Bible.

 

Unfortunately, my library does not carry "Living the Questions" so I will need to buy that one soon.

 

We need to start a book study and discussion. :)

[Amethyst]

 

I would really like to discuss what "salvation" means in terms of progressive Christianity. I'm very familiar with the literal/fundamentalist doctrines, but how does one use this term if one does not believe in a literal heaven or hell? (I know not everyone is going to agree on this, I am interested in any viewpoints anyone has to offer.) Is the word even necessary? It is one that has me currently befuddled.

As a Catholic, I don't think that word is used quite as much as other Christian denominations. It's not a word I'm at all comfortable with. I've never accepted the idea that all I have to do is accept Jesus as my Savior and then I'd get into heaven (again, a Catholic thing). So, I guess right now, questioning the divinity of Jesus, leaves me totally wondering what "salvation" means at all. If Jesus did not die for our sins, then there is no "salvation", right? Either there is a heaven and we all get in, or there is a heaven and we get in based on how good we did on Earth, or there is not heaven. I don't know. I guess I'm just not comfortable with the word "salvation."

[Amethyst]

It seems amazing to me know that I had never questioned the doctrine of the virgin birth until last year. I did a study on Mary and the stories surrounding her and did come to the personal conclusion that there wasn't a virgin birth.This was strengthened by a study of the history of the time period Jesus was born.

When I saw that all the same stories and descriptions were used for the mythology surrounding the emperor of Rome, I felt silly.

 

I understand that this is one of the hardest teachings to give up. It is really the bedrock of fundamentalist Christianity. If I thought that it had actually happened, I would be changing my whole way of thinking again.

I just recently started re-reading Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, and I find it interesting that Borg just states so matter-of-factly that Jesus had brothers. Such blasphemy! ;) I found it refreshing.

[Onceuponatime]

I just recently started re-reading Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, and I find it interesting that Borg just states so matter-of-factly that Jesus had brothers. Such blasphemy! ;) I found it refreshing.

 

 

That's funny. In protestant circles, one common argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary is that Jesus had brothers and sisters, as mentioned in the Gospels. I caused quite a stir in my ladies' Bible class last week when I suggested that they may not have been Mary's children, but Joseph's by a first marriage. :D

[elegantlion]

Religion vs. faith. Ds and I had a very long deep discussion about many things today, including the aforementioned. We concluded that , for us, faith is a belief in God as a deity. Religion is a construct of man. Because religion is a construct of man about the deity and not the deity himself, then religion cannot be perfect because humans are not perfect.

 

For me, I've always felt a divide between my faith and my religion. I hold my faith to different standards than my religion. My problem with organized religion is that I've had some poor experiences that, rather than strengthen my faith, have caused me to question it. I've had to step away from religion to shore up the woundedeness of my faith. It's my own issue, as I know in my mind that churches are filled with fallible people myself included. I struggle without how much of that faith I want to open to others and how much I want to keep between God and myself, and simply strive to be christ-like and let my life/actions be my statement of faith.

[Amethyst]

Some random thoughts since finishing Chapter 2 of Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time:

 

1. Borg describes Jesus as a "spirit person", that is, someone who was in direct touch with the spirit and had "experiences" of the spirit. This is an interesting outlook, but I still have difficulty with it. I imagine that he mean people who go into "trances" and see the divine or hear voices. I've always had problems with this. These trances just seem like a highly emotional state. How can I know if it is spiritual versus emotional?

 

2. Over the past several years, I've stopped thinking of God as a being "in heaven" or "out there" and think of him more as "right here" surrounding us. Sort of like what someone here described as the dust surrounding us. Unfortunately, I'm discovering that this does not really help me to believe any easier.

 

3. Relationship. Borg says it, priests say it, even The Shack says it. It's all about relationship. But how the heck am I supposed to have a relationship with a being that I can't see, hear, touch, or talk to. Any help or insight there?

 

4. St. Paul. I've always had a funny feeling about Paul but I've always thought I was the only one. A few people here mentioned their dislike of Paul, but I suspect that their reasons are different from my own. I'd love to hear why others dislike Paul. My impression (and this is strictly my own) was that Paul was a zealot. That was his nature. First he was zealously anti-Christian, but then he converted and became zealously Christian. As a zealot, I take what he has to say with a grain of salt. I consider his motives suspect. I'm afraid he was so concerned about advancing his cause (spreading Christianity) that he would say anything, even if he knew it wasn't true.

 

That is all for now. I hope there are still some people here on this thread. It has got me thinking and reading and I'd love to continue discussing this topic.

 

Peace!

[Onceuponatime]

Some random thoughts since finishing Chapter 2 of Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time:

 

1. Borg describes Jesus as a "spirit person", that is, someone who was in direct touch with the spirit and had "experiences" of the spirit. This is an interesting outlook, but I still have difficulty with it. I imagine that he mean people who go into "trances" and see the divine or hear voices. I've always had problems with this. These trances just seem like a highly emotional state. How can I know if it is spiritual versus emotional?

 

2. Over the past several years, I've stopped thinking of God as a being "in heaven" or "out there" and think of him more as "right here" surrounding us. Sort of like what someone here described as the dust surrounding us. Unfortunately, I'm discovering that this does not really help me to believe any easier.

 

3. Relationship. Borg says it, priests say it, even The Shack says it. It's all about relationship. But how the heck am I supposed to have a relationship with a being that I can't see, hear, touch, or talk to. Any help or insight there?

 

4. St. Paul. I've always had a funny feeling about Paul but I've always thought I was the only one. A few people here mentioned their dislike of Paul, but I suspect that their reasons are different from my own. I'd love to hear why others dislike Paul. My impression (and this is strictly my own) was that Paul was a zealot. That was his nature. First he was zealously anti-Christian, but then he converted and became zealously Christian. As a zealot, I take what he has to say with a grain of salt. I consider his motives suspect. I'm afraid he was so concerned about advancing his cause (spreading Christianity) that he would say anything, even if he knew it wasn't true.

 

That is all for now. I hope there are still some people here on this thread. It has got me thinking and reading and I'd love to continue discussing this topic.

 

Peace!

 

I don't know if this will help:

 

1. I haven't read that particular book but Borg does address Jesus as a mystic in other books. I think he is talking about the kind of spirituality that is spoken of as "enlightenment." After reading The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle, I think I understand the concept a little better. I don't think it would be emotional at all, but would transend emotion, if that makes any sense. It is like having an out of body experience where you can see yourself and reality as though you are watching it. It is something that can be practiced and cultivated, hopefully to produce peace and clarity in your life. There are no requirements for trances or voices. ;)

 

2. What do you think you need to/should believe? One thing I like about progressive Christianity is that there are no specific belief requirements. Perhaps that is the hardest thing.

 

3. One thing Borg talks about is God not being a separate entity. If God is the ultimate reality, present in all that is, then our relationship with him is reflected on our relationship to the people and environment around us. This is actually very "Biblical." Jesus says that how we treat others is how we treat him. 1 John chapter 4 talks of how our relationship with other people IS our relationship with God. This is in the Old as well as the New Testament. The prophets all decried oppression and abuse of power. They lauded the care of the poor and displaced. They used God's voice to tell those who were doing wrong that they were sinning against God when they hurt others.

 

4. Reading The First Paul would help answer some of your questions about Paul. Many scholars think that he is not the one responsible for all the books of the Bible that bear his name. They may be the work of Christian factions trying to modify his teachings to be more culturally acceptable. Even the book of Acts, which covers his journeys may not be completely accurate.

 

For me this all means I don't accept anything at face value, but dig and study to find out what the different scholarly views are. Even then I hesitate to make assumptions or stand firm on a point of doctrine. Instead, I'm trying to look more to my own life and my "relationship" to God. Plus, I'm enjoying life more. :D

[sunflowerlady]

Some random thoughts since finishing Chapter 2 of Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time:

 

1. Borg describes Jesus as a "spirit person", that is, someone who was in direct touch with the spirit and had "experiences" of the spirit. This is an interesting outlook, but I still have difficulty with it. I imagine that he mean people who go into "trances" and see the divine or hear voices. I've always had problems with this. These trances just seem like a highly emotional state. How can I know if it is spiritual versus emotional?

 

2. Over the past several years, I've stopped thinking of God as a being "in heaven" or "out there" and think of him more as "right here" surrounding us. Sort of like what someone here described as the dust surrounding us. Unfortunately, I'm discovering that this does not really help me to believe any easier.

 

3. Relationship. Borg says it, priests say it, even The Shack says it. It's all about relationship. But how the heck am I supposed to have a relationship with a being that I can't see, hear, touch, or talk to. Any help or insight there?

 

4. St. Paul. I've always had a funny feeling about Paul but I've always thought I was the only one. A few people here mentioned their dislike of Paul, but I suspect that their reasons are different from my own. I'd love to hear why others dislike Paul. My impression (and this is strictly my own) was that Paul was a zealot. That was his nature. First he was zealously anti-Christian, but then he converted and became zealously Christian. As a zealot, I take what he has to say with a grain of salt. I consider his motives suspect. I'm afraid he was so concerned about advancing his cause (spreading Christianity) that he would say anything, even if he knew it wasn't true.

 

That is all for now. I hope there are still some people here on this thread. It has got me thinking and reading and I'd love to continue discussing this topic.

 

Peace!

 

I am so glad this thread popped back up. :)

 

I have this book checked out of the library but have not started reading it yet. I am reading the one "The God I Never Knew". Anyway, I think that's the title since I don't have it in front of me. This book is sort of "meaty" and it is interesting to me how is describing typical ways of thinking of God . Really I can only read short parts at a time because it is such a new view of God for me, but I can see it as being a positive and helpful way of seeing God.

 

He touches in this book about supernatural experiences and it sound similar to what you are saying that he talks about in the book about Jesus. They do not necessarily manifest as a trance. They are various ways of experiencing the divine that can be in different forms. He says that a person might sense the divine by looking at nature for example. It would be a very real sense of knowledge of the presence of God. Now how he says Jesus experiened this might be very different . I will have to jump into reading that book also. :)

 

I have no real opinion one way or the other at this time about Paul. I think he wrote letters to churches in the first century and they were for specific issues in whatever church he was addressing in that letter (epistle) Although I have always been taught they are for us also in our time , I am not so sure of that at all.

[Pawz4me]

1. Borg describes Jesus as a "spirit person", that is, someone who was in direct touch with the spirit and had "experiences" of the spirit. This is an interesting outlook, but I still have difficulty with it. I imagine that he mean people who go into "trances" and see the divine or hear voices. I've always had problems with this. These trances just seem like a highly emotional state. How can I know if it is spiritual versus emotional?

 

I'm also reading the book. I didn't get the impression that Borg was referring to trances or anything like that at all. As OnceUponATime said, my impression was more along the line of an enlightened one.

 

4. St. Paul. I've always had a funny feeling about Paul but I've always thought I was the only one. A few people here mentioned their dislike of Paul, but I suspect that their reasons are different from my own. I'd love to hear why others dislike Paul. My impression (and this is strictly my own) was that Paul was a zealot. That was his nature. First he was zealously anti-Christian, but then he converted and became zealously Christian. As a zealot, I take what he has to say with a grain of salt. I consider his motives suspect. I'm afraid he was so concerned about advancing his cause (spreading Christianity) that he would say anything, even if he knew it wasn't true.

 

Paul has always made me twitchy. But as I researched it more I realized that the vast majority of the things that bothered me are in the books that most Biblical scholars now believe were not in fact written by Paul.

[Amethyst]

Here is a quote from Borg as he is describing spirit persons:

 

"Spirit persons are known cross-culturally. They are people who have vivid and frequent subjective experiences of another level or dimension of reality. These experiences involve momentary entry into nonordinary states of consciousness and take a number of different forms." He goes on to describe how some of these experiences are visionary, sometimes a journeying experience, sometimes a sense of another reality coming upon them, or a transfigured part of nature. To me, as I read that, I read it through my Catholic upbringing. I think of saints like Bernadette of Lourdes who saw the Blessed Mother, or the children at Fatima, or all the saints with the stigmata. As a child I accepted those stories as miraculous, but as an adult I became quite skeptical and believed that *they believed* they saw these things. (As far as the stigmata, I don't know, but it creeps me out.) I can't accept that they just experienced God like that. Maybe I'm jealous. ;)

[Amethyst]

 

I have this book checked out of the library but have not started reading it yet. I am reading the one "The God I Never Knew". Anyway, I think that's the title since I don't have it in front of me. This book is sort of "meaty" and it is interesting to me how is describing typical ways of thinking of God . Really I can only read short parts at a time because it is such a new view of God for me, but I can see it as being a positive and helpful way of seeing God.

 

He touches in this book about supernatural experiences and it sound similar to what you are saying that he talks about in the book about Jesus. They do not necessarily manifest as a trance. They are various ways of experiencing the divine that can be in different forms. He says that a person might sense the divine by looking at nature for example. It would be a very real sense of knowledge of the presence of God. Now how he says Jesus experiened this might be very different . I will have to jump into reading that book also. :)

 

 

I get the impression that Borg writes a lot of similar things in his books. There are so many books that I want to read now from looking at this thread, by Borg and others. Would you consider just posting some random thoughts when you finish a chapter? I'll probably never get around to reading all the books that I want to but I'd love to hear people's thoughts and insights after reading. Even if those thoughts just leave you with questions. Questions are good to. It helps us think.

[Rosie_0801]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God

 

Tripped over this while I was looking for something else this morning. Seems there's enough concepts of god to sink a metaphysical battle ship. Maybe one will be written in words that suit you Amethyst. :)

[sunflowerlady]

I get the impression that Borg writes a lot of similar things in his books. There are so many books that I want to read now from looking at this thread, by Borg and others. Would you consider just posting some random thoughts when you finish a chapter? I'll probably never get around to reading all the books that I want to but I'd love to hear people's thoughts and insights after reading. Even if those thoughts just leave you with questions. Questions are good to. It helps us think.

 

Yes, the quote you posted about what he said about Jesus is very much like what I am reading in his book about God. I will try to read a little more tonight and check back in.

[sunflowerlady]

Religion vs. faith. Ds and I had a very long deep discussion about many things today, including the aforementioned. We concluded that , for us, faith is a belief in God as a deity. Religion is a construct of man. Because religion is a construct of man about the deity and not the deity himself, then religion cannot be perfect because humans are not perfect.

 

For me, I've always felt a divide between my faith and my religion. I hold my faith to different standards than my religion. My problem with organized religion is that I've had some poor experiences that, rather than strengthen my faith, have caused me to question it. I've had to step away from religion to shore up the woundedeness of my faith. It's my own issue, as I know in my mind that churches are filled with fallible people myself included. I struggle without how much of that faith I want to open to others and how much I want to keep between God and myself, and simply strive to be christ-like and let my life/actions be my statement of faith.

 

This pretty much sums it up for me also. For various reasons we are still attending church and it's an Evangelical one. I definitely have issues from past church experiences . I am working on practicing and exercising my faith in ways that are helpful and healthy for me personally. This is not necessarily tied in to "church" at all.

[Onceuponatime]

http://en.wikipedia....ceptions_of_God

 

Tripped over this while I was looking for something else this morning. Seems there's enough concepts of god to sink a metaphysical battle ship. Maybe one will be written in words that suit you Amethyst. :)

 

You made me laugh. The link is very interesting. I hadn't encountered the Post-Human god before, even though I love reading the fiction of Asimov and Clarke.

[Joanne]

supposed to have a relationship with a being that I can't see, hear, touch, or talk to. Any help or insight there?

 

4. St. Paul. I've always had a funny feeling about Paul but I've always thought I was the only one. A few people here mentioned their dislike of Paul, but I suspect that their reasons are different from my own. I'd love to hear why others dislike Paul. My impression (and this is strictly my own) was that Paul was a zealot. That was his nature. First he was zealously anti-Christian, but then he converted and became zealously Christian. As a zealot, I take what he has to say with a grain of salt. I consider his motives suspect. I'm afraid he was so concerned about advancing his cause (spreading Christianity) that he would say anything, even if he knew it wasn't true.

 

That is all for now. I hope there are still some people here on this thread. It has got me thinking and reading and I'd love to continue discussing this topic.

 

Peace!

 

 

I agree with Paul and the Zealot tendency.

 

I don't like Paul because he's a mysogynist, chauvenist.

 

I don't like Paul because I think he's arrogant.

 

I don't like Paul because I don't "trust" his words.

[SunnyDays]

I just finished reading A Year of Biblical Womanhood by Rachel Held Evans. It's a woman who decides to go through the Bible and see how many "commands" for women she can follow. She comes from a very conservative Christian background and has become more liberal in her beliefs.

 

She devotes a couple sections to some of Paul's lesser liked verses, concerning submission and being "silent" in church if you are a woman. It discusses a great deal about how those commands were issued to the specific culture of that time for certain reasons, not necessarily intended to have been designed for the rest of the ages... after all, it also tells slaves to be obedient to their masters, and slave owners to be kind to the slaves.

 

So taken in that context, I can appreciate it, especially reading in the aforementioned book how this was actually an *improvement* on many household practices of the time.... not only were women to submit to their spouses, but husbands and wives were to submit to one another, and husbands were supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Funny, a lot of the people or groups encouraging wives to submit tend to leave out those other parts. ;)

 

 

Note: I say Paul, although I know some of the authorship is in question. Does anyone have good resources or recommended titles on some of that possibly not being Paul's work??

[lovemykids]

 

I want to comment on this, and am hoping that Joanne will understand where I'm coming from and not take offense that I picked her post out as an example to comment on. I've stayed out of progressive Christianity circles, and stopped reading Spong because of the idea that things like the virgin birth are "silly". I know Joanne doesn't mean to say that I'm silly to believe in it (which I do), but it still kind of grates. Far worse is was Spong's Why Christianity Must Die, which I ended up throwing against the wall as I got tired of him being patronizing. He implied (or maybe out and out said, now that I think about it) that no intellectual could EVER believe in such silly ideas as the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. Well, maybe HE doesn't believe in them (and I do question how/why he justifies being a priest in a church where he no longer believes the creed he must say every sunday), but I do believe in them. I very much do. I have no issue with the idea of miracles. I watched a documentary on PBS once that showed how the virgin birth is possible from a scientific standpoint, even if you don't belive it was miraculous. But either way, I believe and that doesn't make me dumb, or clueless, or whatever the way that some of the spokespeople for progressive Christianity seem to say it does.

 

I embrace the label of progressive christianity because I believe that the Bible does have errors, as it was written by man and man makes mistakes. I believe that a lot of it was just man looking to justify his actions by saying God told me to do it. I believe God loves love, gay or straight. I believe in evolution. I believe that God has many ways to bring people to her. I don't believe that non Christians are going to hell. So I embrace the label progressive Christianity, but yeah, get tired of other progressives (not on this board, in books and other places) acting like belief in any part of the unprovable is ridiculous.

 

 

Well said.

[Onceuponatime]

 

Note: I say Paul, although I know some of the authorship is in question. Does anyone have good resources or recommended titles on some of that possibly not being Paul's work??

 

 

Yes, The First Paul by Marcus Borg. He talks of how some Bible scholars have come to the conclusion that there are three writers (or three separate philosphies) behind the books attributed to Paul. He goes through wording showing how it is determined that the letters are not all written by the same person. Then he goes through the three groups of letters labelling them First Paul, Second Paul, and Third Paul. First Paul is the most culturally radical and egalitarian, reflecting the original philosophy of Christians. The second and third Pauls become more conforming to social norms until a more rigid and conservative element becomes apparent. The book also brings in very interesting historical information about the culture of Christianity and Rome and how Christianity and the canon developed.

[Joanne]

I am listening to The Gnostic Gospels on audio. They are written by Elaine Pagels. I have just gotten to the part in which women were stripped from the cannon and disenfranchised.

 

Utterly fascinating.

[Halcyon]

I havent commented much on this thread, but I do find it very interesting. I amdefinitley going to get that Elaine Pagels book, Joanne. I like her writing. And The First Paul by Borg. I have some issues with Borg (mostly because I find him repetitive) but I hope my library has that book.

 

I was just asked to join the Leadership Council of my (relatively new to me) church. It's a UCC church, and I don't know whether to say yes or not. I so miss the Episcopal Church, but there just aren't any open minded Episcopal churches down here. Maybe I just miss all the incense. LOL.

[SunnyDays]

I am listening to The Gnostic Gospels on audio. They are written by Elaine Pagels. I have just gotten to the part in which women were stripped from the cannon and disenfranchised.

 

Utterly fascinating.

 

 

I think I read her book a few years back. It was interesting... there's a lot about the history of Christianity (and religion in general) that is really not well known. I might have to look it up again.

[Snow]

So what do you all think of baptism? I haven't baptized my kids but I think i want to. I think outside of the heaven/hell thing, it's a nice ritual, like a welcome-to-the-family kind of thing, rather than cleansing (ugh).

 

If I baptize them episcopal, do I have to have god parents? I hope not.

[MIch elle]

 

If I baptize them episcopal, do I have to have god parents? I hope not.

 

Dh and I were married and are active in the Episcopal Church from the time both my dc were born. Both dh and I were raised Roman Catholic and were baptized as infants. We chose to NOT do infant baptism (dc received holy communition since they were toddlers). Dc were baptized in the Episcopal Church when they were pre-teens; they had no God parents.

 

The Episcopal Church is diverse so check to find out your Episcopal Church's policy on baptism.

[Amethyst]

For some reason, Baptisms always get me so emotional. The idea of this beautiful little life and the parents with such pure good intentions to the little one. Even when they are strangers, I tear up. Weird, i know.

 

Todays gospel reading at Mass was the Wedding at Cana. I'm still reading Borg and trying to interpret it with Borg's perspective in mind. Anyone want to help me out with that? According to Borg, Jesus was very counter culture and he also used paradox alot in his teachings. So to make really good wine doesn't seem very counter-culture. Maybe it had something to do with the purity system - could the water he used have had something to do with it? I dunno. Anyone have any insight?

[Onceuponatime]

Here is a quote from someone who heard Borg speak:

"Here he gave an example to contrast the literal and the metaphorical meanings re Jesus changing of wine at the wedding feast of Cana. The literal meaning is just that Jesus changed water into wine, his first miracle, at his mother*s request. But the Cana wedding and miracle is much richer as a metaphor of the Christian life, understood as a wedding banquet, which continued, as the typical Jewish wedding continued for seven days and nights, and was the most festive occasion in Jewish life, where adult women were allowed to dance with their hair down, and where the wine

 

never runs out, and where the best is saved until last. Thus this event is flattened in a literal interpretation but greatly enriched when seen as metaphor. He said many parts of the bible were not meant to be taken literally"

 

I don't know if I agree with Borg's interpretation. Look up "Marriage at Cana" on Wikipedia. That has some interesting insights into different interpretations. I think there are definitely some symbolic elements in the story, especially since it is found in the book of John. One thing I've learned from personal study is that many of the books of the Old and New Testament are filled with symbolism, Jewish puns, double meanings, reflections of the current philosophy, and deliberate literature devices and formats to enhance the writing.

 

As for baptism, in the churches I have attended, it is believer's baptism for those "of age." The purpose is salvation and there can be immense pressure to be baptized and great sorrowing if it doesn't happen. Even before I came to the point I'm at now, I would not let anyone pressure my kids to be baptized, I experienced that myself. But the pressure is almost impossible to avoid. So many people become seriously worried that something will happen and you will go to hell. It becomes part of your identity. My oldest son never did get baptized and he has moved away. People still pray for him. I just keep my mouth shut. They are very nice people.

[Snow]

http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?lect_date=1/20/2013&tab=4

 

I don't know what Borg would say or how progressive this site is, but its one of a few places I go to get started with a passage I don't understand since I'm not a part of a church and it helps me see it from other perspectives.

 

Here's another:

http://www.ucc.org/feed-your-spirit/weekly-seeds/extravagant-sign.html

 

http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=16

I can't search inside the link right above now on my ipad, but I thinkn there's a wedding interpretation in there as well.

[Joanne]

So what do you all think of baptism? I haven't baptized my kids but I think i want to. I think outside of the heaven/hell thing, it's a nice ritual, like a welcome-to-the-family kind of thing, rather than cleansing (ugh).

 

If I baptize them episcopal, do I have to have god parents? I hope not.

 

 

I'm not fond of baptism (for adults or kids ) because I've dropped a belief in "salvation".

 

That said, I like a lot of the wording and intention behind Presbyterian (USA) infant/child baptisms because it's about community and cultural support of the children and parents.

 

My kids are all baptised, but if I were to do it again, I'd have a custom ceremony that asked everyone present to celebrate the life, energy, and personality of the child. I'd ask everyone to, in the spirit of the "one anothers" of the New Testament support, encourage, guide and love each other. I'd ask adults to practice incredible self care, including spiritual, so that they can "be there" in significant ways for the younger generations. I'd foster a feelings of love, nurture, care, and community.

[Joanne]

Double post. :)

[Jenny in Florida]

So what do you all think of baptism? I haven't baptized my kids but I think i want to. I think outside of the heaven/hell thing, it's a nice ritual, like a welcome-to-the-family kind of thing, rather than cleansing (ugh).

 

If I baptize them episcopal, do I have to have god parents? I hope not.

 

Since I'm coming at this whole progressive/liberal Christianity thing from the opposite direction, baptism isn't something that has ever even been on my radar. My husband and I were married in a UU church and had remained active in UU congregations until the last couple of years. So, each of our kids was "dedicated" in a UU church, which is pretty much what you describe, a welcome-to-the-world ceremony, rather than any kind of cleansing ritual.

 

Interestingly, the least religious/spiritual family member, my husband, is the only one who has been baptised. His parents caved to family pressure and had him baptised when he was about seven.

[ktgrok]

So what do you all think of baptism? I haven't baptized my kids but I think i want to. I think outside of the heaven/hell thing, it's a nice ritual, like a welcome-to-the-family kind of thing, rather than cleansing (ugh).

 

If I baptize them episcopal, do I have to have god parents? I hope not.

 

I just had my son baptized a week and a half ago, in the Episcopal church. No you do NOT need Godparents. Personally, I look at it as entrance into the body of the church. It is the adoption into the family.

[Onceuponatime]

Is anyone reading anything they would like to share? Or have you come across any helpful articles or information lately? Thanks to Joanne for mentioning Elaine Pagels. I had not heard of her and my library has a number of her books. I'm currently reading Excavating Jesus coauthored with John Dominic Crossan. It goes over the 1st century archaeological finds in the areas Jesus lived and compares the findings to the New Testament texts about those areas. It also compares the different archaelogical layers from later centuries and explains how and why the changes came about. Not exactly light reading, but very interesting and informative.

[elegantlion]

I just finished Living Buddha, Living Christ. It was very interesting and affirming to the christian path. He draws some parallels between the teachings of Jesus and words of Buddha. He refers back to a lot of scripture.

[Snow]

I'm afraid all I'm reading right now is homeschooling stuff.

 

Thanks all for sharing your thoughts on baptism for me.

 

On a separate note, going back to Joanne's post about words that drive you nuts ... heres mine: abide. As in, I must abide by [my husband, The Lord, the church]. Good grief.

[mommymilkies]

I'm listening to Historical Jesus (Ehrman) right now. Fascinating. :)

[Amethyst]

I'm still reading Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Borg. It's very interesting in the beginning. But now I've reached the chapter on Wisdom. He explains how the word wisdom in Greek and (?Aramaic, I think?) is a feminine noun. And right now he is using many bible passages and instead of using the word "wisdom" he is substituting the word "Sophia". I think his point is that Jesus was the personification of wisdom, but he's starting to lose me. And I find myself translating "sophia" back to "wisdom" in my head. I think I get that some people like to use a feminine image for God, and that's fine for some people, but for me I find it just as distracting as picturing God as a bearded old man. Right now I try to think of God as spirit, not any kind of human shape. So I find the Sophia image difficult right now. I've been enjoying the book up til now, so I know I'll continue. I'm just not as quick to pick it up as I was before.

[Onceuponatime]

I'm still reading Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Borg. It's very interesting in the beginning. But now I've reached the chapter on Wisdom. He explains how the word wisdom in Greek and (?Aramaic, I think?) is a feminine noun. And right now he is using many bible passages and instead of using the word "wisdom" he is substituting the word "Sophia". I think his point is that Jesus was the personification of wisdom, but he's starting to lose me. And I find myself translating "sophia" back to "wisdom" in my head. I think I get that some people like to use a feminine image for God, and that's fine for some people, but for me I find it just as distracting as picturing God as a bearded old man. Right now I try to think of God as spirit, not any kind of human shape. So I find the Sophia image difficult right now. I've been enjoying the book up til now, so I know I'll continue. I'm just not as quick to pick it up as I was before.

 

 

I come across things that make me pause in many of the books that I've been reading. It helps me to remember the author is just a human being too, with his/her own ways of looking at the world. I don't have to agree with everything or even understand where they are coming from. They've taken their own path and reasoning to get where they are. I may or may not "get" what they are saying depending on my path. Sometimes the pause is necessary to let things jell, to gather more information, or to come to the conclusion that that is just not my way of looking at things.

 

If it is hard to swallow, I don't force myself. :)

[Jenny in Florida]

I'm still reading Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Borg. It's very interesting in the beginning. But now I've reached the chapter on Wisdom. He explains how the word wisdom in Greek and (?Aramaic, I think?) is a feminine noun. And right now he is using many bible passages and instead of using the word "wisdom" he is substituting the word "Sophia". I think his point is that Jesus was the personification of wisdom, but he's starting to lose me.

 

I stalled out with Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, too. It's a very personal book, in some ways, about his own encounters with the Bible. And, because I don't share his background (and his writing style is less than compelling), I began to find it harder to make myself pick up the book and read the next chapter.

 

It may also be that I feel like I already covered some of the same ground in other reading, especially Erhman's Did Jesus Exist?

 

I'm determined to finish it, but I'm moving more slowly and interspersing a chapter here and there with other reading.

[Jenny in Florida]

Things have been quiet on this thread lately. So, I figured I'd toss out another topic for discussion. I'd appreciate a pep talk or any thoughts folks are willing to share about their experiences with various denominations, or anything else you all think might be helpful as I walk this path.

 

As I've mentioned, I've been visiting churches. (I know there's been discussion about why some of us "need" a church community at all, but I'd appreciate it if we can just stipulate that I'm one of those who do need it.) At first, I felt very hopeful that finding my new spiritual home was just going to be a matter of doing my research and attending some services until one of the congregations "clicked."

 

The only time I've church shopped before was in my young adulthood. That time, I checked out a bunch of books from the library, looked up churches in the phone book (pre-internet), visited three and knew the UU congregation was right for me. From that point on, through the next few moves, I would look up in advance where the biggest UU church was in the area to which I was relocating and show up there the first Sunday in town. Within a few weeks, I would have joined the choir and signed up to assist with or teach RE, and off I'd go.

 

This time, though, I'm finding it much tougher. After doing lots of reading online and finding several churches in other parts of the country whose sermon podcasts I love, I was convinced there would be lots of vibrant progressive churches across various denominations just waiting for me to find them. I mean, I know Florida isn't a hotbed of liberal or progressive thought, but I figured, with patience, there had to be something out there for me . . .

 

Yet, here I am, months later, with several churches crossed off my list and only three very lukewarm maybes, at least one of which moved up from the "no" list only after it began to look more promising in comparison to others.

 

I'm honestly starting to feel like I'm going on a lot of bad blind dates. And the idea of dressing up and going out again this Sunday morning feels like a depressing thought. Yet I know I'm also miserable when I sit here and miss going to church.

 

At this point, I have two UCC congregations and one United Methodist church under consideration. One of the UCC congregations says all of the right things on its website, but just felt lifeless and sort of limp during my visit. Also, the music was simply bad. And that's a problem for me. The day I visited, there was no regular sermon, meaning I can't judge that aspect. I do plan to go back in a couple of weeks, when they are starting a video series that will follow the service for a month or so. I figure that should give me an opportunity to chat with people more and get a better feel for things. The more time I let pass following my initial visit, however, the less enthused I get.

 

I have attended the other UCC church twice. The first time, I felt very hopeful and was excited to go back the following week. The second visit was disappointing, however, mostly because I didn't relate to the sermon at all. Also, while the music there is a little more polished, it's still pretty uninspiring. And the small congregation seems to rattle around in a santuary intended for a larger group.

 

I'm still processing my visit to the United Methodist church this past Sunday. In doing my research before the visit, I found that the denomination as a whole isn't as inclusive as I could wish. However, this particular church seems to be on the most progressive edge in that regard. They have banners in front and a statement on their website specifically welcoming LGBT members, and they have a link to the HRC on their Facebook page. So, it is clear they are pushing their denomination's envelope in what I consider the right direction. I liked the pastor quite a bit, and I found her sermon both chewy and meaningful. Again, though, it was a small group. And the music was not just amatuerish but bland. And, most importantly for me, they recited the Apostles Creed as their statement of faith, which contains a number of things I simply can't say and mean.

 

I've also visited and dismissed two other UCC congregations, one supposedly liberal Episcopal church and a Metropolitan Community Church. And I've perused websites of and listened to sermon podcasts from a variety of other churches, ranging from the non-denominational to Unity to Evangelical Lutheran and Presbyterian.

 

And now here it is the weekend again, and I should be deciding where I will go Sunday morning. And I just can't work up any enthusiasm for it. I may just skip it this week, but that won't solve the question in the long term.

 

Anyone have any suggestions for me? Denominations I haven't investigated? Rocks I haven't turned over yet? Messages to give myself to bouy my spirits while I search? Those of you who have found spiritual communities that work for you, how did you find them? What was your process? How long did you search, and how did you know you were home?

[Susan C.]

Jenny, Sorry you haven't found anything. I think we are looking for different types of churches, but I can relate to your struggle. I am wondering if it is regional?? In talking to friends about their churches, I am finding that churches don't always follow the denomination's beliefs closely, it seems specific to the pastor. So maybe go to a few churches of a different denomonation then you have tried. I hope by visiting/asking around, that you will find something you like.

[Wheres Toto]

From what I understand, this is exactly the thread for you. Progressive Christianity acknowledges other paths to God. A progressive Christian is just someone who has chosen to follow the teachings of Jesus as an "enlightened" man of wisdom, in the same way others may choose to follow Buddhist teachings. It is a whole new way to look at Christianity. The old argument that Jesus must have been Lord, lunatic, or liar, does not hold water. Another choice is evident. Jesus could have been a radical Jewish mystic who looked at religion and life with new eyes, and tried to teach a universal philosophy of love for all. His status as the son of God would be the same status that we all hold as children of God, not as some supernatural divinity.

 

Wow, I really wish I had checked out this thread earlier because the above and the original "definition" of Progressive Christianity are almost exactly where I am.

 

I was raised United Methodist, which is fairly liberal, but I never felt like it was literally true. More metaphor and teachings for how to live a good life. I got to the point where I felt my doubts - about the divinity of Jesus, the literalness of the Bible, etc. meant I was no longer any kind of Christian.

 

Dh recently asked to go back to church. We had stopped mainly because our old UMC church was a very small congregation with no real children's programs and I have two children that really need a separate program. We started attending a larger UMC church after the new year and I'm finding a lot of peace being there. Even the sermons talk about different paths, and welcoming everyone. But I am still struggling with what I felt was my lack of belief or faith.

 

I currently have "Finding Your Religion" to read, which I was told was a more liberal perspective on religion, and I now have a few of the Borg books on hold at my library.

[Onceuponatime]

I'm about half way through Excavating Jesus now and it has come to the point where the authors suggest that the original Christianity was all about sharing and that "agape" or "charity" meant caring by sharing, more specifically sharing food. The idea is that no one goes hungry and that food is shared in such a way that there is not "poor people food" and "rich people food."

 

What do you think of this ?