+ And on Good Friday too!
+ I do believe people said Jesus wasn't a Jew on that first Good Friday. He was called Apostate, Heretical, a threat to the System ... for being honest and compassionate. That's what our tradition says.
I'm not The Messiah but I don't mind being in the company of those who have been called by such names and labels. The Control freaks threw this stuff at The Messiah and have thrown it at many messianic people ever since, people like John Shuck, a genuine Christian ... even if he doesn't believe Jesus walked on water or was literally raised from the grave.
+ You can see what's happening at "Heresies for Holy Week: Day 5" posted by John Shuck at his the fantastic Shuck and Jive blog. I'm the featured Good Friday heretic! Don't miss the comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
John
At the very least we have very different definitions of what a Christian is. We also may define the word myth differently too.
An example: I will agree that the editors (and maybe a series of editors for each gospel) had the intention of writing a gospel to deal with issues in their community or in a wider section of the Christian community. The editors had a series of stories. They may or may not have known if the stories referred to real events or not. But the stories chosen reflected their views of what needed to be said.
I would say, however, with the emphasis on the passion of Jesus and his resurrection the editors believed that the events occurred.
I disagree with John S and the historical Jesus movement. I understand their attempt to find what the real Jesus did and said but don't believe that such a task is possible. We can't see back beyond the editors.
I suppose I should ask what you mean by spiritualized as well.
Oh, and I said you weren't heretical. How can one be a heretic if one has, in my opinion, said that the core beliefs of the Christian faith are not true in the sense of never happened? I define gospel in such a way that that person is either apostate, used to believe but no longer does or not Christian never believed.
But my definition is not all that important. I'm just one guy. I would like to hear more of what you think it means to be Christian.
Dear Bob,
Surely you are not one of those who say that everything recorded in the Bible actually hgappened as historical and scientific fact. Right?
Talking Snake? Talking Donkey? Jonah in a fish? Jesus turning water into wine? Total Denial of Evolution? So many more?
So, then, once that is established, I think we need to give each other HUGE leeway.
I do believe in the Resurrection. I have sensed the amazing presence of my son Andy over and over again. At times it has felt almost real as in an Earthly event one could measure scientifically. I believe that the early followers of Jesus had real encounters with the Living Christ and so have millions more and so have you and I. They are all so different and a challenge to describe. Often we choose to use story and poem even as we know that the encounter is more profound than that, more indescribable. As the Tao Teacher said: The one who doesn't know, talks. The one who knows doesn't talk.
Did Jesus walk on water? I am pretty sure (not totally sure but pretty sure) that the Jesus who is like you and me, limited to a physical body which will die some day, did not. Did Jesus walk on water? He sure did!
I love to tell the story.
I wanted to end it right there but for the purpose of clarity in this conversation I will say more.
I believe we are more than earthly bodies. Right now, right here, we are heavenly beings with heavenly bodies. This may be where John Shuck and I part company. I don't know. I will have to ask.
These heavenly bodies of ours which can be experienced in mystical ways can definitely walk on water and appear to people after physical death.
Alleluia. Christ is Risen!
So did the events of the Gospel take place? YES! But not in magical ways which defy all reasonable scientific and historical knowledge.
Alan Watts in MYTH AND RITUAL IN CHRISTIANITY drives home the point that these events are timeless events and are happening here and now. REAL PRESENCE. I do discern the LIVING CHRIST in Holy Communion and it's happening right now, right here. What we ritualize or dramatize in worship is our every moment reality which is only comprehended by those who can experience their heavenly being, their heavenly bodies. The mystics of all of the planet's wisdom traditions report these things to us. Wow!
Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
love,
john
John
As to what happened and what didn't happen in the Bible I start with literary/historical analysis. Example: I find some of the historical content of Jonah more than unlikely. It seems to be written at a time later than it suggests. For example it seems to have no historical connection to the time of the Assyrians. So I tend to think that Jonah is most probably a story written to serve a particular/political purpose: a reaction to the tightening of who was part of Israel and who was not.
I could go into the various questions you raise individually but I'll let things stand with Jonah for the moment. The more important question I believe is can God act outside of what we call "normal." I've said on John S.s site before. I don't like the categories natural and supernatural. I know they have been in use for a long time in Christian circles. I think that God can do as God wishes in God's creation. Some of those things tend to fit a more regular pattern and others fit an irregular pattern. Thus if God wanted to carry Jonah in a fishes belly for three days God can do that. But since I believe Jonah is a story and not historical I don't think that particular event happened.
I suppose I should answer two other questions: I think the first creation account is a poem, not historical although it is told from the perspective of the Babylonian exile. It has to do with the poetic repetitions in the poem. And if you want to look further there is the dome that separates the upper waters from the lower waters. Literally the word means polished bronze of brass.
The second creation account is story about a man named Man and a Woman named "mother of all living." This suggests a story told around the fire after supper.
As to the question of evolution I think it's the best theory we have today. I suspect that changes in the theory will be incremental rather than radical but I am open to the possibility that there a theory can come along that will turn the whole science of evolution on its head much like Einsteinian physics did. I think that is unlikely but am open to the possibility. But I don't think the the possibly new theory will look like either Genesis creation accounts.
Earthly bodies and heavenly bodies? I tend to hold to the Hebrew viewpoint that human beings are unitive beings and that the idea of soul or spirit crept in from Greek philosophy. Still there are passages (Like Ephesian 2) that suggest that we live more with Christ in heaven than we do as humans on earth.
As to whether all the events in the Gospels taking place as described in the Gospels I have to say that the evidence suggests that each Gospel writer had a group of stories and put the stories that s/he chose in the order s/he chose so as to make the point s/he chose. Example: while I believe that Jesus probably dis say the things that are in the Sermon on the Mount I believe they are collected in the way they are to make a point. Moses went up a mountain and came down with the Law. Jesus went up a mountain and changed the Law. Thus Matthew says that Jesus is the new Lawgiver and greater than Moses.
If you are asking if I think miracles can and do happen my answer is yes although I prefer to think of them as events that are more infrequent that those events that we see as scientific.
Enough for now. I'll say more later.
Bob
Bob, we can disagree about many things. Ruling me out of Christianity because I take a different approach than you is what I am questioning, no, challenging. I dare say that you have many believers in your congregation who share my approach although they may not spend the time and energy I do to articulate it.
They will know we are Chistians by our Love.
Thanks for adding a comment to my blog. That hasn't happened enough!
Love,
john
I should say that I define the word Christian in a particular way:
1. That Jesus was incarnate of the virgin Mary. In other words I think that Jesus was fully God and fully human from the point of conception. While I believe in the virgin birth I don't hold to it as an essential but fully human and fully divine, yes.
2. I believe the Nicene Creed correctly defines the relationship between the Father and the Son (and to a lesser extend the relation between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
3. I believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead. Not that he was a resurrected corpse but rather in a transformed body, but a physical body nevertheless.
4. I think the act of Christ to end sin is a VERY complicated question. An example: I believe that you can't just point to the cross and say sins were forgiven by what happened on the cross. That certainly is part of it but I think one has to include Jesus' birth, perfect life, crucifixion and resurrection.
I use these a my personal definition of what it means to be a Christian.
And I suspect our last two emails crossed in cyberspace.
I suspect that reading our emails here and elsewhere we differ around the issue of what "spiritual" means
Also while we all have our opinions I think God is the one who says who belongs within the Church (ie is a Christian) and who does not.
I think I should add this: while I believe that Jesus rose from the dead in transformed physical I don't necessarily rule out of being Christian those who say that Jesus rose is a spiritual body. As long as this wasn't just an inward experience of the disciples but a real life confrontation on earth.
Nevertheless I have some qualms about this mainly because of the ancient Gnostics. You can't just gather them into on group however they made a strict division between the soul or divine spark in humans and the human body because of their fundamental belief that physical is bad and spiritual is good. I don't hear you saying this but thought I ought to toss it in.
For me, the important point remains: They will know we are Christians by our Love.
I suspect I am somewhere in between you and John Shuck, probably a lot closer to John than to you. When it comes to the question of a group experience of encountering Jesus on and after that first Easter, my answer is: I don't know. That does seem possible to me and I suspect John would say "Defintely not." I'm very content with "I don't know."
Thank God for my Old Testament Professor who convinced me that Jews and Christians are one in believing that it is our deeds which define us and not our specific creedal beliefs. You are the one who just emphasized a Hebrew understanding of our one body which I can affirm also. So, let's not get all confused and bewildered by all those Greek categories which have crept into Christian Orthodoxy over the centuries. Orthodoxy is behavior, not creeds. It is the work of uniting the people in love. Liturgy.
To continue with the song ...
We are one in the Spirit.
I suppose I am most comfortable with Process Theology but I am also open to the possibity that God can indeed make it possible for Jesus to do the things the Gospels claim Jesus did.
But then I ask: Why would God want to do that? And that's where you and I part company because for me the power of the doctrine of incarnation lies in our ability to be completely united with God in the same way Jesus was. God made all humans to be completely divine and Jesus showed us how.
But if he can walk on water and change water into wine and all the rest and we can't do that, then we are different, less, than Jesus and I simply don't see it that way. So, I don't believe God wanted Jesus to be magical as some of the stories of his life and death suggest.
I will support John Shuck as fully as I possibly can not because I agree with all of his stands but because of his compassion and commitment to The Body of Christ ... even if he does define it as a Potluck!
My hunch is that even in past times, those who were called out as heretics and even worse -- non-Christians -- were those who offended the hierarchy, the plutocrats, the control freaks, the busybodies (as John names them). In other words, it's all politics. The more democracy we can achieve and the less plutocracy, the more truth and love we will be able to achieve.
Or something like that!
I don't know.
+ Love + John A Wilde + Whitesboro NY + www.abundancetrek.com + "The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the tides and gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, humankind will have discovered fire." -- Teilhard de Chardin
Wow, a lot to respond to! I'm guilty of it too. Let me start at the end. Was a good bit of what went on at the ecumenical councils politics? It sure was! Was it all politics? I don't think so. I think Nicea and points following up to Chalcedon were political, no doubt about it. But I also think they said important things. To say that Jesus is fully God and fully human is an important statement that I think it deeply tied to the whole process of forgiveness/salvation. It is important to me that Arius was wrong and Athanasius right.
Further, going both back and forward, it was important for the early Church to say the Gnostics were wrong for a wide variety of reasons but certainly in saying that the god of creation is a different god than the god of spirit or salvation. The emphasis on spirit as separated from flesh I find completely unacceptable. What concerns me today is that some so blythely accept parts of Hinduism that makes this same affirmation: the the physical is just a dream.
To put it differently I suspect if you follow the strands of theology in the 19th and 20th Centuries that you stand closer to Schliermacher than I do and I stand closer to Barth. Now that is a very simple statement about a very complex subject but I would like to hear how you respond to it.
John
Let's cut to the chase. When you use the word Christian what do you mean?
Great Question. I need a little more time than I have today.
But I will point you to the 8 points of Progressive Christianity as a basic foundation of my beliefs which are always in process.
+ Love + John + www.abundancetrek.com + We are intimately, intricately and infinitely connected by a matrix of unconditional, unlimited and uniting love which is miraculous, mysterious and marvelous.
Hmm
I should say that it is up to God to define who is a Christian (or saved or will be saved). Making decisions about who is ultimately in and who is ultimately out is way beyond my pay grade. And it is a rather Reformed statement.
Having said that I would also note that each time I have said something on this subject I specifically said that it was my opinion. In an ultimate sense as I said who is a Christian and who is not is up to God. Having said that I believe Christ places the awful power of determining what a is Christian in this this world with all our limited vision, foolishness, and outright stupidity. I do like the Reformed model that says a group of sinners tend to produce a better answer than one person (bishops! Boo!) except when they don't. We Presbyterians place a great emphasis on the power of the Holy Spirit to guide.
Having said all of that in earlier posts I have provided a very simple definition of the word "Christian." While I don't consider that answer to be only intellectual I am just as cautious on the other hand about those who try to make faith primarily emotional. And somewhere in there is God's desire to build a people and not just a bunch of individuals wandering around.
And one last thing. My experience with progressives most of my adult life has been an underlying unspoken message that when I grow up and learn the right things then I will be a progressive. Sorry. I tried that route. It didn't do a thing for me. Tillich's Ground of Meaning leaves me cold. (As does Anselm's god for that matter.) I want a God, and believe in a God who gets down in the dirt and wrestles with us, seeking to lead us back to God's self. So my biggest problem with progressives is that they as a group tend to reject my positions out of hand as superstitious or backward. And then get very upset when I say what I think. There seems to be thin underlying assumption that I have not been properly educated. Hey, I worked hard in seminary and at Fuller we were required to read across the theological spectrum. On average, a fact that the folks who gather the final grades for ordination exams don't want to talk about, is that Fuller students tend to do better on Ords on average than students from any PCUSA school (except maybe Princeton).
John, I don't define the word Christian on the basis of something I made up for the heck of it. I include what the Scripture says and (secondarily) what the confessions say.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but you tend to use the word "spiritual." What exactly do you mean by that? My first reaction is that you are going back to Origen and Schleiermacher. Maybe we aren't ready yet to define the word Christian but maybe we can define the word spiritual or spirituality.
Dear Bob,
I hope you don't see me as one of those who would call you superstitious or immature. But many on your side (too bad I need to talk about sides but I do) say that Progressives are not true Christians. I want the Presbyterian Church and the whole Christian Church to be a big tent where we can disagree without being disagreeable. Utica Presbytery has done an amazingly good job at that since I've bneen around (22 years) but I hear that in other parts of our great family, the disagreements can be quite bitter.
I totally agree with you that Christianity has everything to do with community building. Let's allow that community to be diverse. God loves variety. You can see that throughout creation.
The Christian Story is My Story and it is Our Story. I resent it when other Christians, including you, say that I am not entitled to claim Christianity as My Story and Our Story because of some disagreements about how God reveals God's Self to us.
I like Schliermacher. I like Tillich. I like Barth. I like Bonhoeffer. I like Paul. I like Diarmuid O'Murchu. I like Alan Watts. I like Bishop Spong. I like Marcus Borg.
I like anybody who tries to make Our Story as clear and compelling as possible. There are serious errors in all of these thinkers.
So, what is a Christian?
A Christian is any one who believes in One God, the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer and who finds essential truths and meaning and purpose in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and is devoted to the community formed and re-formed by the power of the Holy Spirit proclaiming Our Love Story, Our Amazing Good News, in word and deed.
Beyond that, I not only have the right but I have the responsibility to tell My Story which is unique and different than any other particular story. I struggle with God as you do and I do not have all the answers. I seek wisdom from you and from my fellow Christians and from people who are devoted to many other wisdom traditions.
Enough for now.
+ Love + John A Wilde + Whitesboro NY + www.abundancetrek.com + "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -- Albert Einstein
John
Good answer. My experience in Utica Presbytery was as you describe. If we had a debate the presbytery rarely agreed with me but I always felt loved and welcome.
A note before I go any further. Please notice that I have not said the denomination should do this or that. I simply gave my definition of a Christian and said at that time that you didn't fit within that definition.
But let me respond to what you said.
1. Minor league: I have problems with the use of Creator Redeemer and Sustainer not because I think the words for the Trinity should necessarily be male (Jesus is the only person of the Trinity who is male or female) but rather because it divides the persons of the Trinity by task which, in my opinion is a misunderstanding of the Trinity. But like I said, not important in the present conversation.
2. You said that a Christian is someone "who finds essential truths and meaning and purpose in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." I have to admit I'm not sure what that means. Could you explain it further? I could agree with the statement but I would put further meaning around it like Jesus' life death and resurrection heals the relationship between God and humankind that has been broken by sin. So if you could explain it further I would appreciate it.
3. "I not only have the right but I have the responsibility to tell My Story which is unique and different than any other particular story." Of course you do. I don't see how when I said that you didn't fit within my definition of a Christian in any way prevents you from doing so. So unless you are speaking from a particular post modern perspective that says everyone has their truth and to say "I think this" is oppressive because it disagrees with your truth I'm not sure what the problem is.
I read the 8 statements on the progressive Christianity website. It will not surprise you that I profoundly disagree with some of them.
I wonder if the problem isn't how we both look at the big tent. I see the tent as having a core of truth (sorry to step outside the image for a moment) at the center of the tent. Around that core of essential truth are other beliefs that are not essential. Example: while I think belief in infant baptism is an essential to being a Presbyterian pastor I don't think it is an essential to the tent called Christianity. But (and here is where I think we differ) I suggest that one can step outside the tent. There are certain beliefs that put one beyond the tent. I can respect my Jewish friends but their denial that Jesus is the Christ puts them beyond the Christian tent. I suspect that your tent is much larger than my tent. For example: I think that saying there are many ways to God and all of them are valid is to step outside the Christian tent. So from a Universalist point of view all are saved in Christ. One cannot be saved in anyone else besides Christ. To say that one can be saved (Christian language) through living as the Koran and other Muslim writing say I think puts one outside the Christian tent.
None of this means that I don't love my Jewish and Muslim friends. Nevertheless I disagree with my Jewish and Muslim friends.
Dear Bob,
You said a lot there and I am not prepared to deal with all of it at the moment.
Let me ask:
Since most Human Beings have not been "saved," what happens to them? Can they still go to Heaven? Can they still live an abundant life on earth? Will they be forced to endure eternal flames in Hell? Will true happiness be denied to them until they become Christian?
I really do believe that it is well within Orthodoxy to believe that Christianity does not have an exclusive hold on essentials for salvation. Other wisdom traditions can and do get the job done.
I do believe that Christianity explains reality better than any other wisdom tradition. As much as I appreciate Alan Watts, I think he made a mistake to switch from Christianity to Zen Buddhism. And I love that Wisdom Tradition.
But Alan Watts offers some very legitimate criticism of some of our doctrines. Guess what? We are not perfect. We make mistakes. There are errors in our Wisdom Tradition. Best? Yes! Perfect? No!
By the way, when I used the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer image, I intentionally did not use it as a Trinitarian formula. I simply like it as a description of what God does. I agree with you that it is no substitute for the remarkable insights of the Trinity doctrine.
+ Love + John + www.abundancetrek.com + "The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the tides and gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, humankind will have discovered fire." -- Teilhard de Chardin
John: Can the non saved (those who do not put their faith in Jesus) be saved? It would be very nice if the Bible gave a direct answer to that. Read one passage (and this appeals to the logical side of me) and the answer is they are all going to hell. Read another passage (and this appeals to the emotional side to me) and the answer is maybe. My preferred response which is actually a non response is that is God's business not mine.
A most precise answer would be that someone who has heard the gospel (had that kerygma moment of choice) and said I won't believe will not be in the Kingdom of God. And yet I keep hearing that little voice saying, "God's decision, not yours."
Abundant life? I'm not sure what that is. Defined in worldly terms that means getting a mansion, having too much food, an immense carbon footprint and power or popularity. I don't want any of those things. If abundant life means literally having life with Jesus, which is what I think Jesus means when he uses the word, no one cannot have abundant life without Jesus. The problem is that one cannot see what abundant life is without faith in Jesus.
The problem is that different faith traditions define all this stuff differently. Most faith traditions wouldn't even use the word "saved."
Do Christians sin? Do Christian institutions sin? Does the Church sin? OF COURSE! One of the biggest problems the Church has in transmitting the gospel is the fact that the church has wed itself too often to empire. After all, that's why the Europeans went out and conquered all those colonies, right? To spread the gospel. The white man's burden and all of that. True Christianity always looks weak to the world but really is strong in Christ and only in Christ.
A couple of ironies thrown in on the side: slave owners in the colonies in the 1700's didn't want their slaves to become Christians because they were afraid that they might think as Christians that they were the equals of their masters and become "saucy." Also the early Muslims as they conquered didn't try to convert the masses in the countries they conquered. Why? In part because if they became Muslims the special tax on non Muslims couldn't be collected!
Dear Bob,
I appreciate this opportunity to continue reflecting on my beliefs and values and actions.
Nevertheless I continue to resent your declaration that I am not a Christian because I have come to believe that most of the Bible and the Creeds need to be understood as metaphor, archetype, symbol and story. I find far more power in this understanding of our great Wisdom Tradition ... not only Power but Truth, Honesty, Reality.
I find that the other Wisdom Traditions often come to the same basic understanding.
I strongly believe that we are in error when we idolize scripture and idolize the person of Jesus. Yes, he is The Model for Perfect Humanity and Perfect Divinity. But this is not something which he could attain and we can't. He is the First Fruits of the New Humanity. Evolved if you will! He is The New Adam and Adam is all humanity. In other words, Christ is bigger than Jesus.
There are many different ways to tell this Story. I prefer the Christian way but it can be offered in different ways.
I do appreciate your continuing effort to have a conversation with me. Your friend Viola totally cut me off and called my behavior shameful. According to Viola, not only am I not a Christain but I should be ashamed of myself.
Ashamed of myself for being honest
and making a sincere effort to understand and be understood.
We really do need to embrace Free Speech in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and trust the process.
To change the subject, I am wondering if you accept that humans evolved from apes? What
do you think of the Reformed Theological Semianry decision to ask for the resignation of an "Evangelical" Professor who came out in favor of accepting Evolution? See "Of Bullies and Squirrels" at Shuck and Jive
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right.” – Judge Learned Hand
The logical conclusion of the conversation, "I'm Christian; you're not" is my neighborhood that is filled with little churches each thinking it alone is the true way and loaded with Bible verses to back it up.
I really don't care whether someone thinks I am a Christian or not. Although, I do have to say it is a bit sharp when those in your own denomination don't think you belong. So it goes.
My definition of Christian?
If you say you are one that is good enough for me.
John
1. I don't believe humans evolved from apes. Maybe proto apes. The animals we call human (although I struggle with what human means and when there was a transition from earlier species to human) I suspect existed at the same time as the ancestors of apes. In other words I don't think we have precise enough data to say when the two genetic lines split.
2. As for what happened at RTS?:I wasn't surprised, were you?
I wonder if part of the difficulty we have communicating is your use of the terms, metaphor, archetype, symbol and story. When I hear those words I hear a couple of things: first Origen. He said that there were 3 different ways to interpret Scripture, fleshly (literally) soulfully (a level of metaphor) and spiritually (a higher lever of metaphor). The other thing I hear is it didn't happen. I hesitate to use the word "historically" because of the complications of using the word. Let me put it this way: I think the resurrection of Jesus happened, that he was resurrected from the dead in a human, albeit transformed body. I don't think one can produce historical data on the subject.
In other words I think that we need to take the Scripture as the authors/editors intended it to be heard. Now that doesn't mean that we don't have to take into account the worldview of the day of the author/editor. As Jack Rogers says God is not interested in telling us about dinosaurs because Scripture isn't about dinosaurs. Scripture is about divine/human conversation and what humans should believe and do.
Metaphor can be a good word to describe some of what happens in Scripture. But to use it when the author/editor intended to say something different is to misuse the text.
And if you are using the word archetype in a Jungian way I would have a problem with that.
So I guess I need to know what you mean by those terms. When I hear them I hear that there was not exodus and Jesus didn't rise from the dead. If you mean something different please tell me.
And I'm not sure I understand why you get upset when I define the word "Christian in a particular way and (to change the way I've said it in the past) wonder if you fit within my personal definition. After all, I'm not your presbytery. Why get so upset about what one person thinks?
Dear Bob,
Upset is not the word I would use to characterize my disappointment in your verdict about me and the many like me who follow Christ faithfully but can not embrace a worldview which is now discredited (or atleast seriously and sincerely questioned) scientifically and historically.
Sad that you and others can not accept a disagreement about the way God is revealed to us.
Especially because I value you as a friend and colleague.
So, yes, very disappointed but not particularly upset because I am OK with my beliefs and values and have been for my entire adult life.
I can understand (I think) why you and others hold on to beliefs which I think do not stand up to real historical and scientific evidence but I can NOT understand why you and others feel that you must deny us our heritage. That hurts and it's not you alone but millions of Christians who say I'm not a Christian.
I believe deeply that my understanding of reality is the Truth. I do not know that. But I believe it and HERE I STAND!
I'm trying to wake you up to accept us as Christians even though we disagree about the naure of reality on some points.
We are in agreement about the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule and other fundamentals of our Tradition. Why is that not enough?
But that's a rhetorical question because you simply can't convince me that I'm wrong about these things.
I believe Orthodoxy and Heresy and Who is a Christian and Who isn't is always about our actions, our deeds, our compassion, our peacemaking, our friendship, our kindness, our hospitality, our openness, our humility, our gentleness, our patience, our unity. It's about the Community of Love formed and re-formed by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
By their fruits you will know them.
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the tides and gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, humankind will have discovered fire." -- Teilhard de Chardin
@John
"I can NOT understand why you and others feel that you must deny us our heritage."
Here is where I think we come up against one of our problems. When I read what you write it reads to me like you have abandoned our heritage. Still I am not sure what you mean.
"We are in agreement about the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule and other fundamentals of our Tradition. Why is that not enough?"
"Here o Israel the Lord (YHWH) our God the Lord (YHWH) is One. And you shall love the Lord YHWH) with all you heart and your mind and your strength."
I wonder if one of our fundamental problems is that we do not agree on who God is or at least how to define the word.
"the many like me who follow Christ faithfully but can not embrace a worldview which is now discredited (or at least seriously and sincerely questioned) scientifically and historically."
So my worldview had been discredited. How is that different than saying given my definition of the word "Christian" you do not fit within my definition? Isn't it just a nicer way of saying you believe something that isn't true? And HOW has my worldview been discredited.
From an earlier post: "I strongly believe that we are in error when we idolize scripture and idolize the person of Jesus. Yes, he is The Model for Perfect Humanity and Perfect Divinity. But this is not something which he could attain and we can't"
If we idolize Jesus just what does it mean that he is the model for perfect divinity? I suspect that we will disagree about this but I also think I need you to explain what you mean.
And just what does it mean to idolize the Bible? If it means that God speaks through humans then I guess I idolize the Bible. If it means that the book is somehow sacred in and of itself (don't put another book on top of it, etc.) then I would agree that some do idolize the Bible.
In any case it sounds like works righteousness to me. Or maybe you mean something that I don't understand.
I would not use the word model to describe the divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ IS divine, the second person of the Trinity and also fully human. Is this something you think has been scientifically or historically false? How? Or do you use that to refer to other events (or according to you non events). Was Jesus incarnate by the Holy Spirit? (forget the whole Virgin birth thing for a moment and think about whether Jesus, with or without the help of a human man was God incarnate). Did Jesus rise from the dead? If so how?
Leaving aside historical and scientific issues I suspect our biggest disagreement is around the issue of interpreting the events (or traditions or whatever you want to call them).
John
It does look like my last comment disappeared into the curious realm of cyberspace. Either that or you have to approve it. In any case I'm busy until after supper tonight. If you don't have it I'll try and remember it, although my rememberer isn't working all that ways these days. Of course it didn't work all that well back in the day either.
Dear Bob,
I am having difficulty expressing my beliefs about the nature of reality as clearly as I would like. At some point words just don't work.
If you don't want to call me a Christian because I believe that the wise people who founded the church expressed truths differently than we might today, that's your decision and I'm tired of trying to defend my beliefs and values in this particular forum. I wish you would change your mind about accepting me and so many others but it's your call and I'm frustrated at this point. At least you are not telling me to be ashamed of myself like Viola and others over there in Control Freak Land.
Thanks for trying to understand me. We are legion so keep trying! I really do believe we are the Silent Majority in the Church. Sooner or later the truth will triumph. Although the possibility of ecological catstrophe completely ending humanity can not be ruled out. The truth may be too slow moving and the crazies might prevail. I hope not.
I believe that the Church and the planet is being seriously damaged by people on the political Right who are pushing all kinds of nonsense and turning more and more Americans (and other Earthlings) against each other day after day after day. I believe Progressive Christianity makes sense and most people will realize that if we get a chance to express our beliefs and values widely. The Media is mostly supporting or enabling the other side and that makes our efforts far more difficult.
Chris Hedges has investigated the threat of a Fascist Christian takeover of the USA. He wrote AMERICAN FASCISTS: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND THE WAR ON AMERICA. He writes regularly at TruthDig.com. Another very significant investigation into the threat of Christian Fascism is THE FAMILY: THE SECRET FUNDAMENTALISM AT THE HEART OF AMERICAN POWER by Jeff Sharlet. I think we are on a very dangerous course.
Christianity needs to move away from this dangerous course and I am identifying myself as clearly as possible with those who are trying to rescue Christianity from the crazies. Bob, you are NOT one of the crazies but I would like to see you stop enabling them. They need to be exposed and their craziness needs to be confronted courageously. That's what I see John Shuck doing and that's why I am such a fan even though I don't agree with all of his beliefs. (For example, he says he is a Pantheist. I say I am a PanENtheist as Marcus Borg defines that term.)
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right.” – Judge Learned Hand
John
I'll get back to you. It's just a busy time. You know how it is.
This is only meant to see if I understand. It isn't criticism
You speak of having Jesus as the center of your faith (or at least the Wisdom from the Jesus tradition. You also said that Jesus is the model of perfect humanity and perfect divinity and that we can seek to try to reach those models ourselves.
You also speak of learning from other wisdom traditions.
I suspect that we have been talking past each other. So as I've been thinking about what you've said I thought this might be it, although in different terms that you might use.
Jesus is one avatar who came and brought wisdom to humanity. Humans can learn from that wisdom tradition.
I'm less sure about this. I think you may reject the traditional theology of the cross as the means of atonement or reconciliation with God that in fact that is not what humans need. We humans instead need enlightenment through the wisdom tradition. I also think you may have said that the Jesus tradition is not the only wisdom tradition and one can reach God (or perfect humanity and divinity through any of a variety of wisdom traditions.
Again, I'm trying to understand what you said. Please let me know where I am right and where I am wrong.
Dear Bob,
First, I think I finally got the settings right and comments are not moderated from now on.
Second, I think words often get in the way of truth so I don't really want to be pinned down.
Third, But try we must anyway!
Fourth, my beliefs and values are always in process. I am a very limited human being and I seek wisdom from many sources.
Fifth, The Buddha died when he was 80 (probably) and probably was not threatened with execution by the Domination System. Jesus died at 33 (probably). Jesus died because he confronted the Domination System which prevailed in his society. That's what the Cross is all about. I do not see as an individualized concept. For me, a Messiah comes to save communities and not individuals. Of course individuals do get saved as communities get saved. Salvation is all about Compassion, Peace and Justice, overcoming the Domination System built on violence, greed and injustice. It is NOT about avoiding burning up in hell forever and ever. Salvation is all about being part of a Suffering Servant Community which has a goal of alleviating suffering for all but knows that suffering is unavoidable as the striving for The Kingdom goes on.
Sixth, I think I would defintely say that other Wisdom Traditions work for many people and there is no reason for me to say they must embrace my Wisdom Tradition. If compassion, peace and justice is not a priority for them, then there is something wrong in the way they are interpreting their Wisdom Tradition. Many Christians are missing the mark on that score and so I do not see our WT as superior as currently understood and practiced. If corrected (reformed)to honor the Perennial Philosophy, Christianity can attain a superior status IMO because of its devotion to Compassion, Peace and Justice as The Way, The Truth and The Life. This needs to be emphasized rather than other secondary doctrines and practices.
Seventh, I accept your right to be a Christian even though I emphatically disagree with your understanding of reality. How come you can't offer me the same acceptance? This is not so much a personal thing between you and me as a question for all "Christians" who think they must keep people out who can't embrace a Magical Jesus but embrace Jesus as The Messiah and Savior anyway. I request, no I demand, the right to be included.
Enough for now.
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right.” – Judge Learned Hand
OK John, let's try this:
I certainly won't put aside the great ethics/wisdom of the Christian tradition. We may not agree on all the applications of that ethics/wisdom but we do agree that it does point to a way of life that seeks to stand up to injustice and oppression.
Beyond that, let's say that I am a traditional/orthodox Christian. By that I mean that I believe the doctrine (or maybe it is better to say interpretation of events/Biblical narrative) that has developed over the years, particularly within the Reformed Tradition.
You, if I understand you correctly, are a person who both experiences (feels?) the presence of God and seeks to apply the ethics/wisdom of the Christian tradition in your life and in the community. I might put it this way: you seek to follow Christ. If we take "to follow Christ" as a definition for Christian you are a Christian in that sense.
But please know that the word "Magical" is just as offensive to me as being called "not a Christian is to you."
Beyond that any conversation about the individual as part of a community and over against a community is one we might want to have but I think is terribly complicated.
John, I write things that say you aren't a Christian and you respond but when I try to make an accommodation you don't respond?
What's up with that?
Dear Bob,
Sometimes I just don't keep up with all of my correspondence. Sorry. I haven't added anything to blog for several days so please don't take it personally. I take on too much at times ... even in retirement.
I am also sorry that you find the term "Magical Jesus" offensive. I probably would never preach it but I do feel that for discussion purposes my language is useful.
Where do you draw the line? I can appreciate the idea that Jesus appeared in a powerful way to dozens or even hundreds of people on and immediately after that first Easter.
But walking on water and turning water into wine and raising people from the dead including himself and many other events described in the gospels simply don't pass my test of what happened in the reality back then or what can happen in this reality. I am comfortable with the idea that people felt then and feel now AS IF Jesus was or is really present in a physical way. But I simply can't go any further than that and I really want my belief to be considered reasonable and orthodox.
I believe deeply that we need to let people know that you don't have to suspend your view of reality in order to become or remain a Christian.
I really do believe that we would be helping the cause of God and CHrist and The Church by telling children that just as you have now come to realize that there is no magical Santa Claus or magical Easter Bunny or or magical Tooth Fairy, there is also no Magical Jesus.
But, then ...
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He lives.
And ...
Yes, Virginia, there is a Jesus. He lives and is really present in a mysterious and spiritual way which is very real but not in a physical sense.
Don't worry if that doesn't make sense to you today, Virginia. I'm 63 and I'm still working on what it all means. But I do know that this Love which Jesus taught us and showed us is amazing and you can count on it to get you through all kinds of obstacles life might throw at you.
I am confident that the essential beliefs of Christianity are totally offered in the forms of Metaphors, Stories, Sacraments, Poems, Art, Music, Symbols and Signs. I can't believe that God intervened in history in a way which defies my understanding of reality. And I know I speak for millions ... even people in your congregation I'm sure.
My Old Testament Professor at Boston University School of Theology taught us to understand that Jesus-olatry is heretical and not God's will. That's how he read the Bible and that's how I read the Bible. And so do millions of us who simply can't deny our basic understanding of history and science and reality.
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + We are intimately, intricately and infinitely connected by a matrix of unconditional, unlimited and uniting love which is miraculous, mysterious and marvelous.
John
And this is precisely what I don't understand. With the coming of Modernity humans (actually some humans) began to look at the universe in a different way. In order to do science they limited what they would research. They would only research and do experiments upon those things that were repeatable. So in chemistry class in college we learned that if we mixed the right chemicals in the right proportions together under the right conditions (heat and pressure) we would always get the same result. This works in cooking too, by the way. But along with being a way to do science (the right way) Modernity also became a world view, a religion if I may use that word. In this religion all must be limited to what can be proven in science.
As you may have seen I don't like the words natural and supernatural. I think the words come from Modernity. I think instead of events that happen most of the time and other evens that happen rarely. I believe God does not limit God's self to what we see as the regular or "normal" patterns of the universe. If God chooses to do it a different way every once in a while God can do that. If God cannot do that then we are looking at one form of Deism, not Christianity.
I think we have terribly different definitions of magic. I see magic as two things: the first is done by a stage magician, using the tricks of her trade to fool the audience. The other is the attempt by some to either have some event happen by saying the right words and/or doing the right actions and/or mixing the right ingredients together. In this case magic may be an attempt to manipulate whatever god(s) one believes in to do certain things. If the latter is magic then I believe it cannot happen. God cannot be influenced to act in certain ways. God is free.
But can God choose to have Jesus walk on water and rise from the dead? These fit in my category of things that happen less frequently. If you want to call that magic, (and I think you really mean things that did not happen and cannot happen) go ahead. While I don't see Jesus walking on water a central doctrine of the Church, (although I do think there are important images of Jesus conquering chaos as God conquered chaos in Gen. 1 in the story of Jesus walking on the water) I do see the resurrection of Jesus as a central doctrine of the Church. As Paul says,
13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1Cor. 15)
The leave you comment thing wouldn't let me say more. Here is the rest:
One of the great dangers I see in Modernity is the belief that we are smarter than the ancients. We may know more about scientific things but that doesn't make us smarter or more able to see what is going on around us than they were.
I don't believe that what you have said can be orthodox. If you look at the Book of Confessions or Chapter 2 of the current FoG you will find that what you have said is not orthodox. And I think we are back to where we started. Neither is what you have said Christian.
And if believing that Jesus is fully God and fully human is Jesus -olatry, then so be it. With Paul I say that if there is no resurrection then we are still in our sins. We are unable to fix the world by ourselves. God must do so. And God began to do so through his Son, the second person of the Trinity, the God/man, Jesus.
So I guess you just have to go on being offended by what I say. What you have said, if it becomes orthodoxy in the PCUSA and I am required to deny the resurrection of Jesus I will have to say that Jesus rose from the dead. Here I stand. Go ahead and kick me out. But my friend I would suggest that you are part of a very small minority, at least at this time, in the PCUSA.
I would use the words Deist or Modernist to describe you. Not Christian. Which I think brings us back to where we began. Is there a point in continuing the conversation?
Dear Bob,
Please show me where I ever said that Jesus is NOT fully divine and fully human.
And so are you. And so am I.
I believe that with my whole heart, soul, strength and mind.
I know you do not agree with that but at least try to understand my belief. I am surprised that after all this time and effort you could misunderstand this basic belief so completely. If you want to understand, I suggest you read MYTH AND RITUAL IN CHRISTIANITY by Alan Watts.
Jesus has a special place in Christianity (obviously!) because he is the First Fruits of the New Humanity, the New Adam, the New Human Being, the ultimate revelation of God in history, the Center of History, The Logos, The Sophia. And now the Holy Spirit makes it possible for all humanity to claim and enjoy the same power to be and do what he is and does. We are one. The Trinity includes US! God IS fully human ... and a lot more.
It remains a mystery of course and I don't pretend to know more than you do about the nature of God and the nature of humanity. But I am frustrated when I see that you clearly don't understand my belief.
Should we continue this conversation?
I don't know. I suspect we are both pretty firm in our basic belief about the nature of God. I would describe your belief as well within the category of Supernatural Theism and I am a Panentheist. I believe strongly that Christianity at its core is Panenetheistic and not Supernatural Theism. The ancient Christians used some of the language of Supernatural Theism for many reasons which I may discuss at some future time if I have the time.
I'm not a Deist believing in a distant God. I believe God is here, there and everywhere. In God I live and move and have my being. I am powerful. I am the Light of the World. Jesus taught me to be the Light of the World. It's in today's Daily Lectionary.
And I believe in The Resurrection.
Please try to understand my position. I feel like your arguments are not against me but against a straw man.
I repeat: I believe in all of the central teachings of Christianity. I do not understand why you keep saying that I don't.
There are millions like me (even in your congregation I'm sure) who simply reject the need to say that everything in the Bible is to be understood literally.
I think it would actually be mean for God to come as a human being 2000 years ago and walk on water and turn water into wine and be raised from the dead and make the literal belief in such nature-defying events a litmus test for Christianity.
Perhaps the misunderstanding lies in the fact that Christianity is BOTH a powerful description of the nature of earth-bound reality AND a powerful description of a Make-Believe Reality, a reality of Play and Dreams and Fantasy and Story ... Heaven. The latter reality is actually more important and can be created and is being created. This is very hard to explain. I love Christianity as a Big Tent where we can keep trying to understand Reality in its glorious Fullness. I know I don't have all the answers.
Finally, I certainly agree with you about THE MEANING of Jesus walking on water.
love, john + abundancetrek.com + "You do not need to do anything; you do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. You do not even need to listen; just wait. You do not even need to wait; just become still, quiet and solitary and the world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked. It has no choice. It will roll in ecstasy at your feet." -- Franz Kafka
John
You are correct, I should have defined Deist better. I was thinking of Thomas Jefferson's cutting up the Gospels to get all the miracles out, what you refer to as superstition. You certainly are not a Deist in the sense that God is the watchmaker and now that the watch has been made it's on its own.
HOWEVER! I am fairly certain that we disagree about what it means for Jesus to be divine. I believe Jesus is divine, the second person of the Trinity. You add to that that we are all divine - as in panentheism. My definition of that word is that all of creation is part of God but God is more than all of creation. So I need to ask: is Jesus somehow divine in a way that is different from the way we are divine?
I also do not understand why you personally believe that the miraculous is not a category that exists within reality. I don't think I'm setting up a straw man. Rather I think I'm responding to you the way I have responded to others who said things like you have said. So if I have misunderstood either that the miraculous is a category that cannot exist within reality or that your rejection of the miraculous comes from a different source than modernity please explain to me what you mean.
If I understand what you have said about humans (at least you and me) being divine then I know we disagree about this. If I am divine because all creation is divine then we clearly disagree. If I somehow participate in the divine because of my relationship with Jesus that would be something else again and something we would have to explore.
To put it simply, I am a creature. I am fully a creature, made by God. Jesus is fully a creature (fully human) but also fully divine in ways I cannot be divine.
Now if you mean that when I pray I, in a symbolic (but still very real) sense I sit within the triangle of the three persons of the Trinity we agree. If you mean I am fully divine in the same way Jesus is fully divine then we disagree.
I guess what I am saying is that I'm not sure what some of your terms mean. I think you are taking words from classical Christianity and giving them different meaning than the Church through most of its history has meant by those words. And I hear clearly that you believe that the Church made a wrong turn in the way it uses those words. In other words it was the intention of the writers/editors of the New Testament to say something different than the Church has taken it to mean for most of the Church's history.
So let's start with a word: resurrection. When I hear the word resurrection applied to Jesus I hear that Jesus physically (although in a transformed body) rose from the dead. You could see him, touch him and have dinner with him. Maybe you could explain what you mean by the word resurrection if it is different than what I have just said.
As for mystery and what I know and don't know I freely admit I stand with Job with God saying to me I don't have the ability to understand who God is and what God does. All I can know (and I'm not sure we agree on the meaning of this word either) is what God has revealed in the person of Jesus whom we meet both in a mysterious way and through the Scripture.
Dear Bob,
I think one of the beauties of Orthodoxy (Correct Praise) is that it really does allow a very wide range of interpretation. It seems to me that you have a narrow range within that larger range which you and Viola and others insist all Christians accept.
I do believe in miracles but I also believe in great story telling and I believe that one must allow disagreement on whether particular miracles happened or not. For me it is really important to keep the tent big and open.
I certainly do not come close to exhibiting the Full Divinity Jesus revealed AS TOLD IN GREAT STORIES. I do believe that the Real Presence of Christ is a description of our basic Oneness with God which is broken by Sin but restored in Holy Communion. In other words, we have the POTENTIAL to be as fully divine as the Jesus of THE STORY. You are right to point out how little we can know of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The Here-and-Now Real Presence of Christ is miraculous, mysterious and marvelous.
I saw in your last comment a breakthrough in your understanding of my belief even though we clearly do not agree. I appreciate your effort. I am hopeful that you can separate yourself at some point from the rigidity and closedness which I see on your side as demonstrated all too well by Viola. At Viola's blog, I see you siding with those who are extremely self-righteous and judgmental. All it takes to join our side is a willingness to accept people as Christians who love God and Jesus but might not embrace the Bible and the Creeds in a literal way and may have some different views about homosexuality and other issues which are NOT central to Christian beliefs and values. On our side, you can continue to believe what you believe and you may even be right but you can also accept others who have different beliefs (which may be right) but still speak the same language and participate in the same sacraments.
You can do it!
I live in hope!
+ Love + John + www.abundancetrek.com + We are intimately, intricately and infinitely connected by a matrix of unconditional, unlimited and uniting love which is miraculous, mysterious and marvelous.
Another question: in relation to the Bible and the Confessions what do you mean by the word "literal?"
When doing research for sermons or other reasons I do my best to try and figure out the intended meaning of the author/editor.
For example: Esther starts with the words "And it was in the days of . . . " Back in that time that was the ancient equivalent of "Once upon a time . . ." So I read Esther as a story told for a purpose. I think the same of the second creation narrative too, FWIW.
So if literal means trying to determine the meaning of the author/editor then I'm literal.
Of course after determining original meaning there is the not so small task of application.
So when you say literal what do you mean?
Dear Bob,
I do realize that there are differences between you and those who make outrageous claims about the authority and factuality of every verse of scripture. Nevertheless, I see you siding with those who insist on believing in miraculous events which may or may not have happened as far as I am concerned and millions of others. I get ruled out of being a Christian by you and millions of others because I don't insist on accepting the factuality of a number of miraculous events. I believe deeply that the ancients talked of events in ways which differ considerably from the ways we do today. They easily mixed fiction with fact. We are not as open to that style today as the ancients were. So, I have no trouble drawing the line between biblical fact and biblical fiction at a different point than you do.
I do believe in miracles and I probably disagree with John Shuck on the nature of reality to some extent, maybe even a large extent. But I do know that he preaches, teaches and lives the Good News in ways which I see completely modeled by Jesus and the Prophets. And I believe he is led by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit of the Trinity. So I don't want to see him and so many others excluded because they (we) draw the line at a different place than you and Viola and millions of others do. There is a huge divide in Christianity today because your side won't budge.
I want to see your side lose, or better yet, change and become far more welcoming and inclusive and tolerant and humble. I'm sure my side needs to change in many ways too but at least we don't rule your side out of the Church even though we disagree strongly.
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right.” – Judge Learned Hand
John
We may again have a misunderstanding here, or not. You said, "I do realize that there are differences between you and those who make outrageous claims about the authority and factuality of every verse of scripture."
When I hear the words "factuality of every verse" I may hear something different than you do. I hear a particular method used by some fundamentalists to interpret the Bible. They hear each verse as a proposition or a fact statement. You are correct. That is not an appropriate characterization of me or the method I use to interpret the Bible. I don't think you can get meaning without context.
In fact, and I think I've said this before, I don't think you can get back to a historical Jesus behind the writer/editor. I agree with Schweitzer that those who look for the historical Jesus usually find a Jesus who looks very much like themselves. The writer/editors have so arranged and restated what Jesus said (or may have said) that I don't think it is possible to make a separation. So I, like the folks of the recent Yale School take it all as Scripture and then try to interpret it.
That DOESN'T mean that I claim scientific insight for the Bible. Calvin says (quoting Jack Rogers) that God lisps to us like a nursemaid lisps to a baby. In other words God wasn't particularly interested in educating the writers/editors of Genesis and succeeding books of the Bible as to the nature of the universe. Notice in Gen. 1 the writer of the poem refers to the firmament. The literal meaning of the word is "beaten bronze," suggesting a dome over the earth. So the author saw the universe according to the pattern of his (I think I can say his because of the failure to educate women) day. And God, not particularly interested in science classes, didn't correct him. Instead the important part got through: from a slave in Babylon a message was sent to the enslavers: all the things you call gods my God made! A rather in your face message and a statement of true monotheism.
So if I use the word authority to refer to Scripture I mean, as the Westminster Confession says that all we need to know as to what we should believe and do are clear in Scripture. I'm not entirely sure they are clear in a modern context because the context has changed. That means we pastors have to work harder.
As to miracles I'm not sure how to distinguish between those which "happened" and those which did not. We both believe in the resurrection, a greater miracle than all the rest. And if God can do that, why can't God do the relatively minor miracles in the rest of the Bible? So how do we decide which ones didn't happen? Particularly if one uses form criticism, still an important task I think, one finds that there is often a particular pattern in a miracle story. Mark's could be characterized (in healing narratives) as: 1. Jesus sees the problem or has the problem called to his attention, 2. sometimes Jesus is moved (splanknidzomai)3. Jesus does the healing and 4. Jesus tells the person healed to keep his/her big mouth shut. The pattern or form doesn't tell us anything about whether the miracle truly happened or not.
As to the line between fact and fiction among the ancients, I'm not sure that one can draw that line easily. Some early historians tried to write down the events as best they could, maybe not coming up to the level of modern historians but not attributing everything to one god or another. Other writers, poets often, talk about the gods all the time.
I think Gospels were a new type of literature. They were written, not to convince non Christians as to the message/acts of Jesus but rather to deal with particular issues in the churches of the writers. (Luke/Acts may have also had the intention trying to convince the Roman government that Christians were not a threat, a false statement. Christians should always make governments uneasy. After all, we know they aren't really in charge!) I remember being told in seminary that gospels are passion narratives with long introductions.
If I thought you meant that we moderns tend to see things as scientific (things that happen) and non scientific) things that don't happen (and I don't think you do mean this) I would have to say again that there are events that occur regularly and others that don't and God can do whatever God wants.
Maybe we can make all of this simpler. I define the word Christian to mean:
1. Those who believe Jesus is the only Lord and Savior;
2. Those who believe Jesus is fully God and fully human;
3. Those who are "possessed" by the Holy Spirit (and I don't try to figure this one out); and
4. Those who in their beliefs and lives seek to follow Jesus sacrificially.
I think a Christian has to believe/act in all these ways, always recognizing that Christians still sin.
Now I suspect we may need to talk about what the words Lord and Savior mean. I get the impression that you would agree with me on the others. Yes? Except that I put that little disturbing word "only" in there. So if we have general agreement on items 2-4 maybe we should talk about item 1.
Or maybe we need to discuss what fully divine and fully human means. I hope not. That is a very messy conversation as the post Nicene councils discovered. Note that we today pretend there was never any problem between those who agree with Chalcedon and Coptic Christians. Part of this is because most of us don't understand what the problem was!
Sorry about the split into 2 documents. Like most preachers I'm long winded. My children think I can hold my breath under water longer than they can because I'm a preacher.
Dear Bob,
You are covering a lot of ground. Let me just respond to one of your statements.
Jesus Christ is my only Lord and Savior. No doubt about that.
But I will not insist that this has to be the case for every human being who ever lived, is living, or will live.
I don't believe that God is in the business of making everybody Christians. I do believe that God is in the business of teaching everybody to love one another. I see that teaching firmly established in other wisdom traditions.
I sure would like to see it become far more firmly established in the Christian Wisdom Tradition. We have a long way to go.
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? -- Micah 6:8
Okay. Is everyone saved through Christ whether they believe in him or not? This would be a universalist tradition. While I disagree with it I find evidence in the Bible for it, and evidence to the contrary.
And is love for everyone a means into heaven. This would be for me a form of works righteousness which I would find contrary to Scripture.
Dear Bob,
For you, Is Christianity the only valid religion? All the others need to go?
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the tides and gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, humankind will have discovered fire." -- Teilhard de Chardin
In theory all religious traditions I know of (I'm not sure about some animist traditions) want people to love one another.
I base my believe on this in two places:
1. All humans are created in the image of God and no matter how much we may get frustrated and angry with others we still must love them.
2. Jesus commands it!
What concerns me is the refusal to love those who disagree with you. I see this a lot in the PCUSA. Both the left and the right wings say terrible things about each other and sometimes to each other. I try, at the very least, to be respectful. I may disagree, as in our discussion here, but I still try to show love. Love does NOT mean agreement. It means how you treat one with whom you disagree.
Frankly my observation over years of ministry is that it is easy to love someone way over there (Africa, Asia, etc.) than it is to love the people you see every day and whom you theoretically love more than anyone else!
Dear Bob,
I did not detect an answer to my question. Let me put it a slightly different way:
Do you think that Christianity is the only religion which contains the whole essential truth about reality and should, ideally, replace all other religions sooner or later?
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + “You do not need to do anything; you do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. You do not even need to listen; just wait. You do not even need to wait; just become still, quiet and solitary and the world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked. It has no choice. It will roll in ecstasy at your feet." -- Franz Kafka
The word "reality is a difficult one. Let's take it to mean religious reality, not gravity, electricity, etc. If reality is religious reality I would have to say that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the one true reality. Having said that this doesn't mean that there are not parts of that reality in other religions. I would not use the words "wisdom tradition" as you do to talk about Christianity although I still would like to see further explanation of what you mean.
Will Christianity ultimately replace all other religions in this age (between the coming of the Holy Spirit and the return or Christ? I doubt it for two reasons. First Christians have done a fairly decent job of showing hate instead of love in Jesus Christ. The way Christians treated the Jews since the time of Constantine and the way the imperialists from Europe (and the US) treated the people they conquered while claiming to be Christians make it difficult if not impossible for people to fail to associate Christianity with evil. Further, you can see in Muslim preaching that in some areas Christianity is seen as the religion that supports American immorality.
Second, being the Calvinist that I am, I must say that coming to faith in Jesus is the decision of the Spirit and not mine. If the Spirit chooses that all will become Christians in this age, it will happen. If not it won't. This is a fancy way of saying I don't know the answer because God hasn't seen fit to tell anyone.
Having said all of that I also have to say, whose Christianity? If we look at the areas where Christianity is growing it is very different from American and European mainline Christianity. It tends to be Pentecostal and unfortunately name it and claim it Pentecostalism. And like European Christianity (although we who came out of that theology don't want to admit it) Christianity is taking on parts of traditional religions in Africa and South America. I don't know as much about Asia.
I know that is a complicated answer but it is a very complicated question.
Dear Bob,
I think I agree with your last post in its entirety. But that can't be. We have fundamental disagreements.
If you really want to understand my belief, you must read MYTH AND RITUAL IN CHRISTIANITY by Alan Watts.
He believed that Christianity was one of the best re-presenational models of the Perennial Philosophy or Mysticism. You can read Aldous Huxley's THE PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY for a deeper understanding of PP.
If you are interested, check out my CONNECTIONS GALORE page -- and scroll down to the are where you will find quite a few links concerning Mysticism and PP such as The Church of I am and The Ten Teachings of All Religions.
I see the sages of the ages basically finding agreement about the nature of God and the nature of reality even though the different wisdom traditions (a Huston Smith term) use many different symbols and words and constructs. Viva variety!
Christianity has some important teachings which are unique and need to be affirmed by others BUT other wisdom traditions have teachings which are unique and need to be affirmed by us. I am not in favor of creating a new religion which blends all of these symbols and words and constructs. I don't think that's necessary or even useful. Christianity works when fully understood and applied! But so does Hinduism and Judaism and Buddhism and Taoism and other Wisdom Traditions with their important myths and rituals.
It really doesn't matter to me whether the Gospels happened as fact or fiction. It's the ideas, the meanings, the symbols, the wise understandings, that matter. Christ did turn water into wine, did walk on water, did heal the sick, did raise people from the dead (including my beloved son Andrew). It's a total mystery to me how he did (or better yet, DOES) that, but I have had enough real experiences of God's presence to believe in these things.
Andrew does not live on earth in any way that you or I can ordinarily see or touch him. But in a miraculous, mysterious and marvellous way, he lives and I feel his presence.
I haven't yet had an experience where I enjoyed a meal with him but it is not outside the realm of possibility for me. However, and this where you and I disagree, I believe that shared meal -- when and if it happens -- will occur OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE. The term "altered state of consciousness" comes to mind.
Miracles pull us out of our limited perception of reality and into the greater reality beyond our ordinary perceptions. This is what the sages of the ages of all wisdom traditiuons are trying to teach us. The parables and Zen sayings are both attempts to trick us or engage us in a radically new and different way, enlightenment if you will.
You are the Light of the World.
Namaste.
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + We are intimately, intricately and infinitely connected by a matrix of unconditional, unlimited and uniting love which is miraculous, mysterious and marvelous.
Soory for all of those distracting typos in that last comment. I will try to proof my comments better in the future. I hope!
LOL. I didn't even succeed in that post! Must make myself do better!
I'm not sure I disagree with you that some events happen outside of time and space. An example: sometimes when receiving communion it seems to me that Christ is so present that I am sitting at the banquet table in the Kingdom of God. I know time passes here on earth. Usually the elders are waiting at the back of the sanctuary for me to get my act together and stand up so that they can walk back down the aisle. But it doesn't feel like time is passing for me.
I do think, however that different religious traditions, call them wisdom traditions is you want, can all be right when they disagree. Either Jesus was crucified as Christians and Jews claim or he wasn't as Muslims claim. Either Jesus rose from the dead as Christians claim or he didn't as Jews claim. Either there is resurrection as Christians claim or there is reincarnation as Hindus claim.
I don't think that these disagreements need to cause violence or lack of love. We Christians really sinned when we tried to convert people by force or killed them when they refused to convert (or in some cases they did convert but the Church didn't trust them and killed them anyway!). But neither does love mean people have to agree.
A non religious example: my wife hates fish and Brussel sprouts. I love them. We don't have to agree. I love my wife whether she eats fish or not.
I suspect that when it comes to religious disagreement I am an either or kind of guy and you are a both/and kind of guy.
Dear Bob,
I can't emphasize enough that I believe that our actions speak far more than our words. I like the statement attributed to St. Francis:
"Preach the truth. If necessary use words."
When I see compassion, peace and justice in a person, in a community, I see God at work and it really doesn't matter whether they believe in the Trinity or not.
If the Trinity and Resurrection and other Christian doctrines lead to compassion, peace and justice, then the doctrines become important. People are moved by Stories and Rituals. We need to makes sure that our stories and rituals are moving people to become more compassionate, peaceful and just. As you point out, our Christian stories and rituals have all too often failed miserably. Sadly, they can move people to a lot of hate and fear and suspicion.
So, we must work on our Story and on our Rituals. We must make them work for compassion, peace and justice. By our fruits, they will know us. And our fruits, as you point out, have been rotten all too often.
I believe deeply in Mutual Conversion. If I meet a devout Muslim, I want to learn as much as possible about their Story and their Rituals. I want to join with them as much as possible. But if I don't see compassion, peace and justice as the means and the goal, I will not be converted. Nor will a Muslim be converted if compassion, peace and justice is not the means and the goal of Christianity.
Gandhi said: I am a Hindu. I am a Jew. I am Christian, I am a Buddhist. I am a Muslim.
He never stopped being a devout Hindu but he could see the beauty and truth of other wisdom traditions, their Stories, their Rituals. He could embrace them and even practice some of them.
Viva variety.
Namaste.
love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the tides and gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, humankind will have discovered fire." -- Teilhard de Chardin
Post a Comment