What Do You Believe In That Makes You Christian
I received an encouraging word today about the ongoing postings. The person reminded me that even in the OT most prophets were not welcomed either because the truth that they brought clashed with what the people wanted to hear. Sage words indeed. Perhaps I have been mis-focused. I have been concerned about sounding polite (no laughs) and how the word I bring would be received instead of being concerned about who has given me the word to bring. I will try to not make that same mistake in this thread.
I am starting the new thread for two reasons. One, the other thread was getting far too cluttered and the different directions it went were dizzying, and distracting from the issues at hand. But the true issue I brought up was perhaps too advanced a discussion. I think we need to be even more basic to understand why so many seem content to rewrite Christ. I think it is important to really define what a Christian is before you can claim to be a progressive one. I saw in one of the last posts that several denominations were thrown in my face. I would agree that Catholics etal, are indeed Christian, in as much that they agree fundamentally with the following:
1) Jesus Christ is part of the triune God
2) As the Son, He came to earth to die for our sins.
3) He was crucified and rose on the third day.
4) Only through Christ can one come back to the Father
5) Without this coverage, you go to hell.
Now, Catholicism has idolatry issues and some of the other denominations mentioned are dangerously close to allowing homosexuality (and some have). While I think those can be separate discussions, I want to try and focus on the five points above, which is what it means to be a “Christian.” I am getting the sense that not everyone here believes these 5 points. THAT would be a major problem in calling yourself Christian. If being a Christian simply means you believe Christ existed, that falls far too short. If you rob Him of His deity and turn Him into a philosopher, that falls far too short. If you take portions of His teachings and ignore others through any means, that falls far too short.
I asked Peltz in the other thread if he believed in heaven and hell and his answer was essentially, no. He said they were “parables.” That is beyond frightening but it reveals why so many here might be so flippant about the Word of God. Without heaven and hell, there is no consequence for sin. Well, heck if there is no consequence for sin, then sure, why not allow homosexuality? Heck, allow anything, what difference does it make? But where do you draw the line? Where do you decide what behavior is acceptable and which is not? More importantly, who decides what is acceptable behavior and what is not? I will answer that for you. Once you remove heaven and hell, man decides. Once man decides my friends, you are humanistic by definition and I am sorry but you have left the teachings of Christ completely.
Was Christ concerned about the outcast? Absolutely, but he was concerned about everyone. His concern for the outcast however was not designed to placate them and make them feel accepted. His concern as it was for all, was to bring sinners to repentance:
Luke 5:32 “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Even when He was healing, He would end with, “your sins have been forgiven.” It seems some here would prefer to turn Christ into a social worker, as opposed to what He was, God in the flesh.
So I take my chance. If you say this is “intolerant”, so be it. If you say it is devoid of compassion, so be it. What it is however is the truth according not to what I say, but what God says in the Bible. If you dismiss the Bible, fine, dismiss it outright. Do not take a snippet here that suits your agenda and ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable.
Galatians 1:6-12
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Let me guess, that is not in historical context right? What does the OT say:
Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Can we work together for what is good and right in society? Absolutely. I just think that we need to really examine ourselves and what we believe, and why we believe it. God will not be mocked. He is real and His word is real. It is not a collection of historical data and poetry. There is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun.
Romans 9:1
I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit—
Be well.
That is a simple and an extremely complicated question. Firstly, I believe the statements held in the Nicene Creed., Specificaly, that God is One, in three presons, a Blessed Trinity, Father, SOn and Holy Spirit. And that Jesus left some men to carry on His work of salvation and that body of men still carries out that work, the are the Bishops of the Church, led by the Successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff.
As a convert to Catholicism I have extensively studdied the Catholic Encyclopedia, Catechism, works of the early fathers and the bible. I find no discrepancy between the bible and the early church teaching and the modern day teaching. The faith can not change. Christ is One, the Faith is one.
Hello Anthony,
Thanks for your contribution to the energy of this forum. You raise a wonderful subject for discussion. "What do you believe in that makes you a Christian?" This is a question we should all ponder from time to time. For me, I believe in Jesus. I have bet the whole roll on Him. Either He carries me or I don't fly.
My conversion came from a powerful encounter with the resurrected Christ in 1973. I was born again as He confronted me with my options of accepting Him or going my own way. I was already in "hell", so up was the only way for me to go. He didn't lay out a five point plan for me to accede to, yet I certainly hold to the five you raise. He simply offered me Himself and I accepted. Now, I don't expect you or anybody else here to have had the exact same conversion experience as me or to hold the same theological positions as me. That's what I love about the Crossleft site...embracing diversity within the Body and respecting the faith of others. We as humans only see what we can see and can only believe what we can believe. I personally respect that and am learning to celebrate our diversity.
The Bible declares "Great is the mystery of Godliness." Scripture reveals much and leaves even more unspoken. None of us can speak with absolute authority or certainty about much concerning God. We can say what we believe the scriptures mean and how they apply to our lives, yet we will not know for sure in this life. That's why faith is so important. However, I believe the Bible is authoritative and I use it as a "lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." This type of illumination offers just enough light to see where I am going. We live in a dark world filled with pit falls, serpents and danger and the light of God's word exposes these obstacles and protects us from stepping into life threatening traps. Embracing Biblical truth challenges us all to a higher way of living and I believe it is wisdom to drink in as much scripture as the wineskin of our souls will allow.
The same Bible that speaks against certain hot button moral issues exhorts us unequivocally unto unity within the faith, to be forbearing with one another and to accept those of weaker faith. Compromises must be made by all who call themselves Christian so greater things can be collectively accomplished as we co-labor for the Kingdom of Heaven on the Earth.
I recall Jesus saying, "No man comes unto me unless the Father draws him." Each of us should maintain fidelity to what we hold to be true. Can't we do this while respectfully allowing the wonder of God's amazing grace to fill in those places of lack we all suffer from as He draws us unto Himself?
Anthony, you are probably one of the most talented writers posting on this site. Your OpedNews piece on Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy was a powerful and succinct indictment of religious hypocrisy. I have read your postings here and don't personally disagree theologically with much of what you uphold. Let's look for common ground with our fellow progressives and join our talents and giftings to further justice in those areas we all agree on and that you selflessly labor for.
I so appreciate the response from Gary and for dear Anthony enduring with us all on X-Left.
Being an OPED correspondent as Anthony is, I know how difficult it is to get one's point across and how frequent attacks are, but rare are the words of compassion and encouragement.
I so appreciate Anthony's patience and endurance and bold witness to speak about HIS personal and intimate relationship with Jesus!
What more can be asked of any of us that to speak THE WORD in LOVE and Anthony does this and he gives me HOPE!
+
"HOPE has two children.
"The first is ANGER at the way things are.
"The second is COURAGE to DO SOMETHING about it."-St. Augustine
all good!
e
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"
I am trying to stick to the word of God.
For your well-articulated, non-threatening post. I have said continuously through the attacks that i believe we have common ground and could work toward common goals.
I still would have major problems with any organization that lists 8 things to guide us as Christians, and none of them adhere to the teachings of Christ. How do you compensate for that?
Again, I appreciate your post, it is most welcome among the fray.
AW
Anthony,
First, the eight points offered are statements of belief for the tcpc site and not Crossleft. I am not aware of any statements of belief for Crossleft that are binding or definitive for delineating a Progressive Christian nor is there any litmus test for participation in this organization. However, civility and respect for one another are basic to any public forum and should be adhered to by all participants.
Perhaps some of the eight points lifted from the tcpc site are more biblical than they appear at first blush.
Point one: "Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus".
This idea is supported in scripture when Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me."
Point two: "Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us".
This idea is problematic for those of us who believe the complete statement Jesus makes in support of point one. The tcpc idea is reflective of noble tolerance expected from people living in a pluralistic society. Jesus is adamant about His identity and vital link to the Father. So, point two is not readily supported by scripture. However, He did say something mysterious about having "sheep that you know not of."
Point three: "Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God's feast for all peoples".
This is a rather ambiguous thought. Jesus plainly states the sacraments to be representations of His body and blood of the New Covenant. It is inclusive and exclusive at the same time. It is inclusive in that all people are invited to come to His table and exclusive in that this invitation is on His terms.
Point four: "Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable..."
Here is another ambiguous statement. I personally place the emphasis of this thought on the word "all". All are welcome to come to Christ. All who are seeking spiritual fulfillment should be welcome to come into our churches. All who are thirsty for a drink of living water should be welcome. All who are burdened with sorrow and struggles are told by Jesus to come to Him. These are ideas that you and I recognize as biblical. The scriptures teach us to become like Christ rather than measure ourselves against one another. This is where grace is much needed because as you know, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Point five: "Know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe".
I recall a scripture in James that says "be doers of the word and not hearers only". Then of course there is the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Point six: "Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes".
This is a nice esoteric thought, but I don't know where it is reflected in scripture.
Point seven: "Form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping one another for the work we feel called to do: striving for peace and justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers".
Being dedicated to equipping one another is plainly taught in Ephesians 4: 11-12. Striving for peace and justice is a common thread running from the Old to the New Testament. Matthew 25 plainly teaches about caring for "the least of these."
Point eight: "Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege".
These ideas are also biblically founded. "Take up your cross and follow me", "no greater love... than to lay down your life for the brethren", "resist the devil and he will flee." Isn't humility demonstrated through "renunciation of privilege"?
Anthony, I admire your zeal for fidelity to the scriptures as you understand them. Is it your hope to bring the readers and writers of Crossleft into conformity to your ideas of what the Christian life looks like? If so, you probably can already see that the content of your devotional has been roundly accepted and applauded. However, your attempt at drawing a line in the sand as to what constitutes being a Christian has only stirred controversy and galvanizes resistance to your input.
Personally, I welcome you to the table of discussion and value you as a brother with much to contribute. Taking a more creative and constructive approach will serve the Master more effectively in this forum. Let's find common ground with our brethren here and collectively tackle some of the weighty issues confronting our lives. Your deep and abiding walk with Jesus is much needed here.
Well, the last few posts I wrote in a lot of anger. The thread of these posts and tone are very similar to the conflicts I had, and I guess the wounds are still fresh.
Anthony, if you were hurt by people mocking your beliefs in Creation and such, then what happened was wrong. I accused you of some things in my last post that I can't really know since I don't have a window to your soul and I was wrong. By the same token, though, it's wrong for you to judge who is or is not a Christian. That's something between that person and God, and you do not have a window to anyone's soul other than your own.
If you think I'm not a Christian, maybe you're right. I guess I'm just someone who lost God, and is attending church to try to find Him again.
Instead of trying to stuff our throats down with Bible verses or a theological argument, why don't you tell us how God and Jesus affected your life? I think that was the point I was trying to make in quoting Richard Mouw. Instead of talking in the abstract, tell us in personal terms what Jesus has meant to you. I'm more willing to listen to you then and I think the others are willing to listen to you too. If you think homosexuality is a sin, but you love gays, then tell us in personal terms how you do that. When I hear you talk in abstract terms, it's sort of the bookworm's dilemma: it sounds good on paper, but how does it play in real life? Biblical injunctions like loving our enemy and turning the other cheek are great things that I cherish, but it's awful hard to play out in real life.
When you attack our Christianity, you put us on the defensive, and we're not going to be listening to anything that you'll be saying. I'll tell you of my experiences with God.
I first felt close to God when I was 14 and taking confirmation classes at Our Lady Of Peace Church. I read about Jesus and the Saints, read about Vatican II and prayed regularly. It was a wonderful feeling. That feeling of closeness lasted for several years, until it eventually faded. The second time I felt close to God was the first few years of attending that Protestant Church. They talked about having a close personal relationship with Jesus, and I really felt reinvigorated. But then things changed and I got into conflicts and lost it. Maybe that was a sign that I was weak in faith. I don't know.
So there. Instead of accusing people of things, just let us know what God has meant in your life. Show us a reason why we should listen to you by how God has affected your life. This will be a lot more effective than trying to browbeat us into believing the way you do.
Your posts have been fine. if i cannot take the brunt of disagreement, then how can i suffer for Christ?
You bring up an interesting perspective though. If you go back and read all of my posts, no where do i call anyone out and say "YOU are not a Christian." That is not my place. My place is to say "thus sayeth the Lord." If i do that and you feel convicted by the word of God, then Hallelujah.
If you will allow me a moment though to address a concern i have personally about what you said about losing God and attending church to try and find Him again. A close reading of scripture reveals that YOU are the church. YOU are the temple of the Holy Spirit. If you have invited Christ into your heart, you do not have to look far for Him Angelo, He never leaves. Just turn back to Him. God lives in every believer that has asked Him into their heart and obeys His teachings. We can drift, but He never does. I am going to start another thread and post my last devotional for you Angelo. It spoke directly to these matters about how we live with the power of God on a daily basis. Church is important to be around people of like faith but God is in YOU Angelo.
Be blessed.
Well thank you for the kind thoughts. I don't really feel convicted though, because I've always been rather open about my struggles with God, but thanks for the thought. I guess I consider myself Christian because of something my pastor told me when I first started attending her church: feeling close or far to God doesn't affect the fact that I am still a child of God, sort of like how it doesn't matter if I feel close or far from my Dad, he's still my Dad. The way I see it, I'm not a Christian because of how I feel right now about God, but because of how God feels about me.
Thanks for the devotional. During these next few posts, why don't you be more conciliatory with these other people who may have been hurt by some of the things that you've written in your posts? The vehemence in their anger is just a sign of how hurt they were, just as I was hurt by some of the things you wrote. If you're purpose is to try to convict people, I think it's wrong. These people have their own very personal relationships with God and Jesus and they have their own experiences that no one has a right to question.
Instead, tell us about how God has been in your life. If you believe in an inerrant reading of the Bible, tell us about the good things that it has given to your life and the struggles you've had to comply with some of the more difficult passages. Telling me that I should believe in an inerrant reading of the Bible really means nothing to me: show me by your life that this is a better way. But also respect those people whose faith journeys are different than yours. Catholics, Lutherans, Quakers, Presbyterians, all go to God in different ways, but they are all legitimate ways. I deeply respect the Catholic prayers that I see my parents do, the rosary, and the meditations. I once went to a Quaker service and all you do is sit for an hour and I guess meditate to the Holy Spirit. I know members of all of those denominations who are deeply faithful to God and Jesus. And in reading these posts, all of these Crossleft people are as devoted as you are to Jesus. Please don't question their devotion. Just let us know of your experiences. I think the people I listen to the most are the people who are authentic and allow themselves to be vulnerable. Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be hiding behind the Bible. The bible has Moses' experience with God, St. Paul's experiences with God. They are great experiences that we can learn from, but they are no replacement to our own experiences. the other crossleft people have been vulnerable in their posts and shared about their lives and their experiences and struggles with God. That's a better witness than trying to convince everyone to read the Bible in a certain way or to convince someone a dogma is true.
It seems that some want me to change what God's word is and i will not do that. I have apologized over and over again, if people are offended, as that has not been my intent. In response, I have been attacked, my words have been purposefully misconstrued and in some cases, simply made up. Two other people see it obviously and posted in support.
I know you didnt mean it, but I never said my purpose is to convict people. I cannot convict anyone, that is the work of the Holy Spirit, which is what I said. All I am trying to do is remind people what God has said because I think it is important to not leave Christ behind in our pursuit of progressiveness.
Once again, things are not being represented correctly. You say inerrant bible reading means nothing to you, lead by your life. Well, go to opednews and see what I have said for the past several years. I am out there. I know Eileen is out there. On faith, you can be deeply "faithful" and be deeply wrong. You say I am hiding behind the bible. I say thank you. I will be under the protection of almighty God as long as i stay true to His word.
Conciliation is good. It requires talking things through, clearing up misunderstandings. One problem I have with this process so far is language which strikes an accusatory note.
By that I mean the attribution of mean-spirited motives to others.
For example, Anthony, you wrote in the note I'm replying to: "I have been attacked, my words have been purposefully misconstrued and in some cases, simply made up."
"Misconstrued" I can understand. But not "purposefully" misconstrued. That's only your hypothesis. If I've misconstrued any statements of yours, it certainly wasn't on purpose. Neither am I aware of having made up any words for you. Examples would help so that we can work through the process and clear up misconstruals and misreadings. I have some examples of my own where I think you have misconstrued my words but didn't have time to discuss them since the posts proliferated so quickly.
I can understand your feeling of being attacked. But that's a two-way street. You're not the only one. You've set forth your views on many points and stimulated many responses in opposition to those views or seeking clarification of those views. In the same way that you feel you're not personally making an attack, that it's God's word that is doing the work, those who disagree with you aren't necessarily setting out to attack you. There are serious things at issue which call for responses from others' faith perspectives.
One of the most constructive things I see coming out of all these many postings is the light that it throws on one of the main topics we'll soon be debating under one heading or another -- the definition, basis of unity, range, and agenda of "Progressive Christians". It's brought some of the problematic areas into focus.
Shalom,
Bill
I don't want to screw up this reconcilitaion, so I apologize for what I wrote. I think you're taking what I'm saying the wrong way. When I say that you're hiding behind the Bible, I only meant that you should talk about your experiences. It wasn't meant as a slam of the Bible and I didn't mean that you should stop your belief of the Bible. But if you talk about your experiences, rather than just take quotes from the Bible, it makes the points that you're trying to make more real. I'm not sure how else I could write this to make you understand. Maybe if I give an example.
In your most recent posts, you talk about hating sin but loving the homosexual. O.k. That's nice. But I've heard a lot of people say that, but in actuality really hate gays. If you give an example from your own life how you do this, it would put meat to the words you're trying to convey. I haven't read your Oped news, so maybe it's there. I'll have to check. Am I being clear, because I think I'm unintentionally offending you by a suggestion that I was actually hoping would help you convey your message in a more friendly and less confrontational way.
When I wrote that an inerrant reading of the Bible means nothing to me, show me by your life, I didn't mean that to be taken the way you're taking it. Maybe I'm just a bad writer. What I was trying to convey is that if you believe an inerrant reading of the Bible is the right way, giving an example from your life that would show how an inerrant reading would do that would be a more appealing way to make your point. I only know you from what I've read from these posts. I haven't read the opednews.
I'm trying to be conciliatory and ask for forgiveness for any thing I might have wrote without backing down from my convictions. That sounds like what you're trying to do too. I'm not asking you to change your mind about what you believe. Maybe it was wrong for me to ask you to be more conciliatory to others in the post, when you write that you have been trying to be conciliatory without having to give up your principals. That's your business with them, and not mine.
I think the problem is in these posts. We write stuff, and it doesn't really convey our tone the way a phonecall or a person to person talk would. Our tone of voice, our facial expressions can make something that may seem hostile on paper, be conciliatory in person. What I'm trying to convey is coming out wrong in your eyes, maybe because you've been spending the past few days defending yourself, and you're a bit more sensitive. I know when I read some of your posts, I was looking at it through the filter of my past conflicts, and I got angry over things that you probably were not intending when you wrote them.
When I wrote my last post, I really didn't mean to offend you. I was touched that you'd include me in your devotionals, and I hope you still do. I don't want to make an enemy out of someone who would be a friend. If you still see something offensive in what I write, I'll make one more attempt to make myself clear. I do think we have our differences of opinion, but I would be glad to hear your suggestions on helping me get closer to God.
No forgiveness necessary. I apologize as well.
I finally took the time to read some of your Opednews articles. They're very good and they range over a wide range of subjects. I didn't realize there was a debate about the connection between mercury in vaccines and autism. I also enjoyed the Ghosts Inside the Machine article. It touches on similar ideas to a book I bought for my brother-in-law. It's called "8 Ways To Run The Country" and it says that there is more to Americans than the traditional Liberal/Conservative political divide. It identifies four main traditions in American political thought, which I will paraphrase from the book cover:
1) Republican constitutionalism, which stresses traditional values and decentralized power
2) Libertarian Individualism, stressing personal liberty and property rights
3) Progressive Democracy, stressing popular sovereignty and social renovation
4) Plutocratic Nationalism, defending dominant commercial interests and national power.
From these 4 traditions are derived 8 contemporary ideological perspectives: communitarians, progressives, radicals, individualists, and 4 types of Conservatives, the paleolibertarian, the paleoconservative, the theoconservative, and the neoconservative. It dovetails nicely into the points you're making about American opinions are more nuanced than just the Democrat/Republican mold:
"It says that you are red or blue; conservative or liberal, republican or democrat. It forces you to choose only one side though. It derides the other side; it mocks it. It lays all the blame for the ills of society at the feet of the “other side.” It gives you someone to blame for your lot in life. It tells the average “republican” that it’s those damn liberals and their anti-family ways that are destroying the American culture. It tells the average democrat that it is those damn republicans and their intolerant views of differences that is causing the erosion of all that was once good in America. In order for you to believe that tolerance is a good thing, you must embrace the entire package of a layered federal government that intercedes in all areas of your life. In order to believe that life begins at conception you have to embrace the party of war and poverty. They have sold you a lie and we buy it every day. Somehow in this country we have been convinced that while we can have 31 flavors of ice cream we can only get two coherent lines of political thought."
Your articles remind me of the articles Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin used to write for the Catholic Worker. I can tell by your work as a counselor and as an Opednew writer that you are passionate about social justice causes. You don't fit the liberal or conservative mold, you seem more like a contrarian in the mold of John Adams.
I do not allow myself to be pigeonholed. I believe in the truth, period. I understand that most have turned the truth into shades of grey, but i believe there is black and white.
By the way, Ghosts in the Machine is one of my favorites.
Well Anthony, you're back to answering 5 or 6 different people, which I hope doesn't get frustrating for your again. But I think everyone is making valid points and I think your post is intentionally provacative and meant to incite dialogue. The problem is I think with all these viewpoints vying to make their individual points, it means that their points get lost in this mass of varying viewpoints, and it's actually an advantage to you. You could pick and choose those points that you want to answer and you could control the terms of the debate. I started noticing that in the last series of postings in your previous post on "Progressive Christianity".
To answer your question, I used to wholeheartedly agree with all 5 points you use to define Christians, but I'm not sure if I believe in them anymore. This doesn't mean that I won't eventually believe in them again. But I've gone in too many bad conflicts with other Christians, had too many experiences that contradict what is orthodox, so I'm really much more sceptical now of things that were once religious certitudes. A few years ago, I felt like I was in a cult, the way the group was trying to think for me, and tell me who to date, and what to read and what experiences are valid and not valid, and I guess your posts really scare me with your attempts to define who I am. Since I left that situation a few years ago, I married the woman I wanted to marry and not the woman they were trying to force onto me and I'm a lot happier in my private life. I'm reading the books I want to read, without worrying whether they contradict Christian doctrine or not, and I really enjoy the new ideas that I'm discovering. I've joined art clubs and meeting different artists and looking at provacattive art that forces me to look at life in new ways. And even in basketball, the Celtics are winning again, and they're playing the unselfish kind of basketball that the Russell Celtics and the Cowens Celtics and the Bird Celtics used to play. The one thing that has made me unhappy are those Christians who are mad at me and have been harassing me to go back. I don't want my life to be that controlled or manipulated again.
At first I was sympathetic to your position and tried hard to understand what you were trying to convey, but as the week went on, you are increasingly reminding of something that I'm trying to leave behind. I enjoy honest dialogue, but I don't like being manipulated and your posts seem increasingly manipulative to me. Early last week I wrote two posts asking you if you felt that an inerrant reading of the Bible is your basis in putting Christ in the center of Progressive Christianity and whether you were defining Christians in a certain way, and you chose instead to answer some more provacative points. Now we're debating the point that I raised a week ago, and all these postings on homosexuality and abortion seem more like a waste of everyone's time to me. I wrote in my previous post about Richard Mouw because here was a person who holds the same position that you have that homosexuality is a sin but that we should still love homosexual, but he tried to apply it to experience and not just talk about it in the abstract. I was actually trying to help you by showing you someone who was making the point that you were making in a way that was more empathetic and real. You wrote that all of us have agendas, but it seems like you came into this with an agenda of your own.
I really do not agree with what you said about diversity. If you want diversity only with the people you agree with, how is that really diversity? Why do you feign surprise that there are people in these posts that have different views of being a Christian than you do? I've been reading the Crossleft posts for about a month now, and it's been pretty obvious to me from the beginning that these people have different views. I think everyone has been pretty honest and transparent about who they are and what they believe, and I've respected all their opinions, even those I disagree with. Donny is an example. I disagree with a lot of what he said, but at least he's straightforward about it and he backs up what he believes by the experiences he's had.
I'm sure you have good intentions for us, I'm sure you're trying to save us from hell and you want to be sure we are touched by Jesus love. I think we all want to be closer to God. I know I do. I make no pretense to being perfect or to know everything. I've made enemies in my life and I haven't loved them the way Jesus said we should, I've hurt people I didn't mean to hurt. I think everyone is in a similar boat. Your goal of making people get closer to God is admirable. But this is not the way to do it.
Anthony,
I understand where you are coming from on a doctrinal level. I have read things on this site written by people here that raise my theological eyebrows and make me think "how is it that you identify yourself as a believer in Christ?"
But I am not here to settle on points of doctrinal truth in order to found a church of believers with whom I intend to endorse and promote what I understand to be the truth of God's word. Instead, I am here to find political common ground with people who identify themselves as Christians (in whatever form that takes) to try to work together toward these goals:
1. Identify issues that we are mutually compelled to address due to our religious beliefs.
2. To discuss ways to communicate those beliefs as they relate to Christianity to other individuals who identify themselves as Christians.
3. To work together to strengthen our voice and counter that which has to this point been (in perception if not truth) the predominant Christian political voice.
In the end, if you cannot in good conscience ally yourself with people who call themselves Christian but do not fit into your definition of Christian, then this may not be a community in which you will be comfortable. Do you think that you will be able to persuade everyone here that the evangelical interpretation of scripture and set of doctrinal beliefs is the one and only way to approach Christianity? By drawing lines in the sand, you're only going to cause division and resentment. Find commonality. You can look for points of dissimilarity and explore them, but a better approach is to prompt questions instead of laying out religious ultimatums is a more constructive approach. Again, I don't think that is the goal of this group and should not consume the majority of our energies here.
david
Thank you David for this healing post. It may be Anthony that what you have in common with many of the people on this site is a desire to end poverty, work for peace, etc. If that is the common ground we share, so be it. Lets work together on those issues.
I suspect the end result of many debates and features on this site is going to be that people of faith are going to have to unite on issues they can agree on, such as ending poverty and working for peace and other controversial issues, such as reproductive rights and Gay marriage are going to be the province of the more Progressive elements of the faith community. There are some dedicated Pax Christi people for instance, that are very pro-peace and very much commited to justice and environmental issues. some of them though, just aren't going to go with reproductive rights, so be it. I respect that. I have my reasons for supporting reproductive rights for women and may try to convince you of the validity of my position if you challenge me, but ultimately I will respect your opinion and hope you respect mine.
This is from the Center for Progressive Christianity, which I just discovered today on the internet. I've not noticed any discussions here about the CPC, so I'll just start it off with an excerpt from their brief self-description and their 8 Points.
My question: what do you think of this, CrossLeft readers? How similar or different is it to your sense of what progressive Christiianity is or should be? What would you add or take away from it? Or would you just scrap it?
They ask:
http://www.tcpc.org/about/index.cfm
Do you find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions rather than in the answers?
Do you have religious interests and longings but cannot accept the beliefs and dogmas you associate with Christianity?
Are you repelled by claims that Christianity is the "only way"?
Their 8 points: (this is one version -- there are other adaptations of it)
http://www.tcpc.org/about/8points.cfm
By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we are Christians who...
-Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.
-Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.
-Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God's feast for all peoples
-Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to):
believers and agnostics,
conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
women and men,
those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
those of all races and cultures,
those of all classes and abilities,
those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope
-Know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe.
-Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes.
-Form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping one another for the work we feel called to do: striving for peace and justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers.
-Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege.
"The wolf will live with the lamb...and a little child will lead them."
It is NOT what we think in our heads, but what flows from our hearts and what we did or did not do unto the least that we will be judged on.
As wpeltz wrote:
"Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil"
I must add; it also demands we come to understand we are all on a spiritual journey and in very different places, as long as we MOVE forward and not become entrenched in our comfort zone and allow God to transform our hearts and minds, we are doing good.
BUT, let us please do what is required and Jesus was VERY CLEAR that what we did or did not do unto the least; we did or did not do it unto God.
I hope and pray you all will have eyes to see, ears to hear and hearts that bleed for the most least and connect the dots that just not the love of money, but empire, violence and military occupation is at the root of all evil and that we progressive Christians will rise up and like Isaiah, which I now paraphrase 61:1
The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord be upon US, because the Lord has anointed US to preach GOOD NEWS to the poor.
He has sent US to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim FREEDOM for the Captives and RELEASE from darkness for the Prisoners...
And Little Children shall lead and have mercy on US to hear the pleas of:
Children Prisoners of the 'Holy' Land
“It would be better to drown these prisoners, in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world.”-Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman
Since the beginning of the second Intifada in September 2000, over 4,000 Palestinian children have been arrested. [1]
A few of them can be viewed in a short excerpt from British ITV's expose of Palestinian children prisoners:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMb1Ye3qpWE
"According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted on 20 November 1989 and entered into force on 2 September 1990 (to which Israel is a signatory), and to relevant Israeli law, a child is defined as every human being under the age of 18 years." [2]
Palestinian children in prison are mistreated as badly as adults under Israeli military regulations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Palestinian children over twelve "may be charged and sentenced in military courts. Between the ages of 12-14, children can be sentenced for up to 6 months for minor offences, including throwing a stone. After the age of 14, Palestinian children are tried as adults, in violation of international law. There are no juvenile courts for Palestinian children. They also frequently serve their sentences in cells with adult prisoners, which is in violation of international law." [3]
"Palestinian children arrested from Israeli military checkpoints are often made to wait for hours at the checkpoint, with their hands cuffed, before they are transferred to detention and interrogation centers. More often than not, Palestinian child detainees are subject to beatings, curses and threats during the transfer. In most cases, their families are not informed of their arrest, with child prisoners additionally being transferred from one prison to another without informing the family. As a result, it often takes some time before a child detainee is located and the family informed of his/her location." [4]
Arrests are frequently made in raids in 'Holy' Land refugee camps in the middle of the night.
"Soldiers usually do not have a warrant for arrest or searches. The entire house is searched, often ransacked and personal property destroyed, occupants humiliated and harassed…Palestinian child prisoners are held in inhumane conditions of detention, made to live in overcrowded and filthy cells. Often, children are placed in small solitary confinement cells, measuring 1.5 square meters that are extremely humid and have no windows for natural light, or with bright artificial light that is continuously kept on. This forces prisoners to remain awake at all times, depriving the prisoner of sleep for days in some cases. Prisoners do not receive sufficient food to meet the daily nutrition requirements for children, are prevented from going to the toilet at their will, and are not allowed a change of clothing." [5]
These children are subjected to physical and psychological torture and interrogated without family or lawyers. The majority of confessions and sentences are related to throwing stones, such as at Caterpillar bulldozers that demolish Palestinian homes without compensation, in order to grab land for The Wall, that is NOT being built on the internationally recognized 1949 Green Line boundary between Israel and the West Bank, but on Palestinian owned land, and thus illegal under international law. [6]
"For the current generation, imprisonment is as common and conventional as attending university. This is not due to an extraordinary level of concentrated crime, but a result of Israel's strategic political and social methods of control. When put into context, the emphatic incarceration of Palestinian children reflects Israel's wider aims of controlling and weakening the OPT. Through a combination of military discourse and flexible definitions, Israel repeatedly flaunts international law, and uses the legal system as a veneer to legitimize its military practices, and in this way indirectly legitimize the occupation." [7]
On January 5, 2006 this reporter traveled to the Ramallah Headquarters of ADAMEER [Arabic for conscience] and learned from spokesperson, Ala Jaradat, "Since 1967, 650,000 to 700,000 Palestinians have been arrested and detained. That totals 20% of the total population and 80% of all adult Palestinian males have been arrested.
“Most of these arrests occur after midnight when large numbers of IDF storm into neighborhoods or refugee camps, horrifying everyone and arresting anyone 14 years or older. These arrests and detentions are based on military orders; we live under a kind of Marshall Law which rules every aspect of Palestinian life: where we live, our license plates that restrict our movement and limited voting rights. Under these military orders the Israeli government is free to hold anyone eight days without accusations or charges. They can hold anyone up to 180 days for interrogation and up to 60 days without benefit of a lawyer.
”The Israeli government never agreed to the Second Geneva Convention, the Knesset never ratified it, and when it comes to the Occupied Territories they totally ignore it. Israel is the only State that approved torture of detainees. I know there are dictators who use torture, but Israel is the only State that supported torture until 1999. That is when International, Israeli and Palestinian pressure groups forced the issue and Barack was confronted about it when he visited the United States.
“Any Palestinian under the age of 16 is tried as an adult, but for an Israeli Jew it is 18 years of age. Under 12 years old the child can be arrested but not detained. Over 12 they can be arrested, detained, interrogated, prosecuted and sentenced for throwing stones.
“Most of the Israeli Jews that are imprisoned are in for violent crimes against society and they are mixed in with the Palestinian population. The guards encourage them to do what ever they want to do against the Palestinian population. This is an open invitation by the Israeli government to incite violence and terror in the prison system. We have sworn affidavits from Palestinians claiming it was the guards who encouraged the violence inflicted upon them.
“In August 2004 the Palestinians went on a hunger strike to raise awareness of this problem and the Minister of Health who is responsible for them stated publicly: ‘Our hospitals are off limits to them; they can all starve themselves to death.’
“No human rights organizations are allowed access to the prisoners. Only lawyers and the Red Cross can visit them but have no access to the facilities where they are detained.
“The methods and photos from Abu Grahib and Guantanamo were no shock to any Palestinian who had been in prison between 1967 and the ‘80’s. All the methods used in Abu Grahib were normal procedures against Palestinians. In 1999 Internationals, Palestinians and Israelis for human rights threatened a boycott against Israel and that is what forced the Supreme Court to address the torture issue. They did not ban torture and the General Prosecutor can choose not to prosecute those who still use it."
1.http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article9
2. http://www.addameer.org/detention/children.html
3. http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article9
4. http://www.addameer.org/detention/children.html
5. http://www.addameer.org/detention/children.html
6. http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com
_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=93
7.http://www.alternativenews.org/aic-publications
/other-publications/the-politics-of-prisoners-20050922.html
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"
Not too humanistic eh? There is nothing Christian there other than the brief lip service paid to Christ. If you follow His teachings then you end up not agreeing with the majority of the 8 points. Sorry but this sounds like people who wish to rewrite God in their own image.
So when Jesus said, "none come to the Father except through me" He was what? Kidding???
Anthony,
You came onto this site claiming to be progressive and I'm wondering what about your values is actually progressive and not fundamentalist?
I know many of the people involved in the founding of the Center and I think your judgment of them and your continued judgment of other's faith is exactly what Jesus told us not to do and frankly, there's nothing progressive or Christian about it.
The Center's points bring out the difference between progressive Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity to which you apparently ascribe. As Jim said, the judgment is thankfully left to God and we are here to do our best to follow in the way of Jesus Christ.
Everyone is essentially saying the same thing to you friend and its probably worthy of at least a bit of self-reflection and prayer.
When was the center founded?
I started using the tag Progressive Christian to mean that you can believe in Christ and not bow down to the altar of the religious right. I have written over 200 articles over the past several years denouncing the so called Christian leadership, including the current administration, who uses Christ for his own ends. I have appeared on several radio shows, one in particular to specifically discuss the fruit (or lack thereof) that Mr. Bush displays. That was on Tom Hartmann's show. I have been in DC with Jim Wallis of soujourners and particpated in his prayer march up the steps of the Capital. This is all on the side of what I do, which is work with the disabled, as i have for over 13 years, on the front lines of poverty and helplessness. I have helped thousands of people find employment in this pitiful economy, and before that hundreds of disabled kids get into college.
So do me a favor, drop your ridiculous nonsense about judgment. I know you need that argument to prop yourself up, but it is transparent at this point.
Being progressive is more than allowing sin and ignoring the bible. That is not progressive. Being progressive means putting your life where your mouth is. I can sleep well at night knowing i have.
Anthony.
Everyone here's has called you out for being judgmental. Anytime someone has said something you disagree with you have said either they are not Christian, not Biblical, etc. because you believe differently. You continue to think there is only one interpretation of the Bible...yours.
People keep saying...I respect your opinion, but I have a different opinion and you keep telling them that they are absolutely outside the bounds of what it means to be Christian or follow the Bible. That's judgment brother, judgment that we hear from the Religious Right every single day.
We've all been through the fire and brimstone stuff and it doesn't really work for us anymore.
So my questioning of what's progressive about you is to try to find some common ground? Can we find issues to work on together? Can we disagree with different denominations and different theology without being disrespectful?
Everyone has been willing to grant you your opinion on Christianity, there just not willing to be judged and told their somehow less Christian, or less following Jesus because they don't hold a fundamentalist view. Angelo's point around respecting the diversity of Christian voice and opinions on scriptural and political matters is particularly poignant. That's largely why CrossLeft was established...to balance such viewpoints that are commonly held misconceptions about what you have to believe to be a Christian.
I always thought their 8 points were great. I have visited the site off and on for a couple of years. There discussion forums really went south for a while, perhaps they are picking up again and deserve another look.
Anthony I sure am glad Jesus will be there to judge the living and the dead at the Judgement Day and not you. All that judging others harshly is part of the fun of being a fundamentalist though, isn't it? The Pentecostals are especially fun people many of them believing that everybody that doesn't speak in tongues will burn in hell. The fundamentlist preoccupation with burning in hell demonstrates their fear and hate of God, who they claim to love.
Judging others is not my job. Did you ever work at one of those places, Anthony, where the work place would go so much more smoothly if everybody would just do their job and stop trying to do somebody elses? Its God's job to judge. Its our job to love God, to love our neighbor as ourselves, to be kind , to be feed the poor and the widow, etc.
Traditional Christianity and fundamentalism in particular has been way too obsessed with beliefs, creeds, dogma, judging, and their new version of "the law".Freedom in Christ is about doing, it is about knowing, it is about love and kindness, and above all it is about letting God do his job and me doing mine.
What joy you will find Anthony if you can find this path and follow the way Jesus taught. Read your NT again on focus on what Jesus said your job is, in other words read your job description for this life.
1) If you keep robbing Christ of His deity and deciding what is and is not sin, and i do not think you will be too happy on judgment day.
2) Your inference that I have "fun" in this is beyond unseemly and higlights that you have no real argument to the points being made, and that you have now resorted to trying to brand me.
3) Your understanding of tongues is as empty as your understanding of Christ apparently. I have never met anyone who feels tongues is a pre-requisite for heaven. But hey, you don't believe in heaven and hell anyway right?
4) My pre-oocupation is with God and His word, regardless if that word makes me uncomfortable or convicted.
5) Yes the things you list are our jobs, but you keep leaving out the part about obeying God. That is your primary job, and Jesus spoke widely about it.
6) I have read the NT, i read daily, i write devotionals, who is judging whom now sir? You do not know me.
Point One: I confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is divine. No one is trying to rob him of his divinity Notice that scripturally Jesus was not particularly obsessed with sin, other than frequently forgiving it.
Point Two: I am suggesting that you are having fun as you bait all the people who disagree with you theologically. I think you are having a great time pontificating and judging others. I have heard your arguments thousands of times, Big Brother media loves them and as I write this, I have at least three satellite channels on Dish espousing them, and if I turned on the radio I could find at least five radio stations broadcasting them. Rigid narrowly focused judgmental Christianity is old news.
Point Three: You said: 3)" Your understanding of tongues is as empty as your understanding of Christ apparently. I have never met anyone who feels tongues are a pre-requisite for heaven. But hey, you don't believe in heaven and hell anyway right?" Now this comment really is ignorant, non-productive, and insulting.Talk about not knowing someone, when did you become all knowing? I attended the Catholic Church for years in the past and belonged to a Catholic Charismatic group for years. I had the experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Charismatic as a generality do not believe speaking in tongues is a pre-requisite to salvation. I visited many many Pentecostal Churches just to see what they were up to and how they handled healing. I was told over and over and over again by both lay people and ministers, that being baptized in the Holy Spirit was a prerequisite to salvation and speaking in tongues was evidence of that baptism. I could search the net and get you dozens of quotes and links but I doubt you would be convinced. I think tongues are a valid spiritual phenomenon but no longer practice it. I do believe in Heaven and hope to go there someday. I think Hell is separation from God, so in that many people are already in hell. Jesus told his disciples to forgive seventy times seven, and he is going to be the Judge, so no I don't think anybody is going to burn in some sort of eternal fire ruled by the weird creature we think of as the devil. I don't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny, either, if you want to hold that against me.
Anthony you were a little over the top with this point. I hope you start posting in a more cooperative, loving manner and start focusing on issues we share, such as ending poverty, and then let us debate about how we can solve those problems. I will address the other points later. Peace.
Well, since I'm the one who wrote that post, I just wanted to say that I wasn't trying to throw denominations at your face. I was just reiterating something that I've written in 2 previous posts. On November 3, I wrote :
"I think your post is not only asking how we define what a Progressive Christian is, but it is also implicitly asking what a Christian is. By your definition, a Christian is someone who believes in the inerrant literal view of the Bible. I'm not sure if all Christian denominations, especially all Progressive Christian denominations, have that same view. Most will agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. When I read Crossleft, I love the diversity of opinions from different people of different denominations, and I think there would be a great loss if some of those voices are no longer heard.
My biggest concern is maintaining the diversity of Christian voices in the Progressive Christian debate. We don't need to agree with everything of some other Christian denominations to benefit from their insights on vital progressive issues. Catholic voices, Lutheran voices, Evangelical voices, Baptist voices, Quaker voices, Episcopalian voices, Unitarian voices. We benefit from all those voices."
I have the same concern now that I had then. In proscribing a narrow definition of what being a Christian is, you naturally exclude people.
Before I go on, I want to apologize for the angry tone of my last post. Some of the things that you wrote in your last post seemed very unfair to me. I can understand your anger, however, at having 4 or 5 people criticizing your views without any aid. I think they had a right to comment on what they disagreed with, but the number of people you had to answer to probably made it overwhelming.
My personal history makes me very wary of what you're trying to do. Let me tell you a story. Many years ago I attended my first Protestant church, and at first I enjoyed it. I was surprised though, at some of the arguments they would have: there would be arguments about child baptism as opposed to adult baptism, whether everyone should speak in tongues, whether Catholics are really Christian, can divorced people receive communion... I began receiving pressure on who I should date and what I should or shouldn't read, after a while it became stifling. A place I had once had deep affection for became a place I felt miserable in. And the irony is that the more they tried to pressure me to conform to their ideas of what God's will is, the farther they pushed me away from God.
I stayed away from church for a long time, but eventually I started exploring different churches and I've been attending an Episcopal Church now for about a year. My belief is God is still rather shaky. But I enjoy reading whatever I want to read, exploring whatever roads I wish. I deeply value my independence of thought and this is one of the reasons that I am so adamant about Crossleft maintaining a diversity of different viewpoints.
By your definition of a Christian, I am not a Christian. When you finish making your definition of a Christian, what will happen to those people who do not fit the definition that you proscribe to? Will we be purged from Crossleft and the Progressive Christian movement? I'm not saying this to be mocking of you, but I've seen this happen too many times. The peer pressure to conform. The looking down on those that hold different views. The ostracism of those who refuse to conform.
I admit I am not a great Christian. But I am not going to apologize for what I believe. I try to respect everyone's beliefs, even those I deeply disagree with. You have your right to believe what you believe Anthony. We have a right to disagree with you and still consider ourselves Christians.
I have found very little offensive in your posts. You seem to genuinely try to seek the truth. I just remind you that diversity is great but not at the cost of what you believe. Are you honestly saying that the 5 points i listed you do not believe in? Which ones? Is Christ God in the flesh? Did He come to die for our sins? Did he rise on the third day? Is there a heaven and hell?
It is not my definition Angelo, it is Gods, it is in His word. I am sorry but you may have the right to call yourself Christian and then ignore His teachings, but that doesn't make you Christian.
Of these, I am the least.
Your post about your first Protestant church experience reminded me of my one Southern Baptist experience in Mississippi. I had taken a trip there in 1958 to propose marriage to my wife, who had gone back home for a long visit. She was singing a solo at her family's church that first Sunday, so I went to hear her. (She had long since escaped from the Southern Baptists, but sang for her family's sake whenever asked.)
What I heard was impressive, but not as impressive as the sermon, which I've characterized as The One Essential S. Baptist Sermon After Which You Don't Ever Need To Hear Another. (That's unfair, of course. That was then. But they are more monolithic now than they were then and with more discipline by the denominational authorities when it comes to doctrine. No more "every man his own interpreter of the Bible.")
The theme of the sermon was excellent: the trouble with the world is that Christians aren't witnessing the way they should. BUT -- he then asked the question: "who are the Christians?"
The rest of the sermon was a travelogue through all the different types of denominations and churches. He systematically ruled against each one, in turn. None of them were Christian, until he got to the Southern Baptists. And then he first had to lead us through a discourse on the different variants of Southern Baptists -- and he kept ruling them out of Christianity, too. Finally he wound up with the folks right there at Clinton Baptist Church and those in a few other Baptist congregations, mostly in Mississippi, who were like them.
Whew. I was rather astounded by his thoroughness and lack of charity. "And they'll know we are Christians by our love." Right. I was an agnostic Jew at the time and felt lucky to get out of there in one piece. Actually, as I later learned, I was more acceptable as a Jew than I would have been as a Roman Catholic. At least, as it was explained to me only partly in jest, for Jews there is some hope.
And, golly, there was. But in the Episcopal Church, not the Southern Baptists.
Mississippi's Missionary Baptists (the African-American Baptist denomination) were something else entirely. My experience with that church later on during the Civil Rights movement was quite uplifting.
A belated welcome to the Episcopal Church, Angelo...
It's not a belief in the Bible that makes one a Christian. It's a commitment to Jesus and to his Way. This commitment can be expressed in many ways, in different words, different actions, different world views, different theologies.
To write that I, or anyone else here, treats the Bible "flippantly" is to fail in discernment. I acknowledge that I may well be wrong about everything I think. But I'm not flippant about the Bible. I take it seriously. I study it.
One of the saddest things about Christianity is the frequency with which some Christians rule others out of the Body of Christ. That's one of the reasons I had intellectual contempt for Christianity up until my own conversion experience. It's so full of people with the conviction that "only I have the right doctrine".
How do you judge, then, the Primitive Baptist Universalists? Have they left the teachings of Christ completely? From what you've written about the necessity of believing in hell, they have. If so, are they slated for hell themselves? You have not yet been explicit about the results of "leaving the teachings of Christ completely".
Here's a sample of the PBUs basic approach:
From: Primitive Baptist Universalists in Howard Dorgan Papers
http://www.library.appstate.edu/appcoll/manuscript/coll116/pbuni.html
III. A Sample Church - Hale Creek Church, Buchanan County, Virginia
IV. Basic Theology
A. Calvinistic determinism at both ends of their theology
1. Scriptural basis: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." (I Cor. 15:22)
2. Meaning for them: Christ's atonement was for all humankind, and at Resurrection all humankind will be reunited with Christ for an eternity in Heaven. They argue that God is such a loving and paternalistic god that he would not allow his loving intent for all humankind to be thwarted to any degree.
B. There is no Hell in eternity. Instead, Hell is a factor of the temporal world, where all temporal sins are punished by an increased separation from God.
C. As there is no Hell in eternity, there is no Satan in eternity. Indeed, Satan is an entity solely of the temporal world, existing only as "natural man" warring against "spiritual man." For each of us, our "dark side" is Satan.
D. Sin, punishment, and death are factors only of the temporal world, thus ceasing to exist after Resurrection.
E. All sin is sufficiently punished in the temporal world, again by by a kind of separation-from-God psychological Hell and devoid-of-spirituality Hell.
F. Within the temporal world, the joys of righteousness are their own rewards.
G. Therefore, motivating retribution and reward is needed only for the here and now.
V. Characteristics of their worship
A. The joyous emotionalism of their services - Jubilation
1. Crying, laughing, shouting all at once
2. The individuality of expression
3. The constant movement throughout the service
B. The inclusiveness of their joy
1. They have no category of people for whom Hell is warranted.
2. The people of all creeds, colors, and nationalities will share Heaven with them
I'll have more comments later -- Bill
1) Where do you find His teachings and way??? In the bible! That is the point.
2) So you take it seriously and study it and then throw out the parts you don't like? How does that work?
3) So you believe everyone goes to heaven? I thoguht you believed they were parables? If they are, then what happens when you die?
Point #3 first: you should have discerned that those beliefs about heaven are the views of the Primitive Baptists, not mine. Reading the label generally helps.
Point #2: I throw nothing out. I try to account for everything. That process of discernment is very much like yours when you "throw out" teachings that you deem to be "legalistic" in favor of those that are "Christ-like", or when you put aside Paul's strictures against women's loose hair as being merely the propriety of his times. And in those cases, I come to the same conclusions that you do.
Point #1: Yes, I find Jesus' teachings in the Bible. My response is to commit to him, not to make an idol of the Bible.
After all, where is the evidence that the Bible is God's inerrant word rather than stories that people have written to describe and explain their experiences of the spiritual and their understandings of the meaning of life?
The fact that someone has written "I, the Lord, have spoken" doesn't make it so. Even the wide acceptance of that claim by synods, conventions, councils, denominations, congregations, and individuals doesn't make it so.
If acceptance of something as truth made it so, then truth is like a popularity poll: if the orthodox Christians outnumber the Muslims, then the Bible is the truth. If the Muslims come to predominate, then the Q'uran is the truth. Since Muslims outnumber Buddhists, the Q'uran is more true than the Tripitaka. Jews' understandings of the Torah are trumped by the Christians' New Testament treatment of The Law. And so it goes. Traditions have long lives that have little to do with truth in the abstract.
Truth is not that easily found.
That is not to denigrate traditions. They deserve to be taken seriously. When I studied and lived with Utes in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation of eastern Utah, I listened, watched, and participated as best I could. Twice, I danced in their Sun Dance. I heard a man say that he had seen, many years earlier, streams of water shoot out from the center pole of the dance lodge, as if to quench the thirst of the dancers (who undergo three days of waterless fasting). I didn't laugh at that, but neither did I believe in the accuracy of his account. Nor did I believe he was lying. I respected the integrity of his vision.
I've had my own vision. It was that vision, not the Bible per se, that brought me to baptism when I was 34. The triggering words were "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
My understanding of them may be idiosyncratic and unorthodox but I hold to those words and to the vision they inspired. They continue to remind me why I am a member of the Body of Christ, why I continue to study the Bible, and why I'm a "progressive".