Ergo

One has to understand the nature and origins of the Bible before one can begin to make sense out of it.

What is the point?  Perhaps you should as the millions alive today who find that particular book a very powerful guide.  You will, perhaps, get as many answers as there are people.  That is the nature of life.  C'est la vie.

Shalom

Mate

I specifically asked why someone who does NOT find the bible holy or inspired or useful and who does NOT believe in Jesus and who probably does NOT believe in a literal Heaven/Hell--why they would still self-identify as Christian?

And yet variations of this is precisely what I see here. So I am confused.

Ergo

I offered my suggestion.  If you are confused then seek out the answer.  Since you really won't take my word for it talk to many and you may find you are not so confused.

Shalom

Mate

There is no single answer. There are answers. I am asking people here for answers. Unfortunately it seems to me that you would rather I did my asking elsewhere.

Mate, you're not listening.  He's asking about what is regarded as "progressive christians" who have ditched a very large percentage of what biblically defines what a christian is, yet still cling to the idea that they are christians.

My take is that the church environment with all of its fellowship, friends, community and sense of belonging is what keeps many glued.

Your suggestion to ask the millions alive who find it powerful is nothing more than an appeal to popularity (ad populum arguement).

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

Fail.

You don't have to consider yourself a Christian in order to appreciate the bible. You don't have to consider Jesus to be historical (or at the very least the stories of him in the gospels to be historically accurate) in order to follow his teachings and to have respect for him. If the bible is considered a work of art, and not a work of divine inspiration, then anyone can appreciate the bible for what it truly is.

star stuff

I hear Ergo quite well.  He wants answers and I've suggested where he go for the answers.

I could add that he try reading the works of Borg, Crossan, Spong, Davis,  Hall, Ingham, Peacocke, Birch and a host of others that should he be interested I would be happy to supply titles.  These would bring him up to date and thus not appear to be as unknowledgeable as Dawkins.  That is not his fault but a little study would correct the knowledge part. 

The fact is I am not at all convinced the questions are even serious.

Shalom

Mate

Howdy - progressive Christian here!    That's an interesting question, Ergo Ratio.  All I can give you is my own perspective, but here goes......

The Bible actually does not offer up a definitive model of Christianity.  The four gospels and the letters of Paul offer up distinctly different understandings of who Jesus was and what his life/death meant.  For example, the original gospel of Mark and the gnostic gospel of Thomas offer NO resurrection story, whereas the crucifixion and resurrection was the heart of it for Paul.  Christian orthodoxy was defined at the Council of Nicea in the fourth century when an official creed was set down as normative.  Before that time, groups of Christians were incredibly diverse in their beliefs and interpretations of both God and Jesus. There are dozens of gospels that didn't make the cut when the church (not God) was putting together the New Testament.

So......as a self-identified progressive Christian, I choose to go back to the earliest historical roots of Christianity and, like the early Christians - before they were declared heretics - develop my own interpretation of the biblical stories of Jesus, based not only on my own discernment (which is faulty at best) but on the work of scholars that are widely available to "ordinary" folk like me these days, who set the Bible in its historical, social and religious context, and help us to understand what might indeed be history, what is most likely myth and metaphor.

Here's a link to the Center for Progressive Christianity in California:  www.tcpc.org.  This is basically the understanding that I have come to of what Christianity means to me.  I find the teachings and example set out in the stories of Jesus helpful to me spiritually - whether they are historically accurate or not doesn't make any difference to me;  I understand the Bible to be people's attempts to understand the Divine, not the Word of God, and I appreciate the wisdom I find in it, while feeling free to disagree with ideas that no longer seem just or right in this century.     

So, I still hold tentatively to the self-identification of Christian because I centre my life and spiritual journey on the stories of Jesus.  It's not only about community or fellowship or all that.....I do love that about the church, but I hold to a type of Christianity because I do believe that we are surrounded by and infused with a Higher Consciousness and that following the example of Jesus will help me to grow towards this Higher Power.  But like I said, that's just me.  I'm sure there are as many rationales for following a progressive Christian path and what that path actually is,as there are progressive Christians.  What we probably all have in common is the belief that there are many paths on a spiritual or life journey, and what works for one person does not need to work for someone else.....as long as our diverse beliefs result in lives of kindness and compassion, I figure that arguing over our differences in belief is kind of a waste of time when we could be finding common ground and acting collaboratively  and positively on the values and principles that we share.

Hi Ergo:

The books of the Bible were written as "midrash," meaning that they were meant to be metaphorical. And the interpretations are continuously updated as new insights arise. Progressive Christians take the Bible seriously but not literally.

And progressive Christians themselves decide whether they call themselves Christian. I consider myself Christian and Zen Buddhist, and am a member of the United Church. They haven't kicked me out yet.

I would rather have personal opinions; I can't assume that a pinch of authors speak for all progressive Christianity any more than the bible does. In other words, I would rather talk to forty people than take one (or two, or three) person's word on what those forty people might believe.

Then please, do not compel yourself to respond.

Your question presumes that atonement theology is true. If it isn't, your question is moot. Not all Christians subscribe to atonement theology.

Your question presumes that literalist theology is true. If it isn't, your question is moot. Not all Christians subscribe to literalist theology.

All Christians use their own faculties to determine which parts have authority. Even the most staunch literalist cherry picks which parts he follows and which parts he ignores. You just want to presume your cherry picking is the correct way.

Your question presumes that any form of Christianity, other than the one you subscribe to, is moving away from "true" Christianity. That is a huge presumption.

Hi Diana, thank you for your informative response. If I understand you correctly, is it correct for me to guess that if tomorrow you discovered a (non-Christian) path to the divine that you deemed more effective than your current path, that you would continue down that new path rather than stick with your current one? Hypothetically? (I will not follow up with a conversion attempt, I promise.)

I checked out tcpc.org, and again correct me if I'm off on this, but it seems to me like a significant thrust of the progressive Christian movement is to equivocate "Christian" with "commendably decent or generous practice". For example, making replacements on the About Us page:

"The Center for Progressive Christianity provides guiding ideas, networking opportunities, and resources for progressive churches, organizations, individuals and others with connections to commendably decent or generous practice.

We promote an understanding of commendably decent or generous practice and teaching that leads to a greater concern for the way people treat each other than for the way people express their beliefs."

Now I can see the appeal of co-opting the label for this purpose, as Christianity has already done (I think) a fine job of claiming ownership of every positive practice and characteristic it can, but...I dunno, keeping the label still implies, to me, that non-Christians do not or can not have those same qualities. Regardless of claims to the contrary, this implication is made a lot in the public sphere.

I would personally find it tiresome or embarassing to know that other people, with beliefs completely opposed to my own, called themselves the same thing I did. It just seems odd, to me, that more people don't feel the same, so there must be an explanation.

Witch, I fail to see how your response does anything other than highlight my question.

Asked a different way: when is it no longer Christianity?

Ergo,

"I would personally find it tiresome or embarrassing to know that other people, with beliefs completely opposed to my own, called themselves the same thing I did."

I'm one of your dreaded progressive Christians - so I'll attempt to answer your above question.

For a start, conservative and progressive Christians don't have "beliefs completely opposed".

It's correct, though, that their views often differ. The best explanation for this that I've encountered is, not by a theologian, but by a psychiatrist who also happens to be a Christian, Robin Skynner.

If you are interested in this question, I'd suggest you read his book "Life and how to survive it."

Hi Ergo,

I don't know if I've got you correctly, but it appears that you are at least implying the a progressive or moderate Christian somehow got it wrong...  I mean, the second part of your question is:"what's the point?"

But anyway...   When does Christianity cease to be Christianity?  I suppose that becomes the case when the person who has called themselves Christian ceases to do so.  And as for the appropriation of what you called "positive practices", you've got to take a look around you at other faith practices and belief systems... it's called adaptation.  We are all striving to become "better" people ("different" from who we think ourselves to be now).   Since when does my choice to start doing sitting meditation becomes an appropriation?

What I am trying to say here is,  you'll find plenty of examples of this around you: Western and North American Buddhism are not "real" Buddhisms... And Yoga in B.C. is definitely not really Yoga as it is in India.  Canadian/North American Catholicism is incredibly diffferent from Catholicisms in other parts of the globe. 

Every culture and society has its own take.  We can choose to call it progressive... but personally, I find that a bit of a moral statement.  It's been adapted to the cultural ethos of the place where it's taking roots.  And of course, there are also the ultra conservative expressions, too, which seem to speak to another segment of the society.  It seems most societies have a "conservative" and "libral" segment...

I don't think it's a matter of beliefs being completely opposed... 

There are different interpretations and different ways to follow up on those interpretations. 

The question that is implied in your post is:  Is on right and the other wrong?   I don't have an answer for everyone.  Just for myself.

Again, "progressive chrisianity" seems to me to be tantamount to a glee club for adults.  From my point of view it appears that it still that sense of belonging & community that is the big draw.  I can get a small dose of that feeling from joining a photography club, fishing club, book club, whatever.  It is the powerful need that we social creatures inately have to be with others - especially with a common goal & purpose, that seems to be why progressive christians (some of which don't even believe in god?!?!?!?!) are still wearing the badge.

Well I guess first of all you have to define what is Christian? To do that you have to determine which of the 3000 or so sects of Chrtistianity has the right to make the definition.

You complain that the label has been co-opted, and it has, many times, througout history. Was it OK when Evangelicals co-opted it?

Community is vital.  It is where we match our values up against another.  In doing so, we adapt and evolve as necessary. 

You sure can.  They have common goals and interests as do those in religious communities.  Personally I am a member of a variety of different institutions and I have yet to come across one that tackles as many social issues as my church does.  That doesn't diminish the others, it's just not where I go to match that need.

Why are you so concerned that we don't believe in this god?  I thought that was your point.  All institutions evolve.  Christianity is not the same today that it has been at any number of points in history.  Medicine is not the same as it was at many other points.  Why do you wish Christianity to remain stagnant.  What I'm really hearing you say is "I disagree with the tenets of Christianity and don't want to belong.  Therefore they can never change or I might have to reconsider my position."  You are arguing against a worldview that many of us simply don't have.  I'm sorry if you don't appreciate our journeys.  Thankfully my worldview is not dependant upon your understanding or opinion...cms

Unfortunately, inherent within the framework of what is and has traditionally been viewed as christendom, you are not at liberty to simply omit the vast majority of christianity, fabricate your own version, and still call yourself a christian.  There are far, far too many christians who would say that your customized version is not what being a christian is, and they could spend all day showing you how the bible backs them up on that.

Think for a moment of the cars that race in the Indy 500.  There are cars that are refered to as Dodges, Chevys, Fords, Plymouths, etc, but they are not those brands because not one part of them is actually a (Ford) for example.  The outer fibreglass shell vaguely represents the shape of the intended brand & model, but it is NOT a Ford.

Is it possible that perhaps I am not targeting my comments to you then, and intending tham towards those who do hold more of a literalist view? There are those.

Who says?  Clearly we're doing just that and I suspect that having an atheist say that we don't belong won't carry much weight.  If I want to call myself Christian, that becomes my choice.  If I don't, it is also my choice.  I attend a church that is part of the christian tradition and heritage and yet we have no problem shaping our beliefs with what we best reflects a better world. 

You may be directing your quotes at a specific brand of Christianity but you are not differentiating in your posts...cms

As there are thousands of different brands, is that a reasonable request to make of me or anyone?

cjms

People are getting Stardust mixed up with Star Stuff! You referenced Star Dust above and  Bassic did the same thing .

What we have in common is that I'm a crazy believer and he's a crazy non believer. On that basis we can be friends I hope!

Star Stuff reminds me of a man on a beliefnet forum a few years ago. He was already in his 60's and he had spent his whole life telling the world that Jesus didn't exist. It was his passion; his reason for living. He'll be lowered into his grave soon holding a "Jesus doesn't exist" sign. Just imagine he'd have had no reason to live if not for Jesus.....Jesus Saves!!!!

Star Stuff....I'm just having fun....I'm nuts..... I live in a community of atheists. We get along fine!

Ah - ok.  So then why attack all Christians.  Perhaps it would be better to specify the specific belief that you reject.  You may be surprised to find out how many of us here also reject the same beliefs.  I suspect that you came expecting all of us to hold beliefs that you do not.  I have shared my worldview as it relates to progressive christianity.  Generally you have ignored those comments and simply moved on.  Are you afraid that perhaps you would fit in?...cms

There's that "us" and "here" thing again.  Is this not a public forum?

Look!  There it is again.

Yes, and I have given my opinion on that.

I don't feel that I have.  There's much material here that's so wishy washy that it's impossible to get a grip on any kind of coherent view on anything.

Ooh, narcissism..........cool!  Fit in to what exactly?

The "us" I refer to  the people and members on this site - some of which are UCCAN members and some of which are not.  "Here" refers to this site.

The only opinion that you seem to give concerning progressive christianity is that it is, IYO, wishy-washy.  My guess is that you and I comprehend matters differently.

Fit in to what?  Community. (BTW, narcissists don't tend to try and fit in)...cms

Sorry, for me, clicking a keyboard on a forum is not my idea of "community".  Being in the presence of others is an important component me thinks.

I think that the internet and forums are a fantastic way to dialogue, debate, share ideas, etc, but one might be disappointed in placing their hopes of lasting community in that.

Anyway, I'm done bickering with you here on this thread.

This site is only one form of community - not the only way.   However over time you may be surprised how close a person can get to others here.  Many members meet up with others in person as well as online.  You may be surprised about how many people here have formed offline relationships with other members.

Individual congregations are another way to be part of community.  It is one reason that so many people are attracted to church communities.  Personally I find it vital for my wholeness.

Don't worry; I'm sure we'll get a chance to debate on another thread. ...cms

Whenever we generalize we are making mistakes.

Star Stuff seems to imply that people who are "moderates" are somehow "lesser" Christians.

The idea that there is only one way to be a Christian is a very fundamentalist, exclusionary view.  The Literal reading of the bible is also something from the fundamentlaist view and actually quite a recent phenomena.

What the UCC attempts to do is to allow those who feel they are on a path towards God and Jesus to participate.  To join , there are some questions asked and creeds that we follow but there is no exam to prove it.

Sometimes I woudl agree that the label of Christian seems to be very slimly connected to the views I hold but who am i or anyone to really say that I am right and they are wrong.

I will never understand why there is a need to disparage anothers journey towards God and Jesus becasue they don't fit with our own journey.

Star Stuff, perhaps the crash you took on your journey ,that ended up antagonistic and without faith ,wouldn't have happened if your family had joined a more welcoming accepting branch of the Christian family.

It is certainly sad to hear your negative feelings related to faith.  Odd to see you feel a need to try to convert or at least to disparage others. 

There is a purpose for moderate theism, if only because people have found purpose in shifting, moving, being or finding themselves there. 

 Personally, one has to define religion and what that is and that is not so simple. Once one has some criteria to present it as an object, one will have one for the masses and people will each have their own idea what it is personally.

Is it merely belief in certain facts? Is it a philosophy? Is it a practice? so on and so forth...

For me, it should not be about how one "saves" one's life... it should be more how one should "live" one's life. I do not care if it is Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism....

For me, it is in finding the philosophy that moves, touches, motivates, encourages.... That is personal, cultural... It can evolve, change, be dropped, added to...

For me, it is not, should not be, about being righteous, being forgiven, being popular with God, being chosen or elected... it is and should be about being the person we think we should be, with or without reward, whether there is or is not someone or something watching or if there is nothing watching...

For me, religion is philosophy. Therefore, the "facts" do not have to be perfect or able to be proven. The book can be viewed as a book of philosophical ideas, stories meant to highlight those ideas and ideals, etc...

Does the philosophy or the creation of it have to be perfect to be good? Not if one likes philosophy, because Socrates comes to mind.

Socrates did not have to have existed for Socratic philosophy to mean something or be sound. If someone mentions Socratic philosophy, nobody screams they are delusional and it is all hogwash... If Plato created Socrates, it does not make the philosophy that was credited, whether creditted to either Plato or Socrates.  IF Socrates did in fact exist and the stories were added to, it matters not. If Socrates didn’t ever exist it wouldn’t affect the ideas attributed to him.

Now, don't you agree there is some common ground?

I mean, isn't that the whole philosophy of subjecting our moral beliefs to logical scrutiny in the first place something people are adhering to whether or not the person ever existed or was a fantasy creation?

It has been said that if Socrates did not exist it would have been necessary for Plato to create him, because of what Socrates, real or unreal, contributed to philosophy.

Voltaire said the same of God.

 And yet here is an example of falling into the exact aspect that's being argued against.  There is really no such thing as a 'strict traditional' Christian framework. There NEVER has been.  The 'Christians' of the 1st century were quite different then those in the 5th, 10th, 15th, 18th, 20th and 21st centuries.  Even in those relative centuries there were differences.  So who exactly has been taking liberties with what? When did it start? As well I could argue who are you to take liberities in deciding to side with one particular form over another?   The  generalized argument about who is 'Christian' or 'who has the right to call themselves Christian' is as old as Christianism itself.

It seems to me that the framing of what is 'traditional Christendom' in most of your arguements is actually the more literalistic or what we now generalize as fundementalist theologies when relative to it's history as a whole is quite modern and emerged in the 18th-20th centuries.  I expect that a if you put a 1st centurary follower of the way in room with someone from the 19th centuary similar arguements and debate would ensue over what is 'traditional' and what isn't.   Such debates have occured sometimes vehmentally throughut it's entire history. When the Bible was put together in it's now common form what was 'traditional' and 'right' was crux of the debate. What was deemed to be 'untraditional' in the 3rd and 4th centuries was scrapped and thrown out.  Someone who followed that scrapped theology and writings  of that time more then likely came up against the exact same thing and attitude and vice versa ---"you are not at liberty to simply omit the vast majority of christianity, fabricate your own version, and still call yourself a christian.  There are far, far too many christians who would say that your customized version is not what being a christian is, and they could spend all day showing you how the bible backs them up on that.---- cripes those men sitting around the tables or standing in that hall spent hours arguing the very same points until one group came out the 'winner'.  

     Even then there wasn't a total agreement that lasted forever,  as some Bibles such as the Catholic Bible or other denominations don't have the same books in it.  I think it was Luther or some other protestant men who argued against books such as Revelations being included.

 My point is that in order to even argue that what is being labeled here as 'moderate' Christianity it has to be framed against a particular type of Christianity from a particular timeframe.  A choice is made in regard in order to make such a comparison.  It's really a false argument as there isn't and has never been one single point in time that signifies 'traditional' or the 'right' type of Christianity.  Sure it might be different the a common or popular form that it took in the 19th-20th centuries in the European and North American context  but then that common form wasn't common if you go back to another point in time.  Go to another part of the world and you'll find differences in theological viewpoints even within those times.  In our time and context,  what's being talked about here has been labeled as 'moderate' but as history shows it's really just a clumsy label that only works within a small framework of time that only takes into consideration whatever the more 'recent' history is as well as the attempt to create some sort of binary type argument...either/or.     The same way that during the Protestant reformation those folks were labeled as watering down, giving up, changing and yes more then likely promoting a more moderate viewpoint...in the context of that time.   Yet now we don't label it as such.  It now is looked as as simply a different form that evolved in a particular context of time and history.   There are some that still argue that the form brought on by people like Luther isn't 'true' Christianity either.   There are some that argue that Eastern Orthadox theologly has always been heretical and still is and it's been around since close to the beginning of it all. 

What's being discussed here is basically just a point on the continum of that can be generalized as Christian thought overall.  Nothing more and nothing less. The more things change the more they stay the same. There's nothing new under the sun and all sort of other cliches of that ilk fit quite well here.  That's not to say such discussions are pointless, they're not and can be and are quite interesting but at least imo they should occur with and understanding of the context and the continuing history of everything that's gone before.  The other understanding is that there will not likely ever be any conclusion of what is 'right' and what is 'traditional' as those labels have always depended on an entirely 'subjective' viewpoint of the people involved, have changed over time and will more then likely continue to always change.  Move forward in time and it's not difficult to speculate that what we generalize as 'moderate' or 'progressive' now will evolve into some other labels or named form as people look back to the 21st century the exact same way we look back and try to categorize the myriad of different forms that 'Christianity' has existed in since it started.   It's not difficult to speculate that pretty much the exact same discussion will continue as well with those even arguing that people are taking 'liberties' and  coming  up  with their own 'moderate' and  'customized' forms  based on  what  we  now, generally  are  calling  the supposed 'customized' and 'moderate' forms that are around today. 

Sounds nice, but untrue.  Perhaps it might help to understand the word generalize.  When we say that "The Irish love their beer",  or  "Pentacostals are expressive"  or  "Pintos with old Firestone tires are dangerous"  we are making a generalization which, while we make it, we understand and know that there are exceptions, but it is generally true.  There is nothing wrong with generalizations as long as you don't decide beforehand something about a person based on a stereotype.

No, I'm not.  What I'm saying is, that if one completely guts what is historically and traditionally and biblically defined as a christian, one is not a christian. (see race car analogy).

It isn't about "one way of being a christian", it's about the core tenets of christianity being tossed, and still claiming the name.

Tell that to all those who were mercilessly tortured by christians who found their reasons within "the good book".

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

But it seems that so many of the UCC (at least from what I can see here) don't even believe in God or his sacrificial boy, so whatup wid dat?

One needs to join?!?

When a group takes out full page adds in a newspaper with a declaration opposing another bus-ad campaign, with the assertion that "God probably exists", and an invitation to this forum, what do you expect?

It wasn't at all about the type of church I attended, and it wasn't a crash, it was an awakening.   In fact, in my teens, a new church began which we attended and it was a great social outlet for me in those years.  I wasn't hurt in any way, it's just that the beliefs held by the christian church in general, failed my examination of their truthfulness. The cognative dissonence just got too loud.  To me, it is patently clear that God is an imaginary construct of the human mind, and keeps one in intellectual diapers.

It might be sad for you, but for me, it is as though I woke up from an utter delusion and now I view life with a satisfying, naturalistic sobriety.

a joke for you:

It's about open & honest conversation on a public forum intended & designed for just such a thing................isn't it?  This freedom from criticism is something which religion has enjoyed a wierd sort of protectionism from for far too long.  I think you would agree with that.

Helle Ergo Ratio and welcome to WonderCafe.ca.

Why is that?  Is there a rule that Christianity has be be extreme? 

Christian is a descriptor which literally means, "similar to Christ."  I think that there would be very little argument among Christians that Jesus (whether or not those Christians believe Jesus existed) is an individual who does what he says he will do.

So there is little difference between Jesus' teaching and Jesus's person.  Jesus preaches compassion and Jesus lives compassion.  There is more to Jesus than compassion but essentially with Jesus what you see or what you hear is what you get.

To be a Christian then is to reflect that integration of word and deed and to order our lives in a manner which is similar to the way Christ lived.

I don't get that myself.  Still, if folk are reducing everything to the level of metaphor then salvation becomes a metaphor itself.

There is more to being a Christian than how one approaches the Bible.  If that is all that was required we'd only be using the Bible that Jesus had access to.  Again, Christianity at its plainest is being similar to Christ.  Jesus used parable (specific metaphor) which I believe frees us to not approach all scripture at its plainest and most literal levels.

There is more to it that each and everyone deciding for themselves.  Although there are a few who seem to think Christianity can be done on an individual basis, the Christian tradition and the Christian community are meant to play a role in any interpretation.

Which means I can approach a text and work out how that text is speaking using the overall context of the Bible and the themes that are developed throughout its length and breadth.  I also run those understandings through the history of interpretation for that particular text and finally contemporary communal understandings.

None of that requires me to always take any particular text of scripture at its plainest and most literal level.  Understanding the genre employed in any particular text helps to know when a literal read is most likely to be counterproductive to an accurate interpretation.

Texts written in poetry are meant to be interpretted as poetry.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I really don't understand. Why is the label the last to go?

[/quote]

Hi Ergo Ratio; I'm really enjoying this thread.

That's a good question.  Actually, I have explored other options.  I have explored the Bahai faith, but it is not accepting of same sex relationships, so that was not for me.  I have explored Unitarian Universalism and felt right at home there.....thing is, in the time I've been at the UCC the people have become like family to me, so walking away is not easy.  So I keep myself based in the progressive Christian tradition, and enrich my spiritual journey with the wisdom of other faith traditions, and non-faith traditions.

My take on it  ( and, hey, I could be off, too) is that progressive Christianity does not consider itself only a life of decent or generous practice, but rather that one cannot seriously consider a progressive Christian path without a commitment to that kind of lifestyle.  The number one defining point of The CPC is that we are people who follow the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (my paraphrase).  That is primary, the lifestyle is the response to the life and teachings.  

I honestly don't think that the CPC is implying in any way that non-Christians do not have those same qualities.  Progressive Christianity as a movement is part of a relatively recent upsurge of liberal Christians to define themselves against the religious right.  I actually think that the leaders of the CPC are working towards an "alliance" with groups of people of different faiths and non-faiths who value actions over beliefs as a reaction to the religious right's co-opting of the label "Christian" as meaning that Christ is the only way and theirs the only truth. 

Yeah, I totally struggle with that one.  I certainly couldn't go around and tell people I was a Christian, unless they were willing to listen to a 20 minute explanation of what exactly that means to me! (And sometimes they will!)   But I think it is important that the term Christian not be totally abandoned to the religious right;  I think the more that progressive/liberal Christians speak up about a different take on Christianity, and refute the exclusivist and repressive claims of the religious right, the less power the religious right will have to lay sole claim to the label "Christian".

Hi Ergo Ratio:

One can explore all kinds of spiritual paths and still consider oneself a Christian. As I said before, I consider myself Zen Buddhist and Christian, and have dabbled in Sufism and Indigenous Spirituality, and still am partial to those. I am a member of the United Church, and no-one has challenged my multi-religiosity yet, or told me that I can't call myself Christian.

Diana, 

Point of clarification, for anyone following this thread.

"The CPC", (which you are referencing above) is the American group, or The Centre for Progressive Christianity.  You can find it on the web at tcpc.org.  As you said, this group's first point talks about following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Here in Canada, we have the Canadian Centre for Christianity, often known as CCPC.  You can find it at progressivechristianity.ca.  It makes no specific reference to Jesus Christ.

While the names are similar, the two systems of thought are not identical.   They have certain commonalities, but they are far from identical.  Perhaps it is time for another thread about the various strands of progressive christian thought?

This is what I find so confusing.  One of the central tenets of christianity is that Jesus is believed to have said "I am the way, the truth, and the life", (you know the rest).
It does not say "I am a way, a truth, and if you vaguely include me (or even exclude me) in your future paring down of what I'm telling you now, you are on the right path."

It seems that trying to understand this present cult of "progressive christiany" is not possible as it is so "all over the map" that basically anything goes - just be positive.

Star Stuff, 

Don't worry about being confused.  Belonging to a denomination which includes a wide range of theological perspectives, we United Church folk like to debate these things. 

I am not even joking. 

In one of Harold Kushner's books, he says that the only answer to "What is Judaism?" must be "Some Jews believe this, some Jews believe that."  The same can be said about Christian faith.  In my view, religious faith is a living thing, and it keeps changing shape on me all the time.

The sayings of Christ, like the one you quoted in the post above, are open to a surprising number of interpretations. 

Ditto for our New Creed.  I know the creed was discussed on one of these threads.  There are some very worthwhile conversations taking place here on wcafe, but there are so many of them they are starting to run together in my mind.

Star Stuff, 

When it comes to the theology of Gretta Vosper at West Hill United Church (chair of CCPC), I was contrary-minded enough to leave that congregation and seek out another.  But I would not call the predominant viewpoint there a "cult".  Maybe you could rethink this?

Progressive Christianity does not mean anything goes.  Its a label.  Broadly speaking its is a faith that attempts to reconcile modernity with the Christian faith.  Christianity and Christian thought has evolved with the places and times that have adopted the religion, and progressive Christianity fall within this tradition.

Sometimes literal fundementalists are so loud many assume there is no other to be a Christian or that other ways are lacking in commitment.  Some of Start Stuff's comments reflect this.

The Bible cannot be read literally.  It is not possible to read any text literally or objectively.  When we read we interpret.  We interpret the language and sometimes project upon the Bible what we want to see.  This is both dangerous and liberating at the same time.  We do need guidance, not to control us, but to assist us in arriving at conclusions which will help us interpret the spirit of the word.  Getting hung up on the words completely misses the point -- the message transcends the words on the page.

Christians belong to a community and the community accepts Jesus as the son of God.  Thats about as basic as I can make it.

Some progressive christians would accept this statement, others would not. 

I agree that "broadly speaking it is a faith that attempts to reconcile modernity with the Christian faith".   I also like your comments about reading the bible.  For me, personally, the bible is central to Christian faith, but not all progressives would agree with me.

Ocassionally I will wish I had used a different word or said something in a better way, but in this case I chose that word with intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
 

Religion: a large popular cult.

Cult: a small unpopular religion.

Star Stuff, 

Do you consider all religious groups to be cults, then?  I am curious now about how you are using the term. 

Thanks ... P3

Then, by the use of reason, it is modernity that is the ultimate yardstick.  Why not focus and embrace all of secular modernity, and call yourself "modernists"?  Why does the thing that you are trying to get to "keep up" with secular values have the place of title?

Unfortunately nowhere in the bible does it remotely suggest this idea that one can fabricate their own "version" of christianity, lead by the nose, by culture or society.  You can indeed do this, as there will be no consequences as god doesn't exist, but please don't claim to be aligned with the bible or Jesus!

So we're all........"Lost in Space"  (said in a cool echo-like affect)

Stop, I'm getting dizzy.

Ahhh, finally something concrete!  See? That didn't hurt!  So, if it can be demonstrated that not only the whole god idea is indeed an idea - a construct of the human mind which has this very real tendency for pattern seeking and meaning seeking and agency, but that the additional "idea" that this deity had a "son" (what is this.......Bonanza?), who's sole intent was to be a blood sacrifice for this conditionally forgiving, blood thirsty monster of a god, (how's this for a run-on sentence?)........is pure delusion, should you all not just pack it in and get on with your lives in an equally benevolent way?

.
 

[/quote]

Star Stuff, 

Hmmm... I am not understanding your objections to the liberal church.  Can you explain more about why you think we should all pack it in? 

Sure, and thanks for asking.

If you really really don't subscribe to what christianity really is, then by remaining under the banner of christianity you give credence, legitimacy and cover for the dogmatic, legalistic, literal, fundamentalist "thing" called church.  You legitimize it by endorsing a thing called "church".  You're just a different flavour in the ice cream bin of RELIGION - that thing that has been the plague of mankind.

Instead of riding the coat tails of "the church", why not put your heads together and come up with a creative, fresh and modern tack which will possess all of what you apparently really care about (people, loving relationships, service etc), dump all references to god and superstitious, supernatural nonsense, and I'll be there to sign up......with bells on!

I feel that secular humanism, while it's tenets (so to speak) are awesome, hasn't really galvanized into what is possible, and, I feel, overdue for our modern world.

In love..............Star Stuff.

Hi Star Stuff - That may be one of the central tenets of evangelical Christianity, but that's just one form of Christianity.  And as a tenet, it's a pretty exclusivist and divisive one!  As a "progressive Christian" (or whatever - as  person really) I view the Bible as a human construct written by people striving to understand their relationship to God and to each other.  It is central to my faith because it contains the stories that the Christian religion is based on.  But while I respect the wisdom in so many biblical texts, I feel no obligation to blindly accept anything within the covers of the Bible.  I see the Bible as something like a dialogue with ancient people who were on the same journey as me, and they are talking in the context of an ancient world, completely different from my own.  When I read the quote you mentioned, I see an ancient writer in a fairly early Christian community, engaged in conflict with the Jewish and Hellenistic community around him, who is testifying to the legitimacy of his faith in Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah.  I read an author's beliefs;  I don't necessarily see them as words spoken by the historical Jesus.  It makes no sense to me that there should be only one path to the Divine;  so I read the words, I think about them, I see what scholars have to say about them.....and, with all due respect to the author of John, I reject them.  I have no idea if that makes any sense to you.

lol - a cult?  Not to worry, I am free to leave any time, and I'm pretty sure I'm still able to think for myself.  The UCC isn't big on brainwashing.  And, yup, progressive Christianity seems to be all over the map, and I see that as a positive thing.  (And I'm not just being positive!)  Progressive Christianity (IMO) assumes that a person finds something of worth in the teachings of Jesus and the life of the church, and then allows that person to take responsibility for working out what that means in terms of his/her life.  Some PC's (progressive Christians) don't believe in God.  Most do.  Some don't believe JEsus existed.  Most do.  But everyone has found meaning and worth in the Christian teachings and community;  it's really  positive, too!

Hi Paradox - thanks for the clarification about the American/Canadian progressive Christian centres.  I cited the American one because I was just talking about my own faith journey, and the American one resonates with me, while the Canadian one does not.    There were some threads comparing the two several months back;  maybe they can be resurrected?

Diana,

Like you, I call myself a progressive Christian. Perhaps because Star Stuff's upbringinging was the more orthodox/literal Christianity - he considers that to be Christianity. Anything else is simply not Christianity! (Which just goes to show he's still got that in common with his upbringing.)

Thanks for that Diana.  I read your post three times, and it occured to me on the 3rd round where we differ.

That's where a light went on.  You beleive in a real live deity, and I do not.  After a quarter of a century steeped in god belief, and 22 years of subsequent thought, study, reflection and reading (you should see my book collection), I have come to view gods as constructs of the human mind (I must have said that a couple time now).....and this bad habit was born out of our highly ignorant, superstitious, meaning-seeking, pattern-seeking, agency-seeking primitive past.  It has the advantage of not only coming first, but being ubiquitous because of our collective ignorance, thus it is a habit passed down from parent to child, generation after generation.  All children are born atheists.  We adopt the beliefs of our parents, and this is thoroughly explained in evolutionary terms (a child who doesn't listen to and beleive their parents...............dies).

We have all kinds of very, very old baggage rattling around in our brains, even in our modern world. For example, a person who does not want to have any children will still have a sex drive strong enough to justify the purchase of an inflatable doll.  Old habits, which reside in our organic brain, die hard.

It should be noted though that something like 95% of the Academy of Science is non-theistic.  That might be food for thought.

Nnnnnno.  I never said that anything other than what I was raised with isn't christianity.  Nice try.  This "progressive christianity" movement however is so staggeringly removed from all of the various denimonations which share their roots in the essential creeds of historical christianity, that it's like a person with a completely MAC computer insisting that he's got a PC because of the picture of Bill Gates on his wall.  (please don't go into the history of Bill Gates and Apple - I'm trying to come up with a clever analogy here).