bump for chapter 4's consideration of Jesus

paradox3

I'll jump into the fray to discuss Matt.18: 21-22 (KJV).
Does the fact that she has included these verses as being irrelevant reflect her own experience within the church ? I don't know her church. It makes me sad to think of the parishioners as being cold and unforgiving, or does Gretta mean there is a limit as to how many times people will forgive? Sorry, I don't understand. Perhaps Gretta perceives those who were unwilling to discuss her theology and those who have left the church because of it as being unforgiving? Or she may also be referring to those within the church who do not forgive each other or their neighbors ? Would this be a majority? Gosh, I didn't know Christians in general were so hard hearted and hard headed ! These verses speak to an ideal which may be an impossible one in our time as well as in the times of Jesus. Still, these are among my favorite verses in the New T. I'm disappointed to discover Gretta considers them obsolete. Some psychiatrists and psychologists are delving into the area of having their patients explore the concept of forgiveness. I read that they are experiencing success.

P.S. In Biblical terms I have always understood that if we do not forgive others God does not forgive us. Forgiveness is a very important tenet within Christianity.......No? Not to forgive would hurt or be a blight against our very own being, a sin...but then Gretta's theology probably doesn't believe in sin? I presume she covers the topic elsewhere in her book?

Hope I make sense with my 7 cents worth.....I'll look forward to comments.

stardust, I'm glad you asked--and I'm not any less confused than you. I find her interpretation of these passages, and her conclusion that they are not of use to us, to be very, very strange. Rather than those passages being 'constrained by their context' I think she's taking them out of their context and deliberately making them sound weird.

i would rather strive for an ideal that Jesus encompasses that is extremely high than strive for an ideal that is so low that there is nothing to use as a benchmark. if we could only walk in some of the footsteps of Jesus, we would be better people for it.

stardust: You wrote: { I'll jump into the fray to discuss Matt.18: 21-22 (KJV).
Does the fact that she has included these verses as being irrelevant reflect her own experience within the church ? }

Rev Vosper provides very little information concerning these verses:

" Succumbing to the unjust treatment of others is also highly recommended. (Matthew 5:39, 18:21-22), but I believe we now value justice and its pursuit more highly than submission."

This seems simplistic to me, and I share your confusion about why Gretta feels the need to reject these verses.

This part lost me, as well. Jesus' teachings and sayings have been the source of inspiration, challenge and debate for thousands of years; some of those teachings, the apocalyptic ones, especially, are admittedly contextually limited, but the vast majority I think are still profoundly important to us today.

She has strangely - it almost seems tongue in cheek - interpreted the passages she's mentioned, and fails to mention his teachings about the Kingdom of Heaven at all - and those are arguably ( at least according to the Jesus Seminar) the most likely to be original to him, and I think are still amongst the most powerful of his sayings today.

This is certainly the first book I've ever read that dismisses Jesus as unoriginal, irrelevant and ho-hum. I felt rather grumpy reading this chapter!!

Here is Gretta on audio speaking about her book on the CBC, the Current. A UC minister comes on and says she is a secular humanist.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200804/20080407.html

Stardust:

Thank you for your observations and thoughtful questions about forgiveness.

Forgiveness could easily stand as a topic on its own, and it might be interesting to start a separate thread to discuss it. Rev Vosper is equating turning the other cheek with "submission".

Stardust: You wrote: { A UC minister comes on and says she is a secular humanist. }

Others have suggested that Gretta is a "religious humanist", or a "post-Christian". All of these descriptions have some merit, I would say.

Weeze: Gretta's conclusions seem strange to me, too.

Crazyheart: I agree with you about Jesus representing a high ideal. Thanks for your post.

Diana: Thanks for your comments. I share your grumpiness about this section of the book :)

Hi Folks

Sorry I have been so slow to comment on this section, but I have been busy for the past couple of days as I follow the words attributed to Jesus, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's", or as it says in the Gospel of Thomas, "give the emperor what belongs to the emperor". (i.e. I have been doing my income tax - I owe a pile of money, so I left it to the bitter end!)

I'm not sure what Gretta would say about the LITERAL relevance of these words today (by "Caesar" or "emperor" do we now read "Harper"?) [LOL]

I find this section, which references specific Bible passages, a bit difficult to comment on, because she does not flesh out her ideas very thoroughly here. I certainly get that Jesus was a product of his upbringing and the times he lived in. I also get that Jesus' world view and god image were a product of his Judaic background. and his cultural setting.

As far as his words applying directly, and literally, to modern times, I see three problems:
(1) As the Jesus Seminar tells us, we do not know which words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by Jesus.
(2) His cultural context and world view were drastically different from modern times. The relevance of sheep and pigs and shepherds and angels and casting out demons etc. do not resonate with modern city dwellers and scientifically educated people.
(3) The words attributed to Jesus were often couched in metaphoric language and parables, so again are not framed in the "street language" of today. They are often full of deep meaning and can be analyzed and interpreted to find a moral fit to today's problems, but of course Jesus' world was very different from ours.

However many of Jesus core values are quite clear, and to those, Gretta has given her acknowledgment and her allegiance - love, compassion, justice etc.

As to Jesus originality, clearly Jesus was thoroughly grounded in the Hebrew scriptures, and many of his "words to live by" were a product of that background, including "the great commandment" which came partly from Deuteronomy partly from Leviticus.

In many ways, it would appear that Jesus' morality transcended the world view and cultural milieu of his time, but he was still heavily bound by his upbringing. It can also be argued that he saw with clarity, and named many of the religious abuses which burdened the Judaic religion of his time. Within the limits of his cultural and religious conditioning, he clearly felt that Judaism had settled into a pattern where adherence to "the law" was taking precedence over the Levitican commandment of love.

As he attempted to bring Judaism back to its moral high ground, he was telling the Pharisees that their adherence to the law was blinding them to the need for compassion and love. This message is, of course, entirely relevant today, especially in some of the more conservative circles where "what they believe" often does seem more important than "what they do".

paradox3,

Hi,

You wrote:

Gretta goes on to argue against some of the values held by Jesus, as they were relevant to a vastly different world:

1. Disdain/ denial of those who do not agree with our perspective (Mark 3:34)

2. Succumbing to the unjust treatment of others (Matthew 5:39, 18:21-22)

3. Living without care for the future (Luke 12:22-29)

4. Placing our assets in common with everyone else's (Matthew 19:21)

5. Giving everything we have to the poor (Matthew 19:21)

6. Lending to our enemies with no expectation of repayment (Luke 6:34)

I've been sitting on this for a couple of days.

I really do not know how the Reverend Vosper can say with a straight face that the values she assigns to the above scripture passages are the values held by Jesus.

I have read these texts with great regularity before and since reading her interpretation of them.

I believe that this is a good example of proof-texting and it illustrates Calvin's point of scripture being like a wax nose, it can be twisted into any shape you desire.

The interpretations afforded in points 1, 2 and 3 are eisegetical and do not find support within the scripture. I would go so far as to posit that the interpretations the Reverend Vosper lays on these texts is the antithesis of the values that Jesus held.

I'm not sure what her beefs are with points 4 and 5. With respect to point 4 has she never heard of a bank? With respect to point 5 she is arguing for is a universal from what the text clearly posits as a particular to the individual asking the question. I find that sloppy.

Point 6 certainly fails as a business practice. I doubt Jesus had the financial bottom line in view when he shared it.

I am incredulous that anyone would seriously submit that these are the values that Jesus held.

You wrote:

Gretta asserts: "It is impossible to lift an appropriate moral ground out of Jesus' life, works, and sayings." His vision is just too constrained by its context.

Difficult yes. Impossible no. What has proven most contraining is not Jesus' context, life, work, and sayings.

You shared:

The words of Jesus don't make sense any more, and what he said has little power.

I disagree. Emphatically. What has little power is the spin the Reverend Vosper has put on the words of Jesus.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thank you, John, I feel so much better, so well supported and encouraged by your words.
I checked for some book reviews and some people are calling this "an important theological book!" Well, I guess some people thought that about the Celestine Prophecies, too! I'm afraid for those of us who are believers already, this comes up very short. For those who are not believers, it will also come up very short. Empty. Gutless.
Yeah, how she could say those things about Jesus is a puzzle!

Can I throw in a question? Is Greta trying to be the new age prophet? It always makes me uneasy when I see titles like Vosperian and followers and such. Is it more about her than about God? Don't want to offend but this thought keeps running through the threads about the book.

1. Disdain/ denial of those who do not agree with our perspective (Mark 3:34)
- Vosper suggests that we hold dialogue, diversity and community as higher values. Which is admirable but the problem is I don't read disdain/denial of those who do not agree with our perspective in the text.

2. Succumbing to the unjust treatment of others (Matthew 5:39, 18:21-22)
- she goes on to say "I believe that we now value justice and it's pursuit more highly than submission". Agreed but do we value Justice more highly than forgiveness and I would argue that 5:39 is not a call to "submit" and that Jesus is speaking out against retribution/revenge.

3. Living without care for the future (Luke 12:22-29)
-Vosper says "reinforces ones dependence on community and a benevolent deity. But we now realize that it is we who are responsible for one another and the earth. We cannot afford to be reckless about the future" I think care and concern is good and can motivate us but worry (Luke 12:22) often paralyses us. I find it interesting that she holds up self-reliance over dependance on community - very western minded of her.

4. Placing our assets in common with everyone else's (Matthew 19:21)
5. Giving everything we have to the poor (Matthew 19:21)
6. Lending to our enemies with no expectation of repayment (Luke 6:34)

Vosper says these reflect a utopian model of society impossible to achieve and she asserts that we cannot effect positive change stripped of our resources. "Conscientious, ethical oversight of our resources is a more prudent and potentially beneficial response". I'm with John however in regards to her interpretation.

It takes Rev Vosper less than a page to dismiss the scripture passages referred to above. She summarizes by saying: "The values we choose to live by must set a radically ethical standard for our time, not by what seemed relevant to a vastly different world two thousand years ago."

On pages 155 - 188, Gretta discusses moving forward. She emphasizes doing it one step at a time, and she outlines the elements necessary to spawn progressive thought. They are:

[ an open mind; passion; creativity; intellectual rigor; honesty; courage; respect; and balance ]

Balance refers to patience, perseverance and pace. All are necessary for an individual or group to introduce progressive thought into a group of people. "Remember," she advises, "for the most part, they are not willingly along for the walk." (pg 184) The progressive perspective must anticipate the challenges it will present, and act to mitigate negative effects.

"But finding ways to lessen the burden of change, to make the new terrain more habitable, to honour what has gone before even while pointing out its inadequacies, is a responsibility that progressive thinkers hold." (pg 186)

It sounds like Rev Vosper is describing a "top down" process of change in these pages. She claims to honour what has gone before, but describes it as having inadequacies which must be pointed out.

If the inadequacies are the moral values of Jesus she describes in this chapter, I remain unconvinced by her arguments. My thanks to everyone who has posted alternative interpretations on this thread.

I just finished the book tonight. sigh. When she says certain verses do not stand the test of being helpful, that is a very subjective judgement. It took me several years to fully understand Paul. Would I have been justified to throw him out forever because he was not helpful, or should I simply say "I'm not ready to deal with what he says".

""The values we choose to live by must set a radically ethical standard for our time, not by what seemed relevant to a vastly different world two thousand years ago.""

This seems to be in conflict with the language used in the introduction, where Vosper was talking about distilling Christianity down to its purest, timeless elements. Did Christianity have any timeless elements, or are they all relevant only to an ancient civilization?

The very existence of this chapter makes me even less interested in reading the book. Her interpretations are laughably facile. How can we take her seriously as a leader?

RJM said:

"I just finished the book tonight. sigh. When she says certain verses do not stand the test of being helpful, that is a very subjective judgement. It took me several years to fully understand Paul. Would I have been justified to throw him out forever because he was not helpful, or should I simply say "I'm not ready to deal with what he says"."

- That's very impressive - I've given up hope that I'll ever understand some of his stuff fully but in spite of that think that epistles are well worth the time and effort of study. As is the whole Bible (although Leviticus is a chore...)

IWonder: It's nice to see you posting again on this thread.

When we get into the remaining pages of this chapter, we will see that Gretta's theology is aligned with many aspects of Jesus' teachings. I still need to review her ideas more carefully, but I think we will find her thoughts quite consistent with your last post.

I have very much appreciated the contributions of the revs (and others) on this thread. Let's give it until the weekend, and see if there are any more comments before moving on to the last section of chapter 4.

I am happy to summarize the last part of this chapter. If you would like to do any sections of chapter 5, just let me know. We are halfway through the book now, and I am pleased you have "hung in there" with me.

I wish I had time to follow everything being posted here, not to mention to read the book. it'll be old news by the time I get to it i'm afraid.

I wanted to throw in a comment on something RJM said, and apologies if its already been covered -

RJM: It took me several years to fully understand Paul. Would I have been justified to throw him out forever because he was not helpful, or should I simply say "I'm not ready to deal with what he says".

I think we're again stuck with the problem that no one posting here is the typical person interested in faith. If it takes a minister "several years" to get Paul, how helpful will his letters be to the audience Vosper and others want to reach?

Is she saying that scholars should throw Paul out, or that everyday faith shouldn't try to translate/update/interpret and use his meanderings as a basis for sernons?

Hi everyone -

Stardust - you mention a quote from Matt 18:21-22 and say, "I don't know her church. It makes me sad to think of the parishioners as being cold and unforgiving, or does Gretta mean there is a limit as to how many times people will forgive?" ... I forgive you for this comment, as a parishioner at this church.

There may be limits to the number of times one can forgive - we need only look around our own lives. God does not forgive nor without forgiveness (Jesus for that matter) - God is not a person who can intervene in our lives, and Jesus is dead and gone. It's up to you to decide how many times you will forgive another. But in order to do that, you need to know more about your own self and your own intentions and need to really (and I mean really) look at the other person.

As a bereavement counselor who deals with people who have survived the suicide or homicide of a loved one, it is not helpful to ask them to forgive the deceased or the murderer ... though they may each, over time, with help and guidance come to this place. And I hope the do. The realities of life and our experiences, our egos etc. are put to the test. The divine that moves within us (not outside of us) and between our relationships is the what needs consideration.

Diana - "This part lost me, as well. Jesus' teachings and sayings have been a source of inspiration, challenge and debate for thousands of years, the apocalyptic ones, especially, are admittedly contextually limited, but the vast majority I think are still profoundly important to us today." ... Yes, Jesus' sayings have been all of these - and often continue to be, except for many who have left the church and the next generation (20 somethings) who neither attended or left as soon as they could - most likely to not return. I humbly suggest that you read the texts again. Jesus' teachings and sayings as the authors portray him and his words can be seen through the lens - any lens we choose. The question is by whose authority do we do what we do? All of us on this planet ... if we only do things because of some lost in space deity or because we interpret Jesus to have said this is what we need to do, then what we do in the world never really (I mean really) comes from us - it comes from an outside authority ... one which may be inspiration or challenge. Yes, we all need mentors and guides, but ultimately for every action we need to determine the base of authority. Sometimes this is parents, school, teachers, peers, Church ... nothing wrong with this, if you understand why and how the text, person etc. is being used in your life.

IWonder - nicely put.

I would suggest however, that we all look around the world and see exactly how Jesus' words, teachings (all those things attributed to him, which we can never really know) are taken literally. We can repackage into myth and metaphor all we like - deem somethings ethical from his sayings, but there is a 'neighbour' of "ours" out there with a very literal take on the saying ....

Which leads to RevJohn's comments. Where I see that you don't agree with Gretta's interpretation of difficult passages attributed to Jesus and declare them as "proof-texting". This holds true for all of the really neat bits of the text that "we" liberals or progressives love to hold up and declare Jesus said or intended.

Interpretation, whether yours, mine, Gretta's is just that. And everyone, everyone, brings their context, experience, culture, etc... to bear on the text and how to interpret it. If we want to find a Social Justice Jesus, he's there. If we find a very Messianic Apocalyptic Jesus, he's there. With over 27,000 books in the library of congress on Jesus - we're bound to find the one we like and agree with.

The point is, this text more than others - though the Qu'ran is up there as is the Hebrew text, however, Western civilization is still entrenched with Christendom - divides and creates great division in our world. Many traditions hold much in common - at the basis of understanding - and these need to be lifted up and celebrated and we need to come together leaving our particulars at the door of the conversation. We may be influenced and take an ethical position based on our backgrounds, Christian, Islamic etc. but we need only look at some of the divisions (Anglicans etc.) over religious issues that have little to do with ethical justice for all to realize that many "difficult" passages are alive and well and living in our world. For me, all this must stop. As a 20 year student of the world religions and their texts, we share much in common, but we share much that divides ... the particulars of Jesus said this, Moses said that, Muhammad did this ... This division is killing us.

I think it is impossible to look to the stories of Jesus and find moral high ground ... The authors who wrote about him, were about division - one community over and against another. The synoptic gospels only share common threads because Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources ... many texts differ, including these three on who Jesus was and what he said. If read separately, without reading them all together they show vastly different Jesus's, for vastly different reasons. The church over the millenia has blended the narratives about him.

We may love the story of Jesus' response to the woman taken in adultery and how the people were going to stone her, but Jesus steps in with the famous line "let anyone who has not sinned cast the first stone" ... as a wonderfully moral story ... taking the moral high ground. However, this story does not belong to Jesus ... it was inserted into the text 600 years later and "attributed" to Jesus. We have no idea how the historical man would have responded. We may like to THINK he would have responded in this manner, but who knows and it was 600 years after he lived. Many stories are similar - added, changed, adjusted ...

I think Gretta's point in this chapter is well founded.

JM,

Hi,

You wrote:

Where I see that you don't agree with Gretta's interpretation of difficult passages attributed to Jesus and declare them as "proof-texting".

I apply the label proof-texting because one verse is lifted out of its context and a particular interpretation is applied to it and that particular interpretation is not presented as a possible interpretation it is presented as the only feasible interpretation.

That is exceedingly sloppy.

You wrote:

This holds true for all of the really neat bits of the text that "we" liberals or progressives love to hold up and declare Jesus said or intended.

On one level that is true. Interpretation is something more than just one's opinion. It should be at the very least a studied opinion and one that can point beyond how one feels about one text.

It may be that the Reverend Vosper can demonstrate her claims. We do not know because she doesn't bother to. This is quite difficult to accept from one who challenges the idea of the Bible as TAWOGFAT and appears to set up her interpretation as TAWOGFAT.

You wrote:

Interpretation, whether yours, mine, Gretta's is just that.

That is true. The claim is made that the views highlighted are Jesus' views not her interpretation which is open to question. Earlier on we have taken issue with the appeal to "modern scholarship" which is undefined. By presenting her interpretation, which is also undefined, she sets the reader up to believe that the claims that she makes are supported by "modern scholarship".

I think that is a rather daring claim in light of the interpretation she claims lists the values Jesus intended to convey by the passages listed.

You wrote:

And everyone, everyone, brings their context, experience, culture, etc... to bear on the text and how to interpret it.

That is also true. Interpretation. Exegetical interpretation is allowing the scripture to speak out of its context. I respectfully submit that the Reverend Vosper has failed to provide an exegetical interpretation. I think it more likely that the Reverend Vosper is reading into the text something that is not there and that has always been the danger of scripture. That we fail to listen to what it says and instead we imagine what it is saying.

That is not an exegetical failure of only the liberals and the progressives. The conservatives and the fundamentalists make that mistake with equal frequency.

You wrote:

If we want to find a Social Justice Jesus, he's there. If we find a very Messianic Apocalyptic Jesus, he's there. With over 27,000 books in the library of congress on Jesus - we're bound to find the one we like and agree with.

I agree. That doesn't make every claim by every book honest though. It is the wax nose analogy of scripture. The words of God on the written page are pliable and can be twisted into any shape. The challenge is not to twist them so that they challenge others but to listen to them for how they challenge us.

Again. The meanings the Reverend Vosper assigns to these texts and claims were held by Jesus is here interpretation. They are not convincing. Not only are they unconvincing, they ring false. If those meanings remain unchallenged her attempt to surpass Jesus' ethical standards is laughably easy primarily because the Jesus she attempts to leapfrog is not the one the scriptures point to.

You wrote:

The point is, this text more than others - though the Qu'ran is up there as is the Hebrew text, however, Western civilization is still entrenched with Christendom

I don't know how that point can be arrived at by the attributing to these texts the values that the Reverend Vosper does.

You wrote:

we need to come together leaving our particulars at the door of the conversation.

That is not honest conversation. Nothing beneficial can come of that. Ignoring or hiding particulars is not a strategy. Dealing with them is.

You wrote:

we need only look at some of the divisions (Anglicans etc.) over religious issues that have little to do with ethical justice for all to realize that many "difficult" passages are alive and well and living in our world.

Indeed they are. They will always be "difficult" if we refuse to engage them honestly. That doesn't mean that we embrace them or integrate them into the today. There is material which we no longer consider applicable. Few Christians keep the kosher laws and there is reason for that.

As Reverend James Murray points out. Wrestling with scripture is not a matter of mere moments or even a few afternoons it is something that will take years if not a lifetime to grapple with.

You wrote:

This division is killing us.

This division is a bogey. There are differences yes. The extremes of difference are quite happy spilling blood so long as it advances their agenda. The extremes are thin margins.

The United Church of Canada, though far from perfect is something very rare in the history of Christianity. It is a coming together not a splitting apart. That was not because we tossed out our differences, we made space for them. Our Basis of Union's preamble shares only what we held in common. It does not prohibit what was particular and those particulars have flourished for generations without being a detriment to the denomination as a whole.

You wrote:

I think it is impossible to look to the stories of Jesus and find moral high ground

I disagree with you. Jesus can throw a curve every now and then. He never throws the brushback or attempts the bean. He can bring the high heat and that is uncomfortable. All of it is in the strike zone.

You wrote:

The authors who wrote about him, were about division - one community over and against another.

That is one theory certainly. I do not believe it is commonly held to the degree you state.

You wrote:

If read separately, without reading them all together they show vastly different Jesus's, for vastly different reasons. The church over the millenia has blended the narratives about him.

That proves different witness. It does not prove different Jesus. Panentheism is know to GUC, RevMatt, RevJamesMurray and myself. There is only one Panentheism. We are not describing four different people.

You wrote:

However, this story does not belong to Jesus ... it was inserted into the text 600 years later and "attributed" to Jesus.

That is a theory. Discoveries in 1941 point to it existing in canonical records as early as the 4th Century. Other documents from the third century point to a pericope adulterae which may or may not be this text.

You wrote:

We have no idea how the historical man would have responded.

Even if this point is granted it does not give permission to discard the text. If we have no idea how the historical man would have responded it, at the very least is a possibility that the historical man could have responded this way.

The text suggests that Jesus did respond this way and whether or not Jesus existed the point of the test it that it is here to be wrestled with and not brushed aside as being of no consequence.

You wrote:

We may like to THINK he would have responded in this manner, but who knows and it was 600 years after he lived.

The hermeneutic of suspicion has been around for a number of years now. I do not know that it has proven to be a helpful or a reliable tool. One thing I think is fairly certain is that building a relationship relies more on trust than it does suspicion. If all that is being brought to the table is a healthy doubt of what was I don't know how it escapes an equally healthy doubt of what is.

To that end I find the position putforward that scripture is suspect and often no meaningful help an empty claim.

Scripture like everything else in Creation is subject to abuse and I believe that this chapter has abused scripture badly.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Many stories are similar - added, changed, adjusted ...

I think Gretta's point in this chapter is well founded.

JM said:

"There may be limits to the number of times one can forgive - we need only look around our own lives. God does not forgive nor without forgiveness (Jesus for that matter)"

- I don't understand what you mean.

"God is not a person who can intervene in our lives, and Jesus is dead and gone."

- So you are not open to the reality that others have a very different belief about or experience of God and Jesus and so make declarations of opinion as though they are fact.

"It's up to you to decide how many times you will forgive another. But in order to do that, you need to know more about your own self and your own intentions and need to really (and I mean really) look at the other person."

- I would agree that forgiveness is something that a person chooses to do. I would disagree that there is only one way a person can come to that place in their lives.

"As a bereavement counsellor who deals with people who have survived the suicide or homicide of a loved one, it is not helpful to ask them to forgive the deceased or the murderer ... though they may each, over time, with help and guidance come to this place. And I hope the do. The realities of life and our experiences, our egos etc. are put to the test. "

- I cannot imagine any healing that would take place after bereavement that would not involve moving beyond the pain and hurt. Certainly forgiveness is a process and one cannot start without acknowledging the pain but to remain there only leads to despair and more pain and I cannot see that as being anything but destructive. My understanding of forgiveness is much more than simply "forgiving the deceased or murderer" and maybe this is where we differ.

"The divine that moves within us (not outside of us) and between our relationships is the what needs consideration."

-I prefer not to limit the divine to within but also to recognize the divine in our relationships and in the web of interconnection that exists in creation.

The problem I am having is there is no coherent thesis in the book> It is full of contradictions - like her use of scholarship - she seems not to be aware of the new search for the historical Jesus - and when one does contextual scholarship then the texts come alive and are meaningful for today - that is the job of the clergy to be up to date about the narrative.

Now one can find the narrative not inspiring and in response one can ask on what grounds? - the idea of self referencing seems to be the lens used. All lens have a history and self referencing lens are, in the end, those which have led to problems of poverty and ecological crisis.

There are histories of ideas and one needs to probe the history -

Now of course when one rejects - as one should - classical supernatural theism one and go to deism then one has a god who cannot intervene. In the liberal tradition with the rejection of ontological supernaturalism then one does end in projection - the acts of God are what we do - the question is that this liberalism is not satisfying- religiously- emotional - However, there are other metaphysical answers to the God problem that rejects ontological supernaturalism and offers a way of speaking of God as involved in every nano second - that is a new understanding of intervention - As Doug Todd has pointed out there is no dealing with what has been called the panentheistic turn in theology - this is where the scholarship debate is now and it is missing from this book.

I have not problem with reconstruction of the narrative but that demands engaging it - What happens is a liberation from the narrative and secular humanist have done that already. it is not liberating the narrative.

quote :(1) As the Jesus Seminar tells us, we do not know which words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by Jesus.
(2) His cultural context and world view were drastically different from modern times. The relevance of sheep and pigs and shepherds and angels and casting out demons etc. do not resonate with modern city dwellers and scientifically educated people.
(3) The words attributed to Jesus were often couched in metaphoric language and parables, so again are not framed in the "street language" of today. They are often full of deep meaning and can be analyzed and interpreted to find a moral fit to today's problems, but of course Jesus' world was very different from ours.
end of quote

First the Jesus seminar does not make this claim and in fact suggest best guess of what he said and then moves into context and when you do that one can translate to today. This is an easy job when one does scholarship and when a clergy gives up doing that then they fail in their job.

Just because it is metaphorical and parables does not make them useless - does that mean we give all metaphorical language? Give up poetry? This is not a criticism to say it is metaphorical - no Jesus world was not radically different from ours - it was a time of a death of god - a time of searching. The difference is one of an understanding of enchantment - yet that is a very modern search - the rejection of a mere utilitarian and rationalistic view of life - there is a deep search today for enchantment and that ironically is the appeal of Gretta's book.

Sheep etc can be easily translated to our time - here is the issue - how does God talk make sense - Just because we are urban and educated and scientific ( really?) does not stop the religious searching - the job is to make a creditable and religious satisfying theology given our context and the insights of the narrative - the full question is whether there is some reality- God - ( some call it energy or self creative universe) that has an eternal interest in our becoming and works within history - to offer that is the challenge and while I have some problems with Sanguine that is what he does and Gretta gives up the project - There is within the process and faith tradition another vision of how we can speak religiously - unfortunately it has not be a strong theme in canadian theological training.

There are other alternative models and Rev John is an example of someone who plumbs another tradition.

Living the Question is an another example of the seeking process -

there was a book in the 60s called Watermelonsugar, James Brautigan, I don't have it to hand but as I have been reading and catching up with you all today it has come to mind a few times, the story is set in a place called ideath and the antagonist is called inboil, who says at one point, "what you people are doing is not ideath (ego death as promoted by some of the 60s gurus), THIS is ideath," and he cuts off part of his ear or something, eventually he dies I think, can't remember - it was a long time ago, and meanwhile the "normal" ideath crowd go around in a continuous fog of watermelonsugar, sweetness and light so to speak - sno soooo unlike a United Church then eh?

this Christian debate has parallels, I recently finished Charles Taylor's 'A Secular Age', so when I came to Gretta Vosper's book I was already primed for a materialist-humanist-modern-secular-etc-etc view, which is just about exactly what I found

I did not find her views very well put, this may go with the territory which is relatively uncharted - makes for a somewhat defensive style, nor do I think her views will wash with very many, some of the criticisms put forth already in this (wonderful!) space are too accurate

but I think it is marvellous that she has asked the questions she is asking, look at us here, coming together, acting respectfully, asking, answering, it has been a long time since I have seen such a coming together I can tell you

I wonder what her church is like? if she gives the same grace to her congregation that she obviously is receiving generally then maybe this whole exercise is for the good, if not ... then otherwise

I wonder what will happen (for example) when I show up and sing, "Jesus Christ is risen tod-a-ay, Ha-a-a-a-a-le-ay-lu-oo-jah"?

I think she is exactly the product of the Secular Age described by Taylor, and she is prompting, if nothing else, a good spring cleaning, long needed

good on her, be well.

Rev John,

Hi there,

You wrote

I apply the label proof-texting because one verse is lifted out of its context and a particular interpretation is applied to it and that particular interpretation is not presented as a possible interpretation it is presented as the only feasible interpretation.

That is exceedingly sloppy.

This happens all the time when the lectionary reading is given each week. In fact, it happens out in the world when using Jesus for a variety of "back up" for positions taken. Context is 1st century BCE - 1st century CE ... all is taken out of its context. We are attempting to apply texts constructed, added, changed etc. out of their original contexts.

You wrote

Interpretation is something more than just one's opinion. It should be at the very least a studied opinion and one that can point beyond how one feels about one text.

Yes, this is true and seldom done.

You wrote:

That is a theory. Discoveries in 1941 point to it existing in canonical records as early as the 4th Century. Other documents from the third century point to a pericope adulterae which may or may not be this text.

Hummmm ... can you provide me with the 1941 discoveries which point to this being recorded earlier?

You wrote:

From me: The authors who wrote about him, were about division - one community over and against another.

That is one theory certainly. I do not believe it is commonly held to the degree you state.

>>Hummm, I wonder about this? It is fairly common in secular academic study about these texts. Though of course always up for critique ....

You wrote:

From me: If read separately, without reading them all together they show vastly different Jesus's, for vastly different reasons. The church over the millenia has blended the narratives about him.

That proves different witness. It does not prove different Jesus. Panentheism is know to GUC, RevMatt, RevJamesMurray and myself. There is only one Panentheism. We are not describing four different people.

>> True - and those differences are very important. I only know you through this medium ... Imagine if I were to write a Gospel about Rev John. There is only 1 Rev John, but many interpretations of what you mean ... however, there is an advantage not afforded in our limited knowledge of the historical Jesus - we have what you've written ... to some extent. At least I might be considered a "first witness" rather than writing about you 30 years from now.

More to say ... but off for dinner now
Cheers ...

Meredith,

Hi,

You wrote:

"There may be limits to the number of times one can forgive - we need only look around our own lives. God does not forgive nor without forgiveness (Jesus for that matter)"

- I don't understand what you mean.

>> In my own opinion - I do not believe God forgives or does not forgive this implies agency. I believe we have it within ourselves alone to forgive.

"God is not a person who can intervene in our lives, and Jesus is dead and gone."

- So you are not open to the reality that others have a very different belief about or experience of God and Jesus and so make declarations of opinion as though they are fact.

>> I am perfectly open to seeing that others have a different reality or belief about God and Jesus ... To clarify, my posting is indeed my own opinion and is fact in my world alone.

You wrote:

- I cannot imagine any healing that would take place after bereavement that would not involve moving beyond the pain and hurt. Certainly forgiveness is a process and one cannot start without acknowledging the pain but to remain there only leads to despair and more pain and I cannot see that as being anything but destructive. My understanding of forgiveness is much more than simply "forgiving the deceased or murderer" and maybe this is where we differ.

>> There are in some cases only glimpses and moments of healing where some still live in the pain and hurt but there is healing. There are people who struggle each day to get out of bed and face a world without someone they love in it ... there is pain, there is despair, and there is healing - because that person got out of bed. I don't think we necessarily differ ... but forgiveness is extremely complex and most people I have dealt with find it a complex journey (forgiveness) - AND in most cases it does not include God.

You wrote:

I prefer not to limit the divine to within but also to recognize the divine in our relationships and in the web of interconnection that exists in creation.

>> I agree and extend the witness of beauty and the divine to the planet and animals. The divine is totally manifest in my black cat Max ... those who don't like cats may not agree.

Off for dinner ...
Cheers,

JM posted: "Yes, Jesus' sayings have been all of these - and often continue to be, except for many who have left the church and the next generation (20 somethings) who neither attended or left as soon as they could - most likely to not return. I humbly suggest that you read the texts again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, JM. Don't worry, I'm re-reading the texts all the time (grad studies in theology), and I still believe that the words attributed to Jesus have power and meaning for us today, especially if we choose to go deeply into them. That doesn't mean blind acceptance of every word attributed to him, but rather, engagement in them. Just my opinion, though.

You mention the many who left the church......I have to tell you, from my experience of speaking with ex-churchgoers, and the tremendous sales of many books about Jesus, the problem isn't that Jesus is irrelevant or out of context - the problem is the church itself & the bad behaviour of Christians. So often I hear....I really like Jesus....it's the church I can't handle. I personally don't see the necessity of removing the centrality of the teachings of Jesus in order to attract people into the church.
---------------------------------
JM: "Yes, we all need mentors and guides,
---------------------------------
Precisely.

-----------------------------------------------------
JM: "but ultimately for every action we need to determine the base of authority. Sometimes this is parents, school, teachers, peers, Church ... nothing wrong with this, if you understand why and how the text, person etc. is being used in your life.
--------------------------------------------------

To me, the spiritual journey is into our deepest selves; I guess it's the Celt in me that believes that when we enter into our deepest selves, we are entering into that ultimate reality that we call God.

Indeed, we all approach the stories of Jesus with our preconceptions and assumptions firmly in place.....actually, we all approach life that way, and a fundamental part of the spiritual journey, IMO, is the close and critical examination of one's own perceptions, and how they measure up to the perceptions of others. If we are aware - as much as we can be - of the lens through which we are reading the stories we examine, then we can find meaning in the teachings of Jesus, for us, without the need to impose those same meanings on others.

To me, THIS is what has been historically lacking in the church - examining what we bring to our reading of scripture, as well as examining the scripture itself to gain a more full awareness of the context, including the intended audience, of the writers - at least as closely as we can. I believe the problem to be more the process through which we access the teachings ascribed to Jesus, rather than the teachings themselves. Blind acceptance leads to blind faith, which doesn't help a personal actualize their spiritual potential, IMO.

Just like other truly great wisdom teachers, though, I really believe the words of Jesus bring wisdom to any age, and have a timeless relevance.....IMO.....and removing Jesus as the central figure to Christians seems to me to deprive new Christians, especially, of that guide and mentor that we all need as a basis for our individual spiritual discoveries. I"m not sure how you can build a spiritual pathway from bits and pieces of all different spiritual traditions right from scratch, although I can certainly see going deeply into one trajectory, and then enriching and shaping it with wisdom and truth from other traditions, including humanist and other secular pathways. But without that initial guidance???

But, obviously it works for a lot of people......so I'm very eager to read more discussion! =)

JM: You wrote: { Yes, Jesus' sayings have been all of these - and often continue to be, except for many who have left the church and the next generation (20 somethings) who neither attended or left as soon as they could - most likely to not return. }

Has the theological shift at WHUC resulted in any youth returning to the congregation? I remember a reasonably active Sunday School, but when I left 3 years ago, one of WHUC's few active teenagers left with me. The youth leaders (bless their hearts) often had youth group of one during our last year there.

I know there has been reconfiguration of the congregation, with some people leaving and many new members joining. It might be interesting if you could give us a sense of what the numbers look like.

Thank you for joining in the conversation. It will be helpful to have the perspective of a current WHUC member.

GoldenRule: You wrote: { I think we're again stuck with the problem that no one posting here is the typical person interested in faith. }

May I ask for some clarification ... I am really not sure what you mean by this statement.

Thanks.

JM; You wrote: { I am perfectly open to seeing that others have a different reality or belief about God and Jesus ... To clarify, my posting is indeed my own opinion and is fact in my world alone. }

I am glad to hear that, JM.

Do you think the same can be said about Rev Vosper? I am not really getting that from her book. My reading is that progressive thought (as she defines it) is the only viable way for the church to evolve. The ideology is one of distilling all world faiths down to common key values, and discarding the "religious detritus of our traditions."

I know she talks about honouring all spiritual journeys, but this idea is frequently contradicted in WWG. She talks in chapter 4 about pointing out the inadequacies of what has gone before, and so on.

Diana: You wrote: { Hi, JM. Don't worry, I'm re-reading the texts all the time (grad studies in theology), and I still believe that the words attributed to Jesus have power and meaning for us today, especially if we choose to go deeply into them. That doesn't mean blind acceptance of every word attributed to him, but rather, engagement in them. Just my opinion, though. }

Thank you for posting this. I agree with you completely, and certainly find power and meaning in the words attributed to Jesus. If someone ever manages to convince me there was no historical Jesus, the words will still be of value as mythology.

And if this ever changes for me, I will happily join with the Unitarian Universalists : )

Hi, Paradox. You know, I'm intrigued by Unitarian Universalism and how they pull it all together. I would like to visit their worship services and get a better sense of it all; I feel sometimes like I'm at a point in my faith journey where I want to be immersed in different traditions, different ideas......but if I hadn't followed a Christian trajectory....even one that is decidedly unorthodox.....I don't know how I would have gotten even to the point where I am on my spiritual path. That's why I'm so interested in the UU's; how do they empower people to construct their own theologies?

And, again, perhaps I'm way off here.....I was re-reading Vosper's book and now I've misplaced it - sheesh - but it seems like while the UU's empower the individual spiritual journey, Vosper's progressive Christianity offers up a theology that is in some ways is just as defined as traditional theology - different, definitely, but also defined.

I have been thinking that I would feel comfortable in a service as non-traditional and nontheistic as West Hill's......now I'm not sure. I wish I lived close enough to find out! =)

I hope JM posts some more, too, because it would interesting to hear more of that person's church experience!

P3: May I ask for some clarification ... I am really not sure what you mean by this statement.

Well, its the same thing we've discussed before. And again I have to qualify by saying I haven't read Vosper's work so I can only speak in generalizations.

Over and over the church, and those who have sat in its pews for decades, claim to want to reach the "unchurched". But what they totally miss is that the unchurched don't have any foundation in "biblical literacy". More than that, they're not interested in gaining that foundation.

They know what they don't want. They don't want the b/g/t party line. And they aren't interested in the involved theology it takes to follow folks like RevJohn's traditional Grace perspective.

They just want to live a good life.

Now, here's the piece we have to remember in that. They haven't forgotten God and God hasn't forgotten them. They know that God is part of their lives.

Folks like Vosper (again generalizing) identify with these people and they try to connect with them by meeting them where they are. That's a good thing.

Where I think that they may run into difficulty is that they overestimate the interest that these people have in being part of a faith focused organization at all.

They are satisfied, as one teenage respondent to Christian Smith's study "Soul Searching" said to just "not be an asshole, that's all".

P3: The ideology is one of distilling all world faiths down to common key values, and discarding the "religious detritus of our traditions."

I think that this is already happening. Every faith, not just North American Christianity, is experiencing a drop in attendance, particulalry in the developed world. Which, as I noted before, is not the asme as a loss of faith.

Chrisitan smith, in the study published as "Soul Searching" identifies the "de facto American religion" as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. MTD piggybacks on older faiths. So there are Christian MTDs, Jewish MTDs, moslem MTDS, Hindu MTDs. you get the point.

These people have kept the core of their faith and discarded the religious detritus of their traditions

Goldenrule said, "I think we're again stuck with the problem that no one posting here is the typical person interested in faith."

well, what is typical after all eh? but ... I feel pretty typical, and I think in the sense that you are intending (if not please tell me), I am not a preacher, just someone following along the paths I am provided from one step to the next

[apologies for not being able to quite see the size of this text, have to go off-line and put this together]

Gretta writes, "Disdain for and denial of those who do not agree with our perspective seems to be highly regarded by Jesus (Mark 3:34) ..."

and I have an immediate and show stopping problem with this, maybe I am so old-hat, still reading the KJV and so forth, but when I go after Mark 3:34 I get, "And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!" This has nothing to do with Disdain and denial that I can see, does it to you all? (maybe I will prove entirely too typical for Mr. Goldenrule :-)

I apologize if this is a silly question ... but it is the one on my mind first of all, and this is Chapter 4 right?

there are others ... the first four zoas, or whatever they are supposed to be, essentials, the first four essentials: an open mind, passion, creativity & intellectual rigour ... all good, but I fail to discern an inherent pattern - as compared with say the buddhist eightfold path which unfolds into an integrity (to me), what about spirit? what about readiness?

the second four essentials are more like it: honesty, courage, respect, & balance (patience, perseverance, & pace) ... making seven to my humble addition for a total of eleven, but still ...

I admit to being pretty well stopped by this book, time will tell, indeed RevJamesMurray hints at something important when he says, " It took me several years to fully understand Paul." (several years only !?)

I chew on things, sometimes for years, decades even, for example, Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

my problem with it being how to simutaneously love someone and heap coals of fire on their head?

and though I have hardly tasted Gretta's book I am finding it too bitter and too shallow, a yorkshire pudding not well prepared ...

enough ... I must say how much I appreciate this forum, and the time and energy put into it by paradox3 and iwonder, astounding! thankyou, be well.

Hi, GR - I hear what you're saying about most people just wanting to live a good life, with "God" at the periphery. I think even at the height of Christendom when "everybody" went to church, the majority of people felt this way, it's just that going to church was the norm, an expected behaviour of a good person. So, like you say, it's not like there's been a huge falling away from faith, per se.

I still think that the quest for a progressive and demanding form of Christianity is well worth the effort.....even if the appeal is to a relatively small group of people in society. I think Spirit needs to be expressed in many different voices, and even if numbers are small, we can't possibly know the power of our authentic expressions of Spirit at work in the world......I guess the difficulty lies in the fact that "bums in pews" pays the bills, eh?

I think you're right, though - the folks who are interested in being good aren't coming back. They don't need church to be good people. But we keep trying, because we want the numbers back that we had at the height of Christendom, to keep our church running.......maybe we don't have enough faith in resurrection to risk our own deaths in just giving our voices to Spirit and letting God handle the rest? Is that kind of what you're saying??

hmmmm....I'm not going to delete that last post, but I think I'll amend it......it's not just about paying the bills, of course.....that was too flip.....it's about reaching out spiritually to offer the Gospel to others so that all can experience God through Jesus......it's just that, no matter how we present that, most people just aren't interested. That's better....now, is that what you're saying, GR?

GoldenRule: You wrote: { P3: The ideology is one of distilling all world faiths down to common key values, and discarding the "religious detritus of our traditions." I think that this is already happening. Every faith, not just North American Christianity, is experiencing a drop in attendance, particulalry in the developed world. }

Do you mean this is already happening in the world at large? If this is what you are getting at, I would agree with your comments.

There is certainly a large "church alumni association", to use Spong's words. Many people who grew up in the Christian tradition retain its core values but are no longer active in faith communities. Some of them attend church services for nostalgic reasons at Christmas and Easter, and look to the church for baptisms, weddings and funerals.

Gretta Vosper seems to make an assumption that many of these individuals, (along with the previously unchurched), will be drawn back by "progressive spirituality". I know that West Hill has had some success in this regard.

On the other hand, if there were great potential to involve these groups in church life, I would expect that the Unitarian Universalists would be bursting at the seams.

RevJohn and JM,

Your conversation is making me LONG for italics here at wondercafe. It would be so helpful to have italics for lengthy conversations which involve quoting each others' posts.

However, I am following the discussion with great interest. Thanks for your contributions.

DavidLeeWilson,

Hello, and welcome to the WWG discussion. I, too, am a fairly "typical" person of faith, as far as I know.

You wrote: { and though I have hardly tasted Gretta's book I am finding it too bitter and too shallow, a yorkshire pudding not well prepared ...

enough ... I must say how much I appreciate this forum, and the time and energy put into it by paradox3 and iwonder, astounding! thankyou, be well. }

I had not thought to call WWG "bitter and shallow", but I understand where you are coming from with your comments. It certainly represents a rejection of both liberal and conservative expressions of Christian faith.

Thank you for your comments. I am finding the WWG threads time consuming, but it has been time well spent. IWonder and I hope to encourage thoughtful consideration of Rev Vosper's ideas, and to provide a balanced approach to the discussion.

Nighthawk: Hello, it is nice to see you again.

You wrote: { The very existence of this chapter makes me even less interested in reading the book. Her interpretations are laughably facile. How can we take her seriously as a leader? }

I have been wondering if this discussion is helping or hindering Rev Vosper's book sales. Maybe a little of both is taking place :)

Someone mentioned to me that he felt Gretta would be delighted with the conversation unfolding here on wondercafe. I expect this is the case. Any author would enjoy seeing folks engage with her book, I would imagine.

Panentheism: You wrote: { There are other alternative models and Rev John is an example of someone who plumbs another tradition. Living the Question is an another example of the seeking process - }

One of my biggest objections to WWG is that it presents a sole version of progressive christianity, while ignoring most other contemporary schools of Christian thought. She spends time refuting Marcus Borg, who is identified with the progressive christian movement in the United States.

I completely understand that an author would wish to argue for her own particular interpretation, however.

Spong's foreword certainly offers the view that the Christian church really only has two alternatives - - "to follow Gretta's lead or to begin the process of marginalizing her." He goes on to say that she writes to make the God she worships clear.

So far (halfway through the book), this is not clear to me at all. Her stance re: life enhancing values is much more clearly articulated. Maybe some more light will be shed on the God Gretta worships in the second half of the book.

Diana: You wrote: { And, again, perhaps I'm way off here.....I was re-reading Vosper's book and now I've misplaced it - sheesh - but it seems like while the UU's empower the individual spiritual journey, Vosper's progressive Christianity offers up a theology that is in some ways is just as defined as traditional theology - different, definitely, but also defined. }

You are not way off at all, as I see the situation. You have nailed the difference between Vosper's progressive Christianity and Unitarianism quite nicely.

The worship service at West Hill is virtually indistinguishable from a UU service. I say this as one who worshipped at WHUC for five years, and spent some time with my family exploring Unitarianism. The difference, as I perceive it, is that the UU's actively encourage members to identify their spiritual perspective.

I don't know about the smaller UU congregations, but Toronto First has a type of "discernment process" in place for new members - - all day worshops, etc. Many of the members of this congregation wore nametags which identified them as humanist, naturalist, Christian, Buddhist, etc. It is also home to many interfaith couples, and is intentional about welcoming GLBT individuals.

There are many small groups which form around particular interests. I remember a Buddhist group and a Following the Way of Jesus group. The groups meet at various locations throughout Toronto.

West Hill does not offer this diversity, although it may do so in the future. The worship style is similar, in that it is "blank slate" which can accommodate a variety of perspectives. Some of the more traditional Christians have chosen to remain with the congregation. Ironically enough, I would be happier there now than I was during the period of change.

The last time I visited, I expressed this thought to Gretta. There was nothing at all in the service that was inconsistent with my faith. The problem for me is that it does not give me what I am seeking in a faith community. Her response was "Oh yes, we expected that some people would feel that way and need to find more traditional congregations."

So it seems like a "bottom line" approach was taken. The theological shift resulted in the loss of some members, but many more new members have been attracted and there has been net growth. At least I think so ... hopefully JM will clarify this for us.

Maybe it is a Win - Win situation after all. I am clearer about my own faith, and have happily joined with a congregation that is a better fit for me. WHUC is pursuing its particular direction, and its minister is attempting to sell her ideas to others in WWG.

Whether or not there will be more congregations like West Hill in the future remains to be seen.

Diana,

And Paradox

Diana: You wrote: { Hi, JM. Don't worry, I'm re-reading the texts all the time (grad studies in theology), and I still believe that the words attributed to Jesus have power and meaning for us today, especially if we choose to go deeply into them. That doesn't mean blind acceptance of every word attributed to him, but rather, engagement in them. Just my opinion, though. }

Thank you for posting this. I agree with you completely, and certainly find power and meaning in the words attributed to Jesus. If someone ever manages to convince me there was no historical Jesus, the words will still be of value as mythology.

And if this ever changes for me, I will happily join with the Unitarian Universalists : )

My Post:
Thanks to you both. The study of theology is necessarily about the study of god and in the Xn context, it's about god incarnate in Jesus. My own grad studies are in the historical/social/psychological of religious studies and not theology.

Having walked away from a path to ordination in the UCC - because it no longer made sense and was for me about participating the cycle of a greater division in our world, one which the world does not need more of ... I still find myself, having returned to church, sitting in the pews of West Hill United.In part after leaving the church for 10 years and returning, I could not, knowing what "I" knew for myself, could not walk into just any congregation and subject myself and my brain to mental gymnastics. I went the Unitarian route - but admittedly the UCC has an extensive network where much traditionally occurred to help many around the world and at home. Sadly this is not so much the case.

However, again, it was never really Jesus' words and teachings for me. They are contradictory, changed over time and for me, I don't believe written by any authentic witness - but are written in light of the lens of Paul. I would like to see the canon opened and more discussion about texts from other early forms of Christianity. Many present a Jesus quite different, though each portrait in the current canonical narratives is very different. As RevJohn pointed out, 1 jesus ... but I say many versions - many interpretations and none from any witness to his life and ministry. I find most coloured by Paul.

Jesus (or what's been said about him) can be one voice (through the many interpretations of that voice) but for me, only one. I need to hear and take into account the other voices who offered something wise, profound, challenging etc. to say. When I take away the layers and dig really deep and in outside texts from the N.T. canon - I find a very ultra-orthodox Jewish man, Torah-observant who truly believed that the Kingdom would be realized in his own life-time. Including a man who was not as concerned about social systems, nor the institutions of Judaism as we have projected onto him. I find a man totally and completely in line with the Pharisees of his day. The debates outline in the NT are written way after his time and for a very different purpose. Watch and Jew today debate his/her counterpart and its a real education.

For me, the N.T. canon is a wonderous hypothesis of theory (ies) concerning this man. His existence cannot be proven one way or the other. Yes, many scholars now agree that he actually lived, I'm good with that. The N.T. needs to be examined and taken into consideration, but alas it's theories cannot be proven. But what really can be "proven" in this universe of ours?

Thanks everyone, interesting thread.