of course the problem with this is that some of the doctrine and so called baggage that Christian terminology carrires is to teach spirtuality . THe message is that this doctrine  for spirtuial enlightment True for death could not hold on to the message.

I like the term "process spirituality." This means that defining our spirituality is a continuous creative process rather than something fixed. In process spirituality, we, individually and collectively, continuously reform and transform what it means to be spiritual or religious.

 

When Luther started the Protestant Reformtion, I think he meant reformation to be an ongoing process. I certainly am a Lutheran in that sense of Lutheranism.

 

 HI GoldenRule---------------------------   Arminius------  Wrote this------ I and the Father are one."

-Jesus

 

Jesus brought us the message of our divinity. Unfortunately, we divinized only the messenger and left ourselves mundane.

 

But we can always correct that cardinal (pun intended) mistake, heed Jesus' message  and experience ourselves as the divine beings that we innately are.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I don't know if your allowed to do this or not?But I could not have put it closer to what I believe. Airclean33

 Well you know GR that an agnostic is an atheist who is hedging (his or her) bets by keeping a foot in each camp.  Likewise the term "progressive" announces to the world  that although you are searching you keep a connection to traditional church.  Its like an insurance policy just in case the traditionalists are actually onto something.  Seems like a "no-lose" situation.  Spiritualists are prepared to go beyond institutional borders to explore their own spirituality.  There are tradeoffs I guess.  Institutions have greater resources at their disposal to explore spirituality.  Money to buy the books, do the research, study the Greek and the Hebrew, acquire the PhD , money to pay researchers to do what we cannot, a cadre of theologians  to perceive the right spiritual path and ministers to disseminate the message whereas the spiritualist has a better understanding of his own feelings and greater freedom to speculate.  Its the difference between hiring a mutual fund manager and doing your own investing.  Returns may vary depending on the skill and courage of the spiritual investor.

I was wondering why those who call themselves spiritual or progressive liberal don't want to give up on words such as god and Christian. Why not try some new words such as fire keepers or something like that. The fundies would probably be a lot happier if we leave their strange hold on god alone.

Why I thought of fire is it can keep you warm or if your're not careful it can burn you.

 

Allowed to do what, Airclean33?

 

You can quote me anytime anywhere.

 

Seriously, now. The Christ insight is easy to come by. What follows the insight, however, is more difficult: a lifetime of Christly action. This is the hard part.

I'm beginning to think that both these words "spiritual" and "progressive" are the new buzz words of the church for this generation.As with other buzz words they fade away and new words take their place.

 

Can you imagine writing on a form    religion: "I'm spiritual" or "I'm Progressive". Sorry, I can't. There has to be more to it.

When asked for my Religion I write None.

I think "I'm spiritual" makes more sense than "I'm progressive". Progressive sounds like a political ideology or something (and we did have a Progressive Party in this country many eons ago). Spiritual denotes an attitude and approach to life. However, spirituality isn't something Christian, it's an attitude that can be found in all religions and even in people who aren't part of a formal religious organization, which is really where the "I'm spiritual but not religious" line belongs. To my mind, one can be spiritual and progressive, spiritual and traditionalist, spiritual and liberal, and so on. None of these approaches to theology and practice are necessarily more spiritual than another except perhaps in the minds of their followers.

 

Now, I don't think that Christianity has lost it's spirituality. However, I do think that the definition of what is spiritual and what people want from a spiritual tradition has changed and broadened so that more people are not finding a spiritual experience in traditional liturgies, theologies, etc. Not everyone, but certainly more than one was the case a generation or so back. Progressive Christianity is not innately more spiritual than traditional Christianity, but it does appeal to some of these people who no longer find spirituality in traditional churches.

 

Mendalla

 

I'm not sure I'm quite understanding blackie. On the surface of it, I'd agree with you - the doctrine/dogma has lost the Message. But, knowing your conservative views, I'm not sure that's where you were going?

Count me in as well, Arm.

Hi ac. You are indeed allowed to do that (I'm assuming you mean quote from another thread?).

 

And I'd agree. Which is why I wonder if the word "progressive" carries as much of the wrong baggage as the language it tries to escape. We don't need to "progress" so much as we need to "recover" the original intent of the Message of our inseverable relationship with God.

Perhaps that's why so many people now say "none"?

  None of the pigeonholes fit their experience of God?

What, if anything, would you like to see as an option that you'd feel comfortable choosing?

Thanks for a really great reflection, mendalla. That's exactly the kind of thing I was trying to get at. People are "seeking" (to use another old buzzword) things/experiences/communities that fan the spark of their spirituality.

 

I think that's why the "traditionals", who do find spiritual nourishment in the rituals and doctrine, are so perplexed by the growing majority who don't. And, since the "emerging" element does yet have a cohesive language of its own, it borrows from lots of places (just as Christianity did when it started), and as a result critics accuse it of "cherry-picking."

Message of our inseverable relationship with God.----DAVID wrote--   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi David your right about moving from one thread to another.Please   Expand  on what you wrote so I can understand what your saying.Airclean33

Hi ac.

This is one of those places where I think our theology is quite different. For me, Scripture does not speak to a need to "fix" our relationship with God, but rather that we have to  stop pretending that it's "broken".

 

To "love one another as I have loved you" as Jesus put it (which is a rather poor translation) is not to conform to some doctrine or dogma. Its to accept, and act on, the reality that, because we are one with Creation, it is up to us, and us alone to transform Creation.

 

David

I'm not sure that letting others "perceive the right spiritual path" is so much a tradeoff as a surrender.

It seems to me that an institution that's adhering to the Message of agape bends all those resources you mentioned to help the "spiritualist" explore those feelings and their relationship with God.

David------I think your right you and I think different here.The new Testment talk is mostly of repairing are relationship,with God.   As far as creation  goes ,  Man was made at Creation. But something was put into man that was not . The breath of life came from God.-Airclean33

 

I absolutely agree GR.  I think, however, that a lot of those who have surrendered don't think of it that way,  Rather, they have taken a stance that, if they were honest, might be more properly characterized as an "abdication" ... a "handoff".  "Here you're better at this than me.  Handle it for me please.  Just tell me ..."  

 

I also agree that churches ought to bend their resources to help the spiritual searchers.  There should be no appearance of brownie points being given to those "who fall in line".  There is little virtue in it.

I understand that you see it that way, ac.

Yes, I'd agree with you. It seems to me that a good portion of the reason for that, at least in mainline churches, is because they've spent so much time qualifying and, for want of a better term "intellectualizing" their positions, that it's extremely difficult for the average person to engage. 

 

Indeed. To help the seeker, however, one must first be confident in their own position - not in it's "superiority", but in its solidity.