In Defense Of Liberal Theology

[R. S. Martin]

For a short statement concerning my opinion of liberal theology:

 

Are they picking cherries? Who gives a shit? If they decide to follow a religion in a tolerant and open-minded way, I'm not going to demand they alter it further to comply more closely with my own beliefs. Love, empathy and kindness are virtues no matter where they're coming from.

 

Sage, that is basically why I started this thread--to point out that some forms of Christianity are probably just fine because they allow people to live and develop as is natural for them.

[Open_Minded]

I’ve never suggested that everything is total illusion, but I do lean towards seeing that our concepts of reality are inextricably tied to and influenced by the language of our culture, to the point it can limit or open our abilities to conceptualize in certain ways. Ways of thinking are tied to language.

We agree here….. ways of thinking are tied to language. Hence the need for this type of discussion …. For intentionally putting oneself in a position of viewing life through another's eyes, another's language, another's reality.

 

 

In general I don't disagree with your thought processes about language and its impact on our perceptions. But - the key is we are perceiving something.

Yes, but what are we perceiving? Something tangible, some external reality?

Short answer …. Yes there is some external reality - otherwise you and I would not be here. We would not be able to connect with each other. If everything was internal - there would be no interconnection with other humans. There would be no interconnection with anything else.

 

I’m not concluded on anything about some external Principle, or Universal Energy we may call God, but I don’t rule out that it likewise isn’t a manifest of our humanity; the commonality coming by virtue of common humanity.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both?

 

Are we the God we seek? Are we putting a face on him as outside ourselves because we are terrified at the prospect that there is nothing higher than us? Has he become real to us because of a projection of ourselves as something beyond us, like a phantom arm?

Maybe…… …. None of us have any tangible way of proving anything…… Maybe this thing we speak of as God is nothing more than an extension of ourselves.

 

But….. maybe…. Just maybe the reason humans throughout history … across cultural and language divides have written about perceptions of something living and aware beyond themselves says something as well.

 

That is my whole point …. As a liberal Christian I take my greatest comfort not in Christianity alone - but in Christianity as part of the whole. I take my comfort in Christianity as one voice in all the voices of humanity. And I am regularly amazed at how harmonious those voices are when we intentionally seek to transcend the concreteness of language and ritual.

 

Can I prove that the universe is living???? No …. I can't … but that doesn't matter to me. As I've mentioned before, I accept that perceiving ultimate reality is like a tree rooted in the ground trying to perceive the whole of the forest. It can't be done. But - the tree can talk to the deer and squirrels climbing its branches. It can gather information about the forest from others living in the forest with it. It is not dependent upon its own internal perceptions. We are not dependent upon our own internal perceptions either. We can - and here on these boards we do - intentionally put ourselves in a position to learn about others perceptions and take them into consideration.

 

I agree we’re seeking something. And we are responding to something we perceive, but that something is intangible, not like some force you can measure. Yes…. I do recall our conversations about how science should study a trend analysis of mystic experience for evidence of patterns. I think that any pursuit of knowledge and understanding is the height of human’s honor to the universe. We want to know, and that’s why drives us. We want to feel something; we want to experience something – in our humanity. We want to understand Life.

 

Is that a pull from something external, or a push from something internal that we externalize for a way to perceive it?

Again, why does it have to be one or the other, why can't it be both?

 

I like this poem. But what is IT?

IT is the "all in all" …. IT is the self-creating clear light….. IT is parentless pure consciousness…..

 

AND IT IS lost in illusion because we can never grab hold of it - it is the forest ITSELF (In totality) and we are rooted in the ground. And although the forest may be within us and we may know it intimately - we can never know it from outside ITSELF - and so there is a hole a searching within us because we know there is something more and sadly we know we are also rooted in the ground - that we see with limited eyes and limited perception. And the biggest limitations we have are our human perceptions, our language, our culture, our traditions. But these things are also our roots and we would perish without them.

 

Again, I appreciate seeing IT as external to us, or that we are in IT and IT in us, but isn’t everything that is real a perception of US?

No - there is much reality beyond our individual perceptions. We live - we breath - we connect with other humans and their reality. We are doing this all within something - within the "all and all".

 

Does IT exist as we perceive or experience it, to the worm? To the Gorilla? Or do we project our experience of the Universe to other life as being tied together with us in this currently percieved ultimate reality to us?

 

Is there an ultimate reality, or series of new consciousnesses? As the Universe may be just one of a never ended series of universes. Just questions, and no answers?

And that is the whole point - we don't have to have the answers. The "all in all" is just that "all in all" - it encompasses ALL - the entirety of existence - past, present and future -----

 

Ultimately we can't know if IT is living and awareness and love itself - or whether those perceptions are ONLY internal perceptions. But, it is still the "all in all" - and we are still - only a small blip on the radar screen of ultimate reality. In the end we are IT's creation and not the other way around.

[Antlerman]

We agree here….. ways of thinking are tied to language. Hence the need for this type of discussion …. For intentionally putting oneself in a position of viewing life through another's eyes, another's language, another's reality.

Yes, this describes well what all this is about for me: expanding horizons. This is what my core, sacred tenant of personal belief allows: “All things are possible”. We all have unique perceptions, and from these perceptions and words of others we are enhanced as individuals and as part of the whole. We are wired to be part of something.

 

But is everything?

 

In general I don't disagree with your thought processes about language and its impact on our perceptions. But - the key is we are perceiving something.

Yes, but what are we perceiving? Something tangible, some external reality?

Short answer …. Yes there is some external reality - otherwise you and I would not be here. We would not be able to connect with each other. If everything was internal - there would be no interconnection with other humans. There would be no interconnection with anything else.

My response above was not about all reality being an illusion, which I don’t view it as that way, but about this thing we call God. God is an intangible, an abstraction. Is God an external reality, are a subjective reality: the “ultimate”, or perhaps a better word would be a “transcendent” human experience?

 

I hear what you say about it maybe being both, but then we have to run into epistemology. How am I to understand that this sense or experience of the transcendent is outside me? Because it feels like it is?

 

Tying the things Ruby and I have been discussing into this, as it does all fit together, that personal experience of “God” or “Something” for me occurred at the moment of need for great personal transformation in my life. I was at a point of crisis.

 

The world was closing in on me and I cried out in great angst for life (in whatever way that expressed itself at the time). What happened was a great, and completely unexpected opening of possibility before me, like the shackles of darkness of thought abruptly vanished and I was confronted with Life. This is where in part the poem “Renascence” (which means Rebirth) by Edna St. Vincent Millay resonates so much with me:

 

(including whole poem for those for those interested and for entire context, and highlighting in red specifics to my point above)

"All I could see from where I stood

Was three long mountains and a wood;

I turned and looked another way,

And saw three islands in a bay.

So with my eyes I traced the line

Of the horizon, thin and fine,

Straight around till I was come

Back to where I'd started from;

And all I saw from where I stood

Was three long mountains and a wood.

Over these things I could not see;

These were the things that bounded me;

And I could touch them with my hand,

Almost, I thought, from where I stand.

And all at once things seemed so small

My breath came short, and scarce at all.

But, sure, the sky is big, I said;

Miles and miles above my head;

So here upon my back I'll lie

And look my fill into the sky.

And so I looked, and, after all,

The sky was not so very tall.

The sky, I said, must somewhere stop,

And -- sure enough! -- I see the top!

The sky, I thought, is not so grand;

I 'most could touch it with my hand!

And reaching up my hand to try,

I screamed to feel it touch the sky.

I screamed, and -- lo! -- Infinity

Came down and settled over me;

Forced back my scream into my chest,

Bent back my arm upon my breast,

And, pressing of the Undefined

The definition on my mind,

Held up before my eyes a glass

Through which my shrinking sight did pass

Until it seemed I must behold

Immensity made manifold;

Whispered to me a word whose sound

Deafened the air for worlds around,

And brought unmuffled to my ears

The gossiping of friendly spheres,

The creaking of the tented sky,

The ticking of Eternity.

I saw and heard, and knew at last

The How and Why of all things, past,

And present, and forevermore.

The Universe, cleft to the core,

Lay open to my probing sense

That, sick'ning, I would fain pluck thence

But could not, -- nay! But needs must suck

At the great wound, and could not pluck

My lips away till I had drawn

All venom out. -- Ah, fearful pawn!

For my omniscience paid I toll

In infinite remorse of soul.

All sin was of my sinning, all

Atoning mine, and mine the gall

Of all regret. Mine was the weight

Of every brooded wrong, the hate

That stood behind each envious thrust,

Mine every greed, mine every lust.

And all the while for every grief,

Each suffering, I craved relief

With individual desire, --

Craved all in vain! And felt fierce fire

About a thousand people crawl;

Perished with each, -- then mourned for all!

A man was starving in Capri;

He moved his eyes and looked at me;

I felt his gaze, I heard his moan,

And knew his hunger as my own.

I saw at sea a great fog bank

Between two ships that struck and sank;

A thousand screams the heavens smote;

And every scream tore through my throat.

No hurt I did not feel, no death

That was not mine; mine each last breath

That, crying, met an answering cry

From the compassion that was I.

All suffering mine, and mine its rod;

Mine, pity like the pity of God.

Ah, awful weight! Infinity

Pressed down upon the finite Me!

My anguished spirit, like a bird,

Beating against my lips I heard;

Yet lay the weight so close about

There was no room for it without.

And so beneath the weight lay I

And suffered death, but could not die.

 

Long had I lain thus, craving death,

When quietly the earth beneath

Gave way, and inch by inch, so great

At last had grown the crushing weight,

Into the earth I sank till I

Full six feet under ground did lie,

And sank no more, -- there is no weight

Can follow here, however great.

From off my breast I felt it roll,

And as it went my tortured soul

Burst forth and fled in such a gust

That all about me swirled the dust.

 

Deep in the earth I rested now;

Cool is its hand upon the brow

And soft its breast beneath the head

Of one who is so gladly dead.

And all at once, and over all

The pitying rain began to fall;

I lay and heard each pattering hoof

Upon my lowly, thatched roof,

And seemed to love the sound far more

Than ever I had done before.

For rain it hath a friendly sound

To one who's six feet underground;

And scarce the friendly voice or face:

A grave is such a quiet place.

 

The rain, I said, is kind to come

And speak to me in my new home.

I would I were alive again

To kiss the fingers of the rain,

To drink into my eyes the shine

Of every slanting silver line,

To catch the freshened, fragrant breeze

From drenched and dripping apple-trees.

For soon the shower will be done,

And then the broad face of the sun

Will laugh above the rain-soaked earth

Until the world with answering mirth

Shakes joyously, and each round drop

Rolls, twinkling, from its grass-blade top.

How can I bear it; buried here,

While overhead the sky grows clear

And blue again after the storm?

O, multi-colored, multiform,

Beloved beauty over me,

That I shall never, never see

Again! Spring-silver, autumn-gold,

That I shall never more behold!

Sleeping your myriad magics through,

Close-sepulchred away from you!

O God, I cried, give me new birth,

And put me back upon the earth!

Upset each cloud's gigantic gourd

And let the heavy rain, down-poured

In one big torrent, set me free,

Washing my grave away from me!

 

I ceased; and through the breathless hush

That answered me, the far-off rush

Of herald wings came whispering

Like music down the vibrant string

Of my ascending prayer, and -- crash!

Before the wild wind's whistling lash

The startled storm-clouds reared on high

And plunged in terror down the sky,

And the big rain in one black wave

Fell from the sky and struck my grave.

I know not how such things can be;

I only know there came to me

A fragrance such as never clings

To aught save happy living things;

A sound as of some joyous elf

Singing sweet songs to please himself,

And, through and over everything,

A sense of glad awakening.

The grass, a-tiptoe at my ear,

Whispering to me I could hear;

I felt the rain's cool finger-tips

Brushed tenderly across my lips,

Laid gently on my sealed sight,

And all at once the heavy night

Fell from my eyes and I could see, --

A drenched and dripping apple-tree,

A last long line of silver rain,

A sky grown clear and blue again.

And as I looked a quickening gust

Of wind blew up to me and thrust

Into my face a miracle

Of orchard-breath, and with the smell, --

I know not how such things can be! --

I breathed my soul back into me.

Ah! Up then from the ground sprang I

And hailed the earth with such a cry

As is not heard save from a man

Who has been dead, and lives again.

About the trees my arms I wound;

Like one gone mad I hugged the ground;

I raised my quivering arms on high;

I laughed and laughed into the sky,

Till at my throat a strangling sob

Caught fiercely, and a great heart-throb

Sent instant tears into my eyes;

O God, I cried, no dark disguise

Can e'er hereafter hide from me

Thy radiant identity!

Thou canst not move across the grass

But my quick eyes will see Thee pass,

Nor speak, however silently,

But my hushed voice will answer Thee.

I know the path that tells Thy way

Through the cool eve of every day;

God, I can push the grass apart

And lay my finger on Thy heart!

 

The world stands out on either side

No wider than the heart is wide;

Above the world is stretched the sky, --

No higher than the soul is high.

The heart can push the sea and land

Farther away on either hand;

The soul can split the sky in two,

And let the face of God shine through.

But East and West will pinch the heart

That can not keep them pushed apart;

And he whose soul is flat -- the sky

Will cave in on him by and by."

It’s kind of hard to follow that up with any thoughts, but this is a discussion thread so I’ll try to bring it back. In the depth of life change crisis came an existential experience of new birth in my life. It was absolutely real.

 

Ruby, you say it has taken around seven years to bring this to some resolution? You’ve done well. I’ve taken over 23 years of untangling this, and even still now this is a journey of discovery for me. It’s a journey of possibilities in my humanity, my existence, our existence and of existence itself. The road of going down fundamentalist religious thought on it was a journey in learning what it is not.

 

Where I am now is in understanding it within the natural world, with the make up of what makes us a biological being, which within that is this potential for meaning, for higher illumination or understanding of the nature of our existence. When I cried out, my perception changed. My perception became illuminated. When I was in darkness my perception saw darkness. When I was opened, my perception saw Light.

 

Everything lays in choice. We choose to see darkness and we choose to see light. Belief is integral to the human experience. Belief in “God” is perhaps just another way to express the choice to believe in hope, to focus on the positive in the world, or in ourselves and our own lives.

 

Is God out there, or is “God” in here *points to own heart and to mind* in the choice to believe in dark or in light for ourselves in this world? In believing in darkness, it was real in our lives, but does Darkness exist outside us as a force? In believing in Light, it likewise becomes real in our lives, but does Light (metaphorically speaking) exist as a force outside ourselves? I am leaning to the Universe being a great Neutral, and we are the Creators of light and darkness for ourselves.

 

If we believe in darkness, how dark can that be, how terrible can the universe be? As dark as what some have experienced to be the Devil or Evil? The opposite is true, if we are to believe in light, how bright can the universe be? As bright as what some have experienced to be “God”?

 

That is really what my current consideration on the nature of what God is, OM. I guess in a sense you are right, that it doesn’t matter what that language is if we are connecting to that “essence”, and that essence is what offers life to us.

 

The language of religion is all metaphors and mythology to describe this struggle of humanity. I guess that literalist streak that always exists in me is what has the hard time to set aside the signs and see that are pointing to this principle I see in a humanistic light. This is really I feel what defines the difference between the liberal and the fundamentalist, the ability to use signs as pointers, as NBBTL always mentions, instead of seeing the signs or language as the signified. Is "God" the question, or the experience of Life?

 

(This however doesn’t resolve my questionings on the benefits of some language systems over others toward achieving these ends. )

[R. S. Martin]

Wow! just wow! I know why you didn't know what to say after that poem. It's powerful! Often I can't really identify with poetry. But this time I had some introduction. You tried to describe what happened in your life, they you presented the poem. That brought it alive.

 

I think the line between Christians and nonChristians is so blurred in spots that it is practically nonexistent. I started going to church again. It's the church I attended regularly about five years ago. People think I have "come back to God." I don't bother correcting any misconceptions. I just want to be part of a community and I like the people and the music. There is some intellectual dissonance but the peace I have inside myself is what matters.

 

I found what I was seeking--namely that one can live a perfectly good life (not perfect as sinless just perfect as in good and happy) without believing in a god outside oneself. With the desperation for answers gone, I can enjoy the fellowship and music. I have also come to the conclusion that most Christians probably are no more believers than I am; they are just in the habit of saying certain things as though they believed them.

 

I go to church with a lady I've learned to know over the years. She identifies as Christian and I don't, yet our beliefs are almost identical. Neither of us have any desire to go celebrate Jesus on Good Friday or Easter or in Communion. Both of us are very spiritual people.

 

OM, I don't think of the universe as being a living breathing entity, but I like to see myself as part of this little planet spinning in space with all this vibrant life on it. There's something primordial in the idea of being part of nature--the trees, the elements of the weather, the entire eco-system. And we (this planet and inhabitants) are but one bit spinning in space. Yet insignificant as this planet is it has its place in the universe.

[R. S. Martin]

Post 15:

I'd like it if you Ruby would ask your professor about these questions, and apologize to him for them not being really clear.

 

The email just came in. He wrote a reply to your questions, Antlerman. I'll post it then read it. Here it is:

 

> Does the Bible have any relevance? Yes of course it does. It was written by humans, and therefore contains humanistic value, just [like] any work of antiquity that has shaped our thoughts and values of our societies. If it had no relevance, it would be forgotten completely by now.

 

> To the liberal, the Bible "contains the word of God", and that can be understood in very humanistic terms of human inspiration, symbolized by the word "God" or "the divine". To the fundamentalist however, the Bible "IS the word of God", and is authoritative in all matters, which position is fraught with problems that lead to the cherry picking approach of the apologist in defending that claim

 

> Now here's where my questions about how liberals operate starts to get murky, and where Ruby's feedback with her experience with them will be invaluable to this discussion. I don't know how well I can articulate my question, but I'll make a stab at it.

 

> I'm certain that in the ranks of theologians and ministers, they would probably articulate this along the same lines as I have above, or at least acknowledge it somewhat in principle, but how does this operate in their lives as faith? If they understand this, how does the language hold power for them?

 

I'm not sure whether I am a "liberal" or a "conservative." By way of identification I am Lutheran, which some people would call liberal and some people would call conservative.

 

Warning: Not all of our fellow-Christians agree with us Lutherans. Some think we are totally out to lunch, so remember that when you read what I am saying.

To me being a Lutheran means that I am committed to a Christianity which sees "grace" as central and essential. "Grace" means that who we are is utter, unconditional gift. The core of Christianity is understood as the hope that because of God's unconditional promise expressed in Christ the destiny of creation is good. Lutherans have never (our version of Christianity dates to the 1520s - we like to think that it is what Jesus had in mind, but that may be arrogance on our part) taken every word of the Bible as having equal power. The Bible is a collection of writings from many people at many times and in many places and must be read with discretion and discernment. Some parts of the Bible present laws from a time long past which no longer apply. Some parts of the Bible present cultic material that is not meant for us. Some parts continue to speak to the present. Many of these parts are poetic or epic narrative (not meant to be taken "literally"). Those sections that speak most powerfully are those which communicate something of God's grace. Among these are texts which (and this might be different in different contexts) convey to us both words of terror (woe to those who oppress the poor) and words of hope (there is much rejoicing over one who is found). That being said, the fundamental word is in the end a word of gracious hope. We believe (and we could be wrong, of course) that those who hear only words of exclusion or condemnation in the Bible need to read with more discernment. I can say both that the Bible "is" the Word of God and the Bible "contains" the Word of God. I'm not sure how significant the difference is, since in either case all ancient literature must be interpreted. When it comes to interpretative principles, I like the work of Paul Ricouer and Hans-Georg Gadamer as guides.

 

I should also say that the Bible is, among other things, a record of a conflict, and this conflict extended from the earliest writings of the Hebrew Scriptures right down to the most recent writings in the New Testament. In brief there were always at least two different views of what the people of God ought to be. One was more inclusive and one more exclusive, one more oriented to identifying with the marginalized and one more interested in the purity of the community. For example compare Ezra, where the descendants of David are told to put away their foreign wives, and Ruth where a foreign wife is presented as David's great-grandmother. Compare Paul in Galatians with James. This conflict continues in Christianity to this day. Unfortunately, most of what one hears in the media reflects the more purity-oriented, exclusive approach which tries to deny that the conflict appears in the Bible. They want to be the only possibility.

 

> Are they practicing a Kierkegaardian-type existential "leap of faith"?

 

Of course. Is there any other way? Theology is not like high school geometry where you start with axioms and use certain rules to arrive at proofs of theorems. Nor can the Bible be read in that way. And what is the problem with a "leap of faith"? Creative scientists often make a leap of faith to come to new theories about how the universe works. The difference between science and theology is that someday someone might be able to make observations which confirm aspects of scientific theory (look at the history of Einstein's theories). That is not possible for theology, since what Christians claim to be the ultimate revelation of God looked a lot like a common criminal being executed by the Roman authorities.

 

>Do they intellectually understand that God is a symbol of language and that it is all about humanity seeking to find itself, yet they choose to incorporate the language of Gods and Angels and Holy Spirits and Resurrections, etc, for the power of the word value? The use of connotative word signs are a powerful form of communication that can inspire and motivate. Is their faith to them an embracing of the language and the sense it gives them, and do they know this intellectually, but make a "leap of faith" in order to make use of its power?

 

I'm not sure how to answer this question since I don't believe that God is only a symbol of language which is about humanity seeking to find itself. It is probably true that for some people Feuerbach's critique is accurate, but not for all. Since his and Marx's critiques many theologians and every-day Christians have taken seriously the need to be something other than the opiate of the people. If you asked me to point out the end point of humanity seeking to find itself I might point to the Iraq War or climate change. I'm not exactly an Enlightenment optimist. For me the leap of faith is not about the use of power, even the power of word value. The leap of faith is trusting that the ultimate power behind the universe (which I believe to be an entity called God who is capable of relating to creation in profound ways) is gracious and social. In fact, I believe that God is not revealed in power, but in weakness; not in wisdom, but in foolishness. The basic message of Christianity is that God is revealed in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, that is, in the arrest, trial, conviction, and execution of a Galilean peasant by the Romans and their collaborators in Palestine in the first century C.E. That is the focus of the leap of faith. That is the weakness and foolishness of God. It is also what makes most of what we call "religion" mere posturing. It is the reason that the first generations of Christians were accused of atheism.

 

> Secondly, in ministering to their parishioners, how do they see the average person's response to this? Are they simply just doing what I've talked about above, without really understanding it intellectually as someone who has delved into a deeper understanding of history, theology, philosophy, etc such as the theology major and scholars? Do they just walk in the doors, listen to the words from the pulpit about God's love for them, God's hope for peace in the world through their actions as people of God, etc, then walk from the doors feeling inspired, yet not really taking a position where they would defend it as absolute, immutable, literal, and authoritative truth if pressed on the use of those words? Do they just live life and make use of the language, without standing up a[nd] saying they are literally true?

 

This depends on the person. Truthfully, I have no idea what the average church-goer hears and believes. I assume that they must believe something of it or they wouldn't keep coming back, but you never know. I can only answer for myself (and I spend most of my time listening to sermons rather than preaching them). The preacher I hear most often is my wife, so I have a pretty good idea of what she thinks she is doing. She and I have studied our share of history, theology, philosophy, etc.. I do bring all of that with me to every sermon I hear and she brings it to every sermon she preaches. Some years ago we went to church with several of the top astronomers of the time, and they brought everything they had learned to church, too. We were and are lucky to be part of a church that has never insisted that every word of the Bible is equal to every other word, so we never thought that scientific or humanistic learning was a threat to our faith. Yet most of us believed what we heard as authoritative (though not immutable - is anything immutable?) truth. I have never taken anything I say or any interpretation of the Bible I give as absolute truth. God may be absolute, but I can only hear God's Word though my ears and interpret it through my brain, which is anything but absolute. Any preacher who believes that what he or she says is absolute truth is dangerous and ought to be defrocked. Humans are limited and we can only interpret God's Word as humans. Even if the Bible is "inerrant" how would we ever know and how could that be relevant when there is no such thing as an infallible interpreter (though if you are Catholic you might believe that the pope is infallible under very limited circumstances)?

 

> Lastly and most importantly, at what point does that line between embracing word value and those words becoming a literal reality become obscured? Can one be a humanist and a "believer" at the same time, or do you check your hat at the door on Sunday to inhale the incense of words of inspiration, and then walk out those doors a human being with the residual effect of that "leap of faith" lingering on your clothing to carry you forward out into the real world?

 

Again, I can only say that this depends on the person. No doubt some do exactly this. I personally could not live this way. If I did not believe what I have articulated above (and much else) I would not waste my time in church. Certainly one can be a humanist and a believer - the two are not necessarily at odds with each other. Every good Christian, I would say, is by necessity an atheist and a humanist. First, I think that it is necessary to refuse to believe in the official gods of consumer capitalist society. It is necessary to refuse to believe in the gods of war and empire. To be a Christian means to refuse to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar. It also means to be radically pro-creation. Belief in God as creator does not mean to believe that the world was created in 6 days in 4004 BCE - many who claim to believe such are anti-creation. Belief in God as creator means to be radically committed to the earth, to all its creations, to all people, especially the weak and marginalized. It means to give one's life to the welfare of the community. If that isn't humanism, what is?

 

Now a question from me to you: Is it possible that you are assuming that what Fundamentalists say about Christianity is the only way to understand Christianity? That is certainly what they claim, but if they are wrong about the Bible, is it not possible that they are wrong about Christianity in general?

 

Suggested readings: Anything by Douglas John Hall especially Why Christian? or The Cross in Our Context) or John Polkinghorne.

[Open_Minded]

WOW.... I've not had time to write these past few days and there is so much to respond to:

 

Antlerman:

 

We've had conversations along this line before and I'm sure we will again. The poem you posted is beautiful and leaves me somewhat speechless (you should be proud - it's rare that something renders me speechless) .

 

That is really what my current consideration on the nature of what God is, OM. I guess in a sense you are right, that it doesn’t matter what that language is if we are connecting to that “essence”, and that essence is what offers life to us.

In this we agree.

 

My only point all along - and I do feel a need to emphasis it - is that if language and ritual and culture shaped our reality in excess - then there would be no way for us to connect with each other. At some point - we must be willing to transcend language. This is so very important a concept for me - as involved in interspiritual and inter-religious activities as I am.

 

It matters not to me how one perceives ultimate reality - what matters most to me is whether they are willing to consider other possibilities - other perceptions besides their own. If they are - then there is room for a bridge to be built. That - to me - is the essence of being a liberal Christian.

 

Ruby ---

 

OM, I don't think of the universe as being a living breathing entity, but I like to see myself as part of this little planet spinning in space with all this vibrant life on it. There's something primordial in the idea of being part of nature--the trees, the elements of the weather, the entire eco-system. And we (this planet and inhabitants) are but one bit spinning in space. Yet insignificant as this planet is it has its place in the universe.

Yes - it does - it surely does have its place in the "All in all".

 

About your prof's reply -

 

I like that guy A LOT.... I've never met him ..... but I like him. And his response isn't all that different from the response my pastor (and the response many other Lutherans I know as well) would probably give.

 

I don't view the cross and ressurrection the same way they do - but - hey my pastor knows where I stand and he still serves me communion on Sunday mornings, he still welcomes me next to him when it's my turn to assist at the communion rail, he still considers me a friend and still trusts me with a major ministry in our church. He's willing to consider other perceptions in addition to his own - that makes him a "liberal" Christian in my eyes. He would probably call it "Grace" - either way it fits.

[R. S. Martin]

About your prof's reply -

 

I like that guy A LOT.... I've never met him ..... but I like him. And his response isn't all that different from the response my pastor (and the response many other Lutherans I know as well) would probably give.

 

I am so glad he responded to these questions. He has had a major impact on my life. Through his day to day lived example I learned that there are good Christians. The way he writes here is the way he speaks for lectures. It's not "Christianese." It's a decent, matter-of-fact, down-to-earth approach to life, the Bible, God.

[NotBlinded]

Ruby,

 

That was a breath of fresh air. I may have remained a Christian if all Christians were like this!

 

Thanks for that.

[R. S. Martin]

OM and NBBTL, I passed both your responses on to him. (OM, I just sent the paragraph about "I like that guy.") I figure he deserves to know that people like what he wrote. It is because of his example, and the examples of his collegues, that I cannot condemn Christianity per se. I invited him to join the forum and contribute directly to this thread but he declined.

 

I can probably not pass on more responses because it will fill up his inbox. I just wanted him to know that it was worth his time to write that up. And I think it's worth a Christian's time to know that his faith is indeed a shining light. It might encourage him in a dark moment to know that his life was worth living. Thanks for responding so warmly to it.