Comments for Homebrewed Christianity

Comment on Brian McLaren joins us for Faith and Politics part 3: Homebrewed Christianity ep.29 by Beth Patterson : I’m probably way off base

Beth Patterson : I’m probably way off base — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:27:43 +0000

[...] Well, you should read about his truly ground breaking work on one of my favorite blogs ‘Homebrewed Christianity’. He and Richard Rohr are tight. Along with some other big thinkers like Phyllis [...]

Comment on The Theology After Google Bookstore by “Theology After Google” Streamed | Homebrewed Christianity

“Theology After Google” Streamed | Homebrewed Christianity — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:52:58 +0000

[...] MusicTripp's BlogChad's BlogPodcast ArchiveRecent Posts“Theology After Google” StreamedThe Theology After Google BookstoreAstrological Dynamics? Really?I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 9Beta Faith with Philip [...]

Comment on Philip Clayton invites Daniel Dennett to a debate: Will the New Atheist Accept or Hide (again!)? by What Would it Take For You to Lose Your Faith? at robrynders.com

What Would it Take For You to Lose Your Faith? at robrynders.com — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:11:35 +0000

[...] Hitchens, Harris kind) Daniel Dennet. This was an interesting debate setup by Clayton after Dennett more or less refused to have a civil dialogue with him at an event in Cambridge last year. This, however, was not your [...]

Comment on Deacon Parker on “The Earthquake in Haiti, God, and the Arbitrariness of Life” by ElMyers Peres

ElMyers Peres — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:55:02 +0000

The Haitian people has my condoloences. The recent earthquake was a tragedy.

Comment on Beta Faith with Philip Clayton, Spencer Burke, and Oozers: Homebrewed Christianity 75 by Matt Cook

Matt Cook — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:22:56 +0000

It’s interesting to think of god and religion being as a beta. It allows us to engage in discussions and breath life into a subject that can quicly become stale and polarized. However, I’m worried that people will use the beta model as just a cop-out for trying to achieve something greater. We are always seeking to find something greater, but if we know we’ll never get there will people stop trying? I hope not.
Also if god and church is in the beta what does that say for the great history. to me it’s a constantly evolving machine. It has been presented to the people but it is always moving always changing to help the people with thier greatest needs. To me religion has become a searching for truth. If god is only in testing, what is the truth that we are searching for?

Comment on Beta Faith with Philip Clayton, Spencer Burke, and Oozers: Homebrewed Christianity 75 by Ken Silva

Ken Silva — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:11:27 +0000

“Ken has not yet added you or me to the “categories” section of his website”

Guess you’ll just have to try harder.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:27:11 +0000

In the bible it tells horrific stories of people who claimed that God told them to do these things. What about those passages where it speaks of killing people for their sins, asking them to bash the childrens heads against the wall, these are just a few that come to mind at this time. Their is just so much in the bible that I think God had nothing to do with. Do you really think that God told people to kill others so they could have their land? I do not think God asks anyone to go to war. However, if we do go to war, I think God is with the individuals as they fight. We must look at the teachings and actions of Jesus, or at least I do, to begin my discernment process. Most of the bible was written 70 or more years after the death of Christ and as Michael said, many errors have been detected in the transcribing from what original documents the group had to put the bible together. This I accept and it does not take anything away from my reading the bible and gaining much from it. However, it does tell me that it is not in without error and it has been proven that things have been added since the first translation that was by humans who wanted to change or add to what was said originally just so it would fit their doctrine. God is continuing to inspire writers with new material and this must be read and added to what the bible said, maybe not a new translation, but simply for our own understanding we must retain the information in our hearts and minds.

Comment on Astrological Dynamics? Really? by Pete

Pete — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:59:40 +0000

Sigh. So sad to be a witness to the first reversal in history in the scientific knowledge of the average American.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 9 by Chad Crawford

Chad Crawford — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:38:33 +0000

Michael, thanks again for letting us run this series. I’ve been enjoying the discussion that is taking place.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by Michael

Michael — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:03:14 +0000

XDavidx,
The Bible itself tells us to “test everything.” I don’t think it’s arrogant to critically look at the claims of the Bible and the doctrine of infallibility. God wants us to use our minds and not accept everything blindly. I also find in the Bible what you say, powerful teachings that touch our lives, but also much misinterpretation, mistranslation, and misuse of its authority. If we ignore these misuses, how is that honoring God or the Bible? I think if are honest with the evidence (not enough room here to lay it out), the “obvious claims” of the Bible aren’t so obvious. That doesn’t mean God isn’t capable, it means we humans are sometimes in error. Some say I’m picking and choosing what I want out of the Bible. But that’s exactly what the early church did when they made the canon. They picked and chose what they wanted in and out, and over the years made assumptions that it was copied correctly and how authoritative it was meant to be. Don’t we have a right to do that same evaluation, or are we left to just blindly accept what others have done?

Comment on Beta Faith with Philip Clayton, Spencer Burke, and Oozers: Homebrewed Christianity 75 by Jesse Turri

Jesse Turri — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:26:59 +0000

Great conversation you guys! You’re excitement and enthusiasm is extremely contagious. Wish I could be at the TAG conference but I’ll be checking in on twitter for sure!

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 9 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:00:39 +0000

“What I am saying is that we must be willing to go where the evidence leads even if it goes against out long-standing tradition or personal bias. Although I believe Christians can be certain of many things (the historical Jesus, his practical and spiritual wisdom, a transcendent meaning and power in the world—God—and a new way of relating to God found in the good news of Jesus), we should hold many views lightly.” You have made some very good points. My journey has been simlilar in some ways as I to had and have many questions about the traditional teachings in my Baptist faith upbringing. Coming from a very loving and Christian home that were not very educated it took me a lot longer to get some answers to my questions. I was adult, married with three children before I was able to talk with adults about my questions. My many experiences of God and my studying on my own gave me some direction and hope. However, I wanted and needed someone to talk with. I read biographies beginning in high school and could not get enough of them. I began to see in some of the lives that I read about a difference in their thinking and living. Some of this corresponded to my thoughts on religion. When I first came back to Winston-Salem after about 3 years of absence, I began to read religious books and joined Knollwood Baptist church. This was when my questions began to be answered but also brought about more questions. I love to learn and I continue to this day. All of this is to say that what I believe does change from time to time but like you, some stay solid and stable. I have too many experiences of God to disbelieve, that is constant. The other things you mention remain absolutes for me as well. As I have said many times, for me there are many paths to God but I chose the Path of Jesus. The other things I have a belief about them but nothing is certain as far as I am concerned. Is there life after death, if so what will it be like, is there a heaven and hell, I do not know and do not believe anyone else does either. For me, heaven is going to be a place here or somewhere, where I will be with God for all eternity and it does not matter to me where God chooses for us to join together. Hell for me, is just the opposite. It will be someplace other than here on earth, or on earth, I do not know nor care but it will be a place where God is not. Whether or not it is forever, I hope the heaven part is but I hope the hell part is only temporary and people will join with God at some point. Very simplistic I know but I just do not think we know enough for it to be any other way. There are very few absolutes in my opinion. We can, I think, come to some understandings and live by what we do know and what we have experienced of God. The two commandments help us and the assurance of the presence of God and God’s help in our discernment process is also simplistic but okay with me. I will continue to have questions and will continue to come to some decisions about the answers until the day I die. If we continue to change, for me, I think that God continues to change especially as to how God interacts with us. God gave us freedom, freedom with accountability and responsibility.

Comment on Beta Faith with Philip Clayton, Spencer Burke, and Oozers: Homebrewed Christianity 75 by Tripp Fuller

Tripp Fuller — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:07:56 +0000

It does appear Clayton is a realist. That is not very good for the PoMo cred.

Comment on Beta Faith with Philip Clayton, Spencer Burke, and Oozers: Homebrewed Christianity 75 by Philip Clayton

Philip Clayton — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:04:20 +0000

Tripp, I’m impressed that you’ve been Silva-ized (see your link above on “While I am sure some will think we go too far in this conversation”). But Ken has not yet added you or me to the “categories” section of his website, whereas Brian McLaren and Tony Jones qualify as categories…

Comment on Beta Faith with Philip Clayton, Spencer Burke, and Oozers: Homebrewed Christianity 75 by Deacon Hall

Deacon Hall — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:54:31 +0000

Hey now, did I just hear Clayton calling out some closet Feuerbachians, namely, that there’s something to God that we don’t simply create for ourselves? I (unfortunately) gotta go read some Feuerbach in about 2 minutes, so I just want to be sure I heard Clayton correctly and don’t associate the two

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 4 by Michael Camp

Michael Camp — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:47:45 +0000

Chyristina,
Great comments on all the posts. Thanks. This short blurb on this lesson doesn’t do it justice, I know. I go into more details in my book. There are two issues that I think make this an important lesson. One, the way the Bible has been abused (mostly by the Christian Right) to promote one of the silliest and ungrounded interpretations I have heard (the pre-trib rapture with spaceship Jesus coming to rescue believers), and to a lesser degree, the notion that the return of Christ is imminent today. Historically, this has been a major embarrassment for Christendom (tons of false predictions throughout the centuries) and continues to be. If you study some of the books I cite, it becomes clear that the NT’s original audience (and authors) did not expect Jesus to return in the way or the time the evangelical church has insisted. Everyone (including Jesus) put this “coming” as a imminent occurrence within a generation of Christ. The church is reading into the NT something that is not there.

The second thing answers your question. The evangelical church has used the teaching of the Second Coming in a deplorable way by tying it to evangelism and imploring people to “accept Christ” to be ready for (or escape) the coming tribulation (manipulation comes to mind), and also tying it to politics, missions, and social justice. e.g. shaping American foreign policy around the return of Christ and the end of the world, declaring that if we can hasten the return of Christ if we just supported missions more, and promoting an attitude of screw the world, it’s fading away and Jesus is coming soon. Read some of the books I cite for details.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 8 by Chyristina Brown

Chyristina Brown — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:15:17 +0000

Thanks for this. Now you’re really talking my language. I saw Ben Stein’s documentatry/case “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I was flored by the scientists, journalists and other professionals who were expelled from univeristy or fired from their jobs simply for starting the dialogue about intelligence design. ( http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ ).

When did we become a society where you can no longer question? When did academia become so closed to observation, critique and fundamental inquisition.

I’m really starting to believe John Avlon is onto something with his book “Wingnuts.” The lunatic fringe (on both sides Right and Left) are going off the deep end trying to be right.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 7 by Chyristina Brown

Chyristina Brown — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:54:19 +0000

I’ll have to really think (and study) this one. My personal belief is very similar, but I’m not sure I understand (or even agree) with the interpretations.

Thanks for sharing.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 5 by Chyristina Brown

Chyristina Brown — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:30:33 +0000

I think the issue in politics is extremists on both sides grind our political system to a halt. No one wants to compromise. No one wants to give anything, and everyone is sure they hold the only standard for truth.

Jo Ann – The work you’re doing seems fascinating. Keep up the good work.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 4 by Chyristina Brown

Chyristina Brown — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:57:01 +0000

I agree with the last statement – but everything in between seems like a lot of speculation. Whether you believe in a pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, preterist, or futerist view of the book of Revelations, the fact remains – The present is all I have.

I’m not entirely following your rationale linking this particular worldview to the “Christian Right.” Why would anyone be required to be saved from this view?

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by xDavidx

xDavidx — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:11:05 +0000

I think the question you have to ask yourself is, “What kind of God do I serve?”. The answer to this question should be displayed in multiple evidences as observed by the mature Christian. To wit, the part of God that I know from the Scripture teaches me “What” about who He is? To me, it teaches that time after time, I see Him reveal Himself through this preserved Word of His. I also see that no matter what our reasoning, He has chosen this Word as the primary method of communication with mankind, and ideed, with each man individually. I mean, on both levels (collective and individual), where did we first hear of this God in His own (professed) Words?
I believe it a dangerously arrogant practise to put our understanding above the obvious claims of The Bible. That’s not over- simplifying the issue, that’s humility towards a living God (One perfectly able to get “the point” accross through the Book He designed, no matter how man has (mis) handled it). It’s also a realistic admission of my human condition in light of a Book so powerful, every time it is openned and read, the reader (and indeed the world) is not the same.

Comment on Why do we believe in a God? by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:13:39 +0000

I really had nothing to do with “knowing God.” At the age of either 4 or 5, I was awaken by a voice calling my name. I had my own bedroom. I sat straight up in bed and saw a figure standing at the foot of my bed. It looked like my mother as the figure was dressed in a brown with yellow dots two piece dress that my mother wore. There was a head but no face. No other words were spoken. I sat there wide awake simply staring but not speaking. Do not remember going back to sleep. The next morning I asked my mother why she was in my room during the night. Her answer was, “I was not in your room.” I argued with her and told her the dress she had on. She still said it was not her but maybe I had a dream. Believe you me it was not a dream. I saw what I saw and I continue to this day seeing that figure in my mind. It puzzled me for many years. What happened after that was a very real sense of someone or some thing being with me at all times, never leaving my side. We attended church as a family but do not remember when they began taking me. My father would read to me out of a childs bible story book every night before going to bed. I was always wondering what was happening to me but had no clue. My parents never talked about God in our home. We asked a blessing before meals, said night time prayers, etc. but never, even as an adult, did we talk about God. In Sunday school I was more a listener than a person who asked questions so coming to a conclusion about my “vision” took me many years. All those years I continued to have this presence with me, it never failed. I felt so comfortable with the presence and began talking with it, of course I never heard the presense speak but I began having thoughts in my head. I began, as a child, to spend long hours outside looking up at the clouds and talking or listening for God. Now I use “centering prayer” for listening to God and every moment I carry on a conversation with God in my mind or out loud. As a teen, as I listened to sermons, I learned about The Holy Spirit. At that time I knew who have been my visitor at the foot of my bed and who had been with me all my life. So, I had no say so in this matter. God payed me a visit and from there I began a life long relationship with God my creator, partner, teacher, comforter, guide, etc. YES, YES, YES I believe in God and cannot deny God as God has proven to me over and over that God exists and is a relational God, my friend as well as my judge.

Comment on Who is God? by deacon burrley

deacon burrley — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:53:02 +0000

Having seen a number of these videos I feel like some of these progressive theologians speak for me and others hardly believe anything. Is there a list of types of progressive theologies? Half of these theologians sound like all they can say about God is that the word may be useful. Maybe I’m wrong but some this just seems empty.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 7 by Pastor Bill

Pastor Bill — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:40:52 +0000

Having a gay brother and a lesbian sister this is a subject I have struggled with as a Pastor. I must say that I having decided to just love them without a subtext has made all the difference. Let me say that I have not had the courage to speak about this in a Public Venue when I do then it will mean something Kenotic.

Pastor Bill Langill jr.
From Middle Earth

Comment on Chris Seay on the Gospel According to LOST: Homebrewed Christianity 74 by Collin Moody

Collin Moody — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:25:40 +0000

Great episode!
Ok, maybe i’m partial to it because i love Lost, Chris is my pastor and i’m mentioned in the episode.. but still!

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 7 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:09:03 +0000

I have almost completed Mel Whites book. It is so very difficult for me to read as I cry most of the time while I am reading. I have physical pain from reading Mel’s story and that of others. It breaks my heart. The questions I keep asking myself and others is why do we treat folks so badly, why do we remain so silent on the subject of sex in our churches, why do we not teach our children “The Joy of Sex” and how wonderful it can be in a marriage or committed partnership. Mel White tells it just as it was and is and that’s the kind of book I like. It’s graphic but it should be so people who have real hangups on sex are not going to understand what they are talking about unless they read Mel Whites book, or similar ones. Most are so frightened of their sexual urges and do not understand them or even want them that what Mel is talking about will be lost on them. I pray that many will read his book and I would love for churches to encourage it’s reading. It would make a good resource book for a book study group. I had a dear male friend that was gay and walking with him through many years I learned a great deal first hand. I did learn also that the LGBT folks must first accept themselves as well as we need to accept them “just as they are.” None of us can really know the pain they go through, it has to be unbearable. Mel White told of self mutilations, suicide, and years spent in trying to change into something they can never be. I am aware of the various verses of scripture that the conservative right uses and yes they are in the bible but so is the two commandments from Jesus that for me superscedes any others. Love God with all your heart and soul and your neighbor as yourself. If we concentrated on these two our love for those who are different from us in any way should be loved. Yes, I think the LGBT community should live under these same two commandments and the two sides should come to more of a peacable understanding and working together without all of the hate on both sides that I see. I pray our churches will learn this same lessons on love and demonstrate true love to the LGBT community. We need to look in the mirror and see ourselves as we really are and then change if we are not loving our LGBT folks. We cannot change how God made us or the gifts God gave us but we can and must be accountable for the use of such gifts and accept the DNA that is within us that might include God’s making us a homosexual person. Heterosexuals have much to learn and accept of themselves as well. Sex between committed and loving people should be treated as a wonderful gift from God to enjoy, respect and love without fear or condemnation.

Comment on Who is God? by Blake Huggins

Blake Huggins — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:48:51 +0000

Joerg Rieger is pretty badass. Just want to throw that out there. He'd make a great HBC interviewee; his new book is quite poignant, I think, given our zeitgeist right now. That second video is a duplicate, btw.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 7 by Craig L. Adams

Craig L. Adams — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:53:44 +0000

I think you are wrong about the Scriptures, but on the other hand, you sure are right about the failure & false promises of the ex-gay movement. I suppose it’s comforting to think “Well, the Bible doesn’t really say all that stuff that it says” to alleviate the dilemma.

Comment on The Bible, in 5 Statements (a meme) by The Bible In Five Statements Meme

The Bible In Five Statements Meme — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:16:56 +0000

[...] Homebrewed Christianity [...]

Comment on The Clayton \ Dennett Conversation…Evolution, God, Religion, Science, and other philosophical goodies! by Pastor Bill

Pastor Bill — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:36:50 +0000

Hello

Does anyone mind if for the sake of the common man I cough up a big Ivory Tower Hair Ball!

Pastor Bill
From Middle Earth

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 6 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:40:56 +0000

“In sex, let the admonitions to love one another, treat each other kindly, and be responsible in our relationships, be the guiding principal, not absolutist rules that were never a part of the Bible’s historical and cultural milieu.” I never thought that I would see this statement in this type of context but I am pleased that it is here. We have made sex a dirty word, especially in Christian churches. How can something that God gave us as a gift be seen as ugly, nasty, and a no-no with the exception of having sex to create children. The key word for me has always been LOVE not simply sexual gratification. Most of the LGBT community cannot marry in the US and some Christians would condem them to celibacy. In my opinion that is wrong, both not allowing marriage and expecting them to remain celibate all of their lives. Two people very much in love and in a commited relationship should have the freedom to be sexual in their love making if they so desire. To me it is no other persons decision to make, it is the couples right and priviledge to decide for themselves without judgement. For me this relationship must include love, trust, respect and all decisions made concerning sexual activity should be agreed upon by the two partners. Nothing should be forced. I also believe that sexual education on what sexual acts are considered to be very loving and desirable should be pursued by every couple. So many people have no idea what “good” loving sex would be like, thus the need for education. Life together can be so much more fulfilling if this area of a couples life was entered into with love and knowledge. So many couples enter into a relationship with no knowledge what so ever of sex and can permanently destroy a good relationship with the wrong ideas about sexuality and the sexual acts. Loving their own bodies and the body of their partner is so important. A loving touch can bring a couple so much closer to each other. Being together in sexual activity can make them “as one body.” We must first love and respect our own body before we can love and respect anothers. What God made is beautiful and is GOOD.

Comment on What book-stack introverts agree upon… by Eric Reitan

Eric Reitan — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:55:43 +0000

I should clarify that each year in January Choice honors a list of the “Outstanding Academic Titles” for the previous calendar year, and my book was on that list. Because Choice is pretty much the only publication that reviews just about EVERY reputable academic title produced in any given year, its list of the outstanding titles is significant and to be named on the list is an honor. But to my knowledge, Choice does not single out one particular book to be named THE outstanding title of the year.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 5 by Michael Camp

Michael Camp — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:33:47 +0000

I really like what you’re saying. Your community group is almost identical to what I envision believers doing to gather together under a common theme or vision and inviting nonbelievers who have that same vision. It’s not about converting people, making a city or a community or a nation Christian, but about working together for common good.

In addition to CHANGE being a good model for national politics, it could also be an excellent model for a smaller “gathering” size, with those who initiate it (not control it) being open about it being done (for them) with a motivation to following Christ, then it could be but one creative model for a “church.”

Organizations like Habitat for Humanity are organized this way. Why not have a smaller, organic version of this? Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 5 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:45:05 +0000

“If you don’t vote Republican or for this candidate, hell will break loose. If we pass Obama’s health care bill, the government will take over your life and God will judge us for funding abortion and disobeying the Ten Commandments.”
This statement represents one of the things I think is so very wrong in our politics today and makes me want to run and hide instead of fighting back. For one thing I really do not like getting involved in politics but I do not have a choice if I really want changes to be made in the way we live in community. There are good things happening but there appears to be so much more that is wrong. I am involved in a group in my city that is trying to make a difference in how we live in community and how we can best help each other. We want a much better place in which to live and have our being. Our group is made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims and folks with no faith. The name of our group is called C.H.A.N.G.E., community helping all neighbors gain empowerment. We are not trying to make our city Christian. We are trying to organize to bring about social justice, equal opportunities for everyone, good education for our children and promote an environment in which they can better learn, health issues, what can be done about suspensions, dropouts and bullying in our school system. These are only a few things that we are currently working on. Some of the things we want to accomplish can only be done if our city government and CHANGE can work together. Thus I must be involved in politics if I want my wishes and prayers for my city/county to be accomplished. I think we can be an example of how good politics can be performed. Working together for the greater good of all. Respecting each other and our differences by putting aside our own agenda, whether Christian or other, and working for the good of everyone. We do not threaten anyone with what will happen if they do not do as we say. We compromise and come to a good working plan together. In the end we can celebrate together on a job well done as we look at the results of our efforts. Our national government could take a lesson or two from us. We have accomplished some really good stuff together so far.

Comment on The Clayton \ Dennett Conversation…Evolution, God, Religion, Science, and other philosophical goodies! by anony mouse

anony mouse — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:54:41 +0000

So, they seem to agree on nerly everything. Is clayong an atheist?

Comment on The Clayton \ Dennett Conversation…Evolution, God, Religion, Science, and other philosophical goodies! by John Sobert Sylvest

John Sobert Sylvest — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:07:55 +0000

pre-debate Thoughts re: today’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett

Other than that, thanks to all who made this event possible and accessible!

It was a great grappling with residual issues

Comment on The Clayton \ Dennett Conversation…Evolution, God, Religion, Science, and other philosophical goodies! by John Sobert Sylvest

John Sobert Sylvest — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:45:11 +0000

Halfway thru this conversation, I am wondering if the reconcilement between Clayton & Dennett’s approach to consciousness lies somewhere in between Dennett’s eliminative stance vis a vis qualia and Clayton’s affirmation of the “hard” aspect to the problem of consciousness. What I am thinking about is Terry Deacon’s peircean approach or semiotic realism, which affirms what we might call a minimalist telos, or a downward causation without the violation of physical causal closure, such as, for example, the co-evolution of language and brain, Baldwinian evolution, formal causation in the context of semiotic science and nonreductive physicalism. What a theology of nature does with this minimalist telos is to draw analogs and elaborate metaphors invoking a more robust telic dimension. What a natural theology does with it is to affirm the framing of the question of a robust telos as meaningful, not pretending to be able to either prove or disprove it.

Comment on The Clayton \ Dennett Conversation…Evolution, God, Religion, Science, and other philosophical goodies! by dave chicka

dave chicka — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:44:15 +0000

Looking forward to hearing this one. Can you do anything about the member of the audience in the brown sweater-vest with diamond shapes? I have it from a very relaible source that he can be disruptive at times.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 4 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:35:05 +0000

“Get on with the business of saving the planet and promoting social justice in the world without secretly believing it will all be for naught in the end.” I really do agree with this statement. Do not think we should drop all conversation on the subject but for me I am “getting on with the business” and not worrying about the future. It is all speculative anyway. I will hope and pray for a better tomorrow and continue to do whatever I can with God’s help. Trusting in God for my future.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by Pastor Bill

Pastor Bill — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:20:17 +0000

Hello all

It seems to me that there are no rules that can teach you how to be in relationship, at best the rules can tell you how not to destroy them. Relationships are a ” leap of faith” what is needed it relationship are the profound demonstrations of the LIFE of Jesus Christ recorded by the Apostles (Love, Mercy, Tenderness, Forgiveness,non violence etc. etc). I have found no rule book that prepared me for my 25 year relationship with the most wonderful woman on earth, Diane! The Things Christ taught and demonstrated can not be “applied” in any legal way but rather must be risked in every possible way.

Pastor Bill Langill jr.
From Middle earth

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 3 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:24:27 +0000

Michael, are you a pastor? If not now, have you been? Does this exploration of yours include others? Would your community be a faith based community that is non denominational or associated with a denomination but just not have an institutional church building? Even though you say there would be no “professional” leaders, it seems to me that you will need leadership of some sort. Will you gather and then decide those that would be leaders or facilitators? If you gather around a theme, it also appears to me that you would need a facilitator for each team. Tell me a little more about your ideas as I find this fasinating.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 3 by Michael

Michael — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:23:56 +0000

Jo Ann,
Sounds like your church is heading in a good direction and your laity involvement is more healthy than most. I’m exploring ideas of how to have community outside institutional church walls, not that everyone abandons what we call church, but that people recognize that it’s not the only way and so much of its structure is not even biblical. The communities or gatherings would have no professional leaders and would gather around a theme that everyone has a passion for, e.g. youth mentoring, helping the homeless, aid to developing countries, microfinance programs, creation care, overcoming depression, etc. The possibilities are endless.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:19:42 +0000

Michael Camp, I like the way you described grace. It is very difficult to understand and to practice giving grace to others and to live by practicing love instead of obeying a strict set of laws. For myself, I do not rely on what I perceive God’s Holy Spirit is always saying to me at first thought. We were asked to test the spirit to see if it is truly of God and Jesus’ description to us of what love is. I have lived long and studied every step of the way to know more about God and what was expected of me as one of God’s children. When I have the knowledge of God in my mind and heart that I have obtained through studying the bible, studying books from many authors with various points of view and understanding, ponder all my experiences of God, watched and learned how others LOVE. These are the things that I use in discerning and practicing love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, steadfastness, accountability, etc. with others and myself. Moment by moment as I live my life and have relationships with others, I call upon these resources to tell help me to know what to say and how to act according to the two commandments that the authors of the bible tell us Jesus asked us to follow. Love God, Love others and love ourselves. When I respond to another I use the wisdom I have learned and practiced to intentionally respond in love. None of this has anything to do with law but with freedom. God’s Holy Spirit is with me and everyone all the time and will help in this process. When I have an idea of what to say to someone or what to write, etc. I hesitate long enough to make certain in my mind that it is the loving thing to do. Think before you speak is a really good motto I think. This that I have described works for me and what I believe is something of what Jesus was talking about. The ten commandments were certainly part of my studying and gave me something to be of help to me in my living. However, it must not stop there. If we take Jesus teaching, that of love, we will automatically do all of these things. If you truly love, you will not kill, for example, it just comes naturally. I will not get into a word battle about war. It is so much more beneficial to my well being both spiritualy and physically and mentally to live by the law of love and I hope that by doing so others will see Jesus in me.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by Michael Camp

Michael Camp — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:15:21 +0000

doug,
I appreciate your comments. You say if you didn’t have the Bible, would have to guess how to behave. You ask if we didn’t have laws then what would stop the sinful nature from taking over? I’m not sure if you understand the message of grace. In Romans, Paul tells us “we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” He says we are released from the law, so we serve in the new way of the spirit, not the old way of the written code. What you say sounds like you are relying on a set of rules to know how to behave, when the message of grace tells us to to “serve in the new way of the spirit, not in the old way of the written code.” I encourage you to read the first 11 chapters of Romans in one sitting to get a full picture of the message of grace. Look for what Paul concludes in his arguments. Yes, the true message of grace is messy and risky. One learns to govern themselves with only the law of love to guide. What I’m saying is that the Bible is NOT a list of rules for us to obey because the Bible teaches that is not what it is (e.g. we are released from a written code, a set of rules). When we try to codify everything, we are not following the message of grace, but trying to be justified by law. It is the “the spirit” and following the one rule of love that stops the sinful nature from taking over. Actually, the Bible teaches that the law-based way of following God has no power to change us. When people make the Bible into a list of rules that end up ruling one’s life (usually by reading short passages out of their historical, cultural, and literary context, and getting “lost in the words,” so the core meaning is lost), then it is like they are worshiping it over God who has given us the new way of grace in Christ.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 3 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:18:22 +0000

“It promotes churchianity—the practice of making belief in Jesus largely focused on the habits and demands of the institutional church (doctrinal purity, religious behavior), rather than on God’s love. Churchianity encourages authoritarian leadership, which is at the core of spiritual abuse. It also doesn’t encourage people to think for themselves. Blind compliance is sure to follow.” For me this statement is correct based on my long life in churches, good churches where I learned much and loved dearly. However, I think any church today has room for improvement. Any denomination has room for improvement. One of the things that I like about our particular Baptist church is our uniqueness. We are not part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Formally we are associated with the Northern Baptist Convention. However, each church stands alone. There is no “body” that tells us what we must believe or do. The weakness of any church, like us, is that we depend too much on the lead pastor. Not as a dictator of belief and policy, etc. but we just do not have enough input from the lay-folk, I’m not referring to just my congregation in this statement. We do a pretty fair job of incorporating the laity. We do however get too caught up in what I call “doing church” but is referred here as “Churchianity.” We can point to things such as our mission trips and contributions to missions and our once in awhile doing something for others as a group. But, our sense of and following through on social justice issues, etc. is very weak, in my church and many others. I agree that we and others do not do a good job of encouraging our memebers to think for themselves, Priest Hood of All Believers. Our Sunday School classes are not so much focused on theology as it is on the stories of the bible. We and others do not make much attempt at discovering who/what God is and come to our own understanding of that. Rarely do we say or offer an avenue to learn “theology” through study. Theological study, for me, is the pursuit of who/what God is and how God works in the cosmos and in humans and all creation. How does God love? How do we show others what that love is all about in today’s world. If we could find a good way to form small groups, not like our Sunday School classes today, but open and honest study and discussion about the love of God and how God works in this world today, the mystery that is God, etc. would be a beautiful thing to see. Now on each Sunday we have a different verse or verses of scripture and we mostly hear a teacher tell us what that means. Why have something different every Sunday? Why can’t we have one thing that we pursue for several Sunday’s, months even that would allow time to help us to come to some decisions about what we believe on our own. We should also learn during this same time how to live out what we have learned. Sharing our stories, experiences of God that relate to what we are studying. Back to laity envolvement ! We have numerous committees, etc. made up of laity that “run” the business of the church and decide the mission efforts of the church. There are care teams that perform missional outreach to folks in our church as needed. So, the laity are really involved and our pastor does not tell us what to do. Those decisions are made by us. Laity, in our church, has a lot of freedom and responsibility and we love that about our church. In worship, the laity once again is part of our worship team. That too can be improved. On occassion we have a lay person to share an experience of God’s love with us from the pulpit but not often. That is a good start for us. I hope that our “doing” church will become less of a focus and our being more intentional and loving and reaching out more, will be the “norm.” I would like to see churches become more creative in all things and that means pastors and laity coming together and brain storming and also allowing God’s Holy Spirit to guide us more in all that we say and do. Love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, transformation, steadfastness, prayer, mission outreach are themes that we can study and learn how to practice God’s love in the world for the healing of this world.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by doug applegate

doug applegate — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:47:54 +0000

i guess i might be one of the bible worshipers if i had to classify myself. i don’t really worship the bible. i don’t pray to it and i don’t think that a tangible book has any kind of power. i pray to God. i believe all power comes from God so i don’t believe i am in danger of breaking the second commandment. which is possibly a danger in itself from some of the author’s earlier writing about the law. i read in detail in some of the scripture passages he provided and i do say the the whole law vs grace discussion sounded confusing to me. it’s heady stuff. but back to the bible. it sounds like you who are supporting the author and are nonsupporters of evangelicals are not making clear to me what you actually believe about the bible. i take a very simple view of the bible. that it’s true. this comforts me because it’s God’s way of telling me how He wants me to live. If i didn’t have the bible I would have to guess. i don’t want to guess. i want to love God and do it in a way that he wants me to. if we don’t see the bible as God’s letter to us. Telling us about himself, then it just means that we can all make up our own ideas about who God is and what He wants us to do. We can’t just take grace and then say “sweet, i can just do whatever i want to now and God will forgive me. I don’t need to follow any of his rules as long as i love what i’m doing and treating others how i would want to be treated.” Because if we want to be treated with no rules or laws and want total freedom, then what stops my sinful nature from taking over. This is a lot of rambling on my part. i am obviously not a good writer. i guess in simplest terms what i am asking and noticing is that to seems like the author has a real vague and loose view of the bible and you can kind of pick and choose what you want to obey. am i hearing you right?

Comment on The Gospel According to Lost: Ask Chris Seay by Chad Crawford

Chad Crawford — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:14:44 +0000

Great question Trey!

And it’s definitely not too late. You can post a question or call one in and leave a message at 210-787-1057 until around 7:30p PST.

Comment on Adam Walker Cleaveland on Theology After Google by Adam Walker Cleaveland

Adam Walker Cleaveland — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:05:46 +0000

Who is this guy…? Doesn’t really sound like he knows what he’s talking about ….

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home by Michael

Michael — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:48:26 +0000

Mike L.,
Confronting legalism doesn’t mean people abandon their ethical, moral, and social values. Legalism is a strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit. It’s an over emphasis on codes of conduct and under emphasis on personal freedom. Sure, your group has a value of not being racist, but how is that legalistic? You love all equally and encourage others to do the same. That’s not being legalistic. Christ’s way is making the law of love the rule, and not a set of behavior codes. So, one still has a love ethic to follow. Legalism is more when a church or individual makes a strict code of conduct a requirement for salvation or acceptance or pleasing God, so a person is measured, not by how they love others, but how well they perform a duty–attend a church, meeting, regular prayer, follow a code of speech, dress, refrain from certain taboos, strictly conform to rules, etc.

Comment on The Gospel According to Lost: Ask Chris Seay by Trey Lyon

Trey Lyon — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:44:06 +0000

hope I’m not too late for this–just got the link through one of tripp’s tweets yesterday…

here’s my question/theory:

“answers” aside, for me, the LOST narrative is the quintessential postmodern event–primarily because the meta-narrative is so ambiguous as to either be A) non-existent or B)endlessly convoluted. Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have copped to this in podcasts and appearances and have expressed a love for all kind of post-structuralist thought, so….

Is LOST proclaiming the death of the monolithic metanarrative and replacing it with a “many”narrative–where the collective memory and shared experience of any community–even one generated by something as random as a plane crash–gives/creates/shapes/forms meaning?

I think this has critical cultural implications on the way people have been/are/will be thinking. Not to mention it’s implications to faith communities of all stripes.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home by MIke L.

MIke L. — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:14:31 +0000

I’m wondering if it is really possible to avoid “legalism”. Isn’t any ethical, moral, or social value labeled “legalism” if you disagree with it, but not if you agree?

For example, I’ve been in a small discussion group (you might even call it a home church) for several years. Last year a racist started showing up and voicing his opinion. Were we being “legalistic” about his views when we confronted his racism? Should we have accepted racism as a value welcomed in our discussions? We never told him to leave, but I’m sure our disagreement with his views felt to him exactly like the “hoops” in our former fundamentalist/Evangelical churches.

People gather around common values. If you avoid sharing any value in public discourse that may not have 100% agreement, then you won’t have much to say. Any expression of a shared value in your group is legalism toward any person who doesn’t share the same value.

Comment on A Fish Trying to Learn to Breathe Air: This Too Shall Pass by What Would Google Do? When a theology class reads it | Homebrewed Christianity

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:54:33 +0000

[...] A Fish Trying to Learn to Breathe Air: This Too Shall Pass [...]

Comment on Become a Deacon by Homebrewed Christianity: Year in Review | Homebrewed Christianity

Homebrewed Christianity: Year in Review | Homebrewed Christianity — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:49:40 +0000

[...] Become a Deacon [...]

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:41:29 +0000

This is a good article and one that I agree with whole heartedly. You did a great job, in my opinion, of writing this so everyone can understand it. Thanks for the definitions of the theological words that I have heard and read but just cannot remember what they mean. I really hope and pray that many folks will read this. While I agree with all that you said about the way to read our bible, I get much enjoyment from reading it for devotions, Lectio Devina is the technical term. Used in devotion time and the way it is taught it is a powerful way to assist us in opening to God and God’s wisdom. I really agree that too many people worship the bible. Though I believe that Jesus was God incarnated, I think we today worship Jesus more than God. The writers of the bible thought and wrote that Jesus asked his disciples, and us, to worship God and not him. He always pointed away from himself and pointed to God.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by Chase

Chase — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:23:58 +0000

I (newly) attend my family’s Bible-Worshiping church.
It’s a deceptive practice, Bibliolatry. I’ve spotted it out, yet have had trouble wrestling my hesitance with it into words.
Thanks for the help.
-Chase

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by Liz

Liz — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:32:48 +0000

I survived the Christian Right also and lived to tell about it:>) I also abused the Bible for many years and was guilty of Bibliolatry (love that term but don’t know if it you made it up or not:>) I finally realized there is no evidence that the Bible is inerrant (deep down I always had a problem with that idea) but that there is still truth (not so much facts, but truth) in scripture. Now, I read and interpret scripture according to it’s historical, cultural and literary context…and I don’t worship it.
I love your 10 lessons here and will link to your post on my blog tomorrow for 3 Things Tuesday.

Comment on Philip Clayton invites Daniel Dennett to a debate: Will the New Atheist Accept or Hide (again!)? by Jesse Turri

Jesse Turri — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:01:36 +0000

I would love to see this! Make sure you get lots of good footage if this happens Tripp!

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by Bill Langill

Bill Langill — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:58:22 +0000

Hello Micheal

The Devil really is in the details, Personally I view scripture with 2 big over arching ideas, Love and Relationship. I prefer to view scripture from a birds eye view, recently I was watching a Jesus debater on a podcast and it struck me that he was lost in the words. I wonder when it was that we forgot how to fly brother?

Pastor Bill Langill jr
from Middle Earth

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Lesson 2 by stephy

stephy — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:17:46 +0000

Thanks for writing about this, it needs to be talked about.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:56:35 +0000

Michael Camp, I agree with your thinking. Even in ethics, one ethic has several ways that it can be worked out or lived out. Nothing is black and white but legalism trys to make it only black and white. All of the new testament, for me, is all about love and making our actions intentional based on love. This calls for moment by moment discernment on our part. With the help of The Holy Spirit an individual must call upon their knowledge of the bible, their previous experiences of God and their education. This is a difficult path to travel and we cannot do it alone. God and others must help us but the final decision of what is to be done, is ours. The bullet stops with me. If all our actions are accomplished in this manor then love will prevail in the end. We must always consider what affect our words and actions will have in any situation so that it is for the best for all concerned. Debating was previously mentioned but I do not think this is a good method, it is too much like legalism and you have a winner in the end. In love there is a win win situation not just one winner that by being the winner feels superior to another. Using the method of intentionality, we will make mistakes as we go because we do not know enough or experienced enough. However, with practice, more learning, more experience we get better and better. We are always in progression. This is a process and a journey with mistakes made along the way but that is the journey of faith, falling down and getting back up. Finding spiritual practices and using them to open ourselves to the wisdom and presence of God will help us on this journey of mending the world and treating all with the respect and love each child of God deserves. For me, every person born into this world is a child of God. It’s not based on what we believe. Conversaton around a table with others is a great way to allow for intentional love and everyone has a say. We learn by sharing with each other not dictating to anyone. One on one conversations sometimes allows for more intimate conversation but is more difficult, you use the value others bring to the table. I think conversation is far superior to debate or any dictorial practice. You cannot force anyone to do something against their desire or belief, or should not. We, like God, can only guide and nudge. LOVE IS THE THEME !!!!

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home by Michael Camp

Michael Camp — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:30:20 +0000

Michael WW,
You are right. The risk is people avoiding standards. But avoiding legalism doesn’t mean “anything goes.” It means measuring ones behavior by the law of love, not legalistic demands. If a behavior violates love for a neighbor, it is wrong. Of course, that means individuals need to police themselves, which is just too scary for the Caretakers of Religion. They rather control people. Inevitably, not everyone will agree on what is acceptable but it is appropriate for people to make a case for a “normal standard” based on love. This is far superior, in my mind, than the system of control that is present in many churches and that is the basis for all Religion.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home by Michael Westmoreland-White

Michael Westmoreland-White — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:31:07 +0000

#1 is a great lesson. Unfortunately, I’ve found that one of the results of legalism on those who leave it is a pendulum swing in which they avoid any kind of norms or firm standards like a plague. When I worked for Every Church a Peace Church as Outreach Coordinator, I found that liberal churches, while generally “for peace,” were reluctant to say that violence or war were always wrong. That struck them as “legalism” or “judgmental” to those in the military. On the other hand, if evangelical congregations were convinced that Jesus taught pacifism, that settled things.

One of the big questions of the American churches is how they can avoid both legalism and a form of tolerance that simply devolves into normless “anything goes.”

Comment on Adam Walker Cleaveland on Theology After Google by Theology After Google « Godspace

Theology After Google « Godspace — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:39:57 +0000

[...] for Transformative Ministry which unfortunately I will not be able to attend. As I watched this video by Adam Walker Cleavland and read this article by Philip Clayton I realized that Theology after [...]

Comment on Philip Clayton invites Daniel Dennett to a debate: Will the New Atheist Accept or Hide (again!)? by A.J. Smith

A.J. Smith — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:45:19 +0000

Dialogue usually only works when it is mutual. In his online post, Dennett just comes off as condescending and even a little embarrassing. I hope Phillip is not just wasting his time.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home by Pastor Bill

Pastor Bill — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:28:43 +0000

Micheal

Growing up Orthodox Catholic I thought I was getting free of Sacrificial Systems when I left to “Have a Personal Relationship with Jesus” Then a whole new Sacrificial System was put in it’s place i.e. 1. The bible as the forth person in the trinity. 2. verse by verse & chapter by chapter legalism. 3. Learning to win people for Jesus by good debate skills. 4th The eventual damnation of most souls due to their not accepting the aforementioned set of ideas. Thank God for a steady stream of progressive catholic thinkers as well as some protestant fellow travelers like yourself brother.

Pastor Bill Langill jr.
From Middle Earth

Comment on Visiting St. Peter’s Brewery with Jonathan Blundell: Homebrewed Christianity 73 by Homebrewed interview | st peter's brewery :: a sanctuary for all

Homebrewed interview | st peter's brewery :: a sanctuary for all — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:20:47 +0000

[...] Enjoy! [...]

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home by Michael

Michael — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:32:54 +0000

matthew,
Ah, the ever elusive ETA. I’m shooting by the end of the year but I’m still in the finding-the-right-agent stage. Check my blog or follow me on Twitter from my blog, to check for updates. Thanks for your interest.

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:28:38 +0000

Enjoy the journey. Like you I strongly dislike legalistic thinking and practice. I personally ascribe to being moderate in all things. I love secular music, dancing, having a mixed drink but I do not like swear words at all. Love is the thing. Doing each moment what you think would be the most loving thing to do. Offering grace to others as Jesus did cannot be done without the help of The Holy Spirit, at least for me. However, how are folks going to know what grace is unless we have offered it to them. Mending the world, offering love, mercy and grace and practicing and offering justice for all, these are the important things not living legalistically. I admire some of the evangelicals like Tony Campolo, etc. Hope you will post the other (9).

Comment on I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home by matthew

matthew — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:14:35 +0000

This item mirrors my personal experience. I will watch for your book with interest. Do you have an ETA?

Comment on Does your theology go off-roading? by John Sobert Sylvest

John Sobert Sylvest — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:53:23 +0000

Let me play John Lennon here. Imagine.

Imagine that what is right and wrong, good and evil, is transparent to human reason. Imagine, too, that we can distinguish between apparent and real goods and lesser and higher goods and then reason our way from an is to an ought without religion. Imagine that, except for a few very complex moral realities, we mostly enjoy a consensus about life’s deepest values and have already articulated them in such documents as the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence and codified them in such documents as The US Constitution & the Bill of Rights and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Imagine that, with such a moral consensus, politics was the art of the possible and dealt more so with practical solutions and prudential judgment, even on matters of war and peace, but especially with regard to keeping everyone healthy, optimally educating everyone and striving for full employment.

Imagine, too, that rather than having Republicans and Democrats, with such practical biases as so often morph into ideological absolutes, we would have, instead, the Tenders of the Golden Goose (because they are experts in keeping geese healthy, geese like business & industry & individual taxpayers) and Distributors of the Golden Eggs (because they were experts in delivery of essential products and services). Imagine, too, that all the Goose Tenders & Egg Distributors were all astute enough to know not to stress the Goose and fair-minded enough to optimally distribute the eggs. Imagine, too, that rather than having Conservatives and Liberals, we would have Settlers and Pioneers, folks that were gifted with such charisms as, on one hand, boundary establishment & defense, on the other hand, boundary negotiation and transcendence.

Now, what in the world would religion have to do if it were not otherwise preoccupied with moral and practical realities, much less encroaching on such empirical realities as fall under the purview of science.

There is no question that as one’s axis of interpretation, or axiology, an interpretive religion would transvalue our cosmological pursuits, those being descriptive science, normative philosophy and evaluative culture. Our cosmology serves the end of socializing humans, making us able to function in society, meeting one another’s needs. It deals with empirical, rational, moral and practical realities, as Merton would say, first taking us through the process of humanization, then through socialization. The problem is that our religious institutions have become more so instruments of socialization and less so of transformation.

Religion gains its traction, then, not primarily or directly through the means of socialization and political institutionalization of services and political coercion. Religion gains its traction by fostering transformation, or Merton’s True-Self-realization, or the Ignatian contemplation to attain love, or the Buddhist awakening to our solidarity that compassion might naturally ensue. Religion is a risk-taking adventure whereby we amplify the risks involved in our cosmological pursuits of truth, beauty & goodness into the axiological pursuits of faith, hope & love toward the end of augmenting all human value-realizations. But religion has been domesticated into one more social institution alongside others. The sense of adventure has been lost and the risk-taking aspects have been tamed. It’s become a vehicle of respectability and social amenity when it should be, instead, instilling passion and shaping of desires. We need to honestly ask ourselves: What if science, morality and politics were already in good hands, then what value-added contribution would religion be expected to make? And we need to get on with THAT!

The question then becomes, what if I told you that reality, at bottom, was friendly and that Someone loves you and has dreams for you beyond your own wildest imaginings? How would you respond to that Good News? That you are BE-LOVED! And what if we did all we could to sacrifice ourselves in kenotic, self-emptying for this person, these people, with whom we are sharing this Good News?

There ain’t no Religious Right and Religious Left. Those are nominal socio-political realities cloaked in the garment of so-called religion. We need to emulate Ghandi and Martin Luther King and do an end-around all of these institutions with their sick identity structures trying to suck us into some machine on their own terms. In the end, it can change who’s in Congress and so on, but that would be a by-product not the designed end-product.

The Spirit moves when He wills, where She wills, how they will — and is ineluctably unobtrusive even if utterly efficacious, subtle but powerful, triumphing without coercion. Non-violent civil disobedience and other tools of the trade are out of vogue. WHY? We’ve got viral memes and blogs to publish treatises. Why not?

I’m engaging in provocative hyperbole and could play devil’s advocate with much of this. But I want to offer some food for thought. Thanks SO much for these thoughtful discussions.

Comment on Tony Jones on Theology After Google by Harnessing Permission: The Power of Social Media (Theology After Google) « zoecarnate

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:33:30 +0000

[...] Tony Jones on T.A.G. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Harnessing the Power of Social Media in Emergency Management [...]

Comment on “Theology After Google” with Spencer Burke by Harnessing Permission: The Power of Social Media (Theology After Google) « zoecarnate

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:32:14 +0000

[...] Spencer Burke on T.A.G. [...]

Comment on Twitter-gestions for the Theology After Google by Harnessing Permission: The Power of Social Media (Theology After Google) « zoecarnate

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:30:04 +0000

[...] Twitter-Gestions for T.A.G. [...]

Comment on Adam Walker Cleaveland on Theology After Google by Harnessing Permission: The Power of Social Media (Theology After Google) « zoecarnate

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:35:42 +0000

[...] Adam Walker Cleveland on T.A.G. [...]

Comment on What Would Google Do? When a theology class reads it by Harnessing Permission: The Power of Social Media (Theology After Google) « zoecarnate

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:35:25 +0000

[...] What Would Google Do? [...]

Comment on Can progressive theologians talk about God’s Future? by Jo Ann W, Goodson

Jo Ann W, Goodson — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:29:39 +0000

What God intends is our hope for the Future, God’s vision. The comments made by each individual were very thought provoking for me. I disagree with Mike L. when he says they did not really address your question of how it affects us now, in the present. I heard several of them speak to the NOW and how we are living and how our resources and energy is being used up. How our living in community now affects our future. The present and future is somehow intermingled and is an ongoing process. For me if I have a vision of things being better in the future where we will be in relationship and community with more harmony, peace and love, that tells me I have got to be part of that now, working with God to make certain that it comes into being. I do not agree that we must consider the fact that it might not come into being and thinking that way is going to make it happen. This is too negative. I know I am going to work much harder now to be part of that future that God envisions by knowing that God will ultimately bring this into being in God’s time and with us as God’s partners.

Comment on Twitter-gestions for the Theology After Google by Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:13:48 +0000

hat turned sideways.

Comment on Can progressive theologians talk about God’s Future? by Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:08:34 +0000

oh, that long paper on the kingdom of god was something i wrote with group in college… pronoun fail.

Comment on Can progressive theologians talk about God’s Future? by Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:07:28 +0000

i’m with cox here… with a twist.

this is where that long group paper on the kingdom of god is helpful, and without reference to which, our talk about god’s future is kind of meaningless. for god, the future literally is now. from our frame of reference god’s present is a future and a past. confusing. which is why in the NT the kingdom of god is always referred to in the future perfect. “the kingdom of god is being revealed.” so the future of god must be tied to the progressive revelation we experience of god’s eternal kingdom for which jesus is something of a “hinge” if you will that gives us a special insight as to what a “citizen” of this kingdom might look like. his very being was also a future perfect being as both incarnate and eternal. so god’s future is the very being of the hypostatic union.

also, the idea that heat death is going to happen has yet to deal with the entropy gap. this is that the total possible entropy of the bounded universe increases faster than the rate of entropy at any given time. before this happens, long before, if it does, humanity will cease to exist. bad to base theological assertions on scientific misunderstanding.

peace out.
so… all of this is to say means that god’s future is revealed in the being of christ as the incarnate eternal one who revealed the kingdom to us in a special way by virtue of who he is, and was.

Comment on Can progressive theologians talk about God’s Future? by Mike L.

Mike L. — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:44:45 +0000

Great question, Tripp! I loved the way you worded the question, but I found it odd that they didn’t really answer it well. Instead they focused heavily on the word “future” rather than “present”. Your question was clearly about what it “means for the present”.

I was really floored by how weak these answers were, considering they came from some people that I really admire. Here a couple of observations.

1) In General, they mostly misdirected the question toward some vague ontological ideas about time and questions of divine interaction versus human actions in the future. They didn’t really mention THE PRESENT ACTIONS we need to take. You and Dr. Clayton should add these as more examples why theology is falling out of public discourse and thriving only in the ivory towers of academia. These answers don’t preach.

2) Nobody talked about the nature of prophetic words as a CRITIQUE OF THE PRESENT rather than predictions about the future. How’d these theological geniuses miss that?

3) The more I hear theists (people who uses exclusively anthropomorphic language and images of God) try to flounder with questions like this, the more I want to be a non-theist. The anthropomorphic language seems more and more bizarre to me. The intellectual hoops continue and the hole gets deeper. Am I the only one that has this problem?

4) There is no mention about the possibility of God’s future NOT happening. This is the BIGGEST mistake of modern Christianity. Without the possibility of it not happening, we won’t do a darn thing about making it happen. Until Christianity becomes skeptical of the probability of the kingdom of God, that kingdom will always be “yet to come”. Tony was right that “God’s future” should be the thing that gets us out of bed in the morning. However, what might actually motivate us, is the possibility that the story might not actually happen. We do the story a disservice when we speak as if it is inevitable.

Comment on Bart Ehrman’s “Jesus Interrupted” is coming to paperback…. by Pastor Mack

Pastor Mack — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:35:50 +0000

…and why should any Christian care? His scholarship is of only marginal use. Some of his textbooks are decent, but now he is in the iconoclasm business, confusing the flock and not building them up.

This is what happens when a fundamentalist goes to seminary. He’s still a fundamentalist, just not for Jesus. Ugh. Please highlight works and scholars that are of value to the flock.

Comment on What Would Google Do? When a theology class reads it by Just google the gospel… – Martijn Horsman

Just google the gospel… – Martijn Horsman — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:43:17 +0000

[...] wil een Google Church (en dan bedoel ik niet deze). Ik wil theologiseren en bloggen (zoals hier en hier). Ik wil een kerk die gospel applications schrijft, en herschrijft, en herschrijft. Die [...]

Comment on What Would Google Do? When a theology class reads it by Theology After Google « Just a couple of my cravings

Theology After Google « Just a couple of my cravings — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:42:26 +0000

[...] reading Jeff Jarvis’s book What Would Google Do? Check out a summary of the book, or read Tripp Fuller’s blog, which raises some pertinent and engaging questions on applying the Google worldview (Google-view?) [...]

Comment on Congressman Uses the Bible to Clear Up Global Warming Silliness by pastor bill

pastor bill — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:49:00 +0000

Well this is why we must get some fresh thinking out into the hinterlands my friends. As an old friend of mine once said time to get the hay out of the loft.

Pastor Bill
From Middle Earth

Comment on Congressman Uses the Bible to Clear Up Global Warming Silliness by Bernie

Bernie — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:00:52 +0000

I am worried that an adult and one presumably wielding some political power can say something so ridiculous. I am embarrassed on his behalf. No wonder the US, which I believe specifically has religion separated from the political system by the Constitution scares the rest of the world so much. If you believe in a god, you presumably believe that he gave us a brain to enable us to gather knoowledge. There is only one tried and tested way to do this. It is known as science (the word means knowledge). Other methods such as reading a selective religious book and putting one’s own interpretation on the writings of people from the iron age for todays situation are deeply flawed.

Two more comments :-
1. Man won’t destroy the world, but he may destroy millions of species and himself. The world wouldn’t care (if it could). In a million years of so life will be going merrily along (albeit quite differently to today). We are not important to the planet, but it is important to us. Don’t let the desire to carry on as before blind you to truth.
2. Have a read of Dawkin’s book “The God Delusion”. It amy just help you with your misinterpretation of the world. Religion makes perfect sense if you start from the point that (your particular local) religion is true. Try starting from a neutral point and see if you can find a need for religion from there. One tip – it’s OK to say “I don’t know the answer to that”. No-one knows everything. It’s better to say “I don’t know, but I may do in the future than to accept the “explanation” that the other person gives you.

Good Wishes to all. Live and let live.

Comment on What Would Google Do? When a theology class reads it by James J. Kang

James J. Kang — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:57:32 +0000

I’m also in the class and I’ve posted my comments on Jarvis’ book at the following: http://tumblr.com/xf15tq8xv

Comment on What Would Google Do? When a theology class reads it by Jon Visitacion

Jon Visitacion — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:21:42 +0000

I’m in the class and I think its awesome. Thank you very much Tripp for your thoughts and questions on the book, as well as the many other links. I’ve posted my response on my blog at http://jonvisitacion.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-have-googlely-dream.html

Thanks!

Comment on What Would Google Do? When a theology class reads it by Wesley Menke

Wesley Menke — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:55:38 +0000

I’ve posted my comments in my blog entry What Should Google Do?.

Comment on What Would Google Do? When a theology class reads it by Wesley Menke

Wesley Menke — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:48:21 +0000

I’ve posted my comments http://youthjusticenetwork.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-should-google-do.html.

Comment on A Fish Trying to Learn to Breathe Air: This Too Shall Pass by pernell goodyear :: 3.4 :: part 2 • Blog Archive • something beautiful

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:47:50 +0000

[...] related :: pernell’s website pernell on twitter pernell on facebook the freeway the freeway coffeehouse allelon resonate cultivate a fish trying to learn to breathe air: this too shall pass [...]

Comment on What Would Google Do? When a theology class reads it by Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:10:51 +0000

Tripp,
This is so cool. I wish I could join the class.
Small world moment: My first year of undergrad was at CMC. And my sister is a Presbyterian minister (Chestnut Hill Presby in Philadelphia).
Last night, in a talk about another idea, I discussed the Beta God.
See also this post from Google’s Rick Klau on a session we did with the publisher Augsburg.
Let me know how the discussion goes!
I’m going to be out of reach for a bit but if you want me to Skype into a class, I’d be happy to.
jeff

Comment on Cruisin’ Santa Monica with Brian McLaren & Spencer Burke by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:18:34 +0000

Great video. Thanks. I love the way Brian McLaren thinks. He just makes really good sense to me. Can’t wait to buy his new book. I certainly agree with everything he said in this conversation.

Comment on A Spiral, Not a Pendulum: The Massachusetts Special Election by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:15:08 +0000

Chad, I hope the energy bill does not die. Do not know as much about this one as the health care. Thanks !!!

Comment on A Spiral, Not a Pendulum: The Massachusetts Special Election by Chad Crawford

Chad Crawford — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:50:42 +0000

Thanks Deacon Hall. Jo Ann I’m disappointed too maybe this is a little bit of therapy for myself and maybe someone else. Besides what it means for health care reform, I didn’t mention that the window is really closing fast for putting policy in place that addresses climate change. If the Senate energy bill dies, the EPA could still potentially establish its authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Comment on A Spiral, Not a Pendulum: The Massachusetts Special Election by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:11:15 +0000

Chad, I am so glad that you wrote this. It brought things back into perspective for me. I was feeling a little disturbed over the situation. I was thinking of what it meant to now have to wait while the Republicans stall everything and also the changes that we wanted might be postponed. Thanks again for turning me around in my thinking to one that is more positive and hopeful.

Comment on A Spiral, Not a Pendulum: The Massachusetts Special Election by Deacon Hall

Deacon Hall — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:39:38 +0000

Well said, Chad.

Comment on Twitter-gestions for the Theology After Google by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:32:22 +0000

All of this blows my mind. The last one pretty much says it all for me. My first job in 1953 was working in a computer room. To have been involved with computers from the very beginning and to see where we are now is enough to again, blow my mind away. As the video states, the ‘computer’ was housed in “ROOMS” and now in pockets, WOW !!!! I use to punch little holes in cards with all the data we needed, the cards were fed to the “reader” that had been programed to read the cards and print out the data. If anyone has seen an old fashioned telephone switch board, then you know what the program board looked like. You had little plugs that you plugged into the frame of the program board that enabled the “reader” to do what you needed. My company paid my tuition to a school that taught how to program the computer. It was very difficult but I enjoyed it. Had to quit because my first child was to be born. In 1970, after being a stay at home mom, I went back to work and guess what, worked on a desk top computer as well as managing the accounts payable department. Now I use my desk top for so many things, social networking, research, spreadsheets, word documents, editing and storing pictures, the list goes on and on. One great thing is that it is for me a place of learning. I can go to Homebrewed website and many others to pursue my theological interests, if I have a question on anything I simply do a search and there it is. Amazing. For a senior adult it is the easiest way to continue to become educated. I play games such as Rummy Squares, Book Worm, Wheel of fortune, solitaire, and many others that are so much fun but it is also training my brain. The other videos were definately examples of the various things you can find on the computer, some interesting, some statistical, some just plain boreing,(not presented on Homebrewed) but if you want porn or anything else you can find it on the web. A great tool, the computer, for both good and evil. I love my PC !!!!!!

Comment on The Dangerous Biz of Truth by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:05:15 +0000

“As Christians we too come to participate in God and God comes to shape our subjectivity. God begins to make us true. Through prayer, art, worship, reflection, friendship, service, and many other practices we are shaping our subjectivity and letting the mind of Christ take root in us. Helene describes the subjectivity of one who knows the truth as one who sees all people as ‘loved and loveable’. In this simple phrase a sensitivity to the good news is expressed for if we look at anyone, regardless of difference, as loved and lovable then we relate to them without trying to erase their difference. They are not changed by us but our own subjectivity, our experience and understanding of the truth, is transformed as we emoby the truth, way, and life revealed in Jesus. To see truth through this lens connects well with Paul’s description of the mind of Christ in the Philippians hymn (2:5-11). Christian truth is misunderstood if it is grasped and exploited, instead it compels us to become a servant of all and even become vulnerable because there is no one in who is not loved and lovable.” This is a real capsule for me as to what I believe truth to be, embodied Christ in us !! I think there are some absolutes in the bible, very simply God is, God created the cosmos, God is love, God came to earth in the form of Jesus, all people possess The Holy Spirit (whether they recognize it or not) these are absolutes for me. The other thing for me is; “When we come to understand truth as a living into grace then it becomes easy to understand talk about the ‘way’ and ‘life.’ When Jesus tells his disciples that he is that the way, the truth, and life to the Father and then that they have seen the Father by being his disciple, he is giving a rich description of the relational nature of truth. The truth is the way of Jesus, the life-giving way of Jesus. When you hear this text as part of a community of Jesus followers it becomes clear that when Thomas wanted a destination Jesus turned him towards the community and when Thomas wanted directions Jesus gave him a call to gracious living. The effect of truth is not the means to excluded others from God, but the call to live a life shaped by the truth – the life-giving way of Jesus.” When the blind men felt the elephant, each described what they had felt. Each “knew” and described accurately what they had felt but that was just one piece. Put all the pieces together and you get a “whole”. Though we will never get a “whole” in this life, we can however get a much larger picture of God when we listen to others tell their stories, etc. To be able to converse with those that “see” things differently gives just another little piece of God. Yes, it is all about relationships, community, conversation and ministry to and with others.

Comment on Tupper Says “Reject Clericalism!” by Jo Ann W. Goodson

Jo Ann W. Goodson — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:56:55 +0000

Deacon Burrley, yes Tupper is awesome !!!!!

Comment on Tupper Says “Reject Clericalism!” by deacon burrley

deacon burrley — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:29:41 +0000

Tupper is awesome. Clericalism sucks!