Theology Panel conference call Tuesday, September 16th, 8:30 EDT
I would like to invite all those interested to the next Theology Panel conference call on Tuesday, September 16th, 8:30 EDT. To particpate call 1-218-339-2500, use 727705* as your access code.
The panel seeks to provide a progressive Christian theology to our our activist work in achieving social justice.
We have had several lively discussions thus far, and the value of those discussions can be enhanced with continued participation.
The agenda for the discussion is always open to amendment; but I would propose that we take a slight side-step this month and discuss Spirituality; maintaining a spiritual focus even while hip-deep in the muck and mire of the injustices that we seek to redress.
Any other ideas, please make your suggestions known; and please join us.
Roger
- Rev_Roger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Theology Panel conference call Tuesday, September 16th, 8:30 EDT
Reminder! Theology Panel conference call Tuesday, September 16th, 8:30 EDT
To particpate call 1-218-339-2500, use 727705* as your access code.
Topic: 2 Views of God: strict father vs nurturant parent.
I wish I could claim credit for it
But various versions have come down through history:
"In essentials unity, In doubtful things liberty, But in all things love."
“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”
Is attributed widely to St. Augustine.
Good suggestion
Let's add that to the agenda.
And to answer your question, yes. As a Southern Baptist, I was very much in fear of a God that put a tick-mark by my name everytime I messed up, and had a lightning bolt ever at the ready to fry me with....
God'll get you for that!
Remember Bea Arthur's TV character Maude from the 70's? When someone ticked her off, and she couldn't anything about it, she'd say, "God'll get you for that!"
'Course the strict father also gave Flip Wilson a famous line, too. "The Devil made me do it!", like, hey since I'm hapless a sinner I ain't in charge so "let's partee."
So been close to being zapped Rev.? How many "tick-marks" next to your name can you recall? :-)
Thank God for grace!
Unfair question Rich.
More tickmarks than I could ever remember.
That is truly the essence of grace. I have the love and forgiveness of my God, my family and frieds: Far better than a broken self-centered man like me deserves.
Guardian angels
Unfair question? :-) Maybe so, just being the Devils Advocate! I sure have more than my share of tick-marks.
As for me, well somehow I feel like I am being looked over by guardian angels. I have come so close to death, so many times I'm beginning to wonder if I have feline DNA somewhere in my blood. From the age of 12 'til just last Christmas day, I seemingly come very close then something spares me. Two too close to call car incidents, two serious diseases, an out-of-body experience, ricoheting ammo and the like. As my doctor observed, "God must not be done with you yet".
So am I here by the Grace of God, or do I just have a very active corp of guardian angels?
Gary and Roger, do either of you believe in guardian angels? Or is it just another Christian myth?
Rich
Guardian Angels? Oh Yeah!
Rich,
I definitely believe in them...like you, I have had several close brushes with death and I believe without angelic intervention I would not be sitting here typing. There are several texts that talk about the role of angels in our lives. We are cautioned not to worship them, but I like to sometimes acknowledge them and simply thank them for doing such a good job keeping me and my family safe in a fast and harrowing world.
I could tell a tale or two, but right now I gotta get going and drive a friend to the VA hospital in Nashville.
Gary
Now I'm in trouble.
Rich,
I dunno. I certainly believe that those who have gone on before look down upon us. Whether or not they are empowered to act on our behalf, I dunno.
I don't have any theological heartburn with it, I just don't know.
Sorry,
R
Strict Father or Nurturant Father?
Roger,
I just re-read an article by George Lakoff wherein he states his belief that the difference between conservative and progressive Christianity is whether God is seen as a strict father or a nurturant parent.
"The strict father God is punitive: Follow His commandments and you go to Heaven. Disobey and you go to Hell. Since you're all sinners, He'll give you a second chance. His son has suffered so much that he has built up enough moral credit to pay for the sins of everybody. If you accept Jesus as you're savior, He'll wipe the slate clean as if you've been born again; but this time you'd better get it right or else. Do what your church says and you'll go to Heaven; disobey and you'll go to Hell."
"The nurturant God offers Grace, which is metaphorical nurturance. To get Grace, you have to be close to God; you can't earn Grace; it's freely given and unconditionally; it must be accepted actively; it fills and nourishes you, protects you, heals you, makes you a moral person."
To me the strict God seems to come from the Old Testament and the nurturant God from the New. I, by life experience and formal and informal studies, favor the nurturant parent. I come by my belief both by science, my intellect, by reason and by religion, my intuition, by faith, when those times come when reason alone fails to provide the answers I seek. This is the basis of my declaration of being a Deist. I seek to be a fully enlightened person.
I wonder if, from your initial up bringing as a Southern Baptist, you were taught not to question God, your church and by extension your parents. My understanding of the Baptist Church, maybe my prejudice, is that the home of a strict God, a place of fire and brimstone, "ya'll better be good or God's gonna get ya." Please correct me if I am wrong. I grew up with a similiar understanding of the Roman Catholic church except it was The Pope who'll "get ya". I'm open to correction here, too.
I started life in a Methodist family, NO BODY challenged Grandfather Warden, his word was law. Once free from home, after I entered college my thinking began to change; I progressed from agnostism, to atheism, to non-theism, and due to my strong background in science, to Deism. I believe in a Creator because it both "makes sense" and because it provides answers that reason alone can not.
Shall we indulge ourselves and go into this strict father vs nurturant parent further? I loved to spend some time in real time hearing what you and others have to say.
BTW, I beleive this discussion has important currency in that it has much relevance in explaining the differences between the national Republican and Democratic platforms and their chosen candidates.
Rich
Lakoff Is Lacking
Rich,
Lakoff is a renowned cognitive linguist, but seemingly operates from an outsider's position when it comes to interpreting the actual values and functioning of the Church at large. His delineation of the Church as falling into either the "nurturing parent" or the "strict father" borders on the absurd when one considers the many variants and nuances of Christianity as a whole. There are no clear lines of distinction between denominations, theological treatises, collective values or practices that clearly support his notions.
Exploring the differences between conservative and progressive Christian values and beliefs can be done in a much more straight up fashion without dragging Lakoff's tired and inadequate imagery into the discussion.
I would suggest starting with an attempt at clearly defining exactly what "Progressive Christianity" is. Does it represent a clear progression into the deeper purposes of God for humanity? If so, specifically reveal where and how this is true. Something is progressive only if it is showing genuine progress from one point to another resulting in an improved or enhanced result.
Merely rejecting conservative or traditional religious views for something new or different doesn't automatically qualify as progress. In some cases it might even be digression rather than progression and going toward darkness rather than enlightenment. Another question to consider...how is Progressive Christianity different from Liberal Christianity?
Clarifying and distinguishing what Progressive Christianity is and how it is truly showing progress above and beyond the more familiar faces of the Church could help this movement gain more traction.
Gary
Rebel parents
Gary,
Oh I agree that Lakoof may be offering extremes, that the "truth" lies somewhere in between, and always from a personal perspective. I simply offer Lakoof's definitions in the spirit of generating dialogue.
As for me my personal views began in a strict father theology of Methodism. Both of my English grandfathers were strict disciplanarians. NO ONE argued with them, period. Their word was law. My father eventually rejected Christianity due to the behavior of church members. Dad often said they were gossipy, two faced, back stabbing, hypocrites, who said one thing on Sunday, and did something else the othe 6 days. He left the church shortly after marrying Mom.
Dad though was also a disciplarian. Both of my older brothers eary on warned me not to talk back, as I'd regret it wehn Dad's calloused hand would soon bust my bottom, hard and long. I never once in my life talked back to my Dad, I knew better.
Yet he was a spiritual man, in that he did believe in a higher power, but was much more at ease in God's great outdoors. If you saw the movie A Bridge Runs Through It, especially at the very end, you'd see my Dad happily fishing, and get his spritual batteries recharged standing in the fast flowing river.
Overall, his legacy of scepticism towards organized religion is deeply ingrained in me. That's why I look for the basics, seek to know the historic Jesus, the true authority. That's why Mitchell's book The Gospel According to Jesus makes so much sense to me. It's just the essentials, sans church based mythology.
Mom, similarly was raised in a strict church going Methodist family. Both of her parents sung in the choir, were no nonsense folks. Her Dad was a very strict man, one who was not adverse to using a barber's strap to enforce his word. Yet after she married my Dad she too rebelled. When her father-in-law laid down the law, she'd talk back, which initially shocked and upset Dad's family. She said she'd had one tough English father and would not abide another! As she would recall when she argued with her father-in-law she'd see a certain twinkle in his eye, silently sort of saying "Well good, someone had the gumption to talk back."
She was a combination of both the strict father and nurturant parent. She was very much the disciplarian, yet with a good sense of justice. Tough, compassionate and generous to a fault. She I guess you could say she was an advocate of what we now call"tough love".
So my initial reaction was to relate more to Roger's experiences than yours. I am sort of envious of your church teachings, I can really relate to what you share.
Rich
defining Progressive Christianity
Gary,
I think you pose an interesting question here, but I'm not sure that we'll all agree on the answer. There certainly seems to be a good deal of agreement on a progressive political viewpoint (a preference for serving the the poor and dispossessed, protection the environment/God's creation, etc.), but there seems to be a good deal of variance on theological perspective.
The Center for Progressive Christianity and most of the other progressive Christian material that's been written in the last couple decades have clearly defined Progressive Christianity as part and parcel to progressive or liberal theology (accepting contextual reading, science and openness to other religions over literalism and fundamentalism). TCPC's points can be found here: http://www.tcpc.org/about/8points.cfm I would note point 4:
By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we are Christians who...
Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to):
believers and agnostics,
conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
women and men,
those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
those of all races and cultures,
those of all classes and abilities,
those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope.
The few exceptions to the progressive theology have frankly received an undue amount of attention, Jim Wallis and Ron Sider. I actually think Campolo fits slightly differently because of his openness to different views on the social issues.
I think there's still frankly some disagreements though on abortion and gay marriage, and perhaps just as importantly who's interpretation we use of the Bible. I find it personally hard to accept a progressive Christian platform without the full embrace of our gay brothers and sisters and an honoring of their life long loving committed relationships. That's just me, but my overall point is that there is surely disagreement among literalists and more progressive theological viewpoints. I dealt with some of these difficulties in a blog about a month ago: http://www.crossleft.org/node/6422
What we do about such disagreements, I'm not entirely sure. I think dialogue is worthy, and I believe over time that there will be changes in sentiment, especially on the gay marriage question. I think even ten years ago it would have been difficult to imagine a state honoring gay marriage, but we have indeed seen it and we'll see a growing acceptance. In my generation, I think its fairly accepted...much more so than in previous generations.
Even if there is a growing acceptance of gay marriage, there will still be substantive disagreements about how we read and interpret the Bible. What to do? What conversations would be most helpful? For one of the few times in my life, I'm not so sure.
Very thoughtful reply - It's Science and Religion
Steve,
Defining progressive Christianity most certainly is a great challenge, one that, IMO, each person must define for themselves. I approach it from a strong science background, employ reason and faith. If I can manage the energy I'll try to offer some of the science here. It's quite a challenge summarizing 30 years of research and analysis.
Even my faith comes from observation. I developed a faith in a higher power, which I prefer to call Our Creator, (I think it is much more inclusive) from the many, many hours of quiet walks in the woodlands, streams and fields surrounding my rural family home. Time spent by the old pond back home. Somehow I just "knew" (intuitively) there were unseen connections.
For me science gives me the how and religion the who behind all the patterns of life, gives meaning to all the laws of physics and human behavior. I've heard it said that 90% of the world's leading scientists have a belief of some sort in God. The universe functions just too beautifully for there not to be a force behind it, directing it.
I'm certainly not a creationist, an "it all happened in 6,000 years" advocate. I believe in a creative process. So in defining progressive Christianity we have to take in account the sciences; the so called hard ones like physics, mathematics, astronomy and geology and the human ones; like history, sociology, political science and psychology, along side, and interacting with, religion. I have developed a large matrix that clearly shows on one 28" x 22" sheet of paper the interrelationships of all the worlds sciences and all the worlds religions. All fits together so beautifully, with so much balance and harmony, that it all seems to have been developed by a creative force which we humans have only the slightest sense of its nature. I briefly showed it to you, Kety and Frank at the end of our Board retreat last year.
That's why I call "it" Our Creator. Not God or Goddess, can't be. Our Creator is both. Has to be. Yin and Yang, in perfect balance, with the seed of one in the other.
It's science AND religion, not science VS religion. So I look beyond the good book, to find where science agrees with religion.
A quick example. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, perhaps a bit over simplified, says that two persons looking at the same object will see it somewhat differently. Your view will be relative to your position. Thus if I say God and you say God, it will be from our unique perspective, neither "right or wrong", just from our place in space and time, thus IMO we have a formula for instant world peace. If we could all come, as a human family, to a place where we honor each others views, our world perspective, without judgment, not insisting somehow we are right and all others are wrong, we have a quiet place that honors one another, a place of peace.
Peace to you my friend,
Rich
PS For more on Einstein and others, I recommend two now classics: The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra and The Dancing Wu-li Masters by Gary Zukav. They both, back in the 70's, explored the interrelationship between science and religion.
It's all about perception
The church as a whole has a problem presenting its message. Because of the overbearing message of judgement from the church of my youth (or perhaps my perception of the message) all through my childhood and even into my 20s I was scared of God.
Perfection was the goal that I was ever short of attaining. As such I was filled with a sence of self-loathing and failure. Once I gained awareness of a more forgiving, understanding Father God, I began to see some worth in myself, and began to forgive myself. It was only then that I could begin to comprehend grace, and only then that I could begin to love, rather than just fear God.
In truth, perhaps we progressives go too far to the other side, in trying to present an alternative to the petty and vindictive God that so many fear.
When push comes to shove, when I stand before the judgement throne; I would rather be accused of loving too much than judging too harshly.
Southern Baptists
Roger,
I was born into a Southern Baptist family in south Texas and was faithfully taken to church three times a week. I was taught in Sunday School, vacation Bible school, and countless sermons that God was loving and merciful and had made a Way for all to come to Him through Jesus. There was certainly an emphasis on receiving Jesus as my personal Savior for forgiveness of my sin. They taught that He alone is the way into this pardon from sin by being the sacrificial "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" and that His resurrection from the dead was my personal promise from God to receive the gift of eternal life.
They taught these things directly from the Bible which was held up as the immutable Word of God. A quick read of Holy Writ reveals these teachings actually do comprise the essence of the Gospel of Jesus according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. The Baptist I remember touted their biblical understanding as literal for the most part, but allowed for symbolism in certain applications.
I don't recall God the Father being presented as the harsh judge who heartlessly desires to throw unrepentant
sinners into hell for eternity. He was portrayed as a loving, broken-hearted Father who would go to the greatest lengths to save humanity from its own destruction, the grave and ultimately His final judgment.
The evangelistic messages were preached at most every service and with a fervency that could be likened to a
fireman trying to rescue someone from a burning building or talking someone down off a ledge. The "come to Jesus" altar calls were emotionally charged with countless verses of "Just As I Am" and caused me to squirm more than once as I assessed my own lack of a meaningful relationship with Jesus.
The people of Shady Oaks Baptist Church were basically the salt of the earth types. They were mostly blue collar people in a small town thriving in the shadows of a polluting Dow Chemical Company where most of the men in our church worked, including my Dad. These people demonstrated virtues like love, faithfulness and generosity through daily action without any real exposure to the social gospel. Their deeds seemed to emanate more from an unspoken inward creed than an outward one.
I don't remember any political discourse coming from the pulpit as presidential elections came and went. I do
remember once when some unfounded concern was expressed about the possibility of electing a certain Catholic candidate who might be unduly influenced by the Pope. People generally respected political differences much like sports favorites with occasional good-natured razzing. There was a rather tense time in the church when the Dow union went on strike and some of the men were in the union and some like my Dad worked for the company. I seem to recall the church helping some families who were missing pay checks as the strike lingered. I can still imagine my Dad driving through the picket line that my oldest brother walked.
I have to wonder about your particular church experience and the very different gospel that you were exposed to. Although each Southern Baptist church is autonomous, there is a very uniform doctrine found throughout the SBC. They preach salvation by grace and the security of the believer. In other words, they believe that no one is saved by doing good works, it is by faith in Jesus alone and they believe in "once saved, always saved". This places them squarely at theological odds with most of Christendom in that regard.
I think the Church has a problem presenting its message because we are so often doing just that...presenting the Church's diluted message rather than the message of Jesus. I agree with you that the message of Progressive Christianity has a tendency to go too far in attempting to counter the "petty vindictive" image of God that some portray. I am no more interested in a God that is created in the image of social liberalism than the one created in the image of social conservatives. I'm always looking for the truth...left, right or center and I don't find all of it in any one place. The resurrected Christ that I encountered is not going to be totally reflected in any single group or demographic. The Christ revealed and taught about in the Bible is simply too outrageously awesome for that to happen.
Gary
Perception colored by experience.
To be fair, in many respects it was not so much just the church's teachings as it was the way that was borne out in my family and the community at large. I was raised in a small, largely rural south Alabama town by a hard working, totalitarian father with a drinking problem. So it is quite likely that the messages of God's judgment and having "the fear of God" put into me resonated with my own experience far more than the merciful God who sacrificed himself for me. I knew nothing of a loving heavenly father as my own earthly father did not know how to show love in any way but harsh discipline.
It is true that I rebel against the tenor of those teachings, and I do so because I know that there are many more out there who cannot reconcile that duality.
For me the hallmark of my progressive faith is probably a willingness to allow others to walk their own path; to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling". My expression of faith and my understanding of God does not agree with yours in some respects. That no more means that you are right and I am wrong than it does I am right and you are wrong. The God I know understand is one who is "both, and". A God who is not confined by the dogmatic teachings of anyone, but rather transcends everyone. As you stated so well "The resurrected Christ that I encountered is not going to be totally reflected in any single group or demographic. The Christ revealed and taught about in the Bible is simply too outrageously awesome for that to happen."
I find it very heartening that you concede that neither side has a monopoly on truth. If we are to indeed grow, and bring about the kingdom of God on earth, then we must acknowledge with an open mind the truth possessed by others, while examining our own, learning from one another in the process.
Common Ground
Roger,
You wrote, "For me the hallmark of my progressive faith is probably a willingness to allow others to walk their own path; to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling". My expression of faith and my understanding of God does not agree with yours in some respects."
The passage you quote is one of my favorites. Roger, my feeling is we might as well be willing to allow folks to walk their own paths because they are the only ones that can. Seems to me we both agree on the important stuff. I am always open for critical review of any teaching. Do you feel we differ on some critical point? If so, bring it out for examination and comparison. Openly discussing differences often reveals folks who are not as far apart as first believed...sometimes not.
I love your thought and find plenty of biblical substantiation to support your observation when you say, "A God who is not confined by the dogmatic teachings of anyone, but rather transcends everyone."
That is my sentiment exactly. That is exactly Who I have found Christ to be. This perspective has only been re-enforced by reading the Bible and finding that the God revealed there is beyond comprehension. One of my favorite scriptures says, "He is able to do immeasurably more than we can ask or imagine." The proclamations of power and rulership that Jesus made for himself are off the chart of human understanding. Note the startling claim Jesus makes as he commissioned his remaining disciples to go make more disciples.
Matthew 28: 18-20 "18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Colossians 1:15-23 offers perhaps the most concise and forthright declaration about Jesus and what He offers humanity. "15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant."
You said, "I find it very heartening that you concede that neither side has a monopoly on truth. If we are to indeed grow, and bring about the kingdom of God on earth, then we must acknowledge with an open mind the truth possessed by others, while examining our own, learning from one another in the process."
No one has a monopoly on truth, morality, or good deeds. Jesus came to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth and a functional Christian unity is a prerequisite that must be met before we see the full manifestation of what that might look like. Unity comes through focusing on the common bonds of faith in Jesus and is strengthened to whatever degree He is given place to reign in our lives. He is the King of the Kingdom. Whose agendas are we working on when division is the most noticeable result? His agenda is the one we need find and get busy with. It is all good.
My heart aches when I think about opposing sides of any kind in the Kingdom of Heaven. It is a sad indictment rendered against the Body of Christ that we view ourselves as divided rather than as diversified. We allow differences of opinion on peripheral issues to quench the love that Jesus demonstrated and commands. Why do we foster and perpetuate an "us and them" mentality when thinking and talking about other Christians?
Steve has expressed rightful concern regarding the divergent theology among Progressives and how this plays out in practical interaction in our cyber community and the world at large. My thought is...The unity that is necessary will probably never be found in a uniform and agreed upon multi-point theology. The unity that is necessary is simply being found in our common ground in Jesus and then is revealed and established as we joyfully do justice, love mercy and walk humbly in His Kingdom everyday.
Gary
Critical?
Gary,
I'm not sure that we do differ on any critical points. We are united by a common faith in God, as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. That could and should be enough. The points you made regarding common ground are exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for putting it so well.
If my comments were mistook as divisive, I ask your forgiveness.
"In essentials-Unity, in non-essentials - Liberty, in all things -Charity"
Roger
Nothing to Forgive
Roger,
Nothing to forgive....I love your concluding statement. Is that a Roger Original?
"In essentials-Unity, in non-essentials - Liberty, in all things -Charity"
Gary