Worst of all, we Christians have confused our Stories with the narrative of empire, thus allowing scripture to be expropriated into the service of oppression. Pablo Richard, a Latin American theologian, underscores this betrayal by citing an open letter sent by a delegation of indigenous peoples organizations to the pope on a recent visit to Peru:
John-Paul II, we, Andean and American Indians, have decided to take advantage of your visit to return you your Bible, since in five centuries it has not given us love, peace or justice. Please, take back your Bible and give it back to our oppressors, because they need its moral teachings more than we do... The Bible came to us as part of the imposed colonial transformation. It was the ideological weapon of this colonialist assault. The Spanish sword which attacked and murdered the bodies of Indians by day at night became the cross which attacked the Indian soul.This is the judgment of history: When the church allows the narrative of the cross to be destroyed by the narrative of the sword, we become defenseless against the spirituality of empire and consequently complicit with its mighty evils.(Meyers, xxi)
I'm very curious about you're talking about choosing to believe in the virgin birth. You choose to believe something because it's personally useful? How does that work? Isn't that overwhelmingly arbitrary?
I'm not trying to pick on you Peter, but I guess I'd like to believe things based on reality. I fear I'm delusional enough the way it is! Maybe I haven't read you correctly.
...I guess I think of it in the same way that I think of LOVE as a choice. It's not that I'm faking it or that it's arbitrary. It's that I don't always "FEEL" it, "EVERY DAY!" You know? Some days are rough. Sometimes I'm pissy or selfish...
I have experienced a very real and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ, and that relationship was introduced to me in a conservative Evangelical context. Though the context has changed, I have changed, and the way I view the world has changed, I choose to keep loving the personality of the God I have known most of my life.
It's not blind love. I know there are things about Christianity I might not like. Or might not even know about. I may have doubts, at times. I may wonder "what if things had turned out differently..." I may find Sufism or Buddhism attractive from time to time... I start to visit philosophically "suggestive" websites... but I come back to my first love. My first love is Jesus.
I don't mean to be caddy, disrespectful, or arbitrary. I don't want to pick and choose based on convenience and my own selfish personal needs (though, inevitably I do from time to time). I don't know if that's a great answer, but it is absolutely the attitude I take though, Sue.
Sometimes choosing to believe is like choosing to love. It's no fairytale romance, but it's real and true and still beautiful and life-changing.
Though you may want to consider yourself "liberal", you fail by your own words. Here are your 5 characterizations of Liberals:
1. No absolute Truth
5. No Resurrection
You may want to play both sides by saying "I don't necessarily believe..." but the truth is, you ABSOLUTELY don't adhere to liberal theological positions, as I illustrate each below:
(1) Failed: You believe in Absolute Truth
I believe that God, through Jesus Christ, is Absolute Truth.
Whatever the heck that means? Sounds beautiful (to a Christian), but bizarre to nonbelievers. Here, imagine someone saying, "I believe that Shiva, through Ganesh, is Absolute Truth." Doesn't that seem a bit nonsensical, unless you have been raised with the myths of Shiva and Ganesh?
Sure, you understand the subjectivity of knowledge but you desire an anchor, but gee, what a bizarre anchor.
(2) Failed: Looks I guess you are an inclusivist, not a pluralist.
(3) Failed: Seems you hold a "Well, sure, there may SEEM to be problems but God will clear that all up if we pray. Meanwhile, lets just realize the Bible is "precious" [arghhhh !]
(4) Failed: I want my cake and eat it too. OK, the virgin-birth does not make sense, but I won't reject it. [Read: I still want to stay buddy-buddy with all you who buy this stuff and keep my bible "precious".]
(5) Failed: You believe!
Unfortunately you fail miserably at being a Liberal Christian. (yes, my bias is that I prefer true liberal Christians), You may want to sound liberal and talk cool and make friends with us non-believing type, but you still sing from the same Hymnbook, it seems. Or am I missing something.
Sure, your 10/31/2008 post explains that all you mean by liberal is:
a) some abortions are OK
b) women can have a role in the church
c) war should not be justified by religion
d) it is OK for Christians to be Democrats
Yeah, to conservative fundamentalists, these 4 apples may be gateway beliefs to full blown liberalism. To me you sound like a conservative democrat Christian who wants to flirt with the word "liberal" in a rebellious adolescent way but doesn't really mean it accept in the political sense. But then I guess you confess that you are politically liberal but theologically liberal.
So, I thought my pagan insights might assist in organizing your new treatise on the new Peter Walker... I was in a playful writing mood, nothing meant offensive -- instead, I write knowing your strong confidence and flexibility and look forward to your reply.
I believe there MUST be absolute truth because I'm an inevitable Western product of ongoing centuries of Hellenism. So I believe in reality. And perhaps there are realities that coincide, intersect, converge and diverge, but even they must (in my assumptive brain) exist within a shared reality of existence. I have not-yet read a liberal theologian who did not believe in an absolute truth - only one different from the conservative Evangelical mold. And usually, that belief is carried with more humility and open-handedness than its opposite counterparts. If you've found a liberal theologian who doesn't believe in some form of absolute truth, please recommend! But I'd suspect they're some form of existentialists, not true liberalisms (as A.D. Hunt rightly observes, liberalism is quite a Modernist structure).
Regarding Scripture, I think Scripture is precious for the context, history and perspective it offers. Saying something is valuable is not the same as saying something is totally authoritative. Few Liberal Theologians - not even Bishop Spong in The Sins of Scripture - throw Scripture out. Rather, they keep it in a much more moderated place, along side reason, experience, tradition, culture, history, spirit, intuition, conscience, intellect, relationships, community and countless other gauges and tools we have at our disposal to help us navigate life and spirituality. I don't fail the test simply because I won't throw away my Bible, and even continue to hold it in high regard.
Virgin birth. Maybe I do fail that one. But to me, liberalism isn't just about what I believe, but about how I believe. I willfully CHOOSE to believe in the Virgin Birth, not because I think it is pertinent to salvation, or because I need others around me to believe it, or even because I think it isn't historically and biblically problematic, but because it serves a spiritual dimension in me. The concept feeds me and my relationship to God, in some way. Like icons, that give us perspectives and views of God and the Saints in ways that stimulate us visually and - it often follows - spiritually, so the Virgin Birth illustrates God's penetration into temporal reality that I find invigorating, enlightening, meaningful and TRUE... whether it's historically/literally true or not. I choose to believe it because, if someone could prove to me that it wasn't, it wouldn't shatter my faith, but only lead me to reimagine what Jesus' conception means to me on a personal level.
The resurrection. Yes, you get that one. I believe it. I still hold that if someone could prove to me it didn't happen physically/literally, I would maintain my faith and recontextualize - as with the virgin birth. But the resurrection means more to me for personal reasons - for the ways in which my life has been infiltrated by the love and grace of God - that only resonates at the level of a good-old-fashioned Personal Testimony. I'm still, in many ways, an Evangelical at heart, because the God I've encountered has been so very personal. And maybe it doesn't make me a pluralist to say I don't begrudge Buddhists and Star Trek fans their personal revelations - maybe I'm just inclusive - but I absolutely believe the God who touches me is the God who reaches through every culture, creed and language.
People who use the word "indigenous."
Angst-ridden people dressed in black.
Sorry if you fall into any of these categories. Be assured I don't hate you.
Every day in our congregations and communities, people of faith see the effects of our broken health insurance system. With Congress back in session, we have a new opportunity to get reform back on track.
Write your representatives today: let them know that as a person of faith, you support action on health reform NOW.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Eager to draw attention Bob McDonnell's conservative roots, campaign advisers to Democrat Creigh Deeds on Monday called McDonnell's newly-discovered 1989 graduate thesis a "devastating" revelation that threatens to sink the Republican's campaign for the Virginia governor's mansion.
The 93-page research paper — first revealed in Sunday's Washington Post — articulated a Christian conservative worldview that criticized "cohabitators, homosexuals and fornicators" and described working women and feminists "detrimental" to the family.
On a conference call with reporters, Deeds adviser Mo Elleithee called the thesis McDonnell's "road map" for conservative governance. The Deeds camp argued that McDonnell immediately sought to put his theories to work in state government when he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates three years after writing the paper, which McDonnell wrote as master's student at Regent University in Virginia Beach.
Regent was founded by Pat Robertson and was initially named "CBN University" after Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. McDonnell wrote the paper when he was 34, twenty years before entering the Virginia governor's race.
"This paper laid out very explicity his vision for the role of government, his vision for the for a social agenda that should dominate governace, and it even went beyond just a personal political philosophy," Elleithee said. "It had a 15-point action plan for how to implement that philosophy."
The thesis was called "The Republican Party's Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of the Decade." In it, McDonnell wrote that working women are "detrimental" the the family; that feminism is among "the real enemies of the traditional family"; and that the "purging" of religious influence in public schools is damaging to healthy families.
MEANT TO BE
The little antique clock is beautiful and sits ensconced on a friend’s desk. It is dome shaped, hand wound, and has a little moving bird to show the movement of seconds. She was so delighted to have found the little treasure, she said, “It was meant to be.”
I’ve heard “meant to be” used to describe a lot of things.
“I got the greatest parking spot today. Right across from my destination. It was meant to be.”
“You should see the great bargain I picked up today at the clothing store. It was meant to be.”
“We got our child enrolled in a great pre-school. It was meant to be.”
“Meant to be” is a nice thought. Someone cared about my well-being and arranged for me to get the thing I wanted. However, my mind goes nuts when I hear that. Inevitably I start thinking about all the events that had to be arranged in order for THAT event to happen.
In order to get the parking spot, the person before you had to park there and then leave at just the right time as you happened to be driving by looking for an empty parking spot.
Or the clothing you bought had to be designed by a designer, chosen by a clothing line, ordered by a department store employee, and overlooked by lots of shoppers just so that you could walk by and pick it up.
But “meant to be” gets really complicated when you start to think about all the other events, bad events, that occur in life. Are they “meant to be” as well? What about the drunken driver that killed a friend? Meant to be? Or the violent robbery? Or the stolen property? Or the spousal abuse?
“Meant to be” is not so comforting then. Especially if you think that Someone deliberately arranged for a bad thing to happen to you. In the case of my childless friend, he wondered why a crack addict could have a baby and he couldn’t. He would raise a loving responsible person. The crack addict would create another crack addict.
Did Someone reserve that little clock in a foreign country just for my friend? I doubt it. The logistics of that feat become outrageous.
Was my friend childless because of some universal plan? Doubt that too. There is no reason or justice in denying a godly person a child while giving a helpless infant to a person who will only destroy the innocent life.
Sometimes “meant to be” is just an expression. A way of saying “look at the great thing I just found.” At other times it is the cruelest thing you can say. Ask my friend about the pain of being told that his childlessness was “meant to be.”
Pastor Bruce Logue, LifeSpring Church
Bruce contributes at The Merced Sun-Star
I haven't been diagnosed, but my wife has commented, and now on vacation, with no real responsibilities except feeding the cats, I mysel...
A recent article at www.ChristianityToday.com discusses some of the growing pains/birthing pains/death pangs (you can pick your lens) occur...
I got this strip from a theology group through my church. Thought you might enjoy... Yeah, it occurs to me every day . I like to call it...
Recalibrating Church: Continued... You'll have to forgive me. For those of you who were actually at this event, you'll notice that ...
I’ve been out of writing commission for a little while now. My only excuse is: this baby is coming, and life is upside down! ...