What is a Liberal Christian?
Charley Earp
were not true Christians. Although I had sound reasons for becoming a
non-Christian, I still wonder how Liberals can claim to be Christians.
For me, the crux of my own status as a non-Christian is my attitude
towards the bodily resurrection. If Jesus had been bodily resurrected
and ascended to heaven and is now physically present there sending the
Spirit upon all humankind, then Jesus is King of all creation. Since I
have reasons to doubt this is a factual reality, I have little
theological basis to insist that Jesus should be the center of religious
devotion.
However, it has become clear to me that my persistent pacifism,
contemplative prayer, belief in divine healing, and other elements of my
spirituality have their origins in my Christian upbringing. While I have
constructed an agnostic philosophical justification for all of these
elements, it is still the fact that pure philosophy did not bring me
where I am, though it was an integral part of the journey.
I am now more comfortable referring to the teachings of Jesus, though I
do not quote him as an authority, but only as one of the more familiar
teachers in our history.
I am still pondering whether I am becoming a liberal Christian. I don't
have a lot of patience for attempts to use Christian language as a
jargon for modern theology, such as Paul Tillich or Bultmann. The
"Lordship" of Jesus is something I could never affirm. As I said, some
of Jesus' teachings still hold sway in my spiritual life, but I do not
accept as an incarnate God.
Do any SRQ'rs share my viewpoint, but call it being a "liberal
Christian?" As I have said many times, I prefer Universalist as a term
for my religious philosophy.
===
Charley Earp
Northside Friends Meeting, Chicago
[All statements and opinions are my own and not the responsibility of
NFM]
http://community.webtv.net/Charley63/
"Where divine love takes place in the hearts of any people, and they
steadily act on a principle of universal righteousness, there the true
intent of the Law is fulfilled, though their outward modes of proceeding
may be distinguishable from one another."
John Woolman - _Plea For The Poor_
Timothy Travis
>Charley Earp <Char...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>>I was raised in a Pentecostal tradition which insisted that Liberals
>>were not true Christians. Although I had sound reasons for becoming a
>>non-Christian, I still wonder how Liberals can claim to be Christians.
>
>I find the term to be confusing. Pentacostals use it to describe
>someone who hold a certain theology. Parts of the U.S. Media use
>it to descibe a political philosophy. Other countries use it to
>describe a different political philosophy. In the former USSR
>it the capitalists are called "Liberal" and the communists who
>are called "Conservative." We need a better term if we are to
>discuss this in a newsgroup with readers from many nations and
>religious backgrounds.
Yes, there is a good deal of confusion about some of the terms and
labels that we use in this newsgroup and in the broader Quaker
community. Even some of those of us who regularly participate lack
sufficient grounding in Friends "lore" to avoid becoming confused and
therefore promoting confusion. (I hasten to add that it is not my
view that a lack of grounding in Friends' history impedes one's walk
as a Quaker. After all, George Fox was totally without grounding in
Friends lore and John Woolman knew nothing of the reasons why some are
called "orthodox," some "liberal" and some "conservative," let alone
"universalist...").
Perhaps, this being a Quaker newsgroup, we should use the words the
way that they are used in the world of the Religious Society of
Friends, thereby aiding newcomers and old salts in gaining the
grounding that, while not essential, enriches the experience. My view
is that making up a whole new nomenclature (that newbies would have to
learn anyway to participate or even understand what is being said) is
unnecessary. Perhaps we need a FAQ that would define terms and could
be posted from time to time. Perhaps those who have shown such
interest and inclination in policing the rest of us on a continuing
basis could take it upon themselves to put one together.
I am being totally serious. Having not explored thoroughly (or
recently) the handful of various Quaker sites on the net (some of
which, I understand, are administered by members of this group) there
may well be at least the beginnings of such a FAQ document out there.
Or, if such a glossary exists already, perhaps simply publishing a
link would be sufficient.
peace
Timothy M. Travis
Bridge City Preparative Meeting
Portland, Oregon
"If anything be opposite to Christianity
it is retaliation and revenge."
--Johnathan Dymond
War: An Essay
Seekermike
literally, but allegorically.
"Guy Macon" <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:a60sot$4...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Charley Earp <Char...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> >I was raised in a Pentecostal tradition which insisted that Liberals
> >were not true Christians. Although I had sound reasons for becoming a
> >non-Christian, I still wonder how Liberals can claim to be Christians.
>
Trisha
Timothy Travis <qsp...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3j688u0t1kokjfobt...@4ax.com...
>
> Timothy M. Travis
> Bridge City Preparative Meeting
> Portland, Oregon
>
May I ask what is a Preparative meeting?
Charley Earp
politics.
Let me restate my question briefly. How does one call oneself a
Christian while not believing in the bodily resurrection? In what sense
could such a Christian call Jesus their "master" or "lord" or even say
that Jesus was the greatest example of a human living God's will?
Daniel Grubbs
I consider myself a Christian but not on the same terms that others seem to. I
find that belief in the resurrection, divinity of Jesus, etc. is completely
irrelevant to my Christianity. Jesus came to tell us that all that really
matters is how we treat each other. A large part of his message, to my mind, is
that our beliefs are irrelevant. It is works that count. Unfortunately, after
killing the messenger we went on to worship the messenger rather than pay any
attention to the message.
Dan Grubbs
Timothy Travis
wrote:
All of this is Western American terminology...I know it varies from
England and from some other parts of the United States...
A preparative meeting, as the term is used in this neck o the woods,
is a group of people that is on its way to monthly meeting status.
Monthly meetings are the basic unit of Gospel Order in the United
States, the analog of a church. It is the venue for weekly meeting
for worship and for committee and community work. There are also
Quarterly Meetings and Yearly Meetings with Monthly Meetings are
associated, although it would be a mistake to think that this is some
kind of hierarchy because it is not. These larger groups provided
opportunities for Quakers from larger geographical areas to come
together for worship, fellowship and business that is peculiar to that
particular area.
People in our group were originally members and attenders at Multnomah
Monthly Meeting in Portland. We were looking for a smaller worship
experience and community and so we formed a "worship group"--which is
a small group of people who meet for worship and fellowship. As we
developed (and grew in size) we became "seasoned" enough that we were
deemed (by ourselves and our sponsoring monthly meeting--Multnomah) to
be "preparative meeting"--a monthly meeting in the making, so to
speak. This means that we were conducting more business; becoming
more of a worship community both among ourselves and to the outside
world.
As I say, this is not the English terminology, or even that in other
parts of the United States.
peace
Timothy M. Travis
Bridge City Preparative Meeting
Portland, Oregon
"Why should I ask God to make me good when
I want to be naughty?" asked the little girl.
--A.W. Macneile Dixon
Timothy Travis
Earp) wrote:
>Let me restate my question briefly. How does one call oneself a
>Christian while not believing in the bodily resurrection? In what sense
>could such a Christian call Jesus their "master" or "lord" or even say
>that Jesus was the greatest example of a human living God's will?
Although I suppose I risk being called a troll for asking, why is
bodily ressurection the crucial question? Why does it all rise and
fall on whether that is fact or myth? Is the message true with it but
not without it?
There are many people whose names have become "ianized" (or "istized")
to designate that they were (or had become) the head of some kind of
movement and they weren't resurrected.
I really want to know your thoughts on this, because I am not sure I
agree (although I do believe in the resurrection in the sense that I
think that he was raised from the dead, appeared to the disciples and
others and was taken into heaven).
peace
Timothy M. Travis
Bridge City Preparative Meeting
Portland, Oregon
"For this very reason make every effort to add to your
faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to
knowledge, self control; amd to self control, perseverence;
and to perseverence, godliness; and to godliness,
brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love."
2 Peter 1:5-8
David Christainsen
> It should have been obvious that I am talking about theology not
> politics.
>
> Let me restate my question briefly. How does one call oneself a
> Christian while not believing in the bodily resurrection? In what sense
> could such a Christian call Jesus their "master" or "lord" or even say
> that Jesus was the greatest example of a human living God's will?
Charley & RSOF Friends,
A good question and not easily answered - but I will make the
following argument on the merits ---
In Mt 8:11, Jesus follows his commendation of a Gentile by saying,
"Many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob
in the Kingdom of Heaven". For the surface reader, this no doubt means
a metaphorical table in a visionary future, not on this earth. Present
at the table would be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all resurrected. True,
the OT
gives not a hint that these men had survived death, leaving them
safely buried. But, as critical scholars have to say, new ideas had
come in to resurrect them.
The gospels go even further than this, bringing OT figures back to
life in the here and now. On a mountain in the north of the country,
where Jesus and Peter were present in the flesh, Jesus was seen
conversing with Elijah
and Moses. Peter saw it all, and did not comment on the marvel, but
made a blundering remark about constructing three booths for the three
of them, thus treating Jesus as only one of a triarchy. Heaven, or a
cloud, intervened by taking the other two away, leaving only Jesus.
(Mk 9:2-8)
At the crucifixion, some bystanders thought that Jesus was calling
on Elijah for help, even though he said Eloi, meaning God. Why would
they think that he should select Elijah - had Elijah been so central
to Jesus' awareness ? Why did they think there was any point in their
making the sarcastic remark: "Let us see whether Elijah will come to
take him down?" (Mk 15:34-36).
---
To sum up, I say Quakerism is largely derived from the ethical
teaching of Jesus, the Christ-mysticism of Paul, the God-mysticism
of John, but a rather large hole is blown in traditonal Christian
doctrine for modern men and women.
Does anybody think I have gone wrong?
Yours truly,
David Chirstainsen
Charley Earp
>Why does it all rise and fall on whether
>that is fact or myth? Is the message true
>with it but not without it?
This is how I was raised. We were taught that because Jesus was raised
from the dead bodily, he was physically the Lord of the universe. Now
that I have strong doubts that this event was a physical miracle, I have
to ask myself, "were Jesus' teachings so radical and true that we should
elevate them above all other teachings?"
For me, this is an intellectual question. So far, the answer is "no". I
have found that Jesus basically reworks [OT] biblical materials, throws
in some colorful stories, but does not make a radical break with
Judaism. That was accoplished by Paul.
I am open to corrections to this view. What teachings of Jesus carry the
power to make you hold his teachings higher than any other human
teacher?
I suspect that it is the imagery of Jesus as Good Shepherd,
Miracle-Worker, and Sacrificial Lamb that evokes this devotion, not
anything in the teachings in the gospels.
Joe Guada
> I was raised in a Pentecostal tradition which insisted that Liberals
> were not true Christians. Although I had sound reasons for becoming a
> non-Christian, I still wonder how Liberals can claim to be Christians.
> have a lot of patience for attempts to use Christian language as a
> jargon for modern theology, such as Paul Tillich or Bultmann. The
> "Lordship" of Jesus is something I could never affirm. As I said, some
> of Jesus' teachings still hold sway in my spiritual life, but I do not
> accept as an incarnate God.
>
> Do any SRQ'rs share my viewpoint, but call it being a "liberal
> Christian?" As I have said many times, I prefer Universalist as a term
> for my religious philosophy.
>
> ===
> Charley Earp
> Northside Friends Meeting, Chicago
> [All statements and opinions are my own and not the responsibility of
> NFM]
Charley,
Thank you for an interesting post.
Yes, I consider myself a "liberal Christian" although I prefer the
term "progressive Christian" per how it is defined at the Center for
Progressive Christianity. You might want to investigate their site to
see what you think given what you are pondering/reflecting upon.
(Perhpas if more Friends knew about this "movement" more might feel
comfortable identifying as "liberal Christian"?)
Their web page can be found at:
I don't personally feel that being a Christian and Universalist are
mutually exclusive although I understand that traditional and/or
evangelical Christian theology does.
Take care,
Joe G.
Albany Friends Meeting (transferring to Santa Monica Meeting)
ECrownfiel
david_chr...@hotmail.com (David Christainsen) writes:
> Does anybody think I have gone wrong?
>
Yes.
Wakefield
"Charley Earp" <Char...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23847-3C8...@storefull-298.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
snip
> Do any SRQ'rs share my viewpoint, but call it being a "liberal
> Christian?" As I have said many times, I prefer Universalist as a term
> for my religious philosophy.
snip
No, I refer to myself as an 'heretical Christian'; as in 'not obedient to
religious authority'. This does not exclude being obedient to God, but only
to those who decide they are going to institute an earthly hierarchy where
thay are closer to God, in a pastoral role, or otherwise in charge of us
peons. I see no need of that, and I reject it.
--
-- L Wakefield, owner and operator of the beastly truck heretik, that
refuses to stay between the lines when parking --
Wakefield
snip
> Perhaps, this being a Quaker newsgroup, we should use the words the
> way that they are used in the world of the Religious Society of
> Friends, thereby aiding newcomers and old salts in gaining the
> grounding that, while not essential, enriches the experience. My view
> is that making up a whole new nomenclature (that newbies would have to
> learn anyway to participate or even understand what is being said) is
> unnecessary. Perhaps we need a FAQ that would define terms and could
> be posted from time to time. Perhaps those who have shown such
> interest and inclination in policing the rest of us on a continuing
> basis could take it upon themselves to put one together.
>
> I am being totally serious. Having not explored thoroughly (or
> recently) the handful of various Quaker sites on the net (some of
> which, I understand, are administered by members of this group) there
> may well be at least the beginnings of such a FAQ document out there.
> Or, if such a glossary exists already, perhaps simply publishing a
> link would be sufficient.
snip
I honestly would totally despise and reject that. I came here and
continue to come here for the freedom of interaction. I have no use for
'policing' or being told by some self-appointed authority how I should
express myself. Working toward the Light and seeing it in others does NOT
depend on restrictions in vocabulary.
Wakefield
"Daniel Grubbs" <clo...@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:a61s68$mtf$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
snip
>Jesus came to tell us that all that really
> matters is how we treat each other. A large part of his message, to my
mind, is
> that our beliefs are irrelevant. It is works that count. Unfortunately,
after
> killing the messenger we went on to worship the messenger rather than pay
any
> attention to the message.
snip
I think that is an interesting statement and worth examining, but too
categorical. I know few people who worship Jesus but 'pay no attention' to
the message he brought. Much Christian practice is based in large part on
trying to carry out his admonitions.
Scott Haney
news:15910715.02030...@posting.google.com:
> Does anybody think I have gone wrong?
>
Yes.
Timothy Travis
wrote:
me, too. I was responding to one post that proposed that we create an
entirely NEW vocabulary for this newsgroup because the commonly
understood Quaker usage of certain words is not the same as the
political use of them ("conservative" and "liberal.") I was
advocating we continue to use the meanings that the words have
developed in a Quaker context, rather than making up a whole new
vocabulary.
Please express your distaste at being policed and told what to do to
the "self appointed authority" who most often tells us such things as
how we should post and to whom we should not respond (or wants to
limit the number of responses to people he deems unworthy of our
freedom of interaction).
peace
Timothy Travis
Bridge City Preparative Meeting
Portland, Oregon
"A second factor in right speech is not speaking
crudely or rudely. Such speech is unnecessary,
undignified, and disturbing.
Other aspects of right speech include not speaking ill
of others and refraining from gossip and idle talk.
Obviously, wallowing in triviality, slander, or fantasy
is not condusive to waking up."
--Steve Hagen
Buddhism Plain and Simple
Bill Samuel
news:23847-3C8...@storefull-298.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> do not quote him as an authority, but only as one of the more familiar
> teachers in our history.
>
> I am still pondering whether I am becoming a liberal Christian. I don't
> have a lot of patience for attempts to use Christian language as a
> jargon for modern theology, such as Paul Tillich or Bultmann. The
> "Lordship" of Jesus is something I could never affirm. As I said, some
> of Jesus' teachings still hold sway in my spiritual life, but I do not
> accept as an incarnate God.
>
> Do any SRQ'rs share my viewpoint, but call it being a "liberal
> Christian?" As I have said many times, I prefer Universalist as a term
> for my religious philosophy.
I do not share your viewpoint, and I do not think it useful to describe it
as any type Christian. I can't see the point in calling someone who does
not accept Jesus as the Christ as Christian. It seems to me to make the
term virtually meaningless.
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA, wsa...@mail.com
http://www.quakerinfo.com/ http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wsamuel/
Friends in Christ, Maryland, USA, http://www.friendsinchrist.net/
Member, Adelphi Monthly Meeting, Baltimore YM (FGC/FUM)
affiliate member, Rockingham Monthly Meeting, Ohio YM (Cons.)
"There is One, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition."
Bill Samuel
> >May I ask what is a Preparative meeting?
> >
>
> All of this is Western American terminology...I know it varies from
> England and from some other parts of the United States...
People might want to refer to Organization of the Society of Friends
http://www.quakerinfo.com/article1098.html
Bill Samuel
>
> This is how I was raised. We were taught that because Jesus was raised
> from the dead bodily, he was physically the Lord of the universe. Now
> that I have strong doubts that this event was a physical miracle, I have
> to ask myself, "were Jesus' teachings so radical and true that we should
> elevate them above all other teachings?"
Well I would put it in the reverse. Because Jesus is Lord, he was raised
from the dead. To me, the crucifixion and resurrection are key events in
the Christian understanding, and it is difficult for me to comprehend being
Christian without accepting them. I guess in theory one could hold that
Jesus is Lord without accepting the literal resurrection, and if one holds
that Jesus is Lord there's a good case for them being Christian. But
Charley holds neither, and I would not consider him a Christian.
> I am open to corrections to this view. What teachings of Jesus carry the
> power to make you hold his teachings higher than any other human
> teacher?
Wow, there are so many. No one comes to the Father except through me. The
many "I am" statements in John. The Who do you say I am? story in more than
one gospel. The reading of the scroll of Isaiah, and saying it was
fulfilled in himself. Etc., etc. It seems to me rather fundamental to
Jesus' teaching that he is indeed much more than a simple human teacher.
Interestingly enough, Charley grew up in some variety of pentecostalism and
left that for liberal Quakerism (perhaps there were steps in between but
those were the beginning point and the ending point so far). I am a
longtime Quaker, at one time clearly on the liberal side, to whom Christ
Jesus is now absolutely central to my faith and I have pentecostal leanings.
David Christainsen
Elizabeth,
Well, then have the integrity to get into the meat and
potatoes of Scripture text on SRQ instead of doing typical
Internet games by retorting to a person.
I would love to see SRQers actually speak to the issue.
Yours truly,
David
David Christainsen
Scott,
Would you mind making an honorable effort to expand on your comment?
Yours truly,
David
PQ Rada
I have come to believe in the resurrection literally over time because of my
own encounters with a power beyond calculation, call it an energy, if you
prefer but man does it have all the power in the Universe to raise the dead, or
impregnate a virgin, or heal the sick, or do any other thing it would care to
do. But to me it has been loving and caring as well, and given me so much. Love
Patty Q.
Trisha
Bill Samuel <wsa...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:MRfh8.75797$nz4.7...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> "Charley Earp" <Char...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:493-3C85...@storefull-294.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> >
> many "I am" statements in John. The Who do you say I am? story in more
than
> one gospel. The reading of the scroll of Isaiah, and saying it was
> fulfilled in himself. Etc., etc. It seems to me rather fundamental to
> Jesus' teaching that he is indeed much more than a simple human teacher.
Ah ha! This is the point where I have a problem with Christianity. Is this a
key issue?
Because I have some difficulty with the view that Christianity is the only
legitimate spiritual path,
which seems to lead some people to standing on street corners,
bellowing at passers-by that their religion is illegitimate.
If this "only through me" statement truly reflects a bedrock statement
of Christian and/or Quaker identification then I think I have sorted out
one of the decisions on my path.
Trisha in South Australia
Paul Davis
It should have been obvious that I am talking about theology not
politics.
Let me restate my question briefly. How does one call oneself a
Christian while not believing in the bodily resurrection? In what sense
could such a Christian call Jesus their "master" or "lord" or even say
that Jesus was the greatest example of a human living God's will?
REPLY:
This matter of the physical resurrection is a matter that I really struggle
with. My modern scientific mind has difficulty with wrapping itself around
the idea that the natural laws of the physical universe were somehow
suspended long enough to allow someone who was truly clinically dead come
back to life.
And yet, Christian scripture does indicate this as being an important (some
places) even "fundamental", issue of the Christian message.
The God that I believe in is the Creator and Sustainer of the world. Since
I believe that God created the world, and everything in it, and gave it all
life, it is fair to say that I believe in a God who "is capable of" raising
someone from the dead. It is impossible for me or anyone else to travel
back in time to verify the historicity of the event. Therefore, it can only
be a matter of faith (presumption or speculation) if you will, rather than
objectively observed and verified scientific fact.
I believe that it is helpful to me and to others to hold a belief in an God
who is capable of performing such a deed. Doing so places less limitation
upon what great things that he is able to accomplish through me and for me.
But I think that it is more important to stress what it means to have Jesus
living with us today. I believe that the spiritual reality of that faith
premise has greater intrinsic value than unfounded speculation upon an event
that occurred 2,000 years ago.
It is the belief that Jesus is alive and with us today, and that his spirit
is dwelling in our hearts that enables us to live as he lived, relate to
others in helpful and healing ways, and that offers comfort through life's
vissitudes. That is what it means to "believe in" the resurrection. It
means that Jesus is living in our hearts and we are each "little Christs"
(which is what the word Christian means) In that respect, I believe that
there is more to Christianity, and to being a Christian, than merely
affirming a theological construct about the resurection.
Dennis White
"Trisha" <mcla...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:XRwh8.46$523....@ozemail.com.au...
>
> Bill Samuel <wsa...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:MRfh8.75797$nz4.7...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > "Charley Earp" <Char...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:493-3C85...@storefull-294.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > >
> >...No one comes to the Father except through me. The
> > many "I am" statements in John. The Who do you say I am? story in more
> than
> > one gospel. The reading of the scroll of Isaiah, and saying it was
> > fulfilled in himself. Etc., etc. It seems to me rather fundamental to
> > Jesus' teaching that he is indeed much more than a simple human teacher.
>
> Ah ha! This is the point where I have a problem with Christianity. Is this
a
> key issue?
> Because I have some difficulty with the view that Christianity is the only
> legitimate spiritual path,
> which seems to lead some people to standing on street corners,
> bellowing at passers-by that their religion is illegitimate.
It has been my observation that it is not religion, but mental or emotional
illness that leads people to stand on street corners and bellow at
passers-by about the state of their spirituality.
>
> If this "only through me" statement truly reflects a bedrock statement
> of Christian and/or Quaker identification then I think I have sorted out
> one of the decisions on my path.
The Quaker path and the Christian path may be interpreted by some to be
quite dissimilar....even the path that Christian Quakers take may be
interpreted by many to be "un-Christian". This is historic fact. Please
don't let an online disagreement keep you from exploring RSOF.
Dennis
>
> Trisha in South Australia
>
>
>
Charley Earp
>If this "only through me" statement truly
>reflects a bedrock statement of Christian
>and/or Quaker identification then I think I
>have sorted out one of the decisions on
>my path.
This is not representative of most of the Quakers in my local and Yearly
Meeting, I do not know how Australian meetings fare with this, but I
suspect that there are many pluralists.
However, the key to being a liberal Quaker is meeting for worship. Do
you find worship in silence for an hour to be edifying? Can you tolerate
Christian messages in meeting from time to time?
===
Charley Earp
Northside Friends Meeting, Chicago
Timothy Travis
wrote:
>If this "only through me" statement truly reflects a bedrock statement
> of Christian and/or Quaker identification then I think I have sorted out
>one of the decisions on my path.
I am a Christian/"Christ Centered" Quaker who is "undecided" about
this "only through me" stuff as I am undecided about a number of
things that some other Christians of Quaker or other stripe consider
to be, as you put it, "bedrock."
As for me, I prefer not to be caught up in intellectual "notions."
This is a Quaker "term of art" that refers to "ideas or proposals
which are 'heady', but lacking in spiritual depth. Thus more
generally applied to any approach to religious matters which is not
primarily based on first-hand spiritual experience." (see "Quaker
Speak," by Alastair Heron).
In my own words, "notions" are intellectual speculations that are fun
and entertaining but, in the end, don't advance The Plan. Notions,
actually, distract us and retard our growth--notions impede our taking
our place and doing our part to bring the Kingdom into existence.
(socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, liberalism,
fundamentalism--all notions among notions. All are helpful to some
extent, in some ways, in some contexts in dealing with certain
problems and situatins. None actually speaking to that condition
which impells each of us forward on the inevitable human spiritual
quest, none actually helpful in coming to terms with sin and evil.)
To some of us the essence of Quakerism is the product of our mystical
practice--prayer, spiritual study, meditation (reflection on spiritual
study and experience) and corporate silent worship. This concept of
Quakerism as a method, a discipline, a practice has a great deal in
common with Buddhism and other religious traditions (at least in their
mystical manifestations). The emphasis is on one's own connection
with The Spirit which happens through this practice. My own practice
has led me to accept Jesus Christ "as my personal savior" (to coin a
phrase) but not necessarily to buy into all of the stuff that seem sto
surround such discernment in others...
(I have both a Christian Fish and a Darwin "creature" plaque on my
car. I see no contradiction.)
Is the "trinity" true? who knows? who cares? It has been revealed
to generations and generations of us (both inside and outside the
Religious Society of Friends, both before and after there was such a
movement) how we are to go about our daily walk, how we are to treat
ourselves and our fellow humans, how we are to commune with and stay
connected to God. If "God" is a trinity--fine. If there really was a
flood that killed everyone and everything except those on the
Ark--fine. Neither of those speaks to how I treat people who cut me
off in traffic on my way home or those who say things about me that
tear me down in order to bolster their own self image or to perpetuate
their own dominance.
None of this is the essence. The essence is the daily practice that
centers us in The Spirit--it's that which informs our walk so that
what we do contributes to rather than detracts from Gospel Order.
William Penn said "It shall be said on the last day "Not well
professed, but well done, good and faithful servant, enter though into
the joy of thy Lord."
peace
Timothy M. Travis
Bridge City Preparative Meeting
Portland, Oregon
"All I can do is play my own music, and keep my head
straight. All the rest is noise."
--Jerry Garcia
Brent & Dianne
>
> Bill Samuel <wsa...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:MRfh8.75797$nz4.7...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>> "Charley Earp" <Char...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:493-3C85...@storefull-294.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>>>
>> ...No one comes to the Father except through me. The
>> many "I am" statements in John. The Who do you say I am? story in more
> than
>> one gospel. The reading of the scroll of Isaiah, and saying it was
>> fulfilled in himself. Etc., etc. It seems to me rather fundamental to
>> Jesus' teaching that he is indeed much more than a simple human teacher.
>
> Ah ha! This is the point where I have a problem with Christianity. Is this a
> key issue?
> Because I have some difficulty with the view that Christianity is the only
> legitimate spiritual path,
> which seems to lead some people to standing on street corners,
> bellowing at passers-by that their religion is illegitimate.
Some folks strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in the name of
their religion (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.). Also kill for it (Some
government sponsored Buddhists in Burma are known for killing some
Christians there). I have a hard time accepting that human evil can taint
God.
Not all members of major religions (Christianity included) feel this way.
>
> If this "only through me" statement truly reflects a bedrock statement
> of Christian and/or Quaker identification then I think I have sorted out
> one of the decisions on my path.
I have some trouble with that as well. The "me" being the worst part. I
try to reflect upon that and discern its message -- Is Jesus in this case is
a Spiritual teacher, or THE teacher, or a direct connection to God? -- can
it mean several different things? Contradiction?
If "Only through me" -- Meaning someone must have a direct connnection to
God/Jesus to be saved, could mean that clergy are irrelevant and may even
hinder.
Could also mean that clergy are required if they are authentically standing
in for Jesus.
It is kind of like a Zen Koan. SImple on the outside, maddeningly complex
and elusive once you get into it.
Brent & Dianne
> Well I would put it in the reverse. Because Jesus is Lord, he was raised
> from the dead. To me, the crucifixion and resurrection are key events in
> the Christian understanding, and it is difficult for me to comprehend being
> Christian without accepting them. I guess in theory one could hold that
> Jesus is Lord without accepting the literal resurrection, and if one holds
> that Jesus is Lord there's a good case for them being Christian. But
> Charley holds neither, and I would not consider him a Christian.
I just finished a book called the "Jefferson Bible" - the book was produced
by Thomas Jefferson (the president). He laid the gospels side by side and
eliminated all miraculous things (and to be fair some other things that
offended some 18th century sensibilities) and then presented the book as a
"cleaned up version" without all the "miracles and superstition."
Wow. The life was just as profound, and in some ways MORE profound to a
modern mind. Definately worth a read IF you are already familiar with the 4
books.
Dennis White
here, except that you have not coined the phrase "my personal savior"...that
was done long ago by who knows who. Also regarding the Trinity...'Who
knows, who cares?' Why Steve Winters of course! ;-)
Also I apprecieate your quoting Penn. What an inspiring sentiment!
I've probably read it, but I'd forgotten it.
Dennis
Timothy Travis
wrote:
I have always used the phrase "to coin a phrase" in the opposite sense
of its literal meaning, which is how many use it--coining is a process
of copying, as opposed to creating as art is created.
not that it really matters...but I do know that I did not make up the
phrase "my personal savior."
Thanks for the encouragement.
peace
Timothy M. Travis
Bridge City Preparative Meeting
Portland, Oregon
>
"Early Friends not only lived in a country where Jews
were banned, they also saw how Christianity served
as an ideological tool for the state's control of
the people and the maintenance of injustice."
--Douglas Gwyn
Unmasking the idols
Seekermike
and Savior OR 2) considers himself or herself to be a follower of Jesus.
Clearly the second option does not necessitate belief in miracles or
resurrection. By the way, miracle workers were a dime a dozen in Jesus' day.
None of his "signs and wonders" sets him apart from other religious leaders
or magicians of the day.
As far as the "only thru me" issue: perhaps God is using other religions
besides Christianity to further his plan of salvation. Who's to say that
"only thru me" HAS to mean the speaker's version of Christianity (as the
speaker invariably intends). When a fundamentalist Baptist, a Catholic, or a
Pentecostal quote Jesus' words, they don't mean following Jesus is the only
way, they mean "only by being a Baptist, a Catholic, or a Pentecostal" is
the only way. But perhaps a Buddhist more truly incorporates the spirit of
Jesus' teachings into his life than any of them.
I, for one, do not believe all the world's wisdom is found in one book; not
the Christian Bible, not the Hebrew Bible, not the Koran, not the
Dhammapada, not the Bhagavad Gita. Perhaps each of these reflects a bit of
God's wisdom. Perhaps each is merely a human creation, projecting itself
onto divine wisdom. As far as I am concerned, any faith that makes one more
compassionate and forgiving is a "true" religion.
---- Seekermike
Wakefield
--
-- L Wakefield, owner and operator of the beastly truck heretik, that
refuses to stay between the lines when parking --
"Guy Macon" <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:a6e2qd$j...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> Wakefield <her...@loa.com> wrote:
>
> >Working toward the Light and seeing it in others does NOT
> >depend on restrictions in vocabulary.
>
> I totally fremish! The qztxpy磧y alone would brnnnp the zql
> to the point of pokityaqeeping the entire 巧垮偷??!
>
> --
> "eschew obfuscation"
>
Dennis White
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >It has been my observation that it is not religion, but mental or
emotional
> >illness that leads people to stand on street corners and bellow at
> >passers-by about the state of their spirituality.
>
> a "True Christian." More common is going door-to-door (because it's
> more effective), but the attitude is the same - only the methods differ.
Hmmmm...going door to door is a fairly benign form of evangelizing, that I
would never equate with street-corner prosetelysing. I am sure that there
are religions that require converting, warning or scaring people, but I am
unaware of any mainstream religions that require "bellowing". My experience
has been that individuals feel "called" to this activity rather than being
required to do it. I am sure there are exceptions, but I sincerely believe
most who take up this activity have some emotional or mental illness that
needs attention. Perhaps it is an underlying condition that draws them to
an organization that encourages this behavior.
>
Trisha
I don't know what strand of Christianity they are from, but they do bellow -
admittedly they are there at busy shopping times so they'd have to in order
to attract attention / compete with the thump and hiss coming from the
various shops that seem to deem it necessary to play 'music' constantly.
I don't know what strand because I can't approach them calmly to find out -
I find their words and manner so confronting that I seem to react
immediately with anger, and to avoid the possibility of responding by
shouting "How dare you tell me my religious beliefs are wrong simply becuase
they are not the same as yours?" which may not help anyone.
This has quite a deal to do with the various forces that brought me to the
point I'm at today, I can see that. I have thought about this a lot, and in
calmer times I resolve to merely ignore them, go elsewhere and do my best to
sincerely send them compassion and also others who may be affected the same
way as I am. That part of it is my problem, but don't other people seee this
as arrogant in some measure? Wouldn't they be better off doing something
useful, like feeding the people in nursing homes who get cold meals and no
companionship because of lack of staff? Like giving aid to harassed mothers
who need a chance to have some child-free time to rest, or to be transported
to medical apointments, or to have someone cook a meal or two for them?
I know there are people doing those things, but why do the god-botherers or
bible-bashers, as we call them in Australia, feel that there is some good
to be gained by tellign other people that they are wrong-headed?
I dont' get it.
Trisha in South Australia
Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:xKxi8.13898$q2.2222@sccrnsc01...
Scott Haney
> I totally fremish! The qztxpy磧y alone would brnnnp the zql
> to the point of pokityaqeeping the entire 巧垮偷??!
Guy, I think you misspelled "pokityapeeqing." Mind your Ps and Qs. :)
Dennis White
> Dennis,
> I don't know what strand of Christianity they are from, but they do
bellow -
> admittedly they are there at busy shopping times so they'd have to in
order
> to attract attention / compete with the thump and hiss coming from the
> various shops that seem to deem it necessary to play 'music' constantly.
>
> I don't know what strand because I can't approach them calmly to find
out -
> I find their words and manner so confronting that I seem to react
> immediately with anger, and to avoid the possibility of responding by
> shouting "How dare you tell me my religious beliefs are wrong simply
becuase
> they are not the same as yours?" which may not help anyone.
I agree!
>
> This has quite a deal to do with the various forces that brought me to the
> point I'm at today, I can see that. I have thought about this a lot, and
in
> calmer times I resolve to merely ignore them, go elsewhere and do my best
to
> sincerely send them compassion and also others who may be affected the
same
> way as I am.
This seems a good practice.
That part of it is my problem, but don't other people seee this
> as arrogant in some measure? Wouldn't they be better off doing something
> useful, like feeding the people in nursing homes who get cold meals and no
> companionship because of lack of staff? Like giving aid to harassed
mothers
> who need a chance to have some child-free time to rest, or to be
transported
> to medical apointments, or to have someone cook a meal or two for them?
I agree. That is why I believe many of these people have an unattended need
in their lives.
>
> I know there are people doing those things, but why do the god-botherers
or
> bible-bashers, as we call them in Australia, feel that there is some good
> to be gained by tellign other people that they are wrong-headed?
> I dont' get it.
I think it gives a certain peace to an uneasy mind. I believe we need to
pray for these people., and to avoid conflict with them. I also believe it
is important to relieve yourself of any anger or resentment you feel toward
these people. I think that it is their goal to upset others...albeit, to
make those upset convert to their particular vision of God. Once we have
trust in our own faith it is easier to see that many of these folks are
unfortunate, and quite unhappy.
Dennis
PQ Rada
state is a wonderful idea,yech, and that dragging people off to church is Ok
because even against their will they are being exposed to the Gospel and God.
They may yet reform.
so even the best intentioned people get balmy ideas once in a while.I am
something of a universalist Christian I guess but I also love Jesus dearly or
what I can know of him from the gospels. LOve Patty
PQ Rada
error of your ways you will find Jesus and God and be better off in these last
days which all the TV evangalists are saying nearly every day. They do not
recognize that the Revealations was written about their occupier Rome,and apply
it to ourselves.There have always been times that try men's souls and women's
too, if truth be told. What is different today is we hear about it all,
whereeas inthe past years would go by and you 'd finally get the news of some
shattering event. They may be right of course in which case I hope we ar
epaying attention to our P and Q. right here. Love PQ
ECrownfiel
<guym...@deltanet.com> writes:
>I totally fremish! The qztxpyżly alone would brnnnp the zql
>to the point of pokityaqeeping
Ha! You've been reading "Walter Mitty," haven't you!
ECrownfiel
>"eschew obfuscation"
Ha! I've got one worth ten of that one (and I am not making this up):
"But do you (if you wil follow my aduise) eschue prolixitie and knit vp your
sentences as compendiously as you may, since breuitie (so that it be not
drowned in obscuritie) is most commendable." -- George Gascoigne, The Making of
Verse
(I forgot the exact date, 1587 or 1589, I think.)
Elizabeth
ECrownfiel
<denn...@attbi.com> writes:
>Hmmmm...going door to door is a fairly benign form of evangelizing, that I
>would never equate with street-corner prosetelysing. I am sure that there
>are religions that require converting, warning or scaring people, but I am
>unaware of any mainstream religions that require "bellowing". My experience
>has been that individuals feel "called" to this activity rather than being
>required to do it. I am sure there are exceptions, but I sincerely believe
>most who take up this activity have some emotional or mental illness that
>needs attention. Perhaps it is an underlying condition that draws them to
>an organization that encourages this behavior.
Hmmm..... Living in NYC with my eyes open, I've observed a few street-corner
(or subway) proselytisers who aren't as nutty as I expected. They may well
have personal needs that feed into it -- but they'd have the personal needs
with or without the proselytizing, and sometimes I think they are finding the
best way to make something positive out of their need.
One guy near my aunt & uncle's apartment would walk up and down Broadway
shouting "Hallelujah!" at the top of his lungs. My uncle, who isn't religious
himself, found it touching and heartening, as did I. And often people on the
subways will talk about God's love instead of God's wrath and punishment. To
me, there's a huge difference between the two.
Elizabeth
Wakefield
it- I couldn't tell if 'fremish' meant he agreed or disagreed. Other than
that it made perfect sense...(ROTFLMAO)
--
-- L Wakefield, owner and operator of the beastly truck heretik, that
refuses to stay between the lines when parking --
"ECrownfiel" <ecrow...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020311112838...@mb-mv.aol.com...
Thomas Giventer
Along the same lines, Computing Reviews (I think) once criticized the Algol-68
report as being a "veritable cornucopia of esoteric nomenclature".
-tom
--
________________________
| ___ __ __ | Interstate calling at the lowest prices,
| / //_ /_ giventer | also prepaid cards, calling cards, internet
| /__/__/__/ software | calling, and low international rates:
| / systems | http://savefone.com
| /__/ ithaca, ny | Home page:
|________________________| http://giventer.net
Katie M
david_chr...@hotmail.com says...
snip..
> To sum up, I say Quakerism is largely derived from the ethical
> teaching of Jesus, the Christ-mysticism of Paul, the God-mysticism
> of John, but a rather large hole is blown in traditonal Christian
> doctrine for modern men and women.
>
> Does anybody think I have gone wrong?
In my mind, the central issue here is not what we believe. The issue is
the importance we place on those beliefs.
Personally, I find much in common with my FGC Friends, but I do believe
that Christ existed, he was the Son of God, he died and rose, etc. But
this isn't exactly a belief I will vehemently defend, because I think
this belief is not as pivotal as many others believe. In other words, my
energies would be more wisely spent elsewhere. It is less important to
be correct than it is to be good.