Why Christianity Must Change or Die

[kayky]

This is the title of one of John Shelby Spong's most well-known books. Spong refers to himself as "a believer in exile" because he can no longer relate to "orthodox" Christianity. Many thinking Christians identify with this position completely.

Consider the following passage from this book:

Creedal language comes out of another time. It reflects assumptions that this generation can no longer make. It thus employs a language that is not native to us. If we could just cease being believers, these problems would disappear. But some of us cannot cease believing. God is too real for us. We also cannot resign from our modern world or close our minds to its insights. We cannot pretend that we live in the first century. We cannot park our brains at the door of our places of worship in order to accept as real the words that were used to interpret God in years past but can no longer today illumine our understanding of God.

Is it time for forward-thinking denominations to rewrite the Nicene Creed in order to reflect a modern understanding of Christianity?

[McCulloch]

I think religious fundamentalism (regardless of brand) is a danger to society. We can only hope it dies out before it kills us!

Yet, as Sam Harris and others point out, religious fundamentalism borrows support from the more liberal branches of their religious brand.

[Religious moderates'] indulgence of religious faith perpetuates an attachment to religious texts and to religious identities that, in turn, perpetuate human conflict. Religious moderates may ignore or overlook the more barbaric passages in their religious books, but by venerating the books in general, they leave us powerless to really oppose the belief systems of fundamentalists. And because moderates tend to ignore the most lunatic parts of scripture, they lose touch with how dangerous these books are when taken literally. In fact, they have trouble believing that anyone does still take these books literally, and so they tend not to recognize the role that faith plays in inspiring human violence. Religious moderates are blinded by their own moderation. When college-educated jihadists stare into a video camera and declare that "we love death more than the infidels love life," and then blow themselves up along with dozens of innocent bystanders, religious moderates rack their brains wondering what motivated these killers to do what they did. The respect that moderates accord to religious faith has blinded them to the fact that the atrocities of September 11th were a religious exercise. Religious moderates seem incapable of realizing that our problem is not terrorism, but Islam.

Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers " the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.

Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine " of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.

Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues " people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.

Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists " men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals " who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally " deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

[kayky]

I think Sam Harris makes a point, but it is an extreme idea to expect progressives to give up their faith because of extremism. If he is calling for a reasonable discussion of God, he is more likely to get it from progressives. By the way, Harris is wrong when he speaks of progressives believing in the "unique divinity" of Jesus. Most of us do not.

[Cathar1950]

Harris seems to be saying much the same as some others such as that call for the end of religious studies or Biblical studies and Edmund D. Cohen that feels that Liberal Christianity just softens the mind of the Believer so that they can maintain the authority of scripture leaving them susceptible to the mind games of the Bible Believer.

Like many Christians Sender seems to think there was some falling away or change in Christianity for the worse when all the evidence shows us that from the very beginning of Christianity it has been diverse.
Acts is a pious fiction where even the Jewish Christian's fate is not told.
It was the Jewish Christin that vnaished either because they didn't change or they did.

[McCulloch]

I think Sam Harris makes a point, but it is an extreme idea to expect progressives to give up their faith because of extremism.

I agree. But I don't think that it would be too much to ask that the progressives clearly and unambiguously disown the fundamentalists.

If he is calling for a reasonable discussion of God, he is more likely to get it from progressives.

By reasonable did you mean something like this answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?" by Gretta Vosper (a United Church of Canada Minister)?

In other words, what do you mean when you ask me if I believe in god? Without knowing what you mean by that word, I simply cant answer you.

I could say no, but Id be guessing at what you mean.

I could say yes, but without explaining to you what I mean by god, my answer would mean nothing.

Its interesting then that, when most people answer that question, they dont ask the inquirer what she or he means by it and, when most people answer, they simply say yes. Now you have to wonder what on earth do they mean by that?

She seems to be an ignostic. I sometimes wonder why people like her and Spong don't just go all the way and become non-theists. Having read some of their theology, I find that they can very clearly describe what they do not believe and explain why. But when it comes to what they do believe, I get somewhat lost and confused.

By the way, Harris is wrong when he speaks of progressives believing in the "unique divinity" of Jesus. Most of us do not.

Yes, but they still treat as Holy the book, the creeds and the hymns which express such unique divinity.

[Easyrider]

I think religious fundamentalism (regardless of brand) is a danger to society. We can only hope it dies out before it kills us!

I think liberal fundamentalism is the real scourge.

The violent and decadent society that the liberals so despise is the very one they have created. As one Orlando Sentinel columnist noted (Paraphrasing), "They wanted sexual promiscuity, drugs, disregard for the law, no censorship of pornography, no laws against sodomy or public profanity, abortion on demand, quick and easy divorces, acceptance of homosexuality, Miranda rights, a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children, a tax system that penalizes marriage, and a godless education system that utilizes metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs in our public schools. And they got it. Every last bit of it."

[Munchskreem]

I think religious fundamentalism (regardless of brand) is a danger to society. We can only hope it dies out before it kills us!

I think liberal fundamentalism is the real scourge.

The violent and decadent society that the liberals so despise is the very one they have created. As one Orlando Sentinel columnist noted (Paraphrasing), "They wanted sexual promiscuity, drugs, disregard for the law, no censorship of pornography, no laws against sodomy or public profanity, abortion on demand, quick and easy divorces, acceptance of homosexuality, Miranda rights, a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children, a tax system that penalizes marriage, and a godless education system that utilizes metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs in our public schools. And they got it. Every last bit of it."

I could rattle off which of those stances I agree and disagree with after rooting out the blatant straw men ("Disregard for the law"? HA!!!)to show that there is a utilitarian aspect to every ideology, and also just to show that some of your "scourges" are too narrowly drawn within "liberalism," but I find it easier to just say that what the public wants the public gets, and that no one group is responsible for social trends. Hell, the way the conservative Christians have been acting has proven to drive people further against such issues.

[Scotracer]

I think religious fundamentalism (regardless of brand) is a danger to society. We can only hope it dies out before it kills us!

I think liberal fundamentalism is the real scourge.

The violent and decadent society that the liberals so despise is the very one they have created. As one Orlando Sentinel columnist noted (Paraphrasing), "They wanted sexual promiscuity, drugs, disregard for the law, no censorship of pornography, no laws against sodomy or public profanity, abortion on demand, quick and easy divorces, acceptance of homosexuality, Miranda rights, a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children, a tax system that penalizes marriage, and a godless education system that utilizes metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs in our public schools. And they got it. Every last bit of it."

sexual promiscuity

That's up to the person what they do with their naughty parts...as long as they aren't hurting anyone, who am I to tell them otherwise?

drugs

I've never so much as smoked a cigarette...drugs hold no appeal to me

disregard for the law

Well I'm an anarchist and feel an archaic system such as a "law system" causes more problems than it solves. We're all past the governed with an iron fist stage...right?

no censorship of pornography

Don't like it? Don't watch it! **** I hate censorship (yep, a nice parady there )

public profanity

The most POINTLESS "law" in the world. A) We have freedom of speech B) THEY ARE JUST SOUNDS C) What's a curse word today is a technical term the next

quick and easy divorces

There's tonnes of scientific research and data into the fact that humans are not monogamous so what's better: staying trapped in a loveless relationship or moving on with your life?

acceptance of homosexuality

Oh no, some people have a predisposition to be attracted to the same sex, not the opposite one. GRAB THE PITCH FORKS.

Miranda rights

I fail to see what that is at all relevant to...anything.

a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children

Oh so now having children is a bad thing - what were we condemning homosexuals for again?

a tax system that penalizes marriage



and a godless education system

Thank Christ (yes I SHALL use your gods name in vain) that we don't have to teach unsubstantiated personal beliefs to children. But wait...we're evil!

that utilizes metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs in our public schools.

I thought we wanted the drugs?

The Conservative stance is the most ridiculous one in the western world. It's scared of change and the fact that not everyone in the world believes in your favourite sky-daddy.

Oh and if you want to know, I'm not a liberal - I'm an anarchist.

[kayky]

I agree. But I don't think that it would be too much to ask that the progressives clearly and unambiguously disown the fundamentalists.

We can disown fundamentalism but not fundamentalists. There's that whole "love thy neighbor" thing.

By reasonable did you mean something like this answer by Gretta Vosper (a United Church of Canada Minister)? In other words, what do you mean when you ask me if I believe in god? Without knowing what you mean by that word, I simply cant answer you.

I could say no, but Id be guessing at what you mean.

I could say yes, but without explaining to you what I mean by god, my answer would mean nothing.

I was simply responding to Harris's call for an honest discussion of God.

Its interesting then that, when most people answer that question, they dont ask the inquirer what she or he means by it and, when most people answer, they simply say yes. Now you have to wonder what on earth do they mean by that?

I know. I always wonder the same thing. Sometimes it's just more convenient to say yes or no. It depends on how engaged in the conversation you want to become!

She seems to be an ignostic. I sometimes wonder why people like her and Spong don't just go all the way and become non-theists. Having read some of their theology, I find that they can very clearly describe what they do not believe and explain why. But when it comes to what they do believe, I get somewhat lost and confused.

Spong is a panentheist just as I am. They probably don't go a step further for the same reason I do not.

Yes, but they still treat as Holy the book, the creeds and the hymns which express such unique divinity.

Progressive Christians have a different understanding of all of these things. But that isn't the point. We recognize the power of speaking sacred words. It is an avenue to the experience of God.

[Easyrider]

I think religious fundamentalism (regardless of brand) is a danger to society. We can only hope it dies out before it kills us!

I think liberal fundamentalism is the real scourge.

The violent and decadent society that the liberals so despise is the very one they have created. As one Orlando Sentinel columnist noted (Paraphrasing), "They wanted sexual promiscuity, drugs, disregard for the law, no censorship of pornography, no laws against sodomy or public profanity, abortion on demand, quick and easy divorces, acceptance of homosexuality, Miranda rights, a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children, a tax system that penalizes marriage, and a godless education system that utilizes metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs in our public schools. And they got it. Every last bit of it."

sexual promiscuity

That's up to the person what they do with their naughty parts...as long as they aren't hurting anyone, who am I to tell them otherwise?

drugs

I've never so much as smoked a cigarette...drugs hold no appeal to me

disregard for the law

Well I'm an anarchist and feel an archaic system such as a "law system" causes more problems than it solves. We're all past the governed with an iron fist stage...right?

no censorship of pornography

Don't like it? Don't watch it! **** I hate censorship (yep, a nice parady there )

public profanity

The most POINTLESS "law" in the world. A) We have freedom of speech B) THEY ARE JUST SOUNDS C) What's a curse word today is a technical term the next

quick and easy divorces

There's tonnes of scientific research and data into the fact that humans are not monogamous so what's better: staying trapped in a loveless relationship or moving on with your life?

acceptance of homosexuality

Oh no, some people have a predisposition to be attracted to the same sex, not the opposite one. GRAB THE PITCH FORKS.

Miranda rights

I fail to see what that is at all relevant to...anything.

a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children

Oh so now having children is a bad thing - what were we condemning homosexuals for again?

a tax system that penalizes marriage



and a godless education system

Thank Christ (yes I SHALL use your gods name in vain) that we don't have to teach unsubstantiated personal beliefs to children. But wait...we're evil!

that utilizes metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs in our public schools.

I thought we wanted the drugs?

The Conservative stance is the most ridiculous one in the western world. It's scared of change and the fact that not everyone in the world believes in your favourite sky-daddy.

Oh and if you want to know, I'm not a liberal - I'm an anarchist.

Did you know there is a correlation between pornography (which liberal legislators have long supported) and violence? How does that work for you and your liberal Utopia?

[kayky]

I think liberal fundamentalism is the real scourge.

The very definition of fundamentalism is certainty in dogma. Progressive Christianity is the antithesis of this.

The violent and decadent society that the liberals so despise is the very one they have created. As one Orlando Sentinel columnist noted (Paraphrasing), "They wanted sexual promiscuity, drugs, disregard for the law, no censorship of pornography, no laws against sodomy or public profanity, abortion on demand, quick and easy divorces, acceptance of homosexuality, Miranda rights, a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children, a tax system that penalizes marriage, and a godless education system that utilizes metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs in our public schools. And they got it. Every last bit of it."

Are you trying to turn this into a political discussion? The topic is Christianity, not political ideologies. I refer you back to the OP.