What DO Progressive Christians Believe?

Often Christians who are labeled as either "progressive" or "liberal" are described as having wishy washy faith systems or theologies that change at a whim.  Try reading most of the professional theologians who represent that side of the spectrum and you're likely to find dense and difficult going, far beyond the commitment of a layperson and even many pastors.  Pastors, if they understood it, have not done a good job of communicating it to their congregations.  As a result many lay folk who fall outside of the conservative camp are not particularly articulate about what they believe.  They are only able to tell you what they do not believe in conservative theologies.

One subset of progressive theology is process theology... a form that I find particularly attractive but also often particularly difficult to understand as it is articulated by many of it's primary thinkers.  More recently there has been a movement to bring process theology into the local churches.  Philip Clayton of the Claremont School of Theology  and his Transforming Theology initiative has been particularly important in that movement.   They describe the mission of the initiative thus:

Our goal is an ambitious one: to rekindle powerful Christian theologies that have a transformative effect on church and society. It is widely believed that only the conservative church knows how to speak in a distinctively Christian voice, that only conservatives are qualified to represent Jesus' message and mission. We believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is far more complex, far more interesting, and far more relevant than what the Religious Right has offered for consumption in recent years.

Amen.

I have found Clayton's book Transforming Christian Theology for Church and Society particularly helpful.

Bruce Epperly is another writer/theologian/pastor/academic who has tried to make process theology accessible to a wider range of folk.   At Cambridge Drive we have used his book Holy Adventure: 41 Days of Audacious Living for a study/devotional series and found it just wonderful and a much, much better fit for us than the other 40 Days books.  One of our lay members was so excited at the end of the 41 days.  He told me that every day he found himself identifying with the book and better able to put words to what he had known in his heart all along.  (I highly recommend this book for a small group study/devotion series)

My friend, Bob Cornwall, just posted a piece by Bruce Epperly on his blog where Epperly gives a short capsulation of process theology. If you have ever looked for a good short explanation of process theology, here it is.  If you haven't, read it anyway.  Take a read and let me know what you think.

he said, she said

There has been more than a little discussion regarding whether or not Anders Breivik should be called a Christian. Fox news has complained that the mainstream media jumped to conclusions and called him a "Christian Terrorist," while others such as Jon Stewart have called them on their hypocrisy

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
In the Name of the Fodder
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Regardless of what you think about Breivik, we're back at the question I've raised before... who get's to decide? Who gets to define the terms? Do Breivik's action, by definition exclude him from being a Christian? Did Bin Laden's actions define him as something other than a Muslim? Who decides and how?

My friend Bob Cornwall just put a piece up on his blog written by Margaret Mitchell that raises the same questions, specifically regarding Breivik. Here's a quote from the article that I think is important.

In the days since the attack and arrest, the media has been abuzz with reflections on whether or not Breivik can or should be called a “Christian.” Each argument depends upon some stated or implied criterion for what constitutes Christian identity: a form of “belief,” of personal piety or religious experience, of ethical comportment, of ritual practice, of theological commitments, of cultural identity, of ecclesial participation, of relationship to political orders. These arguments tell us as much or more about the commitments of the authors as they do about Breivik.

She points to Breivik's extensive use of materials written by conservative Christians, calling for armed resistance against Muslims and secularists as important for understanding him.

I still don't know who gets to define the terms... but I can clearly say that Breivik is not my brand of Christian... and neither are the folk he cited in his manifesto - Joseph Farah and Michael Bradley.

What Does It Mean to be "A Church?"

More than once I have told people only half jokingly that after 32 years as a pastor and two graduate degrees, I don't understand church. The roles and purposes of church have changed significantly over the last generation and there isn't a consensus as to what the new roles and purposes are. For some, church is a hospital we visit to find healing and strength to go back into the world. For some, it is a place to build social networks. For some it is a place to find spiritually inspiring entertainment. For some it is a base from which to launch various kinds of mission programs. For some it is a series of programs competing with kids soccer, men's therapy group, and women's drum circle. For many, it is completely irrelevant to daily life. Many of those who do attend church do so with the primary question being one of added value, "what value does this experience add to my life?" This question is even more important in a time when virtually all of the roles of the church can be fulfilled in some other way.

Let me share two illustrations that underscore my question, "what does it mean to be a church?" First... some years back I was attending a meeting and met a pastor from a Presbyterian church in Manhattan. As we talked I asked the pastor question - "How many do you have in worship?" It is a convenient metric and it says something even if I'm not sure what. She answered, "30." I was a pastor of a downtown church and the time and knew all of the struggles to keep one of those institutions going and all of the surrounding needs. Her congregation didn't have Sunday school or a youth program. If it were not for a significant endowment, it would have closed years prior. Then, she added, "but we have about 5000 people come through our building each week for 12 step meetings, feeding programs, neighborhood classes, etc. etc. etc." Almost none were "members" and likely a significant proportion would not have called themselves Christian. Almost all received services of one sort or another, consuming resources rather than giving them to the institution. What does it mean to be a church?

And watch this video which I first saw on my friend Bob Cornwall's blog.



Can you be a church in cyberspace? Can our need for human connection be met online and does that have anything to do with being "church?" What do our human networks have to do with our connectedness to the holy?

I have a couple of thoughts. I do not believe that a person can be a follower of Jesus alone. I truly believe it takes a community of accountability and challenge and support for us to follow Jesus. I believe that ministry/service/mission is not enough on its own to quality as a church. They are necessary traits, but there must also be activities that contribute to nurture and there must be experiences that lead to the holy, mystical experiences, for a group of people to be a church. Can it happen online? I'm not sure. I think for me, it has to have skin on it... but I don't know whether that is a more general rule. Does it require a traditional institutional expression? I pretty sure it doesn't, but I think some ind of organizational structure might be required just to make it happen.

So for you, what does it mean to be church? Does the UU church in Second Life qualify? Or even the Presbyterian Church in Manhattan.