21st Century Christianity: A Brief Manifesto for our Age.

2ndRateMind

On another forum, I lamented that Christianity was being left behind, and as it is currently consituted, stood to collapse into irrelevance and obscurity, with none but a few dinosaur conservatives left muttering to each other in corners about how evil the world is. So, I proclaimed, the 21st century religion needs a 21st century approach. I was duly asked, what would a 21st century Christianity look like?

Here is my answer:

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that the laity, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was (wrongly) enlisted to control in the dark and middle ages. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

It might help if those same authorities also realised that all the various Christian schisms, denominations, sects and cults are counter-productive to spreading the Gospel in it's purest form, and sought to compromise on their doctrine and dogma with a view to burying their differences for good. How can we pretend to know truth if we cannot even agree among ourselves what it is?

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into the modern age.

I would like to see the religion more active around what seem to me to be the two major global issues facing humanity in our time: how to eradicate absolute poverty while still remaining comfortably within the Earth's ecological carrying capacity.

I would like to see a more inclusive religion, that encompasses the whole of humanity within it's remit, even those of other faiths and none. I would like to see it end it's insistence, for example, that one has to be a Christian to receive heavenly reward. I really think we have to decide whether we mean 'the family of man' to be a real objective to strive for, or just a trite, complacent, inaccurate description of an exclusive club of people 'who think like me'. In other words, we have to decide whether we think God, as Jesus did, to be the loving Father of all mankind, or just Christians, the born again, the elect, or some other sub group of the faith.

Finally, I would like to see the development and promotion of a philosopically rigorous, (but upgradeable in the light of new facts and discoveries and developments), world view, rather than the hotchpotch mélange of obsolete ideas and ideologies we are currently presented with.

Doubtless you can think of other improvements the religion could make. You are welcome to suggest them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Lamb Chopped

Dude, do you really think Christianity is a man-made thing for people to overhaul as they see fit? Outer trappings, maybe; but some of what you touched on is deepest doctrine.

What will you do with Christ's own words: "No one comes to the Father but by me"?

2ndRateMind

Hi, Lamb Chopped. Good question. Yes, I think Christianity is a man made thing. To be sure it is derived from what is possibly the noblest act of pure love in the history of humanity, and the subsequent resurrection, but much of it since then is historical accretion, made by men, often enough to suit the powers that were/be. That is not to say that these accretions are all bad or wrong, and many of them help us progress spiritually as individuals and socially as a global population. But some of them clearly hinder such progress, and need to be, after due consideration, jettisoned, for the good of the faith and as best we can today divine God's intentions for us. Inevitably that will involve some departure from what Bronze Age Jews thought, and Dark Age clerics thought.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Enoch

@2ndRateMind, my apologies but to put this very bluntly, while your 'improved version' might be very worthy and all that, it isn't Christianity. Nor, I'm sorry to say, does it have much to offer anyone as to why they should believe in it or why they should want to worship God on a Sunday morning rather than stay in bed or play football. Your tenets don't seem to get any further than what is collateral, incidental to the faith. Worse, with no actual content, there isn't anything to attach your collateral material to.

At its core, Christianity is about God as revealed by Jesus, who he is, what he, and therefore God, is like, what he did and what he invites you into. Anything else, however worthy, follows from that. A benevolent commitment to what you, or anyone else, conceive as the better parts of the collective C21 Zeitgeist is missing the point, is not enough, and still isn't even if one makes a perfunctory reverential nod in a Godward direction.

If you can say,

'I believe in the Trinity and in Jesus, I have studied scripture in depth, I have walked closely with him, these are the things which from that I believe he is calling me to proclaim - even if a few dinosaur conservatives muttering to each other in corners don't - and this is why',

then you're entitled to try to persuade the rest of us to listen. At the moment, though, it seems to me that all you are doing is representing your arguments as

'This is what the worthier element of C21 people tend to think. Therefore that must be what God thinks too and Christians should rewrite their faith to fit in with them'.

Pomona

First of all, the term 'Dark Age' has long been jettisoned by historians for good reason. It's simply incorrect to suggest that everybody in Western Europe between the fall of the Western Roman Empire* and the start of the Early Modern Era (generally held to be the late 1400s or early 1500s) - so uh, over 1000 years - was just an idiot being hoodwinked by their dastardly local priest. Peasants and serfs were, in fact, just as intelligent as working-class people are today. It's called 'the Dark Ages' because Enlightenment-era philosophy wanted to emphasise how Rational and Sensible and often how non-religious they were in contrast. Think the Deism of many Founding Fathers, for instance. Religion was also often specifically associated with women as an example of women being sentimental and irrational - Classical Liberalism was not, in fact, a utopia for women who generally did and still do rely on a more communitarian society (you can kind of see it nowadays with the big gender disparity amongst freemen on the land/sovereign citizen types).

This comment, bolding mine, throws up some enormous red flags for me:

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that the laity, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was (wrongly) enlisted to control in the dark and middle ages. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

Are you really comparing people in the Global South - aka most people in the world - to 'ignorant peasants and serfs'??? This plus the idea that we are so much better and more intelligent than Bronze Age Jews (and just fyi supercessionism is a sin!) just makes me think of Volkish faux-Christianity. Go take your potato salad with raisins in it and pray that you might one day have a tenth of the faith of the average Bronze Age Jew or European peasant during the Anarchy or Black Death.

Also, it might make you seem like you really care about being an ally to gay people if you called them 'gay people' and not 'homosexuals'.

*One of the main reasons as to why the idea of 'the Dark Ages' doesn't make sense is because half of Europe was still part of the Roman Empire during this time, as the Eastern Roman Empire was alive and well.

Enoch

Pomona wrote: »

First of all, the term 'Dark Age' has long been jettisoned by historians for good reason. It's simply incorrect to suggest that everybody in Western Europe between the fall of the Western Roman Empire* and the start of the Early Modern Era (generally held to be the late 1400s or early 1500s) - so uh, over 1000 years - was just an idiot being hoodwinked by their dastardly local priest. Peasants and serfs were, in fact, just as intelligent as working-class people are today. It's called 'the Dark Ages' because Enlightenment-era philosophy wanted to emphasise how Rational and Sensible and often how non-religious they were in contrast. Think the Deism of many Founding Fathers, for instance. Religion was also often specifically associated with women as an example of women being sentimental and irrational - Classical Liberalism was not, in fact, a utopia for women who generally did and still do rely on a more communitarian society (you can kind of see it nowadays with the big gender disparity amongst freemen on the land/sovereign citizen types).

This comment, bolding mine, throws up some enormous red flags for me:

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that the laity, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was (wrongly) enlisted to control in the dark and middle ages. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

Are you really comparing people in the Global South - aka most people in the world - to 'ignorant peasants and serfs'??? This plus the idea that we are so much better and more intelligent than Bronze Age Jews (and just fyi supercessionism is a sin!) just makes me think of Volkish faux-Christianity. Go take your potato salad with raisins in it and pray that you might one day have a tenth of the faith of the average Bronze Age Jew or European peasant during the Anarchy or Black Death.

Also, it might make you seem like you really care about being an ally to gay people if you called them 'gay people' and not 'homosexuals'.

*One of the main reasons as to why the idea of 'the Dark Ages' doesn't make sense is because half of Europe was still part of the Roman Empire during this time, as the Eastern Roman Empire was alive and well.

I agree. It's rather like the claim that of course unlike them, we need to explain away miracles whereas past ages just accepted these things. They were just as doubting and amazed by miracles as we are and for the same reasons. If they thought miracles were normal, they wouldn't have called them miracles.

I think, also, that the Dark Ages originally just applied to the era between the departure of the Romans and the resumption of history about the time of King Alfred. They didn't so much get called Dark because it was assumed people were living in darkness so much as because there was a gap. Nobody knew what was happening then.

Nick Tamen

Am I the only one who feels like this is more or less recycled Spong?

Gramps49

2ndRateMind wrote: »

On another forum, I lamented that Christianity was being left behind, and as it is currently consituted, stood to collapse into irrelevance and obscurity, with none but a few dinosaur conservatives left muttering to each other in corners about how evil the world is. So, I proclaimed, the 21st century religion needs a 21st century approach. I was duly asked, what would a 21st century Christianity look like?

Here is my answer:

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that the laity, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was (wrongly) enlisted to control in the dark and middle ages. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially on scripture.

Dude: someone needs to get with it more. For the past six years I have been on my local synod's (read diocese) council. It is made up of have clergy and half lay. It meets on a quarterly basis to work with the bishop on the future of the synod. Our synod assembly meets every two years. This council in effect is the legislative body in the between times.

I do agree the laity need to be more involved in scriptural studies. There are excellent programs available. Once such program is the Bible Project (https://bibleproject.com/), but it can have its limits, especially if one does not know the original languages and certain interpretative tools.

I particularly like when a doctrinal issue does come up, my denomination will convene a study group made up of theologians scientists (social and/or physical) depending on the issue, plus advocates from various interest groups. This study group will come up with a statement that is then handed down to individual congregations for their study and review. Then, based on congregational feedback, a revised statement is issued and voted on at our national assembly.

It might help if those same authorities also realised that all the various Christian schism[, denominations, sects and cults are counter-productive to spreading the Gospel in it's purest form, and sought to compromise on their doctrine and dogma with a view to burying their differences for good. How can we pretend to know truth if we cannot even agree among ourselves what it is?

Quite a number of denominations are in the process of coming together, sharing fellowship with each each other. But it is not all about compromise of doctrine, it is more like understanding what we are teaching, My particular denomination has said it is enough that the Gospel be preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. Of course there are other denominations that insist on total agreement on all points of doctrine.

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into the modern age.

In my denomination half the regional bishops are women. The national president is a woman. We are working through LBGTQA+ issues now. And they are also represented on regional and national boards.

I would like to see the religion more active around what seem to me to be the two major global issues facing humanity in our time: how to eradicate absolute poverty while still remaining comfortably within the Earth's ecological carrying capacity.

It is being done. Contact your denomination and plug into their programs.

I would like to see a more inclusive religion, that encompasses the whole of humanity within it's remit, even those of other faiths and none. I would like to see it end it's insistence, for example, that one has to be a Christian to receive heavenly reward. I really think we have to decide whether we mean 'the family of man' to be a real objective to strive for, or just a trite, complacent, inaccurate description of an exclusive club of people 'who think like me'. In other words, we have to decide whether we think God, as Jesus did, to be the loving Father of all mankind, or just Christians, the born again, the elect, or some other sub group of the faith.

Many on this board would identify as universalist, Quite a few participate in interfaith activities. But, if you think Christianity is about a heavenly reward in an afterlife, you are missing the point of Christianity which is about doing justice here and now. The Lord's Prayer has us praying Thy kingdom come. God's kingdom is indeed coming but we ask that we help to bring about the kingdom where we are at.

Finally, I would like to see the development and promotion of a philosopically rigorous, (but upgradeable in the light of new facts and discoveries and developments), world view, rather than the hotchpotch mélange of obsolete ideas and ideologies we are currently presented with.

One of the very reasons why I choose to become a member of my denomination. But my denomination does not have a lock on this. Other denominations represented here also are keeping up with the times.

Something tells me you come from a very conservative background. Maybe it is time you should do a little exploring.

Pomona

@Enoch 2RM specifically mentioned 'the Dark Ages and Middle Ages' rather than just specifying the Early Medieval period, hence the span being from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Early Modern period. Also as a time period it usually consists of the six centuries from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Norman Conquest.

But also, it's still incorrect to talk about 'the resumption of history' when Petrarch in the 1300s coined the term 'Dark Ages' specifically to contrast the post-Roman era as "dark" compared to the "light" of Classical Antiquity. It was invented specifically as a pejorative term for Early Medieval society based on the idea of intellectual darkness, not a lack of history - aside from anything else, plenty of history was being written during the Early Medieval period. The main reason was simply because there was a period of deconversion from Christianity following the Saxon/Angle/Jute invasions until all the kingdoms had been re-Christianised.

Dafyd

A quirk of Anglophone historiography is that the British Isles are the one area of the Roman Empire in which there really was a complete collapse in Roman material and literary culture. There really is a dearth of written records from the period immediately after the Roman legions pulled out. It turns out that if Britain ceases to be part of the continental economy it can't go it alone. Who knew?

In the rest of the area formerly part of the Roman Empire there continue to be a reasonable quantity of written records: not a lot, but as I understand it there's actually more surviving material from the four hundred years after the fall of Rome than the four hundred years before.

Louise

The written sources tank, yes, but there's archaeology that shows that things were a bit more complicated and nuanced than the old story would allow for and some areas, especially in places in the west like Wales preserved an attachment to Christianity and Romanitas (the political and cultural concepts and practices by which the Romans defined themselves) far more than was previously thought.

2ndRateMind

Thank you, Nick Tamen, for your reply. It was good of you to take the time.

Nick Tamen wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels like this is more or less recycled Spong?

So, I took this to be an insult. Whether it was meant that way or not, I cannot honestly begin to guess. I can, however, assure you that it not recycled anything, just an ordinary Christian’s reaction to the world He finds himself inhabiting, and noting how far removed it is from the ideals Jesus expressed in His two Great Commandments; to love God, and love each other, and His endorsement of ‘the Golden Rule’. I firmly believe it is a Church duty to tackle this. As for Spong, though I had heard of him, I cannot say I was, or am, familiar with his thinking or his work. So I took the opportunity to look him up on Wikipedia, which has his 12 points for reform as follows:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Some of which I wholeheartedly agree with, and some of which of which I have no opinion on, not yet knowing enough theology. For the record, those I agree with are: 3,6,8,9,11,12. Those I have no opinion on are: 1,2,4,5,7,10.

The significant threats to mainstream Christianity I perceive, which make some kind of reform necessary, are dogmatic fundamentalism on the one hand, and creeping atheism on the other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Merry Vole

@2RM have you looked at the Lost Message of Paul thread?

Arethosemyfeet

You have no opinion on Spong's 1 & 2 yet are worried about creeping atheism?

Marvin the Martian

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into the modern age.

This is completely arse about face. Christianity should be about discerning the Will of God and acting accordingly, including trying to influence society in a Godwards direction. You instead seem to want to make it about discerning the zeitgeist of society and acting accordingly, including defining that zeitgeist as the Will of God.

You’re far from alone in that, of course. Even on these boards there seem to be many who see the primary function of Christianity as being to advance their political and sociological beliefs rather than to define them.

2ndRateMind

Thank you for your reply, Pomona.

Pomona wrote: »

First of all, the term 'Dark Age' has long been jettisoned by historians for good reason. It's simply incorrect to suggest that everybody in Western Europe between the fall of the Western Roman Empire* and the start of the Early Modern Era (generally held to be the late 1400s or early 1500s) - so uh, over 1000 years - was just an idiot being hoodwinked by their dastardly local priest. Peasants and serfs were, in fact, just as intelligent as working-class people are today. It's called 'the Dark Ages' because Enlightenment-era philosophy wanted to emphasise how Rational and Sensible and often how non-religious they were in contrast.

I'm sure they were just as intelligent. However, according to the history I leaned at school, (which admittedly was quite some time ago) the 'Dark Ages' were so called, not because the people were thought to be stupid, but because we know so little about them. No aspersion was intended!

Pomona wrote: »

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that the laity, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was (wrongly) enlisted to control in the dark and middle ages. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

Are you really comparing people in the Global South - aka most people in the world - to 'ignorant peasants and serfs'???

No. I am saying that very many of them do not have access to a modern education system, and therefore more than likely not to have developed the discriminatory powers and critical faculties I referred to in the OP and we take for granted in the developed world. In my opinion, that is a deplorable state of affairs, and needs putting right. Or we will find many will prey on their credulity, such as the parasitic, wealthy, pastors who preach 'the prosperity gospel' to the poor.

Pomona wrote: »

This plus the idea that we are so much better and more intelligent than Bronze Age Jews

I didn't say that. My implication was that we 'stand on the shoulders of giants' as Newton put it, and have access to information and knowledge they did not.

Pomona wrote: »

(and just fyi supercessionism is a sin!)

Who says so? And what evidence is there for that?

Pomona wrote: »

just makes me think of Volkish faux-Christianity. Go take your potato salad with raisins in it and pray that you might one day have a tenth of the faith of the average Bronze Age Jew or European peasant during the Anarchy or Black Death.

Since you have no idea of the extent of my faith, or that of the 'average Bronze Age Jew or European peasant', I shall decline to comment on that.

Pomona wrote: »

Also, it might make you seem like you really care about being an ally to gay people if you called them 'gay people' and not 'homosexuals'.

I call heterosexuals heterosexual, and homosexuals homosexual, because those are the appropriate neutral non-judgmental biological descriptions. If you don't like that, well, there is not much I can do to help you. But I mean no offense to anyone.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Arethosemyfeet

You can't use medicalised terms associated with decades of abuse and then proclaim their neutrality. Do you also say the n-word should be fine because it "just comes from the Latin for black"? You can help by paying attention to what people use to refer to themselves, and what terms they object to others using.

2ndRateMind

Lamb Chopped wrote: »

What will you do with Christ's own words: "No one comes to the Father but by me"?

You have touched the very core of talking an inclusive, not exclusive, faith. What can I do but bite that bullet? Maybe Jesus was wrong on tht one. We know He was not perfect: (Mark 11:12-14) That He was learning on the job: (Matthew 15:21-18), when He seems to have first realised His mission was the the entirety of humanity, not just the Jews, and that He was a comparatively young man, stressed, with a huge job to do (found His religion), not much time to do it, and an early and unpleasant death most likely to be His reward.

What we can be certain of, though, is that, in this life, we cannot know for sure either way. Most of us are not, and never have been, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. We just do not know if these are valid routes to access the presence of God in Heaven or not. The best we can say is that faith in Jesus as Messiah is a way of coming to the Father, not that it is the only way. We won't discover that until Judgement Day.

Best wishes, 2RM.

la vie en rouge

Hostly beret on

This is getting heated. Please keep it Purgatorial or take it to hell.

Hostly beret off

la vie en rouge, Purgatory host

2ndRateMind

Gramps49 wrote: »

Dude: someone needs to get with it more.

I dare say.

Gramps49 wrote: »

Quite a number of denominations are in the process of coming together, sharing fellowship with each each other. But it is not all about compromise of doctrine, it is more like understanding what we are teaching, My particular denomination has said it is enough that the Gospel be preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. Of course there are other denominations that insist on total agreement on all points of doctrine.

I am glad such progress is happening already.

Gramps49 wrote: »

I would like to see the religion more active around what seem to me to be the two major global issues facing humanity in our time: how to eradicate absolute poverty while still remaining comfortably within the Earth's ecological carrying capacity.

It is being done. Contact your denomination and plug into their programs.

Ditto. But we just don't have all eternity to accomplish this. People are dieing out there, largely because the rich, allegedly Christian West is hogging the bulk of the world's wealth.

Gramps49 wrote: »

I would like to see a more inclusive religion, that encompasses the whole of humanity within it's remit, even those of other faiths and none. I would like to see it end it's insistence, for example, that one has to be a Christian to receive heavenly reward. I really think we have to decide whether we mean 'the family of man' to be a real objective to strive for, or just a trite, complacent, inaccurate description of an exclusive club of people 'who think like me'. In other words, we have to decide whether we think God, as Jesus did, to be the loving Father of all mankind, or just Christians, the born again, the elect, or some other sub group of the faith.

Many on this board would identify as universalist, Quite a few participate in interfaith activities. But, if you think Christianity is about a heavenly reward in an afterlife, you are missing the point of Christianity which is about doing justice here and now. The Lord's Prayer has us praying Thy kingdom come. God's kingdom is indeed coming but we ask that we help to bring about the kingdom where we are at.

Agreed. Largely.

Gramps49 wrote: »

Finally, I would like to see the development and promotion of a philosopically rigorous, (but upgradeable in the light of new facts and discoveries and developments), world view, rather than the hotchpotch mélange of obsolete ideas and ideologies we are currently presented with.

One of the very reasons why I choose to become a member of my denomination. But my denomination does not have a lock on this. Other denominations represented here also are keeping up with the times.

Good.

Gramps49 wrote: »

Something tells me you come from a very conservative background. Maybe it is time you should do a little exploring.

My background, FWIW, is that of an atheist raised and educated in an Anglican environment. I did not become a Christian until the age of 33. And then it was quite by accident, and much to my consternation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2ndRateMind

Enoch wrote: »

@2ndRateMind, my apologies but to put this very bluntly, while your 'improved version' might be very worthy and all that, it isn't Christianity. Nor, I'm sorry to say, does it have much to offer anyone as to why they should believe in it or why they should want to worship God on a Sunday morning rather than stay in bed or play football. Your tenets don't seem to get any further than what is collateral, incidental to the faith. Worse, with no actual content, there isn't anything to attach your collateral material to.

I am writing as a Christian, to other Christians, on a Christian Forum, which considers itself to be 'the magazine of Christian unrest'. I would have thought that to be sufficient context.

Enoch wrote: »

At the moment, though, it seems to me that all you are doing is representing your arguments as

'This is what the worthier element of C21 people tend to think. Therefore that must be what God thinks too and Christians should rewrite their faith to fit in with them'.

Interesting you should think that. Thing is, an interweb forum is condusive only to brief points made succinctly. And that is what I have tried to supply. If you have specific issues to raise, you will find I am quite prepared to explain my reasoning.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2ndRateMind

Arethosemyfeet wrote: »

You have no opinion on Spong's 1 & 2 yet are worried about creeping atheism?

When I have studied him a bit more, and criticisms offered, then maybe I will have an opinion. Right now, I don't, and am not inclined to prejudge what conclusion I may, in due course, arrive at.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2ndRateMind

Merry Vole wrote: »

@2RM have you looked at the Lost Message of Paul thread?

Not yet. But I will do in due course. Thank you for your recommendation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2ndRateMind

Marvin the Martian wrote: »

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into the modern age.

Christianity should be about discerning the Will of God and acting accordingly, including trying to influence society in a Godwards direction.

Agreed. However, I take the Will of God to be that we should be ethical in our behaviour. When society has made ethical progress a religion hasn't, it is time to be a tad suspicious of that religion, I think.

Marvin the Martian wrote: »

You’re far from alone in that, of course. Even on these boards there seem to be many who see the primary function of Christianity as being to advance their political and sociological beliefs rather than to define them.

Please avoid trying to ascribe motivations to me you can have absolutely no idea whether or not I embrace.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Marvin the Martian

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Marvin the Martian wrote: »

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into the modern age.

Christianity should be about discerning the Will of God and acting accordingly, including trying to influence society in a Godwards direction.

Agreed. However, I take the Will of God to be that we should be ethical in our behaviour. When society has made ethical progress a religion hasn't, it is time to be a tad suspicious of that religion, I think.

But God also defines what “ethical” means. If society has made ethical progress that religion hasn’t then we need to be at least open to the possibility that what society considers ethical progress isn’t the same as what God considers ethical progress. And if so, which should we follow? Society or God?

Sojourner

Does God ( if s(he) exists define”ethical behaviour”? And if not God what is this “ society” whoch is the default?

2ndRateMind

Marvin the Martian wrote: »

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Marvin the Martian wrote: »

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into the modern age.

Christianity should be about discerning the Will of God and acting accordingly, including trying to influence society in a Godwards direction.

Agreed. However, I take the Will of God to be that we should be ethical in our behaviour. When society has made ethical progress a religion hasn't, it is time to be a tad suspicious of that religion, I think.

But God also defines what “ethical” means. If society has made ethical progress that religion hasn’t then we need to be at least open to the possibility that what society considers ethical progress isn’t the same as what God considers ethical progress. And if so, which should we follow? Society or God?

Fair question. The answer is both. Because, actually, God doesn't define for us what ethical means. Few of us would be foolish and arrogant enough to claim, having read the Bible, that we now know all there is to know about ethics. While He is perfect, and objectively ethical, He leaves us to work out what is objectively ethical for ourselves in any given set of circumstances. Possibly because that might otherwise compomise our freedom, which He obviously prizes a very great deal, and possibly because He wants us to have something useful, interesting and important to do with our lives. And some of us, in theology and in philosophy, have taken up that challenge, and humanity, consequently, has made some ethical progress over the centuries. However, we still don't know what objective ethics are, or how we shall know we know, if and as and when we do ever know, or even by what method we might get there.

Ethics just is one of life's bigger questions.

Meanwhile, the best we can do is remain current with the state of the art in ethics, pool our various subjective opinions on the topic, consider carefully the various ethical problems that confront us on our pilgrimage through life, and, with due attention paid to our consciences, make our decisions based on our own, subjective, opinions. And that is one reason why the rigorous philosophy I said I wanted to see in the OP needs to be upgradeable. We just do not know how the field will develop in the future.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Pomona

@2ndRateMind I have explicitly stated why and how the idea of 'the Dark Ages' referring to a dearth of information is incorrect. Lots of history taught at school is incorrect. We have plenty of sources regarding post-Roman Britain including archaeology and other non-written sources, and 'Dark Ages' as a term was a explicitly coined in order to suggest that those people were stupid. It's also a very Anglo-centric view of history, as if for eg the Byzantine Empire didn't matter.

Supercessionism was declared to be a sin by the World Council of Churches in 1953.

Are you suggesting that prosperity gospel preachers do not exist in the Global North? Because that is not the case. The idea that people in the Global South lack 'discriminatory powers and critical faculties' is just racist nonsense, sorry. Many countries in the Global South have extremely high literacy rates for instance due to being former Soviet nations or currently communist nations.

'Homosexual' is considered to be derogatory by actual gay people. Surely if you wish to support gay rights within the church, you should use the terminology they prefer?

2ndRateMind

Pomona wrote: »

@2ndRateMind I have explicitly stated why and how the idea of 'the Dark Ages' referring to a dearth of information is incorrect. Lots of history taught at school is incorrect. We have plenty of sources regarding post-Roman Britain including archaeology and other non-written sources, and 'Dark Ages' as a term was a explicitly coined in order to suggest that those people were stupid. It's also a very Anglo-centric view of history, as if for eg the Byzantine Empire didn't matter.

Hi @Pomona. I really don't want to quibble with you about the question of whether we have, or don't have, much information about the time period in question, or the pedantry involved in the meaning of the term, 'Dark Ages', or the unsupported allegation you make that it was 'explicitly coined in order to suggest that those people were stupid'. I am quite prepared to concede you know more on the topic than I do, but it is all quite irrelevant to my central point on this topic, which is that humanity has made social, scientific, philosophical and theological progress since then, and we can, do and should have a different perspective on our faith.

Pomona wrote: »

Supercessionism was declared to be a sin by the World Council of Churches in 1953.

And who, pray, are the World Council of Churches to make that determination, by what reasoning did they arrive at it, and please can you provide a link to the appropriate document, which I have been unable to locate?

Pomona wrote: »

Are you suggesting that prosperity gospel preachers do not exist in the Global North? Because that is not the case. The idea that people in the Global South lack 'discriminatory powers and critical faculties' is just racist nonsense, sorry. Many countries in the Global South have extremely high literacy rates for instance due to being former Soviet nations or currently communist nations.

No. I am not suggesting that. And it is not racist nonsense to point out that because those in the developing world have less access to a good education, they are more vulnerable to such charlatans.

Pomona wrote: »

'Homosexual' is considered to be derogatory by actual gay people. Surely if you wish to support gay rights within the church, you should use the terminology they prefer?

I'm sorry if some (and by no means all) homosexuals consider the biologically correct term 'homosexual' to be derogatory. I can't help that. But I shall continue to use the term in it's biologically accurate sense, with no offense intended.

Best wishes, 2RM.

quetzalcoatl

Remember, biological accuracy is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

2ndRateMind

The Buddha, I understand, once said that the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their correct name.

Best wishes, 2RM.

quetzalcoatl

The Buddha also said, don't be a dick.

Pomona

But gay people are attracted to people who are the same or a similar gender to themselves*, 'homosexual' isn't a 'biologically accurate' term because being gay isn't a disease and doesn't need a 'biologically accurate' name. Gay people have decided what they want to be called - that is the correct name.

*'similar genders' is there to include non-binary people who feel some connection to a particular gender, without completely being that gender

Doublethink

Some gay people have an issue with the term homosexual and some don't, but I am unclear why you, @2ndRateMind, feel its OK for you to be the arbiter of this ?

Nick Tamen

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Thank you, Nick Tamen, for your reply. It was good of you to take the time.

Nick Tamen wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels like this is more or less recycled Spong?

So, I took this to be an insult. Whether it was meant that way or not, I cannot honestly begin to guess.

It was not intended as an insult, just as an observation. I’m not one who considers “Spong” a dirty word.

And my usual approach if I honestly can’t tell if an insult is intended is to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s not intended as an insult.

2ndRateMind wrote: »

I'm sorry if some (and by no means all) homosexuals consider the biologically correct term 'homosexual' to be derogatory. I can't help that. But I shall continue to use the term in it's biologically accurate sense, with no offense intended.

Meanwhile, this response pretty much undermines the credibility of your manifesto.

Raptor Eye

My manifesto for Christianity in the 21st century is this:

Find out who Jesus is - this will take the rest of your life, but invite him into it as soon as you are ready.

Love God with all of your heart, and your neighbours as yourself, particularly if you disagree with or dislike them.

Leave judging others, especially fellow Christians of whatever denomination, to God.

2ndRateMind

@Pomona. I think you are confusing your biology with your medical science. I never said, implied, or meant to suggest that homosexuality was a disease. And there is far from consensus on what homosexual people want to be called. Lesbians, for example, seem quite happy to be called 'lesbians', which seems to exclude 'gay' men. The term homosexual, however, covers both sexes. I appreciate that is not entirely comprehensive, given small minority of 'intersex' individuals, but for most of humanity, most of the time, it does well enough.

Now, enough, again, of this pedantry. If you have any issues of substance arising out of the OP, I shall happily discuss them with you.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Doublethink

It is not pedantry to be concerned about whether people find a term offensive or not.

Arethosemyfeet

Is there a meaningful distinction between homosexual as an adjective (one might describe e.g. homosexual behaviour among penguins) and homosexual as a noun?

2ndRateMind

Nick Tamen wrote: »

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Thank you, Nick Tamen, for your reply. It was good of you to take the time.

Nick Tamen wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels like this is more or less recycled Spong?

So, I took this to be an insult. Whether it was meant that way or not, I cannot honestly begin to guess.

It was not intended as an insult, just as an observation. I’m not one who considers “Spong” a dirty word.

And my usual approach if I honestly can’t tell if an insult is intended is to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s not intended as an insult.

Fair enough, good for you, and perhaps I was being oversensitive.

2ndRateMind wrote: »

I'm sorry if some (and by no means all) homosexuals consider the biologically correct term 'homosexual' to be derogatory. I can't help that. But I shall continue to use the term in it's biologically accurate sense, with no offense intended.

Nick Tamen wrote: »

Meanwhile, this response pretty much undermines the credibility of your manifesto.

Why, exactly? What is wrong with being accurate in one's terminology, to avoid misunderstanding? Or is that politically incorrect?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Pomona

It's not pedantry when you're basing your whole manifesto on the idea of having more knowledge on how the world works and being better placed to prevent progressive Christianity from being left by the wayside - but then refuse to accept that you might be wrong on an issue which is a major reason as to why a lot of people are leaving Christianity in the West. It's not pedantry to point out the way in which you claim to support gay rights in the church is actually seen as pejorative by actual gay people (and 'gay' can and does apply to all gay people not just men).

Not sure what your intersex comment is about when intersex people can be gay too? Caster Semenya for example is an intersex woman and a lesbian who was assigned female at birth.

2ndRateMind

Doublethink wrote: »

Some gay people have an issue with the term homosexual and some don't, but I am unclear why you, @2ndRateMind, feel its OK for you to be the arbiter of this ?

You may call homosexuals whatever you want. I am not laying down rules for anyone. By the same measure, I will not accept anyone laying down rules for me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Arethosemyfeet

Accuracy in language isn't a fixed target, and is culturally determined. "Homosexual" isn't any more accurate than gay or lesbian. It is, however, a medicalised term with a deeply unpleasant history. Accurate language is that which best conveys your intent and meaning. Using the term "homosexual" and declaring it to be the "accurate" term conveys an intent to override the opinions of LGBT people because you know best. That's not a great place to start with people who have suffered centuries of people knowing best.

Pomona

Arethosemyfeet wrote: »

Is there a meaningful distinction between homosexual as an adjective (one might describe e.g. homosexual behaviour among penguins) and homosexual as a noun?

I would generally say that even homosexual behaviour is used to describe behaviour amongst non-human animals, and not amongst humans. Sexual health organisations will use the term MSM for eg, or 'men who have sex with men', since not all men who have sex with men are exclusively gay anyway.

Doublethink

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Doublethink wrote: »

Some gay people have an issue with the term homosexual and some don't, but I am unclear why you, @2ndRateMind, feel its OK for you to be the arbiter of this ?

You may call homosexuals whatever you want. I am not laying down rules for anyone. By the same measure, I will not accept anyone laying down rules for me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The Ship of Fools rules laid down for you can be found here, (you signed up for them when you registered) - and the guidance for this particular sub-forum can be found here, I suggest you read them carefully.

Doublethink, Admin

Arethosemyfeet

Pomona wrote: »

Arethosemyfeet wrote: »

Is there a meaningful distinction between homosexual as an adjective (one might describe e.g. homosexual behaviour among penguins) and homosexual as a noun?

I would generally say that even homosexual behaviour is used to describe behaviour amongst non-human animals, and not amongst humans. Sexual health organisations will use the term MSM for eg, or 'men who have sex with men', since not all men who have sex with men are exclusively gay anyway.

True (and the complex nature of identity and closetedness means even exclusive MSM may not identify with gay, or homosexual for that matter).

quetzalcoatl

Its strange to reject the terms preferred by gay people themselves, as with pronouns for trans people. It puts a distance between you and them. I'm not sure how that fits into Christian ethics, but surely courtesy must figure somewhere.

Nick Tamen

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Why, exactly? What is wrong with being accurate in one's terminology, to avoid misunderstanding? Or is that politically incorrect?

You’re not being “accurate” in your terminology, as has been pointed out to you. Any accuracy is in your mind alone.

What you are doing is saying “I don’t care at all if my insistence on being right offends you. That’s your problem.” Your attitude here is diametrically opposed to your professed desire to end institutionalized discrimination action against LBGTQ+ people. And it’s also diametrically opposed to your professed desire for Christianity to be more than a group of people “who think like me.”

And as @Pomona said, your entire manifesto is predicated on you (and others like you, presumably) having a better understanding than others, particularly others in the past. Yet your insistence on this one point calls into question whether that “better understanding” is only in your imagination.

Lamb Chopped

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Thank you, Nick Tamen, for your reply. It was good of you to take the time.

Nick Tamen wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels like this is more or less recycled Spong?

So, I took this to be an insult. Whether it was meant that way or not, I cannot honestly begin to guess. I can, however, assure you that it not recycled anything, just an ordinary Christian’s reaction to the world He finds himself inhabiting, and noting how far removed it is from the ideals Jesus expressed in His two Great Commandments; to love God, and love each other, and His endorsement of ‘the Golden Rule’. I firmly believe it is a Church duty to tackle this. As for Spong, though I had heard of him, I cannot say I was, or am, familiar with his thinking or his work. So I took the opportunity to look him up on Wikipedia, which has his 12 points for reform as follows:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Some of which I wholeheartedly agree with, and some of which of which I have no opinion on, not yet knowing enough theology. For the record, those I agree with are: 3,6,8,9,11,12. Those I have no opinion on are: 1,2,4,5,7,10.

The significant threats to mainstream Christianity I perceive, which make some kind of reform necessary, are dogmatic fundamentalism on the one hand, and creeping atheism on the other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I am so sorry to hear you’ve lost so much of the faith! But serious question—if you’ve thrown out the heart of Christianity, why are you bothering to keep the name? Why not join one of the many ethical societies out there and get on with your program?

KarlLB

Lamb Chopped wrote: »

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Thank you, Nick Tamen, for your reply. It was good of you to take the time.

Nick Tamen wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels like this is more or less recycled Spong?

So, I took this to be an insult. Whether it was meant that way or not, I cannot honestly begin to guess. I can, however, assure you that it not recycled anything, just an ordinary Christian’s reaction to the world He finds himself inhabiting, and noting how far removed it is from the ideals Jesus expressed in His two Great Commandments; to love God, and love each other, and His endorsement of ‘the Golden Rule’. I firmly believe it is a Church duty to tackle this. As for Spong, though I had heard of him, I cannot say I was, or am, familiar with his thinking or his work. So I took the opportunity to look him up on Wikipedia, which has his 12 points for reform as follows:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Some of which I wholeheartedly agree with, and some of which of which I have no opinion on, not yet knowing enough theology. For the record, those I agree with are: 3,6,8,9,11,12. Those I have no opinion on are: 1,2,4,5,7,10.

The significant threats to mainstream Christianity I perceive, which make some kind of reform necessary, are dogmatic fundamentalism on the one hand, and creeping atheism on the other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I am so sorry to hear you’ve lost so much of the faith! But serious question—if you’ve thrown out the heart of Christianity, why are you bothering to keep the name? Why not join one of the many ethical societies out there and get on with your program?

FWIW I would agree with the same list of Spong's points.

I don't think they're the heart of Christianity.

2ndRateMind

Doublethink wrote: »

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Doublethink wrote: »

Some gay people have an issue with the term homosexual and some don't, but I am unclear why you, @2ndRateMind, feel its OK for you to be the arbiter of this ?

You may call homosexuals whatever you want. I am not laying down rules for anyone. By the same measure, I will not accept anyone laying down rules for me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The Ship of Fools rules laid down for you can be found here, (you signed up for them when you registered) - and the guidance for this particular sub-forum can be found here, I suggest you read them carefully.

Doublethink, Admin

Fair enough. Let me rephrase that, then:

Doublethink wrote: »

2ndRateMind wrote: »

Doublethink wrote: »

Some gay people have an issue with the term homosexual and some don't, but I am unclear why you, @2ndRateMind, feel its OK for you to be the arbiter of this ?

You may call homosexuals whatever you want. I am not laying down rules for anyone on this. By the same measure, I will not accept anyone laying down rules for me on this.

.

I said what I meant, and meant what I said. What more, you all clearly understood what I was saying, which, for me, meant I had communicated my meaning effectively. If you all want to draw out implications that were not intended, that is up to you. I cannot stop you, and would not want to. But so far, your argument seems to be that because some homosexuals might be offended by the term homosexual, therefore I should not use it. As if we all had some God-given right not to be offended. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion that right does not and should not exist. It is quite inconsistent with the concept of free speech, which is a right that does and should exist.

Now, I have said all I want to say on this topic. I do not propose to engage further on this matter. I am sure we can agree to disagree on this, and move on to more substantive matters where we might all make some meaniingful progress, and I might actually learn something from the forum I consider to be useful.

Best wishes, 2RM.

(ETA Fixed quote coding, Doublethink, Temporary Hosting)