Thought about Nontheistic Christianity

[YouWish]

OK.

Merriam-Websters.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theism

Definition.


Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1678
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world


Is this sufficient?

I don't think you understand what Metacrock is saying. If I may guess (I apologize if I am wrong), I think he is saying that the word "God" is not constrained by theism, but rather can be used in a more general sense. NOT that theism has to do with God (no one disputes that). Therefore, you must look up the word "God" in a dictionary and find that it exclusively refers to theism in order to meet his challenge.

[KR Wordgazer]

Zarove is right-- the churches that people seem drawn to are the churches where relating to God personally is still practiced. I don't think the particular doctrines of a church regarding other matters are of nearly as much importance as that. The key appears to be, not what a church's position is on particular social issues, but whether people are turning from their own sins and surrendering to the Savior-- not that He personally belongs to them, but that He's their Savior, not just the Savior. Are you so absolutely sure we're all just deluding ourselves?

If you are talking about America, I consider that to be more a sign of our recent military actions and sense of insecurity than anything else.

I'm not just talking about America, and I'm not just talking about since the Iraq war, either. Here's a quote from the National Church Life Survey in Australia in 2001. (Note that the survey would have actually been conducted prior to the terrorist attack on the US, so that cannot be a factor; and this is Australia, not the US-- though the findings are similar in most Western countries):

Factors Behind Attendance Change
The statistics in Table 2 highlight that while church attendance overall continues to decline, the situation of each denomination varies greatly. The large mainstream denominations such as Anglican, Catholic and Uniting are declining, but many of the smaller Protestant and Pentecostal denominations are growing, some very strongly. . . .

The attendance change in each denomination is the result of these factors competing with each other. In the case of large mainstream Anglican and Protestant denominations, the numbers switching out to other denominations is greater than the numbers switching in.

It is the large mainstream churches that have (in general-- there are of course exceptions) stopped preaching personal relationship with God in favor of more "modern" views-- and these are the churches where attendance is declining, not just in the US, but in Australia, as one representative nation.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.ncls.org.au/download/doc2270 ... cd=2&gl=us

On the other hand, the smaller Protestant and Pentacostal churches are still preaching a living faith in a living God. It is not these churches, and not this God, that are declining, but rather it is they who are growing. This is not to be read as an endorsement of or a criticism of any particular church's doctrines-- just a statement that the God Chrisitians have related to personally through the generations, really does not appear to be dead.

[ZAROVE]

No one holds agaisnt you time away from the Internet. However, I shall have to address in different posts the things you asked me.

I will do so when I hve more time, as for now, I only have a short while.

But, in address, I have read many articles by Spong, and two of his books. One title eludes me, but hte other was the infamous "Why Christianity Must CHange Or Die". I will grant thta I read htis 6 years ago, an do nto fully recall it. I optained a copy at a library and do not own it.

Nevertheless, I am familiar ith Spongs claims.

As to Metacrock, he asked me to define Theism, not God. Theos is Greek for God. Theism means beleif in God. Any beleuf in God is innatley Theistic. JUst as any beleif in Humanity is inatley Humaistic. ( though the word Humanism as changed in meaning, or rather, a new one added.)

So, I am afraid you are wrong, Theism is not simly beleif in a personal god, it is beleif in any god at all.

But even if we took you up on that challenge, oen that seems to exist soley to salvage the claim Spong makes baout theistic tlak abotu God beign useless to a modern mind, we still fuind that God is not defined only as a personal being.

From Mirriam Websters Dictionary, again.

Main Entry: 1god

Pronunciation: \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century

1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3: a person or thing of supreme value

4: a powerful ruler


The above woudl fit any theology fo God you put up. If you are a Panheist, you still see God as a Supreme or Ultimate reality, or or supreme value.

There is no way to discuss God without Theism. Any attemto to tlak about God is goign to be Theistic. Pantheism is Theistic. Penantheism is Theistic. Deism is theistic. SPongs claim of God as nonexistant except as a concept or metaphore, and perhaps as a quasi-real ground of beign, but nto as a personal agent is still Theism.


Next up, I shall try to discuss the Churhces, and growth, but no, I didnt mean just in AMerica, an most surely not simply post 9-11 America, but weven there I wudl queasion you Logic. Why shoudl we assume the teror attacks nd preasent war woudl render a more traditonal understandign more acceptable?

Nevertheless, I;l addess that next.

Then I will address other things asked when in regards ro Spong, and why I woudl say his arguments are weak.

[Diaconeo]

I just have a simple question here:

Can a man (Spong) who claims that he does not believe in the God of the Scriptures, upon Whom Judaism and Christianity are based, truly be called a Christian and therefore a representative if Christianity?

From what I understand of his quote in the original post is that this 'theologian' doesn't believe in the God of the Scriptures, but believes in a different god, one that manifests himself in many different ways and therefore through many different belief systems (much like the Masonic idea that there is really only one god that we all, whatever are religious affiliation is, are ultimately worshiping. Or am I way off here?

In Christ,
Matthew

[Metacrock]

I just have a simple question here:

Can a man (Spong) who claims that he does not believe in the God of the Scriptures, upon Whom Judaism and Christianity are based, truly be called a Christian and therefore a representative if Christianity?

From what I understand of his quote in the original post is that this 'theologian' doesn't believe in the God of the Scriptures, but believes in a different god, one that manifests himself in many different ways and therefore through many different belief systems (much like the Masonic idea that there is really only one god that we all, whatever are religious affiliation is, are ultimately worshiping. Or am I way off here?

In Christ,
Matthew

I don't agree with Spong. I don't take my cues from him. That's Youwish's interest. I dislike Spong. But, there is one point upon which he has a point: God is bigger than anyone can understand, therefore, God is bigger than Christians understand. God is working in all cultures and all reilgious concepts of the divine are reflects of God, but they are different qualtiies. The only perfect and clear view we get of God is in Jesus.

See what Paul told the Greeks about this: "that which you arleady worship as unknown I now make known to you" and he also says God put people where they live so they would find him. that has to mean God is working in those cultures.

Acts 17:21-29 (also see Rm 2:6-14)

[KR Wordgazer]

I agree with Metacrock on this. The Scriptures say, "You will seek Me, and find Me, when you seek with your whole heart." I don't see what we can do with that verse if it isn't to be taken to mean that anyone who sincerely seeks God will find God. Whether or not they understand that the One they have found is named Jesus, Jesus can save them all the same.

Note that this is not at all the same thing as saying all religions are the same. Just that it is possible to find the true God if you have a seeking heart.

As for Spong-- it seems to me that liberal theology is fairly wide. The faith of Kierkegaard (did I spell that right?) and the "faith" of Spong, if you can call it that, are two very different things. Spong, I think, has gone so far as to leave the God of Christianity entirely. But as for God being more than just a "big man in the sky" and being beyond what the human mind can grasp-- it seems to me that most conservative theologians, even most Evangelicals, would agree with this too, if you put it to them clearly.

[tinythinker]

I agree with YouWish and Metacrock that "UItimate Reality" does not have to be any (particular) conception of God or any traditional depiction of God, but such a broad range of possibilities doesn't necessarily mean automatically rejecting any of these things either. That's the tricky part. I think the objection to talking about a nontheistic Christianity (or even to the term nontheistic itself) makes a particular point - people have certain associations with the term God that they are generally not willing to give up (or to put it another way are not willing to share the term with other views that don't require such associations). Many Buddhists, as someone mentioned, do believe in Ultimate Reality, but not in a Creator Being. Many Buddhist views are most similar to pantheistic/panentheistic notions of Ultimate Reality, but again, sans a single Person that wills everything into existence and passes out eternal judgment. In fact, the closest comparison I can think of would be to apophatic mystics and monastic contemplatives such as Mesiter Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Thomas Merton, and Thomas Keating. From what I have read of this vein of Christianity, the idea of God or Christ as a lived experience trumps any argument about literalism versus metaphor for any particular Biblical passage. In the same way, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of Buddhism are also a lived experience, not just mythico-historical characters in ancient sutras. So yes, in this sense "God" or "Christ" or "Amida Buddha", etc, are indeed very personal. The relationship by necessity of its nature is inherently intimate.

This isn't something you can solve strictly with logic. Nor is it something you can accept entirely by faith, at least while you are still not actively engaged. Both logic and faith will take you so far in hypothetical terms, but neither will do you much good until you are "in motion", so to speak. [I will now break down what I am talking about and use some pop cultural references. My apologies to those who find them tedious.] As Morpheus says in The Matrix: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself." Put in "the Divine", "Ultimate Reality", or "Dharmakaya" for "Matrix" and "experience" for "see" and you've got a good explanation of what is being described. And of course, as Morpheus (and the Buddha, and others have) said: "I am only offering you the truth - nothing more."

[ZAROVE]

I still say Spongs concept is wrong of the definition fo Theism.

SPing is a Pantheist. He cannot argue that Theistic concepts of God re dead as he has one. In fact, Theos means God.

All concepts of God are inherantly Theistic, because they talk abotu God.

Unless you are an Atheist, you cannot have meaninglul Non-Theism.

Spong likes ot fancy the term Theism as limited to only a eprsonal God, then mocks this as " A giant man in the sky" sort of thing, but even SPinoza, a Pantheist, admite dhe was a THeist.


We are sloppy in hosw we speak these days.

[KR Wordgazer]

In the same way, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of Buddhism are also a lived experience, not just mythico-historical characters in ancient sutras. So yes, in this sense "God" or "Christ" or "Amida Buddha", etc, are indeed very personal. The relationship by necessity of its nature is inherently intimate.

This isn't something you can solve strictly with logic. Nor is it something you can accept entirely by faith, at least while you are still not actively engaged. Both logic and faith will take you so far in hypothetical terms, but neither will do you much good until you are "in motion", so to speak. [I will now break down what I am talking about and use some pop cultural references. My apologies to those who find them tedious.] As Morpheus says in The Matrix: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself." Put in "the Divine", "Ultimate Reality", or "Dharmakaya" for "Matrix" and "experience" for "see" and you've got a good explanation of what is being described. And of course, as Morpheus (and the Buddha, and others have) said: "I am only offering you the truth - nothing more."

I have to jump in here with the idea that for many, if not most, Christians I know, "God" and "Christ" are experienced directly, not just in ancient texts or doctrinal statements. I think this is an integral part of the Evangelical tradition, but is certainly not limited to that tradition. I also agree that you "have to see it for yourself." In fact, that's what I believe the Scripture means when it says, "O taste and see that the LORD is good!"

I'm not at all sure that I would not be able to remain faithful to just an ancient text or a set of doctrines, if I didn't have personal experience of God as well. Christian mysticism isn't as rare as one might think.

[tinythinker]

Christian mysticism isn't as rare as one might think.

It is rare in terms of being openly and explicitly embraced, although it is more acceptable today and growing in popularity (for example, Centering Prayer has crossed many denominational and even religious lines). It is certainly implicit in many writings and teachings, and it was a part of the Christian tradition for most of that tradition's history, but it got a bad rep a few hundred years ago and there was a purging of sorts in which certain forms of contemplative prayer and other forms of mysticism were modified or abandoned. Even St. John of the Cross fell under suspicion by the Inquisition. A skepticism and a bias towards mysticism in Chrisianity has persisted ever since. I am not the scholar on these things, so I refer to those who are for their accounts of Christian history, particularly within the Roman Catholic Church. But whether it is always explicitly acknoweldged or embraced, it is in a way a necessary aspect of a living tradition.

I'm not at all sure that I would not be able to remain faithful to just an ancient text or a set of doctrines, if I didn't have personal experience of God as well.

Probably the number one complaint of ex-Christians, which is why then the focus of the veracity of faith shifts to formal apologetics and logical debates about issues such theodicy.