A summation of "Progressive" Christianity beliefs.

[The Liturgist]

Some of Teillhard's ideas were condemned by certain Jesuit superiors at a time because the world was not ready to hear them.

By the way, I feel compelled to expound upon this point. I reject the idea that heterodox theologies get condemned within the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and other churches “because the world is not ready to hear them.” The reality is that many theological ideas people have had over the years are simply wrong. Many of them are retreads of old theological ideas from the early church, which were viewed as heretical then and which remain as such now, such as certain forms of Monarchianism, Docetism, Apollinarianism, Pneumatomacchianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, Collyridianism, Antidicomarianism, the more problematic ideas of Origen, and so on.

All theology must be evaluated against the standards set by the ecumenical councils, which are very clear, especially the first three councils which are shared between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and then with regards to the subsequent councils, the theological points made by the fifth, sixth and seventh councils which are shared between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. These councils also had Roman Catholic participation and most of their theological precepts are adhered to in the Roman church even today, even though unfortunately the Roman church no longer follows their canon law (for example, Canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea, which confirm the autocephalous status of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch, and which confer it upon the church in the newly rebuilt Hagiopolitan church in Jerusalem, which had been restored through the efforts of Emperor Constantine’s mother, St. Helena).

 

[dzheremi]

Forgive me if this ends up being off topic. I was only tagged just now and did not read all six pages of the conversation before now, since a lot of what I did see on pages 1 and 2 seemed very obscure and irrelevant to me. That said, from where I'm sitting as a Westerner in an Eastern (or 'Oriental', if you prefer to treat us like a rug post-Iranian hostage crisis) Church...

Progressive, fundamentalist, liberal, conservative, etc. When it comes to talking about the faith and the Church that is the ark of faith, these are all just terms made up to situate particular positions within a western (primarily American, at that) highly tribalized political framework which likely doesn't even fit the majority of Christians around the world. Are the Copts, for example, in favor of "progressive" politics because a group of Coptic young people went before the committee that drafted the post-Revolution Egyptian constitution to argue against having religious identification on government-issued, mandatory ID cards (this is a progressive position, in an Egyptian context), or are they conservative because Coptic people very rightly say no to government attempts to weaken the Church by essentially nullifying the Church's divorce laws via Islamic courts when a divorced Copt is not allowed to remarry? (Since divorce is only granted by the Church in the case of various forms of adultery or other heinous acts of which someone can be definitively guilty, as per our canons and the traditional interpretation of them. Note that in practice there are no "secular" courts nor "secular" laws to guide them in Egypt, so arguing that the Church shouldn't have this power in the first place because blahblahblah USA Thomas Jefferson "Separation of Church and State" doesn't really make sense; the Church has this power even in modern Islamic Egypt because Christians are allowed via Egyptian law to govern their own via their own family status laws that rule according to their own religion, which is why cheating or wife-abusing Copts trying to go outside that system is so inherently suspect...what did you do that you're now before the honorable judge Mohamed al-So-and-So, sir, trying to weasel your way out of a very clear "no" from the Church?)

 

[FireDragon76]

Interesting. I have so many negative associations with the word "Biblical", having heard it used to mean things like "sexist" -- essentially, the desire to replicate the cultures of the Bronze Age and the Roman Empire. But Jesus and the prophets are in the Bible too, so maybe we should reclaim the word. The term "Biblical Justice" could work.

Some people seem to think the Bible is like a car repair manual.

The difference between progressive Protestants and conservative/fundamentalist Protestants: we don't expect the Bible to speak directly to many contemporary issues without a great deal of recontextualization and theological deliberation, including interacting with modern science and philosophy.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The problem in doing all of this is that one ignores the complexities...

For sure. It takes work to understand the complexities'. Much easier to just cast "conservative" and "Liberal" labels.

 

[The Liturgist]

For sure. It takes work to understand the complexities'. Much easier to just cast "conservative" and "Liberal" labels.

Indeed, but as I think you recognize, it is inadequate.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Indeed, but as I think you recognize, it is inadequate.

Yes, but I guess that is what we do compare, analyze and sort. At least until we become more interested in specifics. Then sort more finely.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Some people seem to think the Bible is like a car repair manual.

The difference between progressive Protestants and conservative/fundamentalist Protestants: we don't expect the Bible to speak directly to many contemporary issues without a great deal of recontextualization and theological deliberation, including interacting with modern science and philosophy.

You are speaking then as a progressive Protestant?

I have been reading so much my head is spinning. Time to let it all percolate.

 

[The Liturgist]

My impression of church history is that a lot of people had a lot more confidence in their beliefs than we would consider justified. The concept of doctrinal humility, that this is our best attempt at being true to Scripture but like any human attempt it's likely to be imperfect, seems to be based on a crticial consciousness that was largely absent from many early writers.

Well, alas, I fear your impression is misguided. If you research the Council of Nicaea, you will find its decisions were entirely vindicated by the brutal persecution of Nicene Christians and their leaders that followed after Emperor Constantius, the heir to St. Constantine, was converted to Arianism.

And the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD was completely disregarded by the Byzantine Imperial regime and the Iconodule bishops who conducted it were terribly persecuted.

This model repeats itself for all the ecumenical councils except Chalcedon, which I would argue was superfluous, since the issue of Christology had been dealt with adequately at Nicaea, and even Pope Leo was opposed to the council, but he wound up contributing to its divisive nature. But it was really the crypto-Nestorian Bishop Ibas that caused a great deal of trouble.

Part of the reason why I love the Orthodox, both Eastern and Oriental, is because of the brutal violence they were subjected to, especially the Oriental Orthodox, yet they remained steadfast in their faith.

Christ humbled Himself by putting on our human nature to glorify it, but he was dogmatically assertive, and furthermore taught us not to hide our light under a bushel.

The idea of “doctrinal humility” seems simply an excuse for a worldly Broad Church sort of Pietism where the church in order to welcome everyone regards doctrine as being of secondary importance. But this is a problem, since doctrine is chiefly defined through liturgy (lex orandi, lex credendi) and the ancient liturgies such as those of St. Basil, St. James, St. Mark, St. John Chrysostom, and of the Mozarabic and Roman Rites derive much of their impact from bold declarative dogmatic statements.

In contrast, the 1986 United Church of Christ Book of Worship, and recent PCUSA liturgical materials, and even the 1989 UMC Book of Worship, seem to equivocate on doctrine, and this stands in sharp contrast even to the somewhat controversial 1979 Episcopalian BCP, and its sister, the Lutheran Book of Worship, which was jointly developed in terms of liturgical text, both of which are bold, elegant, Christological and Trinitarian expressions of Christian faith.

Indeed the UCC Book of Worship could have been a good work were it not for an inane insistence on gender neutral terminology, for it incorporated good source material, for example, from the influential Devotional Services for Public Worship by Rev. John Hunter, and a panoply of other diverse sources. I wound up taking a Sharpie to my copy to edit the inappropriate gender neutral terminology and other problematic equivocation so as to reflect Scriptural and Patristic terminology.

I believe we should be humble about many things, including our individual knowledge of the Patristic doctrine of the Early Church, since not everyone is as well-catechized or well-formed in terms of clergy as would be ideal, but insofar as we know for sure what they believed, for example from the Creeds, hymns and other liturgical material, that is no place for humility.

Imagine the disaster if we were to tone down this hymn, Ho Monogenes, composed by St. Severus of Antioch and added to the Byzantine Rite by Emperor Justinian, for example:

Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!

 

[The Liturgist]

Also, by the way, how can Progressive Christians possibly call for “Doctrinal Humility” and dare to criticize the Early Church Fathers for lacking this supposed humility (which we see no precedent for in Scripture), when they themselves enthusiastically celebrate “Pride Month”, which encourages people to engage in one of the most dangerous sins, according to Scripture and the Fathers, Pride, over the fact that they have succumbed to the sinful passions and have indulged in another cluster of dangerous sins centered around various permutations of lust and sodomy?

What makes the sin of Pride acceptable in the context of celebrating a sin expressly condemned throughout Scripture? Why shouldn’t those persons who engage in Scripturally illicit sexual liasons at least be encouraged to behave with humility and circumspection? And how is humility a bad thing with regards to LGBTQ+ people, yet retroactively something to criticize the early Church Fathers for want of, which seems absurd given the extreme humility that characterized these most pious and exemplary Christians?

“Doctrinal humility” is absolutely inapplicable with regards to the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus because these councils are agreed by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholics to have been divinely inspired, and their doctrines remain the standard for normative Christianity even to this day. Indeed, almost the very first doctrines a typical psuedo-Christian cult will challenge are those associated with the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. Given that these councils were directed by the Holy Spirit, it was incumbent on the Church Fathers to proclaim their decisions loudly and clearly, so that the faithful could be informed of the terrible errors of theology being perpetrated by Arius and his followers, such as the Emperor Constantius and indeed every emperor until Theodosius I, with the exception of the Neo-Platonist Juilian “the Apostate” (a name which amuses me - what exactly is he an apostate from? Arianism is apostasy by definition).

 

[The Liturgist]

Since the word, "trinity" is not in the bible, I try to avoid using it at all, partly because the word carries too much baggage

If the word Trinity carries any “baggage”, it pales in comparison to the baggage carried by those who have notoriously rejected it throughout history, and brutally persecuted Trinitarians in many cases. I refer of course to the Arians, whose persecution of Christians did not end with the death of Valens, for Arius took measures to ensure that his new religion would be spread far and wide, for example by composing simple hymns that could be taught to sailors, and sending out missionaries to spread his false gospel. Consequently, most of the major Gothic tribes, such as the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, were initially Arian, and as the Western Empire crumbled in Europe and North Africa, they sacked its cities and killed Trinitarian Christians with much brutality. Only later were some of them converted to Christianity. As for the Visigoths, many of them converted to Islam, and then continued to persecute the Christians with even greater zeal under the Ummayid Caliphate.

The “baggage” of the word Trinity is a thousand resplendant cathedrals, monasteries and parish churches named for it across the globe, the gorgeous imagery of the Trefoil and the icon “The Hospitality of Abraham” by St. Andrei Rublev, and the exquisite Trinitarian hymns and creeds and canticles of the Early Church, still preserved in the traditional Roman Rite, Mozarabic RIte, Ambrosian Rite, Byzantine Rite, West Syriac Rite, East Syriac Rite, Coptic RIte and Armenian Rite liturgies, which remain in use in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Assyrian churches to this day, and later Trinitarian hymns by great Protestant composers and hymn writers, for example the hymn “Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow” set to the chorale known as the “Old Hundredth.”

I should take that baggage over the baggage of non-Trinitarianism any day. For the former baggage contains a priceless treasure, and the latter baggage is filled with violence and atrocious persecution in the past, and dangerous and exploitative cults at present. Non-Trinitarian cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, the Swedenborgians/New Church, and many others exist, which are for the most part notoriously abusive of their members, with the J/Ws for example practicing a shunning equivalent to Scientology’s horrific practice of “Disconnection.” And in Canada, the non-Trinitarian Doukhobors, whose emigration to Canada from Russia was paid for by the non-Orthodox Leo Tolstoy, who were basically the Russian equivalent of Unitarian Universalists, engaged in a campaign of harassment in the form of nude parades through Western Canadian cities, which scandalized the locals and required the Canadian government to adopt legislation forbidding indecent exposure, and even terrorism in the form of arson attacks in protest over the education mandates adopted by the Canadian government in the early 20th century.

So yes, I will gladly claim the suitcase labelled “TRINITY” at the baggage claim carousel if you don’t want it, for my faith is defined by an overriding belief in the All Holy and Life Giving Trinity.

Indeed, Orthodox Christianity is Trinitarian to the core. We believe that it is our vocation to make ourselves a living icon of the Trinity, which is a family, God the Father, and His eternally begotten Son and Word, and the Holy Spirit which eternally proceeds from Him, three coequal, coeternal and consubstantial persons, the Father unoriginate, the Son uncreated but rather eternally begotten, and the Holy Spirit unbegotten but rather eternally proceeding, united in the perfect love of the Divine Essence of the Father. We are to be an icon of the Trinity, this union of perfect love, in our relations with our family, and our neighbors, and the Church, and our society and mankind as a whole.

I would also note that the Orthodox Church just celebrated the Feast of the Holy Trinity on Pentecost Sunday two weeks ago, for we celebrate the Trinity together with the descent of God the Holy Spirit, as promised by our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, on the same day, and then on the Monday following Trinity Sunday we specifically glorify God the Holy Spirit Himself, for He is the Lord and Giver of Life, our Comforter and Paraclete, who is everywhere present and fills all things, and who spoke by the Prophets, who lives and reigns together with the unoriginate Father from whom He proceeds eternally, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, by whom all things were made who for our salvation condescended to become incarnate in His own creation, and thus became incarnate in the holy womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and endured unimaginable suffering in His passion in order to restore and glorify our human nature, before reposing in the Tomb on the seventh day, just as He had done in creation, and rising again on the Eighth Day, the glorious Pascha which we celebrate every Sunday and at the Feast of the Resurrection.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

If the word Trinity carries any “baggage”, it pales in comparison to the baggage carried by those who have notoriously rejected it throughout history, and brutally persecuted Trinitarians in many cases. I refer of course to the Arians, whose persecution of Christians did not end with the death of Valens, for Arius took measures to ensure that his new religion would be spread far and wide, for example by composing simple hymns that could be taught to sailors, and sending out missionaries to spread his false gospel. Consequently, most of the major Gothic tribes, such as the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, were initially Arian, and as the Western Empire crumbled in Europe and North Africa, they sacked its cities and killed Trinitarian Christians with much brutality. Only later were some of them converted to Christianity. As for the Visigoths, many of them converted to Islam, and then continued to persecute the Christians with even greater zeal under the Ummayid Caliphate.

The “baggage” of the word Trinity is a thousand resplendant cathedrals, monasteries and parish churches named for it across the globe, the gorgeous imagery of the Trefoil and the icon “The Hospitality of Abraham” by St. Andrei Rublev, and the exquisite Trinitarian hymns and creeds and canticles of the Early Church, still preserved in the traditional Roman Rite, Mozarabic RIte, Ambrosian Rite, Byzantine Rite, West Syriac Rite, East Syriac Rite, Coptic RIte and Armenian Rite liturgies, which remain in use in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Assyrian churches to this day, and later Trinitarian hymns by great Protestant composers and hymn writers, for example the hymn “Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow” set to the chorale known as the “Old Hundredth.”

I should take that baggage over the baggage of non-Trinitarianism any day. For the former baggage contains a priceless treasure, and the latter baggage is filled with violence and atrocious persecution in the past, and dangerous and exploitative cults at present. Non-Trinitarian cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, the Swedenborgians/New Church, and many others exist, which are for the most part notoriously abusive of their members, with the J/Ws for example practicing a shunning equivalent to Scientology’s horrific practice of “Disconnection.” And in Canada, the non-Trinitarian Doukhobors, whose emigration to Canada from Russia was paid for by the non-Orthodox Leo Tolstoy, who were basically the Russian equivalent of Unitarian Universalists, engaged in a campaign of harassment in the form of nude parades through Western Canadian cities, which scandalized the locals and required the Canadian government to adopt legislation forbidding indecent exposure, and even terrorism in the form of arson attacks in protest over the education mandates adopted by the Canadian government in the early 20th century.

So yes, I will gladly claim the suitcase labelled “TRINITY” at the baggage claim carousel if you don’t want it, for my faith is defined by an overriding belief in the All Holy and Life Giving Trinity.

Indeed, Orthodox Christianity is Trinitarian to the core. We believe that it is our vocation to make ourselves a living icon of the Trinity, which is a family, God the Father, and His eternally begotten Son and Word, and the Holy Spirit which eternally proceeds from Him, three coequal, coeternal and consubstantial persons, the Father unoriginate, the Son uncreated but rather eternally begotten, and the Holy Spirit unbegotten but rather eternally proceeding, united in the perfect love of the Divine Essence of the Father. We are to be an icon of the Trinity, this union of perfect love, in our relations with our family, and our neighbors, and the Church, and our society and mankind as a whole.

I would also note that the Orthodox Church just celebrated the Feast of the Holy Trinity on Pentecost Sunday two weeks ago, for we celebrate the Trinity together with the descent of God the Holy Spirit, as promised by our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, on the same day, and then on the Monday following Trinity Sunday we specifically glorify God the Holy Spirit Himself, for He is the Lord and Giver of Life, our Comforter and Paraclete, who is everywhere present and fills all things, and who spoke by the Prophets, who lives and reigns together with the unoriginate Father from whom He proceeds eternally, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, by whom all things were made who for our salvation condescended to become incarnate in His own creation, and thus became incarnate in the holy womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and endured unimaginable suffering in His passion in order to restore and glorify our human nature, before reposing in the Tomb on the seventh day, just as He had done in creation, and rising again on the Eighth Day, the glorious Pascha which we celebrate every Sunday and at the Feast of the Resurrection.

Did not read. But let me put it this way: A lot of people looking for an argument will use it as their trigger word. When I simply say what the bible sez, there's no argument.

 

[The Liturgist]

Did not read. But let me put it this way: A lot of people looking for an argument will use it as their trigger word. When I simply say what the bible sez, there's no argument.

That’s irrelevant to my argument. Perhaps you should read the posts which other members write before dismissing them out of hand.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are speaking then as a progressive Protestant?

I have been reading so much my head is spinning. Time to let it all percolate.

As somebody very familiar and sympathetic to Progressive Protestants/Christians. Religiously, I suspect I am more like C.S. Lewis, not exactly Protestant, even if that is more my general orientation.

The main difference between conservative and progressive Protestants seems to be the divide in how we view the Bible. I agree with Peter Enns, that conservative Evangelicals focus so much on defending the Bible that it ultimately renders the Bible impossible. There's also a misunderstanding of the role of religious experience in our epistemology, due to the legacy of Fundamentalism.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

That’s irrelevant to my argument. Perhaps you should read the posts which other members write before dismissing them out of hand.

I never read posts more than a paragraph or two unless they have a good plot - and the boy gets the girl in the end.

 

[dzheremi]

While I know that correlation does not imply causation, I'd still be willing to bet that it is not a coincidence that those who are unwilling to engage with ideas beyond a short summary are also unable to engage with ideas at anything beyond a surface level. Sort of like the idea that spending quality time entails spending a significant quantity of time on something, too.

 

[The Liturgist]

I never read posts more than a paragraph or two unless they have a good plot - and the boy gets the girl in the end.

Well then in summary, the baggage of the word Trinity is much more desirable than the baggage of not having it, considering how Trinitarians were brutally persecuted by Arians following the Council of Nicaea, until the reign of Emperor Theodosius, and then as Rome collapsed, the Ostrogoths and Visigoths who had been converted by Arian missionaries massacred more Christians, and many Visigoths converted to islam, which also stridently rejects the Trinity. In more recent times, we have a slew of unpleasant non-Trinitarian cults ranging from LDS to Jehovah’s Witnesses to the non-Trinitarian Adventists (as opposed to SDA), to the Christian Science people and the Oneness Pentecostals, and of course the Unitarian Universalists. Indeed with almost all cults, the first thing they jettison is the Trinity.

Meanwhile, the baggage of the Holy and Life Giving Trinity consists of thousands of beautiful churches, monasteries and cathedrals named for the Holy Trinity, the beautiful icon “The Hospitality of Abraham” by St. Andrei Rublev, and the Orthodox approach to soteriology, which is entirely Trinitarian. Since the Trinity consists of a family of three coeternal persons united in perfect love and sharing the divine essence of the Father, it represents the ideal model for human relations, so our vocation in the Orthodox church is to make ourselves an icon of the Trinity in our relationship with our family, with our neighbors, with other members of the church, and with society as a whole. Given that, at the carousel of the dogmatic airport, I will take the baggage of the word Trinity, which is filled with priceless treasure, over the baggage of even a nominal non-Trinitarianism, which is filled with dung, any time.

 

[The Liturgist]

Religiously, I suspect I am more like C.S. Lewis, not exactly Protestant, even if that is more my general orientation.

CS Lewis was a High Church Anglican who preferred to attend Said Services of Holy Communion that started at 7 AM at a parish some distance from Oxford, where he would ride with his brother every Sunday. They would depart immediately after receiving the Eucharist and not wait for the benediction. This being said CS Lewis has a number of ideas which are highly compatible with Orthodox theology, and very useful in explaining certain concepts; I rather like his remark that the gates of hell are locked on the inside. I also greatly admire his nightmarish book about the people in Hell being offered an escape to Heaven but mostly deciding to return to Hell, The Great Divorce. And Mere Christianity is probably the most accessible work of dogmatic theology ever written.

 

[The Liturgist]

A lot of people looking for an argument will use it as their trigger word. When I simply say what the bible sez, there's no argument.

The problem there is that you cannot win someone to Christ by arguing with them. Not in any stable or sustainable way, at any rate. Rather, the conversion process involves the grace of the Holy Spirit, and attracting people to Christianity through exemplary conduct, and through the use of liturgical beauty, such as the architecture of church buildings, to stimulate the curiosity of prospective converts, and through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they walk inside, and are received warmly, and things go from there.

Now, with YouTube and other forms of Social Media, the opportunity exists for people to stumble upon the unspoiled beauty of Orthodox Christianity and related varieties of traditional liturgical Christianity, such as Evangelical Catholicism and High Church Anglicanism, in a number of forms, styles and places.

 

[jas3]

The individualistic Western idea of anti-ecclesiology which I see from some members in this forum (not yourself by the way - please do not regard this as personal criticism) wherein they criticize the very idea of the Church, runs contrary to the plain meaning of the New Testament and also the early Church Fathers.

I have run into this many times myself, and not only here. Really it's a contradiction of the Nicene Creed, where we profess belief in "one holy, catholic and apostolic Church," and strictly speaking shouldn't even be allowed by the rules of the forum, but in my experience forums that make the Nicene Creed their standard of faith only enforce that for denial of the Trinity, not for belief in "one baptism" or that that one baptism is "for the remission of sins," or for belief in the oneness, holiness, catholicity, or apostolic nature (or indeed even the existence) of the Church.

 

[Rose_bud]

The problem there is that you cannot win someone to Christ by arguing with them. Not in any stable or sustainable way, at any rate. Rather, the conversion process involves the grace of the Holy Spirit, and attracting people to Christianity through exemplary conduct, and through the use of liturgical beauty, such as the architecture of church buildings, to stimulate the curiosity of prospective converts, and through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they walk inside, and are received warmly, and things go from there.

Now, with YouTube and other forms of Social Media, the opportunity exists for people to stumble upon the unspoiled beauty of Orthodox Christianity and related varieties of traditional liturgical Christianity, such as Evangelical Catholicism and High Church Anglicanism, in a number of forms, styles and places.

I agree with you, you win them over through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
In rural Africa and in places you don't find beautiful cathedrals and architecture and the language of the old king James.

The Spirit of God is present in the natural beauty that surrounds and in the beat of a drum. You appeal through the Creator God and take it from there.

There is a certain awe and beauty I can appreciate in the liturgical setting but when you have heard God being worshipped to the beat of a drum in a clay hut, it is just as awe inspiring and humbling.