Mainstream clergy with non-mainstream or non-Nicene theology

I'm part of the PCUSA, which is one of the denominations you probably mean. I've been in the church for decades, and attended presbytery meetings where new clergy made confessions. So I have a pretty good sense of the divergences that exist.

First, there are a small group of what I'd call outliers. An example is John Shuck, who seems to be what most people would call an atheist. But I'e never seen anyone like that in the decades I've been involved in the PCUSA.

Reviewing the Nicene Creed, I only see two issues that would be common:

* Creator of all things ... It's pretty common to see process theology, and other theologies that understand God as operating more in a guiding role than creating things from nothing. So they might or might not agree with "almighty" or "maker of all things." I think maker of all things may actually be consistent with this concept, since the Creed doesn't say ex nihilo. Even "almighty" needs some discussion. Many would have issues with some concepts of omnipotence, but not necessarily with the term in general. I'd rather not cite specific clergy on this, because I'm not sure they would want to be discussed in this kind of forum, but I've seen issues like this discussed in confirmation class.

* Virgin Mary -- as I'm sure you're aware, this is likely the part of the creed about which the most people have doubts. It was one of the subjects of the fundamentalist arguments in the early 20th Cent. For clergy, the doubts typically stem from our understanding of how the Bible was written. That is, they don't indicate any rejection of the supernatural per se -- Christianity is pretty clearly based on the idea that there's something beyond the physical. Rather, it's based on an assessment of the Gospels. At any rate, the PCUSA, and presumably other mainline churches, quite explicitly do not require it. This one is pretty easy to document, since it was a big deal around 1920.

As you're presumably aware, modern theology tends not to use the substance language that you see in classical Christian theology, although every confession that I've heard does include both the Incarnation and the Trinity. The anti-Arian terminology in the Creed can reasonably be understood as a paraphrase of John 1. In that sense, I think most would be willing to affirm it.

Note that the PCUSA issued several credal statements in the 20th Cent. I think they properly represent almost all clergy in the denomination. Thus I don't think it's common to see people who diverge from our own creeds.

There's one other issue that's not part of the Creed that is worth mentioning. A number of modern theologians do not believe in the empty tomb. They would still affirm the resurrection, so the Creed isn't an issue, but they understand Paul as not teaching the empty tomb.

These types of conversations can devolve into boundary-keeping rather quickly. I find those who step outside of their denomination with new ideas or more likely old ideas newly discovered to be helpful. On the condition that is that they repent their rationale accurately and in contrast to the most charitable reading of the current view.

However individuals like John Shelby Spong, or Dominic Crossen break ranks despite the research. They misrepresent the best research and produce propaganda pieces to be lapped up by those wishing for confirmation of the beliefs they hold rather than the most accurate understanding of the external world they live in.

hedrick said:

There's one other issue that's not part of the Creed that is worth mentioning. A number of modern theologians do not believe in the empty tomb. They would still affirm the resurrection, so the Creed isn't an issue, but they understand Paul as not teaching the empty tomb.

Click to expand...

So ahh... Who or what was in the tomb?

there have been 2 millenniums since the official enactment of the New Testament, and much water has flowed under the bridge since then - it may turn out that many christian clerics have brought changes and many changes have been there introduced in the christian tradition for all these twenty centuries, speaking so i don't accuse/judge anybody, but it would be better for the worshipers to test(examine/appraise/discern) the things, or at least personally i cannot guarantee that everything is fine in this regard, moreover, even personally i have found a lot of irregularities therein (given that i have not tried to find any), which indicate that most worshipers have not worked righteously enough as worshipers/believers - the process of practicing faith requires righteous enough consciousness and attitude, full enough immersion and thoroughness as well as full enough fidelity and precision

Blessings

Uber Genius said:

However individuals like John Shelby Spong, or Dominic Crossen break ranks despite the research. They misrepresent the best research and produce propaganda pieces to be lapped up by those wishing for confirmation of the beliefs they hold rather than the most accurate understanding of the external world they live in.

Click to expand...

My understanding is Spong's embrace of heresy goes far beyond the empty tomb. To my recollection, he rejects the virgin birth, the miracles and basically anything vaguely supernatural recounted in tradition or the scriptures.

These heresies have the bizarre effect of reducing Christianity to a form of therapy and the scriptures to incoherent screeds written by lunatics for the consumption of morons. The Church's teaching authority is therefore diminished to be little more than a thinly-veiled power grab by opportunists too incompetent for political office. Logically it can't be any other way because only insanity or abject evil (or some vile combination of the two) could produce Christianity as a falsehood.

Spong may very well have noble intentions. I wouldn't know. But there's really no way to reject everything that defines Christianity in an attempt to make it more palatable to "the reasonable man" without stripping it of its power and, in the bargain, transforming it into a strange brew self-help program which fleeces the idiots of their money under the guise of religious betterment.

Frankly, he offers nothing one can't get from Scientology. And say whatever you want about the Scientologists, at least they're aware of the fact that their movement was started by a science fiction-peddling huckster... so points for honesty on that count, I suppose.

Uber Genius said:

So ahh... Who or what was in the tomb?

Click to expand...

Note that I'm not speaking for myself here.

Most people do seem to accept that there were post-resurrection appearances, as described in 1 Cor 15. Without that it seems impossible to understand how Christianity could have happened. Paul doesn't describe them as the appearance of a body that has been resuscitated, but as a new type of existence. Hence those appearances do not require an empty tomb. Some think the language in 1 Cor 15:4 presuppose an empty tomb, others don't.

If you doubt the empty tomb, I don't think there's an official answer as to what happened to the body. If you accept Paul's witness in 1 Cor 15, he was buried. Otherwise, Romans often exposed the body of people who were crucified. But if you don't think the empty tomb stories are accurate, there's really no information, and more than one possibility.

N T Wright has argued that no one would have taken the appearance stories as indicating a resurrection without the empty tomb. Otherwise it would have been interpreted as a ghost or spirit, as in 1 Sam 28, not a resurrection. That seems reasonable.

hedrick said:

Note that I'm not speaking for myself here.

Most people do seem to accept that there were post-resurrection appearances, as described in 1 Cor 15. Without that it seems impossible to understand how Christianity could have happened. Paul doesn't describe them as the appearance of a body that has been resuscitated, but as a new type of existence. Hence those appearances do not require an empty tomb. Some think the language in 1 Cor 15:4 presuppose an empty tomb, others don't.

If you doubt the empty tomb, I don't think there's an official answer as to what happened to the body. If you accept Paul's witness in 1 Cor 15, he was buried. Otherwise, Romans often exposed the body of people who were crucified. But if you don't think the empty tomb stories are accurate, there's really no information, and more than one possibility.

N T Wright has argued that no one would have taken the appearance stories as indicating a resurrection without the empty tomb. Otherwise it would have been interpreted as a ghost or spirit, as in 1 Sam 28, not a resurrection. That seems reasonable.

Click to expand...

Yep I get you were rehearsing other "outliers." I just wanted to know how they justified their claims for all the reasons you gave.

It is kind of like someone saying there was this atheist who believed in square circles, married bachelors, and wrote an entire book about the attributes and causal abilities of "nothing."

You might ask me, how did he defend that thesis? And I would respond go read his book, "A Universe from Nothing."

So too my curiosity over tombs with Jesus' body found in it.

thecolorsblend said:

My understanding is Spong's embrace of heresy goes far beyond the empty tomb. To my recollection, he rejects the virgin birth, the miracles and basically anything vaguely supernatural recounted in tradition or the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Spong thinks the traditional idea of God is too anthropomorphic, that it's too much like a big guy sitting on a throne meddling with history from the outside. He's not trying to deny that God is Other, supernatural if you like, but he's trying to say that he's even more Other than the typical concepts of him.

I believe this perspective has significant influence in the mainline churches.

hedrick said:

Yes and no. Spong thinks the traditional idea of God is too anthropomorphic, that it's too much like a big guy sitting on a throne meddling with history from the outside. He's not trying to deny that God is Other, supernatural if you like, but he's trying to say that he's even more Other than the typical concepts of him.

I believe this perspective has significant influence in the mainline churches.

Click to expand...

Indeed it does. And I wouldn't be the first to suggest this has at least in part caused the mainline's atrophy.

hedrick said:

* Creator of all things ... It's pretty common to see process theology, and other theologies that understand God as operating more in a guiding role than creating things from nothing. So they might or might not agree with "almighty" or "maker of all things.

Click to expand...

Do process theology adherents believe God did not create or a uncreated Creator of all that is seen and unseen?

The Scriptures make it clear all that was created was created by God.

Colossians 1:16 comes to mind.

Then there is the issue of process theology claiming God is not immutable. Again the Holy Scriptures confirm otherwise.

redleghunter said:

Do process theology adherents believe God did not create or a uncreated Creator of all that is seen and unseen?

Click to expand...

I'm not the best one to answer detailed questions on process theology and panentheism. I've made some attempts to understand it, but it doesn't make much sense to my scientifically oriented mind.

I will say that immutability, at least if it implies not being able to be affected by anything outside him, is widely disputed, and a lot of us don't think Scripture supports it.

Note that in mainline Christianity there's an impression (which I share) that Greek metaphysics has had more influence on Christian theology than people realize, that the various omni- properties only partly represent the Biblical idea of God.

But really, this tends to move into the philosophical side, and that's where I'm weakest in theology.

.

Paul Yohannan said:

One thing I am interested in exploring is the increasing trend of clerics in major denominations who express theological perspectives generally at odds with those denominations, collectively. For example, within several mainline denominations, I have been troubled by an apparent increase in equivocation on core Nicene theological principles.

In this thread I would like to collect examples of this and discuss specific cases.

Click to expand...

I think that's been happening for a long time. However, I would submit for consideration: Is that which is considered "Nicene Theology" today the same as that which was considered Nicene theology at the time of the Nicene Council?

Paul Yohannan said:

This is off-topic and we will not be discussing this issue in this thread.

Click to expand...

How is it off topic to define "Nicene Theology" in a thread that uses Nicene Theology as it's basis?

Paul Yohannan said:

For three reasons:

1. It does not relate to the actual subject, which is clergy from mainstream denominations equivocating or rejecting Nicea and other Christian theological conventions.
2. It is not a reply to another reply that raises a specific case where such equivocation or rejection occurred.
3. There is another thread on the subject of "What exactly is a Nicene?" where your point is topical, and where you have been debating that topic at some length, and that thread or another thread, perhaps one you yourself might post, is the proper forum to explore your question in greater detail.

Thus, as the OP, I am requesting that you not continue this tangent. I would hate to have to request this thread be moved to another forum or locked, because I welcome topical contributions from yourself and other CCT posters; for example, if you were to reply to one of the existing posts and evaluate if, from your perspective, just as an example, if Process theology or one of the issues raised is Nicene, or if, again by way of an example, you were to post a case of a specific cleric from a mainstream denomination who shared your interpretation of Nicaea.

Click to expand...

Your suggestion goes to the point I was making. If someone from the clergy disagreed with my position and I said they were moving away from Nicene theology I am basing their position on my understanding of Nicene theology. What if I am the one who is wrong and has moved away from Nicene theology and not the other person? Unless there is a solid definition of "Nicene Theology" that doesn't change with each poster how can the discussion go anywhere?

But, it's your thread and you can discuss things as you choose to so I'll just move one.