WWMC Name Change Interest Poll and Discussion

[Albion]

FWIW, the term "Progressive Christianity" has been in use for a long time to refer to the theology of Bishop Spong and his followers. The specifics can be checked out with his organization's website, https://progressivechristianity.org/bishop-spong-newsletter/, or else take a look at this article:

State of the Union: Progressive Christianity | HuffPost

 

[Silmarien]

Could do what the Adventists do and make it "Progressive/Moderate" or "Liberal/Moderate" to avoid giving the impression of being way far out in left field.

 

[hedrick]

FWIW, the term "Progressive Christianity" has been in use for a long time to refer to the theology of Bishop Spong and his followers. The specifics can be checked out with his organization's website, https://progressivechristianity.org/bishop-spong-newsletter/, or else take a look at this article:

State of the Union: Progressive Christianity | HuffPost

I'm not convinced. The term is used much more widely than for Spong.

Personally I identify with classic liberal theology, which historically tried to build Christianity on the NT, understood using critical scholarship. Progressive Christianity seems to me a bit more oriented towards social change, less committed to basing Christianity on careful exegesis of the NT, and more pluralist than inclusivist. But it's not so clear what "liberal" means to most people.

I'd like to suggest again that someplace we need a mainline forum. Both progressive and liberal are in some sense party labels. So is "moderate" (another group that tends not to be used because no one is sure what it means). The problem for me is that none of these suggest an actual congregational group.

Most regular participants in this group have a mix of theological and political orientations. They mostly seem to come from churches that I'd classify as mainline. But "liberal" and "progressive" look to me like places you'd come to discuss specific liberal themes like the role of gays, not where you'd go to talk about issues with our church's Sunday School program and other things you'd discuss in a home forum. I.e. it's the name for an "issue" forum rather than a home forum.

Perhaps this is only a problem for me, since the PCUSA is the major mainline congregation that has no natural home forum here. (The Presbyterian forum has been coopted by very conservative folk, and its SOP actually excludes most Presbyterians.)

If we want an issues forum, I'm fine with liberal or conservative. If we want a home forum, I'm not happy with either. I don't think members of my congregation would use a forum with either name.

 

[FreeinChrist]

FWIW, the term "Progressive Christianity" has been in use for a long time to refer to the theology of Bishop Spong and his followers. The specifics can be checked out with his organization's website, https://progressivechristianity.org/bishop-spong-newsletter/, or else take a look at this article:

State of the Union: Progressive Christianity | HuffPost

Liberal Christianity also refers to Spong at some sites.

 

[FreeinChrist]

So the ideas are:

"Safe Space - Progressive"
"Safe Space - Liberal"
"Open Table - Progressive Christians"
"Love Wins - Progressive Christians"
"The Good Samaritans - Progressive Christians"
"On The Way - Progressive Christians"
"Progressive Christians"

I think the last five are good choices to vote on. I can set up a poll. Are there any more ideas?

Also, I think we need to focus on the name first and then review the SOP separately.

@TX_Matt - mind if I leave off the two Safe Space ones?

 

[FreeinChrist]

I'm not convinced. The term is used much more widely than for Spong.

Personally I identify with classic liberal theology, which historically tried to build Christianity on the NT, understood using critical scholarship. Progressive Christianity seems to me a bit more oriented towards social change, less committed to basing Christianity on careful exegesis of the NT, and more pluralist than inclusivist. But it's not so clear what "liberal" means to most people.

I'd like to suggest again that someplace we need a mainline forum. Both progressive and liberal are in some sense party labels. So is "moderate" (another group that tends not to be used because no one is sure what it means). The problem for me is that none of these suggest an actual congregational group.

Most regular participants in this group have a mix of theological and political orientations. They mostly seem to come from churches that I'd classify as mainline. But "liberal" and "progressive" look to me like places you'd come to discuss specific liberal themes like the role of gays, not where you'd go to talk about issues with our church's Sunday School program and other things you'd discuss in a home forum. I.e. it's the name for an "issue" forum rather than a home forum.

Perhaps this is only a problem for me, since the PCUSA is the major mainline congregation that has no natural home forum here. (The Presbyterian forum has been coopted by very conservative folk, and its SOP actually excludes most Presbyterians.)

If we want an issues forum, I'm fine with liberal or conservative. If we want a home forum, I'm not happy with either. I don't think members of my congregation would use a forum with either name.

see What is your interest for a new CF Christian Community forum for mainline Presbyterianism?

 

[SnowyMacie]

@TX_Matt - mind if I leave off the two Safe Space ones?

Yes, to be honest, I don't even really like them either.

 

[FreeinChrist]

okay

 

[Paidiske]

The difficulty with "mainline," from my point of view, is that it seems to me to be meaningless outside America. I couldn't tell you what mainline means, either in terms of which denominations it tends to include, or what attitudes or practices one is likely to encounter in such a church, despite falling into an overseas province of a group I think hedrick would describe as mainline. Nor do I think many mainline churches outside America have a "mainline" type experience of being church. (Can a church call itself "mainline" when it's a cultural minority in a society where religion is Catholic-dominated, for example?)

Now that may or may not matter, depending how America-centric you want CF to be, but I think it's worth pointing out. But I do take hedrick's point about a home forum vs. an issues forum, I'm just not sure what to call it.

It is definitely true that the Anglicans here have a similar tension to the one hedrick describes for the Presbyterians. We actually have a number of different churches lumped together as "Anglican," with some very significant disagreements, and I have definitely felt unwelcome in my supposed "home" forum here. I'm not sure that a catch-all "mainline/progressive/liberal/whatever" forum is going to provide for that lack, but I don't think it can hurt to try, either.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not sure that a catch-all "mainline/progressive/liberal/whatever" forum is going to provide for that lack, but I don't think it can hurt to try, either.

That's why I suggested two: a progressive / liberal forum, which is a renaming of this, as what I called an "issues" forum, and a home forum for non-conservative Presbyterians and Reformed.

Anglicans already have a home forum. While you may have issues with mixed orientation, your SOP at least allows the whole range. The Presbyterian SOP doesn't allow most Presbyterians, and trying to combine them in a single forum didn't work in the past. There's also little reason to separate non-conservative Presbyterians, Reformed, and United churches. (Personally I think the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed forums should also be merged. They have similar memberships and talk about similar things. But that's not my concern.)

I understand the naming issue. Both versions of Presbyterian and Reformed churches exist not just in the US but other countries. I don't know what terminology would be recognized outside the US. Maybe you can suggest some. The simple test for Presbyterian churches is whether the church requires fairly strict subscription to the Westminster Confession. (No church requires absolutely complete subscription.)

The PCUSA and similar churches are part of the World Communion of Reformed Churches, World Alliance of Reformed Churches - Wikipedia. Wikipedia claims 75 million members.

The conservative equivalent are the International Conferences of Reformed Churches, International Conference of Reformed Churches - Wikipedia, and the World Reformed Fellowship, World Reformed Fellowship - Wikipedia.

However most church members probably won't recognize those organizations.

 

[Paidiske]

No, I don't know what to suggest either (sorry to be unhelpful). That's my point; this grouping isn't something that necessarily occurs naturally everywhere.

 

[hedrick]

No, I don't know what to suggest either (sorry to be unhelpful). That's my point; this grouping isn't something that necessarily occurs naturally everywhere.

Actually it does. It's just that there's no clear name. In all the English-speaking countries I've checked there are Presbyterian churches that follow Westminster fairly strictly, and those that are to some extent (varying by the country) liberal. Often the liberal versions are now part of a United Church.

 

[Paidiske]

No, I meant the idea of a "mainline" which might include - I'm guessing here - Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans? Isn't a natural grouping everywhere.

 

[SnowyMacie]

No, I meant the idea of a "mainline" which might include - I'm guessing here - Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans? Isn't a natural grouping everywhere.

We Episcopalians seem to fit in very well in STR since Continuing Anglicans seem to a small minority over there, Methodists have their own, and I'm not sure how the Lutheran subforum is.

 

[Paidiske]

We Episcopalians seem to fit in very well in STR since Continuing Anglicans seem to a small minority over there

Do you think so? Maybe I'm overly sensitive to some of the negative comments. I definitely don't have the sense of "I'm at home, this is the place where I don't have to defend being who/what I am."

 

[SnowyMacie]

Do you think so? Maybe I'm overly sensitive to some of the negative comments. I definitely don't have the sense of "I'm at home, this is the place where I don't have to defend being who/what I am."

I'm not around there very much tbh, but I don't feel unwelcome there.

 

[hedrick]

No, I meant the idea of a "mainline" which might include - I'm guessing here - Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans? Isn't a natural grouping everywhere.

That's why the current proposal is for Reformed. The other US mainline churches have forums here that permit both conservative and liberal. To my knowledge, the Presbyterian / Reformed tradition is the only one where that's not true.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about a broader group.

 

[Truthfrees]

If you are not a member of this faith group, please do not participate in the poll, however I do have some questions for you at the end.

@hedrick stated that the current membership here didn't choose the name, and I for one, while I agree with the principle behind the name, I think the name itself causes too much confusion among those not apart of our faith group. I wondered if perhaps we should have a discussion about the name of our subforum. If there is enough interest in changing the name, I am proposing we contact staff about our interest and if they are okay with it, we will come up with suggestions and then have a vote (or however faith groups get names)

For WWMC members, what do you think about our current name "Whoever will, may come?" Do you think it causes some confusion about who is able to post here? Do you think we should inquire about having our name changed?

For non-WWMC members, have you ever been confused at what the phrase "Whoever will, may come" in the context of this forum? If so you think we should have a more definite name?

To me it means this forum is open to anyone/welcomes anyone.

It sounds inviting to me.

I like it.

 

[archer75]

Well, I guess I am a member of this faith group (theologically a Christian, socially liberal / left) after all. I think the name is clear enough as it stands.