This one flew by my virtual desktop the
other day. I don't remember whence it came. It sounds nice at first
glance, and you know there is a “but” coming after that, don't
you? By time you get to the bottom, it sounds like all the good peace
and harmony things in one tidy list. They didn't even try to force it
to 10 items. Kudos.
I'll start at the bottom, where all
those nice things are.
Items 4 through 8 are just basic human
dignities. No society can survive for long without them. Even a
repressive regime tells people they have these rights. George W Bush
said he only choose war because that's what he needed to do to
achieve peace. The language may lean toward the “liberal” end of
the spectrum, such as “restore the integrity of our Earth”, but
even those who claim dominion over the earth will usually say they
are stewards.
I'll give a few extra points for item
5, “search for understanding” and valuing questions. Not
everybody gets the importance of that. Of course saying that is
different than actually responding to a question that challenges your
world view in a truly open minded and respectful manner. But I don't
need to get into the problems of implementing the list.
Moving up to item 3, atheists are not
included. Probably because it implies an end to all of that
questioning. You could say that's true, but only for religious
questions. Atheists of course continue to ask all the questions that
everyone else does, like why are we here, what's right, what's good,
and what's for breakfast. I have enjoyed spending time in awe and
wonder with people who had no idea I didn't believe in their god.
Atheism leaves wonder and openness intact while concluding that
enough work has been done on all existing theories of Christianity.
I’m not interested in a church that
accepts atheists anyway. I’m interested in a community that
accepts everyone for who they are. This doesn’t mean anything goes.
It means whatever the community is organizing to do, it’s rules
about who can join in are related to reaching that goal. Churches
have goals and committees and functions, but if you want in, you have
to pledge allegiance to a character in a book. You have to say you
believe that things in that story are true. Most people do it without
their heart really being in it, but if someone comes along and
questions what’s in their heart, the wagons begin circle very
quickly.
At least that's how it is for me, maybe they had some other atheists in mind when they left them
off, and the item does say “ALL”, so that's nice.
Now I need to jump up to Item #1
because #2 doesn't make sense without it. This list starts with the
same old barrier that has been around since the beginning, “believeth
in me”. I realize that without that, there's no point in having
this be about Christianity, but with it, why call it “progressive”?
If you want an open community like you say in #3 that accomplishes
the things in 4 through 8, why not just say you are a progressive
“org” and then say something about welcoming faith traditions if
you want. It would really simplify things.
In Item #2, it's almost apologizing for
#1. After saying Jesus is the path to the Sacred and Oneness and
Unity, it says that there are other ways to get there too. This one
also has implementation problems. Just where can you go for this
other wisdom? I went to a church that had a Ojibwa pipe ceremony in
the basement once, Sufi dancing now and then on a Saturday night, and
read from the Tao Te Ching every Sunday. But that was about it. And
that's the most progressive church I've ever heard of. Even
Unitarians tend to stick to Western Christian ideas.
The general feel I get from this list
is, you’re fine with me choosing any belief system, but heaven
forbid I choose a system that isn’t based on beliefs at all. Back
when I taught Sunday School, I put a poster up in my class that had
15 different versions of what Christians call “The Golden Rule”
from a variety of faith traditions, and Confucius, who made no
supernatural claim. I've never seen that poster in any other church.
I've seen high ranking religious leaders who were unaware that there
were other versions. And something like that is not really much of a
stretch. I can't imagine an adult Sunday School bringing Hume to
their discussion on ethics or Sam Harris to their discussion of free
will.
The question not addressed in this list
is, what are you trying to accomplish? Is it the stuff in the second
half or is making a statement about being inclusive as in 2 and 3
important, or is it all about Jesus and the Sacred and Oneness? Just
what those capitalized words mean is a problem for me. It seems when
I ask that question, they lead to the other points, so why not just
dump the first 3? It would be much easier to understand if you just
said you were a group of people that wanted to save the world. That's
enough to set you apart.
The only honest answer, the only reason
I can see to why you would start off with a belief statement, is that
you think that is of primary importance. Nothing else here explains
why that is important, and no church I've ever been to or theology
I've ever heard of does anything but make that as an assertion. It is simply stated that Jesus leads to these things and the only way to find out
is to try it for yourself. If you don't get it, you're doing it wrong
and you're not in the club. I don't see what is so progressive about
that.
No comments:
Post a Comment