I could easily push ahead with part 2, 3, etc. but may go a bit lighter for a couple posts, maybe things more appealing to more people, so we don’t set an overly philosophical tone and narrow participation too much. If you or anyone has suggestions or wants to go “off subject” a bit, feel free.

I do like your idea of avoiding particularly hot terms, and of possibly coining some new ones. Technically, it wasn’t recently coined, but the term panentheist, which I resonate with, was popularized a lot by John Cobb and David Ray Griffin and other Process thinkers. This kind of thing can probably be multiplied… let’s go for it!

Much of my thought is also pre-occupied with the science / religion dichotomy.

Keep in mind that religious dogma (i.e. religion generally) is directly generated by attempts to finally pin down all the definitions the right way.

“God” has dozens of meanings. Although I personally default to a pantheist’s definition (God = Everything) it is not what I always mean.

One reason why foreign and esoteric systems are so popular among the new age movement is the spiritual vocabulary they offer.

For example, we can have a conversation about Nirguna Brahman, Wuji or Ein Sof with the same cultural neutrality that a biologist utilises when using Latin.

If we’re going to attempt a new ontology, maybe we should steer clear of common, hotly debated, terms. The alternative would be to either borrow “barbarous names” from other cultures, or create a new alphabet strictly for the purpose.

Just a thought. I’ll wait and read part two before saying any more.

Thanks for the note about Marie… I’m still learning what seems a fairly complex (tho much appreciated!) site, not having attended it for a long time, admittedly. I do have her post in the part only I see, so maybe can get it put up here.

Yes, I have a long, very conservative background, and studied heavily in school and out. In a nutshell… “Bible teaching” church from birth, on to Biola Univ. (comparable to Wheaton), solidly Evangelical, but not fully Fundamentalist, like my childhood church. Then to sister school, Talbot Sem. for an M.Div. and on to work for Walter Martin at Christian Research Inst. in Anaheim, doing anti-cult, Bible questions (he was “The Bible Answerman” on radio, etc.), and general apologetics. Then a Masters in Mar. and Fam. Csg. again at Biola. Went to Eugene, OR, and practiced that until almost 1989, also teaching some “Christian worldview/psychology” stuff, and general Christian ed in a study center and church.

Finally, I got a whole different perspective by doing 4 yrs. part- time (completed coursework) in a PhD program in Theology, Psych, and Edu. at Claremont School of Theology (of Process Theology fame). I still considered myself Evangelical at the end of that, 1994. My major transition, which had been long setting up, came in 1995, when I began exploring data OUTSIDE the Bible itself, and theology…. Took the sciences and parapsychology (or “paranormal”–a misnomer) more seriously, as well as historical views of the development of Christianity, etc. But I soon realized that the combo of psych and theology (or spirituality) was indeed my strongest passion, so have been working on that peripherally, trying to get to doing it full time, for a living as long as I need to make one (not able to retire tho now pressing 60).

For several years, I guess my strongest specialized focus in terms of theology/religion has been Christian origins and the formation of the New Testament. I do think I’ve become a decent lay expert in that (my PhD work was so diverse and in other areas that it didn’t give me any claim to expertise there; I don’t know much Hebrew and way too little Greek, and no cognate languages a true expert has to know).

I guess my articles here give some sense of my beliefs, but they are STILL in flux, as to a good understanding of Jesus and what he really intended to teach/what is his vs. others’ that comes thru in the NT and early other “Gospels” or writings (noncanonical). But I am definitely spiritual and see God in a panENtheistic kind of way (like Process Thought). And I think Jesus had a lot of valuable things to say, much of which did come through despite editings and some distortions. But not a whole lot was truly unique, as the common Christian mantra goes, just “against the grain” and in a unique packaging for a very troubled, transitional time.

I think the one point I take issue with most is your introductory statement: “The following are concepts that can be agreed upon by Christians of all but the most literalist or dogmatic type and, if taken seriously, will help unite Christians with many spiritually-oriented people not comfortable in the Christian fold.”

I agree that opening our hands to broader understandings and interpretations of Jesus could allow folks burned or jaded by organized/corporate religion to approach the conversation and even the “body” of Christianity. But in my experience, in many – MANY – conservative, evangelical, pentecostal, non-denominational and fundamentalist churches, these are not concepts that would be agreed upon. And while I wish the larger body of Christians in America were more progressive, the Evangelical church does have numeric superiority over everyone else (except, perhaps, Roman Catholics? who have exclusionary ideological issues of their own…). I think the majority of Mainline Protestants could affirm much on this list, but to say “all but the most literalist or dogmatic” seems to suggest a very small number. The number is far from small, and it’s the only one that seems to be GROWING in the US. Thoughts?

Also, is it true you are from a conservative background, theologically speaking, and you have progressed in how and what you believe?

Warmest Regards,
Adele

P.S. i look forward to exploring your blog! i always enjoy your comments and insights at Rachel’s blog!