Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[LisaA]

I can be mistaken, but I believe that no one really addressed the issues raised in the book and only cringed at the mention of the name Spong and went on another direction from there. Apparently some of the issues in the book might have been addressed indirectly this way, but, for the most part, unconciously, since most probably did not read the book.

In my former life as a Protestant, my church’s book club and a TEC Spiritual Direction course included a number of Spong’s books as well as attending a workshop or two. I think you should consider him a fellow Buddhist…he believes in nothing! But hey he sells a lot of books so let’s give the man credit for knowing how to parlay skepticism about Jesus, Christianity and God into a full time career. Truly one of the most negative, hopeless and unhappy individuals I’ve ever encountered.

Lisa

 

[SteveVH]

To answer your query more directly, it is usually elements of Buddhism that we use to enhance our Christianity and these do not contradict it.

And who is it that determines which Buddhist elements we are allowed to use to enhance our Christianity? Has the Church approved of using these “elements” or is it just left up to personal judgment?

 

[kompaz]

she’s the incubator;

Why are you dehumanizing women?

sperm donor

Why are you dehumanizing men?

What I take from your post, is that human reproduction scheme involves a sperm donor, an incubator, and a human at the fetal stage.

 

[CMatt25]

Matt,

I understand all you write, your position, however for me…leaving a decision for what I determine in my paradigm to be “murder” just is not accpetable. You agree with the right to choose… this equates with me the right to murder…do you accept this?

Hi Coptic, I’m glad because I understand your Catholic position as well. And yes I agree that for you it equates to the right to murder. But it’s illegal to murder a person. It’s not illegal for a woman to abort an embryo/fetus in the U.S under and with respect to the confines of Roe. I understand you want it to be from the moment of conception and in every case made illegal. But secular law has not been interpreted to considered it murder. And in a nation of plural beliefs, secular law is how it is governed. No matter how much any of us might want our own faith’s interpretation of God’s law to govern. There are laws I’m not happy about. I don’t like for instance being forced to restrain myself with a seat belt or be faced with being pulled over and fined. So I wear a seatbelt. I abide by the law. Women who choose a safe and legal abortion are abiding by the law. And while I fully understand what you’re saying, I also understand the complexity of rights, whose is to outweigh the other and so forth. Living in a society of plural beliefs, this issue has always been and I suspect could always remain a very complicated issue for me, Coptic. Not one that I take lightly. But simply is not black and white to me and does not place itself in a nice little neat box.

I don’t believe I am much different than most who are pro choice. We truly are not the evil people we are far too often portrayed to be who want to kill babies. Many of us are Christians. I wouldn’t even have an abortion. We simply have wrestled and struggled with this issue and the concept of rights in regard to what we believe secular law should be in a society of plural beliefs on this single issue. In my case I know after much prayer and contemplation. You have made a different decision and I understand and respect both sides. I am at peace on this issue with God and know He knows my heart and I know you are as well. Continued peace Coptic and peace to all.

 

[LisaA]

Hi Coptic, I’m glad because I understand your Catholic position as well. And yes I agree that for you it equates to the right to murder. But it’s illegal to murder a person. It’s not illegal for a woman to abort an embryo/fetus in the U.S under and with respect to the confines of Roe. I understand you want it to be. But secular law has not been interpreted to considered it murder. And in a nation of plural beliefs, secular law is how it is governed. No matter how much any of us might want our own faith’s interpretation of God’s law to govern. There are laws I’m not happy about. I don’t like for instance being forced to restrain myself with a seat belt or be faced with being pulled over and fined. So I wear a seatbelt. I abide by the law. Women who choose a safe and legal abortion are abiding by the law. And while I fully understand what you’re saying, I also understand the complexity of rights, whose is to outweigh the other and so forth. Living in a society of plural beliefs, this issue has always been and I suspect could always remain a very complicated issue for me, Coptic. Not one that I take lightly. But simply is not black and white to me and does not place itself in a nice little neat box.

I don’t believe I am much different than most who are pro choice. We truly are not the evil people we are far too often portrayed to be who want to kill babies. Many of us are Christians. I wouldn’t even have an abortion. We simply have wrestled and struggled with this issue and the concept of rights in regard to what we believe secular law should be in a society of plural beliefs on this single issue. In my case I know after much prayer and contemplation. You have made a different decision and I understand and respect both sides. I am at peace on this issue with God and know He knows my heart and I know you are as well. Continued peace Coptic and peace to all.

Coptic didn’t ask you about current law. He asked what YOU thought about murder being acceptable. You didn’t answer me so I hoped you’d answer Coptic. Realize that the word murder does not necessarily refer to the simply legal definition. You think the murder of unborn is acceptable since it is legal. I know you hate the slavery analogy…probably because it works…but you know slavery was legal at one point and abortion was illegal. Was slavery right when it was legal? Do you think religious thoughtful people believed it so? Was abortion wrong when it was illegal but right because it’s legal?

I don’t think most pro abortion rights people are evil. I think they are ignorant. I know because I came from the dark side too. Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights supporters want to keep people ignorant as well. One of the most effective tools against abortion is ultrasounds. It’s hard to talk about a blob of tissue when you see fingers and toes and facial features. Planned Parenthood fights tooth and nail against ultrasounds or waiting periods or anything that interferes with their blood money. It’s all about money for them CMatt.

I also don’t think you’ve wrestled with or struggled with your position. You have simply accepted that it’s legal so it’s ok. That’s sadly the way a lot of people think as well.

I hope your eyes will be opened some day.

Lisa

 

[pangaious]

Elizabeth502, the “we” is for people who like me use elements of Buddhism and other eastern thought in our Christianity. I, of course, am the only one here with this name and use no other name or have any dual identity and/or personality. And please try and be a little less incendiary in your remarks. I may not have worded what I do and how I believe in an erudite way, but what I meant was that I do something akin to what Merton did. So, if that sounded like if I was saying that I was a Buddhist as much as I’m a Christian, let me clarify that that’s not it. The elements that we use are mostly methods rather than beliefs. Buddhism is much like psychological therapy and as such it does not deal with beliefs, beliefs, beliefs only. And you are using a Christian and western lens to look at and analyze eastern and Buddhist religion. This cannot be done. Furthermore, I never purported that Merton ever became a Buddhist. Finally, I’m not saying that Christianity is in any way incomplete. These things that I and others do are optional. Why do you and others go ballistic? We are not tempering Christianity or changing it.

 

[CMatt25]

Elizabeth502, the “we” is for people who like me use elements of Buddhism and other eastern thought in our Christianity. I, of course, am the only one here with this name and use no other name or have any dual identity and/or personality. And please try and be a little less incendiary in your remarks… Why do you and others go ballistic?

Good luck.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What I take from your post, is that human reproduction scheme involves a sperm donor, an incubator, and a human at the fetal stage.

What I take from your post is that you prefer to select phrases out of context and argue straw men from them.

Why are you dehumanizing women?

I haven’t. You presume that I limited her role/importance to that of an incubator. Absurd.

Why are you dehumanizing men?

I haven’t. However, if he impregnates her, takes no responsibility for the resulting life, and leaves the scene, he has dehumanized himself. I haven’t dehumanized him. Having sex (donating sperm) is not the definition of manhood.

This is the full context. Boring to others for me to have to repeat it.

Lisa, did you mean that the baby’s genetic makeup is not identical with its mother’s? (The new life does share in the mother’s genetic makeup, certainly. Just not exclusively. The DNA is unique.)

As to the perennial point brought up by others that it’s all the mother’s agonizing decision, it
(a) should be only half her decision; the fact that the life is growing in her body is simply a function of biology; she’s the incubator; she does not “own” either the child or the decision more than the co-equal sperm donor does, merely because the child is growing inside her instead of inside the sperm donor. However, most of the time the sperm donor conveniently leaves the scene because he can. It doesn’t mean he is less morally responsible for the decision unless he has committed to raise and fund the child with her or apart from her (which is rare).

(b) was a de facto decision on the part of both partners when the decision was made to engage in sexual activity. Unless one is surgically or otherwise sterile, one makes a decision to commit to consequences when one engages in sex. Both parties.

The conversation was two pages ago, within a context.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth502, the “we” is for people who like me use elements of Buddhism and other eastern thought in our Christianity. I, of course, am the only one here with this name and use no other name or have any dual identity and/or personality.

And please try and be a little less incendiary in your remarks.

My remarks were merely direct questioning. You interpret direct questioning, without insults, as “incendiary.” That’s unfortunate. I was not incendiary.

And you are using a Christian and western lens to look at and analyze eastern and Buddhist religion.

How do you presume to know what lens I or anyone else uses? You assume that others have no objectivity when inquiring into other religions. You assume that Christians are unable to step out of a Western lens. You are incorrect in that assumption, even though undoubtedly you will interpret my denial as “incendiary.”

I never purported that Merton ever became a Buddhist.

I didn’t say you did. I implied (didn’t state) that if he had become a Buddhist, or stated that becoming Buddhist were a natural evolution from Catholicism, then I would see your point in bringing up Merton. But since he never stated that, and he never converted to Buddhism, your (and my) admiration for Thomas Merton is not an explanation for two religious identities.

Finally, I’m not saying that Christianity is in any way incomplete. These things that I and others do are optional. Why do you and others go ballistic? We are not tempering Christianity or changing it.

No one here “went ballistic.” Over-active imagination, methinks.

Thank you for the explanation, and especially thank you for changing your identifier. Since I am a Catholic “with a huge Jewish strreak,” I have no problem with your new identifier.

 

[pangaious]

Valga la aclaracion is Spanish for may the clarification be acknowledged. Thanks for yours as well.

 

[Contarini]

Hi Coptic, I’m glad because I understand your Catholic position as well. And yes I agree that for you it equates to the right to murder. But it’s illegal to murder a person.

It should be. You are giving the state the power to determine who is a person and what is or is not murder. That is idolatrous and blasphemous.

If the state said that it was legal for Catholics to kill non-Catholics with impunity, would that make such killings “not murder”?

If the state said that it was legal for white people to kill black people, or for men to kill women, or for parents to kill their children after birth, would that make any of these things cease to be murder?

That’s simply a monstrous position. It’s illogical and immoral.

Of course we submit to laws that seem unnecessary and inconvenient, out of respect to the authority of the government. But that doesn’t mean that we allow the government to define what is and is not human life and what is and is not contrary to natural law. Furthermore, your position doesn’t make any sense even on its own terms, because you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t try to change the law. That’s a very different question from whether we should obey it. (I support civil disobedience in the case of abortion, but that’s a separate question from whether the present laws should be changed. It makes no sense to argue that the law shouldn’t be changed just because it hasn’t already been changed.)

But secular law has not been interpreted to considered it murder. And in a nation of plural beliefs, secular law is how it is governed. No matter how much any of us might want our own faith’s interpretation of God’s law to govern. There are laws I’m not happy about. I don’t like for instance being forced to restrain myself with a seat belt or be faced with being pulled over and fined. So I wear a seatbelt. I abide by the law.

This is simply an absurd and offensive comparison. You’re comparing personal inconvenience with the belief that something is unjust and murderous. Do you really think that it is evil and unjust and destructive of innocent human life to wear a seatbelt?

You are making arguments that are unworthy of your dignity as a human being made in God’s image and capable of reason.

But simply is not black and white to me and does not place itself in a nice little neat box.

That’s euphemistic language to cover what is evidently (based on your previous paragraphs) a very muddled and morally indefensible position on your part.

I am the first to agree that this issue, and indeed pretty much any important issue, is difficult and complex. But that’s all the more reason to think clearly and consistently, which you are failing utterly to do.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And who is it that determines which Buddhist elements we are allowed to use to enhance our Christianity? Has the Church approved of using these “elements” or is it just left up to personal judgment?

Ultimately the Church determines. So far the Church (as represented by the CDF–many people make a lot of a statement JPII made in one of his books, but that wasn’t a magisterial document in any way) has expressed concerns and cautions but has not issued any condemnations. So the proper approach for an orthodox Catholic would presumably be to explore the possibilities with caution and respect for the Church’s concerns.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

Ultimately the Church determines. So far the Church (as represented by the CDF–many people make a lot of a statement JPII made in one of his books, but that wasn’t a magisterial document in any way) has expressed concerns and cautions but has not issued any condemnations. So the proper approach for an orthodox Catholic would presumably be to explore the possibilities with caution and respect for the Church’s concerns.

Edwin

I agree with what you stated, however the book to which you refer, while not a magisterial document, was still true. It just seems to me that adopting religious practices of other religions, subject only to the judgment of the individual, is a dangerous road. The Catholic Church embraces all truth regardless of the religion in which it resides. If one believes that the Catholic Church possesses the “fullness of truth” then it already possesses any truth found in any other religion. If one calls themselves “Catholic”, then looking elsewhere for truth is a defacto statement that one believes the Church is lacking in what ever the person is seeking.

I realize that Pangaious is most likely speaking of certain meditation techniques and believes that it has nothing to do with doctrine or Church teaching so there is no problem in adopting it as part of one’s religious regime. I would still disagree. Buddhist meditation techniques are designed to lead one toward “nothingness” while Christian meditation leads one deeper into the mysteries of God, indeed into a deeper relationship with God.

Steve

 

[LisaA]

Elizabeth, I’m no Thomas Merton by any stretch of the imagination, but he cooperated with Buddhist monks and they learned from each other. I’m assuming that you know Merton. However, if you do not, he was a Trappist monk, a contemplative. He was also a scholar and a mystic. Mysticism sometimes can transcend religions. So, Christian mysticism can and has more in common with its Buddhist counterpart than Christianity and Buddhism have with each other. The Sufis, a branch of Islam, as you might well know, also have much in common with Eastern Thought as well and have gotten in trouble for it.
To answer your query more directly, it is usually elements of Buddhism that we use to enhance our Christianity and these do not contradict it. If it does, then we do not use it.
In regards to what is “a Catholic, comma, Buddhist”, it is just the way it comes out after one answers the initial questionnaire and chooses more than one religion.

The Sufis are in trouble with Islam for more than just meditative techniques…have you heard Sufi music? Honestly it’s a far more joyous version of Islam than anything else I’ve experienced (through observation only!)

Regarding your admiration and use of Buddhist techniques to enhance (is this the correct word?) experience as a Catholic; what specifically do you mean and why do you think it benefits your faith? What do you think of Fr Thomas Keating? I attended a talk and workshop he presented. He says what Centering or Contemplative Prayer offers is practices of the past that had fallen out of favor rather than copying or using another faith’s tradition.

Quite honestly while certain elements of the Eightfold Path are appealing, the Four Noble Truths…aren’t.

My understanding is my current Spiritual Director who is Chinese WAS a Buddhist and converted. I might ask him to give me some insight.

Do you think Buddhism fits more into a liberal Christianity?

Lisa

 

[Contarini]

I agree with what you stated, however the book to which you refer, while not a magisterial document, was still true.

It was basically one brief quote that people repeat over and over. And while not saying anything outright inaccurate, it was hardly a fair or adequate summary of what Buddhism is all about. It was approximately similar to Protestants saying that Catholicism is a religion of superstition and works righteousness. (That is true, by classical Protestant definitions, but it’s a stereotype that doesn’t do justice to how Catholics understand their own religion or what people might find appealing in it. Same here.)

It just seems to me that adopting religious practices of other religions, subject only to the judgment of the individual, is a dangerous road.

Life is dangerous.

The Catholic Church embraces all truth regardless of the religion in which it resides.

This is contradicted by what you say below.

If one believes that the Catholic Church possesses the “fullness of truth” then it already possesses any truth found in any other religion.

If that’s what you mean by the Catholic Church possessing the fullness of truth, then it’s obvious to any fair-minded person that the Catholic Church does not possess the fullness of truth. It is quite obvious that not every good and legitimate practice is currently practiced in the Catholic Church, and that not every true belief is currently taught and believed in a fully developed form. Thus, your claim is presumptuous. It is far from certain that none of the good practices currently not practiced among Catholics are being practiced by people of other religions, or that none of the true beliefs currently not explicitly held in a developed form by Catholics are found in a more developed form among adherents of other religions.

If one calls themselves “Catholic”, then looking elsewhere for truth is a defacto statement that one believes the Church is lacking in what ever the person is seeking.

No, it’s an acknowledgment of the statement that you claim to believe but then empty of all content: that the Church acknowledges what is good and true in other religions.

Are you suggesting that St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong for drawing on the philosophy of Aristotle? That St. Augustine was wrong in finding much of value in Plato?

I realize that Pangaious is most likely speaking of certain meditation techniques and believes that it has nothing to do with doctrine or Church teaching so there is no problem in adopting it as part of one’s religious regime. I would still disagree.

I certainly agree that you can’t separate meditation techniques from doctrine.

Buddhist meditation techniques are designed to lead one toward “nothingness”

Do you know what Buddhists mean by nothingness?

I agree that one should not simply take on these techniques without examining their implications. But Christians today should not be too proud to learn from Buddhists, just as our ancestors were not too proud to learn from Platonism and Aristotelianism.

Edwin

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Sufis are in trouble with Islam for more than just meditative techniques…have you heard Sufi music? Honestly it’s a far more joyous version of Islam than anything else I’ve experienced (through observation only!)

I am so fond of Sufis, Lisa. (Well acquainted with them, too.)

 

[Contarini]

The Sufis are in trouble with Islam for more than just meditative techniques…have you heard Sufi music?

They aren’t in trouble with “Islam,” because Islam is not monolithic and they have as good a right to call themselves Muslims as anyone. They are in trouble with the self-proclaimed guardians of modern Islamic orthodoxy. Sufism was mainstream Islam for centuries.

Quite honestly while certain elements of the Eightfold Path are appealing, the Four Noble Truths…aren’t.

It is precisely their “unappealing” character that I find appealing. That is to say, Buddhism like Christianity is bad news before it is good news. Christianity says, “you are a sinner.” Buddhism says, “You do not exist–at least not in the way you think you do.”

I think we would do well to take Buddhism’s “bad news” seriously as a possible counterpart to our own.

Do you think Buddhism fits more into a liberal Christianity?

Liberal Christians, who do not hold tightly to orthodox Christian doctrine and place a high value on openness and tolerance and human experience of the divine, can embrace other traditions such as Buddhism much more easily than more orthodox Christians–far too easily, in fact.

The conflict, the tension, the struggle involved in appreciating and potentially even embracing elements of other religions while holding fast to one’s own tradition’s orthodoxy–that is essential to healthy interfaith dialogue.

Naturally liberal Christians (using the term here to mean people who aren’t committed to the dogmatic claims of historic Christianity) were the first to engage in interfaith dialogue. And this unfortunately has prejudiced orthodox Christians against the whole enterprise.

Now obviously someone open to the kind of interfaith exploration I’m talking about is going to be more “liberal” in that particular than someone who isn’t. My point is simply that one doesn’t have to be someone who hangs loose to historic Christian orthodoxy in order to be open to other religions–it’s just more complex and difficult, and thus more worthwhile and interesting, in that case.

Edwin

 

[Elizabeth502]

Naturally liberal Christians (using the term here to mean people who aren’t committed to the dogmatic claims of historic Christianity) were the first to engage in interfaith dialogue. And this unfortunately has prejudiced orthodox Christians against the whole enterprise.

You are simply incorrect about your history, Edwin. (Again. ) Orthodox Christians are not “prejudiced” against interfaith dialogue, first of all. Second of all, Orthodox Christians have intiiated much interfaith dialogue. Third of all, it’s poorly catechized Catholics, combined with those loosely allied with orthodox views, who have often exchanged syncretism for true interfaith dialogue and used this “dialogue” as further excuse for their heterodoxy. That would include some radicals among religious congregations, by the way. Those facts have made some Catholics cautious (not “prejudiced”) about interfaith dialogue which does not retain the integrity of mutual faiths.

 

[Contarini]

You are simply incorrect about your history, Edwin. (Again. )

I do not recall your providing any solid evidence that I was incorrect on a previous occasion, but it may be that I have forgotten the occasion. I have certainly been incorrect on many occasions. I am not sure what you think you accomplish by these kinds of snide remarks, by the way. They are an annoying distraction from what could be an interesting and substantive conversation.

Orthodox Christians are not “prejudiced” against interfaith dialogue, first of all. Second of all, Orthodox Christians have intiiated much interfaith dialogue.

And generally been criticized for it by those who think they are even more orthodox. . .

Third of all, it’s poorly catechized Catholics, combined with those loosely allied with orthodox views, who have often exchanged syncretism for true interfaith dialogue and used this “dialogue” as further excuse for their heterodoxy.

That is pretty much exactly what I said. . . .

That would include some radicals among religious congregations, by the way. Those facts have made some Catholics cautious (not “prejudiced”) about interfaith dialogue which does not retain the integrity of mutual faiths.

No, what I’m complaining about is that many orthodox Christians are prejudiced against interfaith dialogue precisely in the sense that they reject it before inquiring fairly as to whether it retains the integrity of the Christian faith. (Some conservative Christians do claim–with what I’m afraid I can’t help but regard as a certain amount of hypocrisy–to be concerned about the integrity of both faiths in a dialogue. It is weird and presumptuous for anyone to set themselves up as guardians of the integrity of a faith they do not share.)

I’m not sure our disagreement is about history at all. Certainly, you have not indicated in what my supposed inaccuracy consists (unless it’s in “beginning the story” with the 20th century, or perhaps the end of the 19th, and ignoring dialogues between Christianity and other religions in previous centuries–given the level of unfairness and inaccuracy still found in something like the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911, I will defend my language in that regard given the context of the discussion).

 

[LisaA]

They aren’t in trouble with “Islam,” because Islam is not monolithic and they have as good a right to call themselves Muslims as anyone. They are in trouble with the self-proclaimed guardians of modern Islamic orthodoxy. Sufism was mainstream Islam for centuries.

Hope I didn’t give the impression I have anything negative to say about Sufis. Their music and poetry are lovely. But that is the reason they are in trouble with as you said the self appointed guardians of Islam…you know the same enlightend fellows who destroyed the beautiful and ancient statues of the Buddha.

It is precisely their “unappealing” character that I find appealing. That is to say, Buddhism like Christianity is bad news before it is good news. Christianity says, “you are a sinner.” Buddhism says, “You do not exist–at least not in the way you think you do.”

I think we would do well to take Buddhism’s “bad news” seriously as a possible counterpart to our own.

Sorry but I find nothing about “Life is suffering” appealing. Our faith is the GOOD NEWS…the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hope and joy and love. Not “If you live you suffer” “if you are attached to anyone or anything you will suffer.” CS Lewis had a wonderful essay on those whose hearts are made of stone and how their lives are miserable. What you put your attention to grows stronger in your life. Focusing on nothing, on suffering, on detachment just puts you in love with your brain waves. I think we have a much better approach to life…not that we will not suffer but we will not suffer in vain, that there is a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak. The Light of Christ.

Compare that to sitting under a Banyan tree and contemplating your navel or the misery of the world (OK Contarini this is hyperbole!)

Liberal Christians, who do not hold tightly to orthodox Christian doctrine and place a high value on openness and tolerance and human experience of the divine, can embrace other traditions such as Buddhism much more easily than more orthodox Christians–far too easily, in fact.

The conflict, the tension, the struggle involved in appreciating and potentially even embracing elements of other religions while holding fast to one’s own tradition’s orthodoxy–that is essential to healthy interfaith dialogue.

Naturally liberal Christians (using the term here to mean people who aren’t committed to the dogmatic claims of historic Christianity) were the first to engage in interfaith dialogue. And this unfortunately has prejudiced orthodox Christians against the whole enterprise.

Now obviously someone open to the kind of interfaith exploration I’m talking about is going to be more “liberal” in that particular than someone who isn’t. My point is simply that one doesn’t have to be someone who hangs loose to historic Christian orthodoxy in order to be open to other religions–it’s just more complex and difficult, and thus more worthwhile and interesting, in that case.

Edwin

I am sort of annoyed by yours and others’ constant focus on traditional or faithful Catholics being sort of these constipated, miserable creatures who pull open the CCC every time there is a question. Dogma isn’t necessarily a dirty word. Rigidity in many circumstances has its downfall but adherence to the truth is IMO a strength, not a weakness.

FWIW I spent years seeking and experiencing many other religions, delving deep, studying, considering and re-considering the various teachings and results of each faith tradition. That I came Home to the Church was NOT a result of dogmatic and hidebound blindness but from a long and very interesting path.
Lisa