A Progressive Creed 2

[spiritually inclined]

In my prayers, particularly the Rosary, I sometimes use the Apostle's Creed, though as a liberal I do not believe in the infallible authority of the Bible, the creeds, ecumenical councils, or human thought in general. Rather, the Bible, the creeds, the councils, and Christian tradition are sources of truth for me.

However, I have written my own personal creed; I will probably put it to use in my own private prayers. I do not even believe in the infallibility of my own creeds or beliefs, yet I think what I have come up with is a valid expression of my beliefs. I have based this creed on the eight points of Progressive Christianity.

A Progressive Creed

I believe in God, the Inner Light and Sacred Mystery, and that Christ is but one symbol of faith among many leading to life, and more abundantly.

I believe that life itself is the spiritual sacrament of Holy Communion when the love and light of God are encountered in both our joys and sorrows.

I believe that in Holy Communion, the sharing of bread and wine, I encounter Christ, and thus my own joys and sorrows, my endless cycles of re-birth, of death and resurrection.

I believe that all who approach our alters in reverence to partake of Holy Communion should be admitted not because of professed dogma or creeds, but in the hope that all who partake of the Blessed Sacrament may benefit therefrom.

I believe that the Body of Christ, a vessel of grace, encompasses believers and agnostics, Christians and skeptics, women and men, those who are gay, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered, and straight, all manner of races, cultures, and classes, those of varying abilities and talents, people of many creeds and religions, those who hope for a better world, and those who have no hope.

I believe in a search for understanding uninhibited by dogma and rigidity.

I believe in peace, liberty, and justice for all, the duty of protecting the Earth and its lifeforms from undue harm, and the affirmation of the dignity and worth of every person.

I believe that love is the best religion.

I believe that the path of Christ is often long and difficult, entailing selfless love and bold resistance to evil, prejudice, and fear, yet I believe that this path, by whatever name it is called, affirms life, and more abundantly.

Amen. +

James

[Jordan St. Francis]

You're right, you are heretical. : P

In time I'd like to discuss some of these points. I certainly understand where you are coming from, as I myself once took something of a syncretist approach to religions or saw Christ as simply "one symbol among many".

This is a genuine stage of spiritual development, but if it sits too long it can become indifference (in my experience).

The good news is that there are approaches, orthodox approaches, that avoid the problematic aspects of the type of dogmatism I imagine you have enountered (bad experiences which have likely set you dead against a more orthodox faith). For example, one can believe that Christ is the centre of history, the Alpha and Omega and the end to which all things tend, therefore the primary and perfected "symbol" from which to draw life....without believing that peoples of other religions are somehow absent from participation in the divine life and therefore "condemned".

It's important to sift through what we believe, so there is a sense in which writing our own creed can be fruitful. I commend you on your journey,

God Bless.

[spiritually inclined]

The good news is that there are approaches, orthodox approaches, that avoid the problematic aspects of the type of dogmatism I imagine you have enountered (bad experiences which have likely set you dead against a more orthodox faith).

I respect your goodwill, but the good news for me is that I have left "orthodoxy", a relative term, behind. My basic reasoning processes and what I have learned in my own study of theology, the Bible, etc., do not allow for me to accept what I find unreasonable beliefs and authority.

I do not have the ability to make myself believe that a Bible in which Jehovah condoned things such as infanticide (1 Samuel 15:3), could ever be in any sense an infallible representation of reality or truth. I don't have the ability to warp my mind into a first century pretzel in order to believe that such things as the Apostle's Creed are infallible when they were were revised, went through development, and were influenced by politics and the views of the day.

I cannot continue to believe "orthodoxy's" assertion that Jesus Christ was physically resuscitated from the dead when the accounts of this vary so widely and deeply so as not to lend any credability to the idea that such accounts are historical.

My mind has been stretched to new dimensions that will not allow it to return to a state of childlike trust in such things as the authority of religion or tradition, and I have found that this is life-affirming and a great benefit to my compassion and morals.

Though some moderate Christians truly have a respect for other religions, the belief that Christianity itself is somehow more than a diverse tradition that has grown over time, to deny that it is a cultural expression, as are other religions, is something that I do not find credible. Such claims predispose people to look down on other people and ideas. The attitude becomes like that of Pope John Paul, who engaged in many non-Christian religious rituals while still insisting that all SHOULD convert to Catholicism.

Could you possibly make yourself believe in the Koran just because the Koran and traditions of a particular culture are enshrined with authority in the minds of many people? I certainly couldn't.

Nor can I trust anyone else's claim to infallible authority in matters of dogma, faith, or anything else. All cultures have some tradition that is considered authoritative. Why should I believe one over another?

Peace be with you.

James

[Jordan St. Francis]

Hey James,

To begin with, I want to make clear that I am in no way trying to be hostile to you or coerce you into anything. I see something of myself in you, in terms of my own spiritual journey. I once labelled myself as a "Gnostic Christian" and wore the label "heretic" like a badge of honor. I felt as though I was something of a spiritual rebel, a mystic, someone always coloring outside of the lines. I didn't stop at writing my creeds, I wrote my own gospels and spiritual texts that I would use in meditation and prayer. Orthodoxy seemed to be...foolish, immature and "unenlightened".

I do not have the ability to make myself believe that a Bible in which Jehovah condoned things such as infanticide (1 Samuel 15:3), could ever be in any sense an infallible representation of reality or truth.

Are you aware of the tripartite method of biblical exegisis? A very early method laid down by Origien in the third century, which declared scripture to have a literal, moral and allegorical meaning. Throughout the Middle Ages, seveal more dimensions were also considered. Scripture has multiple layers of meaning, and not each and every instance is neccessarily anchored in a literal event. The question of evolution comes to mind. Christians of orthodox theology are by no means compelled to believe that there was a historical person called Adam and another called Eve, or that the world is in its current mess on account of an apple. In fact, quite often, the stress on its historicity in current times leads many to overlook the rich truth of the creation account.

This is not Gnosticism, nor is this to nullify the historic sense of Scripture. Christianity teaches that the abstract, that the principles supporting and driving the human "drama", that truth itself, has and does play out among us in persons.

Revelation is not simply the letter of the Bible, or a mere series of historical events, but is also a language of potent symbols and images, mediated to us through the events of history and their interpretation.

I cannot continue to believe "orthodoxy's" assertion that Jesus Christ was physically resuscitated from the dead when the accounts of this vary so widely and deeply so as not to lend any credability to the idea that such accounts are historical.

This is a deeply problematic assertion on your part. Do you not believe then, with all Christians, that:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

That:

"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"

?

In short, do you not believe that in the person of Jesus Christ, God became man, assumed the human reality into himself and hence offers all human beings participation in the divine nature by the marriage of the human condition with the Divine reality in womb of the Virgin Mother?

This is the Incarnation, and it sets its gaze on the Resurrection; that fundamental Christian conviction that the human being is saved by God in his whole reality and person- that human beings are corporal, embodied and that this constitutes an irrefutable aspect of our identity, along with the soul. This is the joy of the Gospel, that you, in your unique individuality, body and soul, are rescued by the God who dwelt among us and lived his life in common with yours.

Christ suffered in the flesh as Adam, as that man in whom all participate, so that all flesh might also be perfected in him. To deny the Resurrection is to deny the Passion.

The attitude becomes like that of Pope John Paul, who engaged in many non-Christian religious rituals while still insisting that all SHOULD convert to Catholicism.

Christianity believes it is the fulfillment and perfecter of all religions- it does not presuppose that these religions are all devoid of truth or empty of value. Indeed, they propel many into the deep truths which Christ's Church already treasures and even discover those catholic truths which the Christian People may yet not be aware of.

But what this really comes down to is a question of truth. Is there, in the end, really a truth about the world, about God, about human kind? Is it really possible that this can be known? Or is our spiritual lives just a blind groping in the dark and a clutching upon of whatever it is that we can find?

There is no such thing as "truth for me" or "my truth" unless we are speaking solely of the reality of the individual, in which case we are no loner speaking of the objectives of religion, which by nature are of universal scope. When truth is reduced to a solely individual reality, it vanishes as the common goal of humankind, as a source of unity and as an orientation for human society.

I would reccommend John Paul's encyclical "Fides et Ratio":

Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today's most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. Even certain conceptions of life coming from the East betray this lack of confidence, denying truth its exclusive character and assuming that truth reveals itself equally in different doctrines, even if they contradict one another. On this understanding, everything is reduced to opinion; and there is a sense of being adrift. While, on the one hand, philosophical thinking has succeeded in coming closer to the reality of human life and its forms of expression, it has also tended to pursue issues—existential, hermeneutical or linguistic—which ignore the radical question of the truth about personal existence, about being and about God. Hence we see among the men and women of our time, and not just in some philosophers, attitudes of widespread distrust of the human being's great capacity for knowledge. With a false modesty, people rest content with partial and provisional truths, no longer seeking to ask radical questions about the meaning and ultimate foundation of human, personal and social existence. In short, the hope that philosophy might be able to provide definitive answers to these questions has dwindled.

Christianity is an inherently mystical religion, but I think we would all do well to remember that Christianity is not a kind of "solo" religion, Christ has not simply drawn a line straight from us to God. God came to us through our own humanity, and so he continues to come to us through our humanity- that is, our human relations. Thus, Cardinal Ratzinger writes:

"If there were only God and a collection of individuals Christianity would be unneccessary" (183) ... "for the salvation of the mere individual there would be no need of either a Church or a history of salvation, an incarnation or a passion. But precisely at this point we must add a further statement: Christian faith is not based on the atomized individual but comes from the knowledge that there is no such thing as the mere individual, that on the contrary man is himself only when he is fitted into the whole: into mankind, history, the cosmos, as is right and proper for a being who is "spirit in body". (Introduction to Christianity, 184)

I hope this might serve as something worth contemplating. My real intent is to demonstrate that "orthodoxy" is not childish, unless only in the sense that the Lord commands us to be as children.

God Bless.

Jordan.

PS.

I also meant to reccomend a small and deceptively simple book by Irma Zaleski called "Finding Christ Within". It is a wonderful book for prayer and meditation, and by no means an apologia for orthodoxy. It simply reflects on Christian truths and applies them to a contemplative, meditative, spiritual practice. I highly reccomend you check it out!

[spiritually inclined]

This is not Gnosticism, nor is this to nullify the historic sense of Scripture. Christianity teaches that the abstract, that the principles supporting and driving the human "drama", that truth itself, has and does play out among us in persons.

Revelation is not simply the letter of the Bible, or a mere series of historical events, but is also a language of potent symbols and images, mediated to us through the events of history and their interpretation.

I am open to and interested in these ways of looking at the Scriptures. I am not interested in those who claim to have the authoritative interpretation to Scripture, whether those making such claims are Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.

It is problematic to you and those who believe in the authority of their interpretations or the interpretations of their religious institution. It is not problematic to me.

In short, do you not believe that in the person of Jesus Christ, God became man, assumed the human reality into himself and hence offers all human beings participation in the divine nature by the marriage of the human condition with the Divine reality in womb of the Virgin Mother?

This is the Incarnation, and it sets its gaze on the Resurrection; that fundamental Christian conviction that the human being is saved by God in his whole reality and person- that human beings are corporal, embodied and that this constitutes an irrefutable aspect of our identity, along with the soul. This is the joy of the Gospel, that you, in your unique individuality, body and soul, are rescued by the God who dwelt among us and lived his life in common with yours.

Christ suffered in the flesh as Adam, as that man in whom all participate, so that all flesh might also be perfected in him. To deny the Resurrection is to deny the Passion.

I do not deny the reality that this basic myth can have great meaning to humans in general. After all, the story of gods becoming men through virgin mothers, going through death, and a resurrection is a very common story in ancient mythology. I do, indeed, deny anyone's right to proclaim an authoritative interpretation of these stories of any kind. Insights derived from personal experience and research are welcome. Dogmas are not.

As I said before, I specifically reject literalist interpretations of the resurrection. The resurrection accounts, when compared, reveal contradictory scriptures. Mark, the earliest gospel, has a relatively undeveloped account. The last scriptures mentioning Christ's resurrection are not even in the earliest manuscripts in Mark. The later accounts, such as the one in John, are much more developed because the tradition developed with time. Paul, who wrote his letters before the gospels were written, did not even seem to be aware of the story of Judas. In his own account of the resurrection, he said that Christ appeared to Peter and the Twelve (the twelve refers to the apostles) when Judas was dead (1 Corinthians 15:5). To see some of the contradictions between the gospel accounts click here.

To see even more problems with literal interpretations with such events as the Virgin birth, much of the crucifixion, and resurrection, click here.

Christianity believes it is the fulfillment and perfecter of all religions- it does not presuppose that these religions are all devoid of truth or empty of value. Indeed, they propel many into the deep truths which Christ's Church already treasures and even discover those catholic truths which the Christian People may yet not be aware of.

You may speak for yourself or the Catholic church when you say that Christianity is the fulfillment and perfecter of all religions, but I do not believe that. I have no reason to believe that. Indeed, Christianity has a long way to go. I need only point to the terrors that have been committed in the name of Christianity throughout history, including modern times. Many churches were segregated in the 60s, and that's nothing compared to burning people at the stake.

Christianity, still filled with outward division and a refusal between groups to recognize the legitimacy of the next, could never be the perfecter of any religion.

Many Christians acknowledge the inherent good in other religions, yet still believe, at the end of the day, that all people should convert to Christianity and that salvation outside of the church (or catholic faith) is a mystery. I don't accept this. Why shouldn't I simply accept another claim to authority, such as that of the Mormons or fundamentalist Muslims? There are many religious claims out there I could accept based on mere faith in authority.

Is there, in the end, really a truth about the world, about God, about human kind? Is it really possible that this can be known?

I get asked this question a lot by other Christians, I suppose because many believe that they cannot exist in life without some source of ultimate truth. You ask if it is possible to know the truth about God. I don't at all claim to know that there is a god, at least not a god out there. I can go by what I experience within, particularly in certain states of consciousness (such as mystical experiences), yet these experiences are subjective and tell me nothing about a god that constructs or rules the universe. In that sense, I am an agnostic.

Or is our spiritual lives just a blind groping in the dark and a clutching upon of whatever it is that we can find?

I think this is correct. The dark ages and corruption of the church reveals this. Protestants and Catholics alike, in history, have revealed their thirst for blood. Myths, including those in the Bible, are often written in response to reality, as a way for understanding reality, either literally, symbolically, or maybe a little of both. Our religions DO grope in the dark, after something that cannot be ultimately known. This is fine with me. I find meaning in my own experiences and what little I can know. I do not need the answer to all ultimate questions to be fulfilled in life in any way, including spiritually.

Christianity is an inherently mystical religion, but I think we would all do well to remember that Christianity is not a kind of "solo" religion, Christ does not simply drawn a line straight from us to God. God came to us through our own humanity, and so he continues to come to us through our humanity- that is, our human relations. Thus, Cardinal Ratzinger writes:

Very few religions are truly solo religions. Humans are social people. We come together to contemplate ideas and to take action. I do not, however, believe that humans must be forced to conform to particular creeds and dogmas to work together, love together, or form a communion. Common goals and needs would need to be addressed in the communion, but I don't think this necessitates excommunicating heretics. The Anglican Communion itself encompasses many beliefs. The Unitarian Universalist Association is even more diverse, in which members covanant to work together and in society with certain values instead of subscribing to doctrinal creeds. Even the principles Unitarian Universalism is based on are not required to be accepted as a creed, yet this form of organized religion is growing in strength.

Christianity, from the beginning, has been very diverse, especially before all the councils and "politicians" of Christianity had time to exclude others with charges of heresy, creeds, and councils, or before the canon was determined. It will always continue to be diverse because humans themselves are diverse.

Ultimately, the survival of the planet may depend on the human ability to cooperate amongst diversity. Organized religion has certainly been problematic to the goal of cooperation. What kind of example is Christianity as a whole to humankind when we have organizations that can't even open its Communion tables to other Christians, or when a woman is deemed unworthy to enter the priesthood?

I am thankful for a church in which I do not have to check my brain at the door when I walk in because that is something I'm not willing to do.

James

P.S. The book sounds interesting. I may check it out. Thanks.

[sojourner]

You're right, you are heretical.

so was Jesus. He's in good company.

[spiritually inclined]

James