I read this essay just after audio-reading the first several chapters of Christopher and Richard Hays' new-ish book, The Widening of God's Mercy. Two contrasting approaches. The Hays' book traces a path through the Bible with eyes wide open to God's message within and to the frailties of our own theologizing. It's hard to judge from your essay alone, but my experience with the Progressive Church is that - in its worst forms - it offers a thought process that goes roughly: "The Bible places before us a lot of mystery and paradox. So therefore, 'whatever'. It's all good, fly your freak flag, as long as you are loving your neighbor."
On Trinity Sunday, mainline pastors might start a sermon with "The Trinity is hard to understand...." and then they have to decide whether the next phrase is "...but thankfully we have the writings of wiser people to lean on." Or, they can choose to redraw the Trinity in their own image. I noticed that the back cover of the book uses "Abba, Jesus, and Sophia" to name the Trinity. I'm wondering if you could comment on how well this nomenclature reflects Christian orthodoxy?
In the quote, “By divine decision, without relationship there is nothing, even for God” (52), is he hinting at the notion of Trinitarian relationship. That is, God is eternally in relationship with himself?
I hate to use the word Deconstruction, but it does seem that he is playing with concepts out of Derrida when it comes to meaning and symbolism, that meaning shifts with place and time and perhaps power, and that even Christ does not have a specific Ontology. Am I understanding that correctly?
Yeah, I mean it’s sort of watered down Derrida which I see a lot of these days. As to the hopeful audience for a book like this, I imagine somebody like me, who has walked away from the church but still is passionate about theological and biblical discourse, would be its imagined demographic. But as you mentioned in your piece, the problem with much progressive speak is that it’s entirely too vague and amorphous. The lack of ontologies becomes exhausting. Derrida, while brilliant, proposes an endless game of tag, which seems somewhat antithetical to surety of the declaration, “come all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest.”
Like you, I heard "without relationship there is nothing, even for God" as a reference to perichoresis, not to God depending on us for God's own existence. Although we may be struggling with the quote out of context, the ambiguity of the book on this point is a cause for concern, especially if it's meant to be consumed by individuals outside the Church.
I mean, the quotes don’t land with me. They seem mainly overwrought and chasing the Exvangelical deconstruction train, which seems a little tired at this point (speaking as an Exvangelical who doesn’t go to church). But yeah, unclear writing seems to be something author excels at.
A wonderful essay that provides some insight. I am personally confused by the Progressive Christians for the same reasons you give. It appears to me that this theology is taking a path that leads away from everything doctrinal, more or less, and leads to a pantheistic, universalist system. Maybe that is good and maybe that is where we need to go. I haven't a clue. But I do agree with you about having edges and having a clear center. So much is open to interpretation, all I can do is hold on and try to keep God, as I undertand that concept, first in everything and be a disciple as Jesus defined discipleship. Thank you.
I read this essay just after audio-reading the first several chapters of Christopher and Richard Hays' new-ish book, The Widening of God's Mercy. Two contrasting approaches. The Hays' book traces a path through the Bible with eyes wide open to God's message within and to the frailties of our own theologizing. It's hard to judge from your essay alone, but my experience with the Progressive Church is that - in its worst forms - it offers a thought process that goes roughly: "The Bible places before us a lot of mystery and paradox. So therefore, 'whatever'. It's all good, fly your freak flag, as long as you are loving your neighbor."
On Trinity Sunday, mainline pastors might start a sermon with "The Trinity is hard to understand...." and then they have to decide whether the next phrase is "...but thankfully we have the writings of wiser people to lean on." Or, they can choose to redraw the Trinity in their own image. I noticed that the back cover of the book uses "Abba, Jesus, and Sophia" to name the Trinity. I'm wondering if you could comment on how well this nomenclature reflects Christian orthodoxy?
In the quote, “By divine decision, without relationship there is nothing, even for God” (52), is he hinting at the notion of Trinitarian relationship. That is, God is eternally in relationship with himself?
I hate to use the word Deconstruction, but it does seem that he is playing with concepts out of Derrida when it comes to meaning and symbolism, that meaning shifts with place and time and perhaps power, and that even Christ does not have a specific Ontology. Am I understanding that correctly?
And you might be right about his use of Derrida. I'm not a fan of Derrida, so again I may have missed that.
Yeah, I mean it’s sort of watered down Derrida which I see a lot of these days. As to the hopeful audience for a book like this, I imagine somebody like me, who has walked away from the church but still is passionate about theological and biblical discourse, would be its imagined demographic. But as you mentioned in your piece, the problem with much progressive speak is that it’s entirely too vague and amorphous. The lack of ontologies becomes exhausting. Derrida, while brilliant, proposes an endless game of tag, which seems somewhat antithetical to surety of the declaration, “come all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest.”
I mean, maybe. As I tried to say, some of his thoughts just didn't land with me, so I may have missed that.
Like you, I heard "without relationship there is nothing, even for God" as a reference to perichoresis, not to God depending on us for God's own existence. Although we may be struggling with the quote out of context, the ambiguity of the book on this point is a cause for concern, especially if it's meant to be consumed by individuals outside the Church.
I mean, the quotes don’t land with me. They seem mainly overwrought and chasing the Exvangelical deconstruction train, which seems a little tired at this point (speaking as an Exvangelical who doesn’t go to church). But yeah, unclear writing seems to be something author excels at.
A wonderful essay that provides some insight. I am personally confused by the Progressive Christians for the same reasons you give. It appears to me that this theology is taking a path that leads away from everything doctrinal, more or less, and leads to a pantheistic, universalist system. Maybe that is good and maybe that is where we need to go. I haven't a clue. But I do agree with you about having edges and having a clear center. So much is open to interpretation, all I can do is hold on and try to keep God, as I undertand that concept, first in everything and be a disciple as Jesus defined discipleship. Thank you.