DU Christians, how (little "o") orthodox is your personal theology?

[More Than A Feeling]

Can you say the various creeds without crossing your fingers behind your back at parts of them, so to speak? What is your take on hell? Do you believe in the possibility of miracles (and how would you define a "miracle")? Do you find the Trinity meaningful and important, or is it irrelevant?

This isn't a "gotcha", I'm just curious.

[RadicalGeek]

1. I'll bite on this. . .

For one, I'm beginning to see God as more a force concept than a person.
Of course, many would say may faith is weak, and a few would say I'm weak for havinh faith in a deity of any sort.
I believe that Christ did exist, but I think a lot of his teachings are ignored or glossed over.
To me a "miracle" is any unique event--every day can be one (so can getting to see a friend you haven't seen in 20 years).
I hope this answers a few of your questions, and if not, ask more.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Thanks to you, and to everyone who answers!

[Beregond2]

3. Where to begin...

No, I'm not very orthodox. I don't believe in the literal truth of any of the obviously mythical elements in Christianity. That does not, however, mean I don't find those parts of it significant. In fact, those are the MOST significant parts of it to me. You could say I'm a Joseph Campbell kind of a Christian.

I don't believe in miracles, in the sense of God intervening in human affairs, because that would be a violation of our free will. And it is precisely our freedom that constitutes our being made "in God's image." But I suspect that "miraculous" things happen, as a result of concentrated human will, as in prayer. But that is our choice, not God's.

Hell, to me, is a metaphor for the state of being trapped in one's own ego, unable to transcend separateness and know a state of unity with God. That is what Satan represents: ego, pride, that self-love that prevents the love of Self.

I find the Trinity very meaningful. If God represents the undifferentiated consciousness that underlies all that is, the Trinity symbolizes the fundamental division of that Mind into parts that drive creation. God the Father is pure Awareness; God the Son, the Logos, is Creative Thought; and the Holy Spirit the Will, the Love, that motivates creation. In other words, the Trinity is our own mind projected onto the primal Mind. That seems a very suggestive and useful metaphor to me.

Can I say the creeds without crossing my fingers? Yes...but I am "interpreting" in my own mind as I say them. I see them more as a statement of continuity with the ongoing, evolving tradition of western spirituality, than a "here I stand" testament.

[JerseygirlCT]

5. I like the way you put that last part.

Makes sense to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. I think I'd likely count as fairly

unorthodox, though my particular church is quite welcoming of diverse theological thoughts.

Don't believe in hell per se. I do believe that all who wish to will be reunited with God. I do think miracles happen - and I think that the definition would be different for different people. I find the Trinity confusing as anything to explain, and somewhat sufficient as a means of understanding that God has many facets.

[Critters2]

6. I'm a Girardian Christian. I think I'm actually orthodox, but that the tradition

moved away from its original orthodoxy. So, by current standards, I'm heterodox. I don't like creeds, because they are used as ways to set boundaries, to decide who's in and who's out. But, I can actually say most of the creeds without doing too much finger crossing. I don't believe in the virgin birth, but do believe in the resurrection. In my tradition, those are the creedal points that tend to be problematic.

I don't believe in a literal hell, in fact, don't speculate at all about what happens after death, beyond saying I don't think death is the end, and I don't fear death because God will always love me.

I find the Trinity meaningful, but again from a Girardian perspective. I think Jesus chose God, rather than a human being, as his mimetic model. The fact that he was able to free himself from the human mimetic cycle tells me there is something unique about Jesus, so I think he's divine...somehow. I think of the Holy Spirit as the expression of God which gives us courage to stand for peace and kindness when the world would call us in other directions. So, yes, I'm Trinitarian. More so since studying Girard.

I think people have misread the miracle stories in scripture. I think all miracles were aimed at teaching the larger community lessons about kindness and acceptance of those who were disabled or otherwise excluded. I don't think the "miracles" themselves are the actual point.

So, I suppose I'm not orthodox. But I think Girard somehow discovered the truth behind the teachings of Jesus, truths the Church chose to reject hundreds of years ago. Most of the Church disagrees with me, though.

[RadicalGeek]

7. I can honestly I've never heard of Girardian Christianity

But I'll add that a lot of my ideas about God come form Spong and a book titled The Middle Church

[Critters2]

8. I think Spong and other Bultmannians are caught up in their desire

to make the whole of scripture rational and historical.

Girardians admit that there are two streams in scripture--one believes God is violent and requires blood and violence. The other challenges that stream, calling it false and insisting that God wants believers to move away from violence, toward peace, community, mercy and inclusion. The church can't accomodate both of these ways of thinking, but must accept one and reject the other.

Jesus made his definitive statement when he quoted Hosea, saying "I desire mercy and not sacrifice". This is the choice the faith must make. There's much more to Girard. He's an amazingly prolific writer. Here's a Girard scholar (and pastor)'s summary of basic Girardian assumptions: http://girardianlectionary.net/core_convictions.htm

Some other Girardian sites:

http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/eng/texts.html

http://www.preachingpeace.org/introduction.htm

http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/girard/index.html

http://www.imitatio.org/mimetic-theory/account-of-mimetic-theory.html

[RadicalGeek]

9. I'll check out those links

But I'll say I accept the "two streams" idea. It seems that many Fundys ascribe more to the 1st camp about needing violence, why else would they support war and empire.

[Critters2]

11. Not just fundies. Most mainline Christians support war and empire as well.

There are precious few pacifist churches in this country. Everyone else supports violence. I'm always saddened by the UCC's support for war and violence.

[More Than A Feeling]

12. Copies of "The Politics of Jesus" for everyone!

:P

[deutsey]

16. I've just been thumbing through my copy of that recently

:thumbsup:

[RadicalGeek]

13. Off the top of my head

I can think of two and maybe 3; Quakers, The Church of The Brethern and maybe Unitarians.

[Critters2]

14. Mennonites, Quakers, and the Church of the Brethren

(and their close relatives--Amish, Dunkards, etc) are the historic Peace Churches. Everyone else, including UUs, has found times when they support war. The UCC's strong liberationist stances are troubling to me, because they, too, support violence.

[RadicalGeek]

15. OK--I had two of the three

Forgetting the Mennonites (and I live in Central PA, making that all the worse:( )

[rrneck]

10. I see

the genesis for at least two novels, a half dozen paintings, and a ream of poetry in this thread. Don't stop there. Tell the story. That, to me, is inspirational.

Thank you.