In another thread, Robert Tulip began a thought with the provision "If Christianity is to be redeemed", which leads me to wonder how many BookTalk contributors think that's the case. So, three questions:

A) Does Christianity need to be redeemed?
B) Can it be redeemed at all? and
C) What would have to change for you to consider Christianity redeemed?

Thanks Mad, good question.
I was deliberately ironic in this statement because the church has tried to claim a monopoly on redemption - forgiveness for sin - while hypocritically holding on to a pile of unrepentant false ideas. Christianity does need to be redeemed, meaning brought back into a respectable and truthful status, because the story of the gospel is too important to be left as an obsolete historical curiosity. However, you cannot be redeemed, made at one with God, while you believe things that are not true. Promoting falsehood drags people away from divinity and therefore from redemption. Absolution from a pastor who promotes a pack of lies is worthless. The church should repent of its false beliefs such as the virgin birth and creationism. As John the Baptist said, they won't be forgiven until they repent. Christianity needs to strip back the story of Christ and God to a narrative that is compatible with modern science. This is not to completely reject the miraculous. It should still be possible to see the energy of Christ as a unique incarnation of a universal reality, with God working through nature rather than against it.

Hi there

Question 1 yes
2 yes
3, is the million dollar question where all the different denominations and strands of christianity would argue different points.
The fundermentalist would want to revise all the rest of us to renounce using our brains for a black and white faith that pays no attention to context, social, political or historical reference.

The Evangelical none fundermentalists are still Bible based Infalible though they do have so common sense and some wisdom into social context and reference but they also have their issues with todays society

Factions of them would denounce women priests, and make a large issue of not accepting homosexuals in the church. Others are ok with woman preists but not entire happy with Gays so they advocate the love the sinner hate the sin philosphy.

In the Uk the High Church (Anglo Catholic) known as episcipalian In US there is still a split between the conservative and liberal. Conservatives call themselves Forward in faith & Denounce woman priests because of some archaic male proccession in the catholic church. The Liberals Affirming Catholism are for woman & gay partnerships, balancing social injustices and a communion that fully encompasses todays society. I would say a little like the people Jesus encompassed and ministered too.

Here is another weird thought in the Anglican Church all the middle classes and more wealthy go to the more evangelical/charasmatic and sometimes even verging on fundermental churches

Most of the people in the anglo catholic congregation are the working classes despite the less numbers and the lack of hip music.
The Anglo catholic churches and organisations do more community work without imposing conditions on the community than the evangelical ones.


Its like putting your hand into a bag of mixed sweets, if you don't get the one that suits the first time you can dive back in until you find one that suits.

Putting aside styles of worship, who kneels, waves their hands in the air or signs the cross infront of the alter there are so very real issues

To me they are how we reach and encompass todays society in a truely none judgemental, caring loving way that will show the real love of God to others

I do not feel a starting point is done through

condeming gay peoples very identity as dammed and belittling their relationships and love for each other

Or through judging single parents

ex communicating co habiting couples

valuing people on there economic status over their true selves

When one of these churches does these things how can we really call ourselves a family of God?

What happens if one of these groups first experiences is to pick the wrong sweet out of the bag?

Should there not be a website that clearly tells people who is accepted where?

Better still could we not get rid of all these hypocrites with logs in there own eyes looking for specks in the neighbours and start again with the tue message of Christ?

MadArchitect wrote:In another thread, Robert Tulip began a thought with the provision "If Christianity is to be redeemed", which leads me to wonder how many BookTalk contributors think that's the case. So, three questions:

A) Does Christianity need to be redeemed?
B) Can it be redeemed at all? and
C) What would have to change for you to consider Christianity redeemed?

I guess this begs two more questions:

Which Christianity?

For whom?

George

George Ricker wrote: Which Christianity? For whom? George

Hope it is okay to continue this. Redemption is quite a slippery concept. It has so much anti-scientific baggage, through the pre-modern concepts of heaven and hell, that it is difficult to discuss in rational terms. The determinant of whether anything is 'redeemed' is not just a matter of our opinion today, but will be shown by whether it stands the test of time, sustaining a growing presence over generations, not just years, without building up a powderkeg of hypocrisy. This means things that are sustainable are redeemable while things which are unsustainable are irredeemable. Sustainability requires that things be ecologically adaptive and aligned with scientific knowledge. So in answer to George's questions, I would say only that Christianity which is compatible with science is redeemable, and redemption is determined by the hand of fate, not by human opinion, although science gives us quite a good window into our fate. Robert

A further point. The parable of the wheat and tares (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares) shows Jesus' view of who will be redeemed. My view is that both true and false Christianity will persist until we reach a global crisis point, at which time the false version will be discarded when humanity evolves to a higher consciousness. Or alternatively, human stupidity could send our planet back to a much lower level of complexity. On this interpretation, the tares include the false belief present in fundamentalism.

George responded to my question with two questions of his own, and I figure that my first reply should be to those two questions so that he can join the fray with impunity.

Which Christianity?

In all honesty, there can be no historic answer to that. The reason is that, if we're talking about redeeming Christianity, then ultimately we're talking about constituting a new Christianity. That new Christianity would have to demonstrate some ties to traditional Christianity in order to deserve the name, but any talk of reviving an older version of that tradition would require more suspension of disbelief than I could muster. Just about any familiarity with the history of Christian reform ought to demonstrate that there is no possibility of true return ad fontes to a purer, better Christianity.

In that sense, asking "which Christianity" is a bit like turning the question back on me. But in this thread, I'm more interested in your answer than any answer that I would tender. So you tell me which Christianity, if any. I'm not asking what it would take to draw you back into the fold, but I do think it's in the Christian community's interest to have some non-members who smile on its institutions and mission.

For whom?

I'm soliciting your answer, so the answer has to be, "for you." That isn't to say that it has to be redeemed according to any particular agenda you might have, or that it ought to be the sort of club of which you'd be a member. But what would it take for Christianity to be the sort of community or institution that you didn't second-guess at every turn? What would it take for you to be okay with Christianity?

Robert Tulip wrote:This means things that are sustainable are redeemable while things which are unsustainable are irredeemable.

Why should that be the case? Why can't a thing be redeemed in the moment of its occurrence, without any thought as to whether or not it can extend into perpetuity? What you've provided looks much more like a criteria for evolutionary fitness, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not we're okay with a given institution. And if it turns out that there's a conflict between an institution's rightness and its survival, then I for one would rather see it stand and fall according to its own interior consistency than to have it stand forever on a foundation of mixed motives. If it turns out that Christianity is an institution with definite limits in time, then can't it at least be what it claims it is for the brief interval before it slips back into oblivion.

A) Does Christianity need to be redeemed?

Within the Christian worldview (as I see it), yes Christianity needs to be redeemed. Not in order that it become more palatable to contemporary skeptics or potential converts, i.e., making it something that atheists, agnostics, nihilists, buddhists, environmentalists, blue state democrats, or fill in the blank can embrace and support. No, it needs to be redeemed because like all things human, participation in the Kingdom of God requires fundamental transformation...and redemption is how one gets into God's Kingdom, and the Kingdom of God is the purpose of redemption.

B) Can it be redeemed at all?

Certainly! Well, at least I hope so. More accurately, I have faith it can be...as much as anything else can be redeemed, so can Christianity: actually, considering the role that Christianity has played in impeding the Kingdom of God, I suspect it will require probably more mojo than just about any thing else...to the chagrin of most Christians, I suspect the redemption of atheists and heathens of all sorts will take far less effort.

C) What would have to change for you to consider Christianity redeemed?

The lame will walk, the blind will see, the hungry will be fed, the sojourn protected, the weak and mourning will be blessed, and the justice seekers will have a feast while the peacemakers will be called children of God...for starters.

MadArchitect wrote:George responded to my question with two questions of his own, and I figure that my first reply should be to those two questions so that he can join the fray with impunity.

Which Christianity?

In all honesty, there can be no historic answer to that. The reason is that, if we're talking about redeeming Christianity, then ultimately we're talking about constituting a new Christianity. That new Christianity would have to demonstrate some ties to traditional Christianity in order to deserve the name, but any talk of reviving an older version of that tradition would require more suspension of disbelief than I could muster. Just about any familiarity with the history of Christian reform ought to demonstrate that there is no possibility of true return ad fontes to a purer, better Christianity.

You are right that revival is not the path to redemption. Former models of the church were imbedded in unscientific belief systems which are obsolete. When wheat and weeds are mixed in together you cannot expect to find a past time when the good grain existed alone. The 'purer better Christianity' needs to be extracted by finding the true ideas among the many false ones, in the manner of the prophet Malachi who described how the refiner's fire finds the gold among the dross.

MadArchitect wrote:In that sense, asking "which Christianity" is a bit like turning the question back on me. But in this thread, I'm more interested in your answer than any answer that I would tender. So you tell me which Christianity, if any. I'm not asking what it would take to draw you back into the fold, but I do think it's in the Christian community's interest to have some non-members who smile on its institutions and mission.

The Christian community needs fundamental reform. Until its mission provides a clear path forward for the modern world, rather than a throwback to a dreamtime concept of heaven, if you will permit me this analogy with traditional indigenous Australian mythology, Christianity will remain disconnected from anything non-members should smile on. I like the Dreamtime, and think it should have a more honoured place in our culture today, but it won't get this honour by pretending to answer questions to which science has clear proven answers.

MadArchitect wrote:

For whom?

I'm soliciting your answer, so the answer has to be, "for you." That isn't to say that it has to be redeemed according to any particular agenda you might have, or that it ought to be the sort of club of which you'd be a member. But what would it take for Christianity to be the sort of community or institution that you didn't second-guess at every turn? What would it take for you to be okay with Christianity?

You may be right that people must be the judges of redemption, but this usurps the place traditionally assigned to God and requires people to play God. The risk is that I can believe something is redeemed 'for me', but I can be hurtling unknown on a path to destruction, in which case my blessing means little. Redemption must be 'for God' in the sense that if God is defined as eternal life, then those choices which support life can be redeemed while those which destroy life are irredeemable. As Jesus said, God is among the living not the dead (Matt 22:32). My sense is that Jesus got it right when he said, paraphrased, that the life path in tune with God is far from many paths valued in our world. (Matt 7:13). If the world comes to a crunch and people need to decide for or against life, there will be quite a shock in assessing which things are on the side of life. Dissident Heart points this out in his allusion to the sheep and goats.

Not being "the sort of community or institution that you didn't second-guess at every turn" requires integrity and honesty, but big myths in the church are wrong, so Christianity needs to recognise its error and repent in order to be acceptable in the way you ask. I think part of the beauty of the story of Jesus is his promise of forgiveness and mercy for those who repent. However, the church has got it wrong about the meaning of repentance by focusing only on personal morality and adherence to creeds rather than political systems or scientific truth. Disproven pre-modern views on creation and afterlife do not deserve respect as they colour and distort all the beliefs of those who hold them. The Pope's confession of error about Galileo went about 1% of the way needed - Christians need to also confess the error of believing in the virgin birth.

MadArchitect wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:This means things that are sustainable are redeemable while things which are unsustainable are irredeemable.

Why should that be the case? Why can't a thing be redeemed in the moment of its occurrence, without any thought as to whether or not it can extend into perpetuity? What you've provided looks much more like a criteria for evolutionary fitness, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not we're okay with a given institution. And if it turns out that there's a conflict between an institution's rightness and its survival, then I for one would rather see it stand and fall according to its own interior consistency than to have it stand forever on a foundation of mixed motives. If it turns out that Christianity is an institution with definite limits in time, then can't it at least be what it claims it is for the brief interval before it slips back into oblivion.

Evolutionary adaptation has everything to do with whether something is redeemed for God. I think of existence as persistence in time, with the redemption of existence amounting to its capacity to continue. Being okay with an institution, being able to tolerate it, does not engage with the underlying problem of whether it has internal and external capacity to continue. Something can seem okay to me but be a hollow shell which cracks to dust when tapped.

I can't understand your comment about being redeemed in the moment of occurrence only, except through the highly limited idea of redemption as escape. I believe that redemption must somehow be about a connection to eternal life, but I think we need to completely recast eternal life away from the idea of the immortality of the soul. The rapture theory sees redemption as escape, but has unwittingly fallen for the false myth that the world is evil rather than the creation of God. Jesus taught that the world is good, but to continue in life we need to be attuned to eternal life.

The trouble here is that Christianity most definitely is not an institution with definite limits in time. 'What it claims to be' includes a hopeful expectation of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, built in to the framework of belief. I don't think we are going to get anything like a 'slip back into oblivion' while this unresolved question of eschatology hangs in the balance.

Further on your thought of extending into perpetuity, I think of eternity through the lens of Plato's three areas of study in the Academy, logic, physics and ethics. Logic is the domain of mathematical relations such as pi, eternal because outside time. Physics partakes in eternity to the extent that known laws of the universe last forever within time. For ethics, timeless values such as love and justice are unchanging in themselves, and are seen as they occur in the world, enabling the human soul to participate in eternal life. I think our redemption requires us to be true to the eternal dimension of each of these ideas of logic, physics and ethics.

Here is an analogy about instant redemption. I just read a wonderful book, The Magic Furnace, on how elements are made in the heart of stars. Fred Hoyle deserved a Nobel for his finding that an unstable beryllium atom exists for about a nanosecond when two helium atoms collide. If this pair is hit by another helium atom it turns into stable carbon, but otherwise it reverts to helium. All the beryllium matter is 'redeemed' in the sense of continuing to exist, but most exists as simple helium and only a tiny fraction as the more complex carbon element. There is a sense in which the continuing complexity (carbon) is a locus of redemption, and the unstable beryllium is only redeemed by what it becomes. So 'will we be redeemed?' amounts to 'will we retain our complexity?'

Quote:
A) Does Christianity need to be redeemed?

According to Christians - Christianity is a way of life based on "the LOrd's Word" - The Bible and for some the Guidance of the Pope
There is no scientific basis for 'The lord's word" - redeeming Christianity would also be in league with redeeming Thor, Zeus,Isis, Ra and many other Gods who are now "extinct" but their descendants have evolved into Jesus, The Virgin Mary, GOD and other lifeforms that presently roam the spiritual realm (see www.jesusneverexisted.com).
All believers in GOD just believe in one more God than than those of us who have no concept of God(BC Pires TT Express Columnist)). They believe in their God but not in the "thousands" ( I really don't have a head count)of other Gods our ancestors have created.

As for redemption - "we Can only save ourselves by our own exertions"

The "Lloyd" Best -Caribbean Thinker