Theology of Politics

Hi everyone
With out next round of discussions coming up, I wanted to pose a question which I think needs to be asked. How ecumenical are we? Is this discussion limited to protestant Christians, Protestants with Catholics, all westernized Christianity, Christianity in general, Christianity and Judaism, all western religions, or all religions?

I notice there is an ontological shift at each meeting. When we meet in our separate groups, it appears that this is a more denominational discussion around those who attend Robs church. When we get together at CBC, I get the impression this is more christianized ecumenical meeting. I guess I am unclear as to openness or closedness of the meetings. What is a Buddhist or Hindu wanted to attend and contribute. Would they be welcomed or shunned. I think that this relates to politics as democracy and freedom of religion according to liberty includes freedom of religious expression.

I hope this is not too controversial to ask.

Regards
Chris

Chris,

I don't think this is too controversial to ask -- but my answer is a bit lengthy.

The ecumenical richness of the discussion is highly dependent upon who shows up and what viewpoints they represent. So far, we've enjoyed the company of Catholics, Calvinists, Eastern Orthodox, Southeastern Pentecostals, liberal Protestants, conservative Baptists, Jews, and a few other traditions. All of these viewpoints have helped make the discussions rich and textured. Our speakers -- a theologian from Minnesota, a local pastor, a local college professor, and a Jewish rabbi -- have helped increase the diversity of thought presented through Pub Planters.

Let's bear a few things in mind --

Pub Planters was started as an effort to gather together and discuss Christian theology. As such, we will not take stabs at other world religions. One of the reasons for this is that when Rob and I were discussing starting this whole drink-a-beer-and-talk-theology thing, we had no intention of seeing a discussion turn into Our Theology is better than your Theology.

We would gladly welcome the participation, thoughts, criticisms, and comments from anyone who follows Buddhism, Hindu, Islam, Shinto, or any other religious view -- and even those who decry religious affiliations altogether. However, we would hope that they understood that they are coming to a group that is discussing Christian theology. This does not mean they are not welcome to sit down and challenge every point we discuss. I'd actually enjoy it. So, if you know of anyone who fits the bill, would you send them over to my group?

A good case in point here is Rabbi Lief -- a local Jewish rabbi who came out to CBC two months ago to discuss the Judaic understanding of God. The rabbi understood that he was talking to a group discussing Christian theology, and still was given full freedom to criticize points he found weak in Christian theology. Nobody asked him to come tell us how right or wrong we were. We asked him to share his views as a Jew on God. He delivered an impressive lecture, and took a number of difficult questions. I myself asked a question that opened up criticizing the Christian practice of equating God with love -- with the rabbi admonishing the group to be wary of tying God to such limited human concepts. I thought it was the most thought-provoking speaker we have yet had.

I'm a bit thrown off by your comments on ontological shifts. I've been around since the beginning of Pub Planters. I helped start and spread the word about the original group at Nellies in Chattanooga. I then broke off to help lead a group at Hair of the Dog. Now I moderate a small group at Murphy's Ale House. I have yet to see in any of the group meetings or the meetings at CBC any discussions or assumptions along ontological lines -- specifically, any argument that stated that because we are discussing the concept of God, God must therefore exist. Honestly, I'd never let such a statement get any air time in the groups I lead because I find it far too insulting to the group's intelligence.

Furthermore, at least at Murphy's, there is no denominational discussion. I've been part of the Bridges community for a while now, and I've never thought that I go to Rob's church. I don't know many people who do. I feel like Rob became a part of my church ... and then he was asked to fill a pastoral role. It's not like Rob started the church. The church was started by another guy I highly respect and think did a great job. Luckily for Rob, I'm not so great at recognizing titles, so I still throw criticism his way whenever I feel like it.

I've yet to see Bridges display any vestiges of denominational thinking or existence. We don't even gather in a church building -- we build community from our homes outward. I know that the Nellie's group has been moderated in recent months by a member of the Bridges community, but that is rather by chance. She leads at Nellies because she's committed to being there every month. I'm not aware of there being many more Bridges people at the Nellies group. In fact, the original group of about 18 people who were first to take part in Pub Planters consisted of I think, at most, five people who actively took part in the Bridges community.

Most importantly, Pub Planters is not a Bridges thing. It was not started by Bridges. It actually started long before it ever had a name. We used to call it Shack Night, because a group of guys would sit in the shack behind Rob's house every Tuesday night, smoke cigars, drink whiskey, and we always found ourselves discussing philosophy, theology, and other important reflective matters about our lives. After a year or so of that, we thought it made sense to meet in a bar and do the same thing -- we just focused it on Theology. None of us were even a part of Bridges before then. That kind of happened somewhere in the similar time period. Bridges doesn't have a denominational axe to grind. We didn't start Pub Planters as an evangelistic platform, and neither would we let Bridges or any other church coopt it as such. Bridges' involvement in Pub Planters happened after the fact -- the leadership of Bridges thought what we were doing was a good thing, and lent us support. We didn't ask for it. We'd be happy to accept the same thumbs-up attitude from any other church in town. We'd be happy to see more people show up to take part -- even all of us in Bridges don't fall on the same theological plain.

Lastly, I believe we should be fair to all of the other groups that meet as part of Pub Planters and not inadvertently include them in this criticism of ontological shifts and denominational discussions. Clearly, the group in Bozeman, Montana don't go to "Rob's church." Neither do the people who gather together in Miami, Florida. Neither do the people who get together in Cleveland, TN.

Please feel free to keep joining our group and corporate discussions. Since Nellie's has closed their business, we're meeting up tonight at Murphy's Ale House. We'd love to see you there.

Chris,

Your comment is certainly not too controversial.

I would say this...

1. Anyone is welcome at the pub.
2. The majority of people involved in pub planters are not Bridges people.
3. Keep in mind that we are a Christian Theology discussion group, and that means by our very nature, we will be engaged in the business of Christian theology.
4. Guinness is good whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.

Hey guys...

Worthwhile comments, I think. I just want to add my own thoughts.
While my own point of view stems from a Christian background, I don't expect that everyone who joins in our discussions agrees with me or needs to. I appreciate that we keep an open forum where anyone's opinion is welcome. Diversity keeps the ball rolling.
As Chris has joined us several times at Nelly's, I just want to apologize if it was me who gave you the wrong impression, Chris. I enjoy the education and perspective you bring to the group. It's not for me to tell anyone what to think, and I certainly don't mean to connect this gathering to any denomination or church. Thanks for asking the hard questions. I hope that's what we continue to be doing here.

Hi everyone
First let me apologize if I seemed judgmental, this was not my intention. I was rather just interested in determining the depth of the ecumenical discussion. To Robs point, I know this is a Christian theological discussion group and this is why I attend to learn and discuss theology. My reason for asking is that I think it would be interested to see what non-Christians perceive within the Theological discussion.

This is the only problem with text based discussions is that we cannot see the emotional intent of the writer, I meant no offense. I hope I did not cause offense to you all.

I also appreciate you all allowing me to attend and discuss. I know that I bring up very controversial topics and discussion. I appreciate your patience and willingness to discuss when I do.

So thank you all again and I apologize for any discomfort I may have caused.

Regards
Chris

No offense taken here either!

Except I would like to know if Buddhists drink Guinness...because if they don't I need to evangelize them.

Fight the Fight. Run the Race. Keep the Faith.