I like the term "process spirituality." This means that defining our spirituality is a continuous creative process rather than something fixed. In process spirituality, we, individually and collectively, continuously reform and transform what it means to be spiritual or religious.

When Luther started the Protestant Reformtion, I think he meant reformation to be an ongoing process. I certainly am a Lutheran in that sense of Lutheranism.

 Well you know GR that an agnostic is an atheist who is hedging (his or her) bets by keeping a foot in each camp.  Likewise the term "progressive" announces to the world  that although you are searching you keep a connection to traditional church.  Its like an insurance policy just in case the traditionalists are actually onto something.  Seems like a "no-lose" situation.  Spiritualists are prepared to go beyond institutional borders to explore their own spirituality.  There are tradeoffs I guess.  Institutions have greater resources at their disposal to explore spirituality.  Money to buy the books, do the research, study the Greek and the Hebrew, acquire the PhD , money to pay researchers to do what we cannot, a cadre of theologians  to perceive the right spiritual path and ministers to disseminate the message whereas the spiritualist has a better understanding of his own feelings and greater freedom to speculate.  Its the difference between hiring a mutual fund manager and doing your own investing.  Returns may vary depending on the skill and courage of the spiritual investor.

Allowed to do what, Airclean33?

You can quote me anytime anywhere.

Seriously, now. The Christ insight is easy to come by. What follows the insight, however, is more difficult: a lifetime of Christly action. This is the hard part.

I think we should go back to the basics, I see a lot more baggage coming from trying to make religion make sense in a changing world. Instead, we should understand that religion is unchanging and that we should not try to fit it into our society, but fit our society into our religion.

All the baggage people talk about (homosexuality being a sin, the long list of things the catholic church has done) are the results of fitting religion into a circumstance.

I think "I'm spiritual" makes more sense than "I'm progressive". Progressive sounds like a political ideology or something (and we did have a Progressive Party in this country many eons ago). Spiritual denotes an attitude and approach to life. However, spirituality isn't something Christian, it's an attitude that can be found in all religions and even in people who aren't part of a formal religious organization, which is really where the "I'm spiritual but not religious" line belongs. To my mind, one can be spiritual and progressive, spiritual and traditionalist, spiritual and liberal, and so on. None of these approaches to theology and practice are necessarily more spiritual than another except perhaps in the minds of their followers.

Now, I don't think that Christianity has lost it's spirituality. However, I do think that the definition of what is spiritual and what people want from a spiritual tradition has changed and broadened so that more people are not finding a spiritual experience in traditional liturgies, theologies, etc. Not everyone, but certainly more than one was the case a generation or so back. Progressive Christianity is not innately more spiritual than traditional Christianity, but it does appeal to some of these people who no longer find spirituality in traditional churches.

Mendalla

Message of our inseverable relationship with God.----DAVID wrote--   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi David your right about moving from one thread to another.Please   Expand  on what you wrote so I can understand what your saying.Airclean33

I'd hardly count that as part of the religion, since those are cultural and societal things from the iron age. Those things exist outside of what our religion is, which is what I mean when I say that dogma is created when people try to explain society or religion through the lense of "today".

Also, 7 posts in a row is a bit much...

I can understand the difference between details in a story and the message imparted. I don't recall jesus telling anyone that they should stone anyone, take slaves or adopt women as "chattel" (I'm assuming you meant cattle).

What does the society in which jesus was raised have to do with loving my neighbour/god and being remissed of sin?

I absolutely agree GR.  I think, however, that a lot of those who have surrendered don't think of it that way,  Rather, they have taken a stance that, if they were honest, might be more properly characterized as an "abdication" ... a "handoff".  "Here you're better at this than me.  Handle it for me please.  Just tell me ..."  

I also agree that churches ought to bend their resources to help the spiritual searchers.  There should be no appearance of brownie points being given to those "who fall in line".  There is little virtue in it.