Living the Questions Study
I have been participating for the past few weeks in a Monday-afternoon study group at Blacksburg Presbyterian Church. The group is using a curriculum called “Living the Questions,” a multi-media curriculum developed by two self-described “progressive ministers” in the United Methodist Church, Jeff Procter-Murphy and David Felten. (Read on…)
Each session includes a set of preparatory readings, to be completed before the meeting, then a video presentation consisting of segments from sermons and lectures given by a variety of theologians and ministers. Armed with all this, the group of 25 or so launches into discussion, moderated usually by BPC’s senior pastor, the Rev. Alex Evans.
The readings themselves are provocative, especially for one raised in a more-or-less evangelical, orthodox Christian tradition. The readings cover a number of live topics in contemporary theology and Chrisitan life, though a few themes run through all the readings. In particular, the nature of Scriptural authority is on the table for (sometimes quite violent) dissection. The related theme of metaphorical/mythical approaches to truth is explored in great detail. Well-known (primarily liberal) names address these topics in the video segments, including John Spong, Marcus Borg, John Dom. Crossan, John Cobb, and others.
Having now progressed through about 15% of the material, I have a mixed opinion of the curriculum. Some of the contributors are uniformly helpful and challenging… I think in particular of John Cobb, a man who exudes humility even as he speaks forcefully about mankind and the created order. Others are less consistent, and sometimes I think the video editing has made things worse. For instance, while I am never in complete agreement with Marcus Borg — and his thoughts on the primary role of confession and absolution in Christian worship are a striking example of this — I feel that the video editors chose segments which expressed a particular bias, failing to include statements by these contributors which would tend to moderate their views.
Another surprise, so far, has been the Rev. Spong. My past experience of Spong has been rocky, finding an odor of hubris and certitude in much of his writing. Interestingly, the Spong presented in these videos is a much humbler man than I expected, making his arguments and challenges much more effective.
Finally, the readings (distributed in the very high-tech form of PDF documents) are also a mixed-bag. In my estimation, they would be completely inaccessible and counter-productive for a person with long-entrenched views of biblical inerrancy and other fundamentalist tendencies. The readings are simply too extreme and dismissive of these individuals, using language like
The time is long past when a literal interpretation of the creation stories has any scientific, intellectual, or spiritual integrity…
From Part 3: Creativity & Stories of Creation, Living the Questions 2005
This is unfortunate, because folks who have left those behind have much less to gain from the material.
I’ll put up another report as we get deeper into the material, but I’d be interested in comments from anyone who has used this or similar study curricula.
–JA