Join the Conversation


  1. A lovely sentiment.
    And a great PR campaign for constructive theology, essentially a rebranding…reframing… of systemic theology, which dates back to the 8th century but got its real foothold within Christianity through the works of Christian theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher in the 1820s, who popularized the notion among emerging liberal theologians of a universal and absolute dependence upon God.

    (This should be of some interest to Sr. Theresa as she tries to understand where all those value judgements come from.)

    And I couldn’t help but notice…because…I’m…well…me…that the Workgroup’s call for tolerance…

    As Christians, we are called to love and be loved by our neighbors of other religious traditions—including our Muslim and Jewish neighbors.

    …is conditional…limiting…tacitly exclusionary.

    This comes as no surprise to atheists, of course. Whenever we stand at the storefront of Ecumenism® and ask, “Where’s the Love?”, the answer always seems to be the same.

    1. We don’t recognize atheists because you all are on a greased pole to hell, anyway.

      I’m kidding. In fact, though I am too lazy to find links, there seems to be a bit of a movement among My People to stop being such ass wipes to Your People. I mean, what’s the point? Whether I’m singing praises in Glory for all eternity or I end up as worm food in the Carterville, Mo., cemetery, disliking you or poking at you for your approach to life is really just dumb. And a time-waster.

      All that to say: See you in hell, my friend.

      1. If you’re going to be there it won’t be all that bad.

        I do think tolerance of…even acceptance…of atheists on a personal level has increased substantially in my lifetime. On an institutional, structural level? Not so much. Some lip service. But that’s about it.

        But that’s to be expected…especially within systemic/constructive theological structures…because we reject notions of absolute dependence. And submission.

        On most important issues, when we’re capable of putting religion aside, we find we more agreement than disagreement. (Speaking from a more traditional atheism than the new evangelical Atheist 2.0™.)

        1. I think you’re right. This is going to sound like the set-up for a joke, but I have atheist friends who are every bit as concerned (if not more so) than the state of the world than I am. The way they explain things to me is this: (and this may be unique to these friends, but): If you’re only going to go around once, don’t you want your environment (the world) to be a nice place? So wouldn’t you want to work to correct social injustice. The beauty in this is that they’re not doing this for the cookie (eternal life) in the end. They’re doing this to make the world a better places — yes, for themselves, but also for others. I admire that.

          1. I don’t think that’s unique to those particular friends at all.
            I think everybody, in there own way, wants to make the world better for those who come after us. There’s consensus on that. Cookies or no.

            Where the consensus gets bogged down is trying to determine what constitutes “better”. I think that’s changing, though. Slowly? Yes. Probably too slow for some and too quick for others. But I do think we’re learning to set aside differences. Except in Congress. I think that will probably be a loooong row to hoe.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: