ABC special on the afterlife

Barbara Walters will host a two-hour special on the afterlife tomorrow evening on ABC from 9-11 EST.

She will interview the Dali Lama, atheists, evangelical Christian ministers, Richard Gere (?????), Roman Catholic cardinals, and a host of others in the field of theology.

Might be worth watching.

 

ABC promoted it on 20/20 on Friday. The subject matter is sufficiently interesting, and the promo made it sound sufficiently good just generally, that it was enough to make me mark my calendar (to either watch it live or videotape it).

But it's ABC, Jimmy... don't forget that. I fear they will do with this piece as they did with their special on Mary not all that long ago -- and the one on the Davinci Code -- and water it down into the sort of generic, appeal-to-the-masses pablum for which the big three networks are more or less famous when it comes to heady subjects like this one. I'd be more hopeful of it being really interesting if it were a PBS production... which would be cool, also, because it would be commercial-free and, therefore, would have up to 44 minutes (up to 22 minutes per hour) more content over the two hours than will the two-hour (including commercials) ABC special.

That said, I am looking forward to it. I'm just prepared to be disappointed... as I was with the Mary and Davinci Code pieces.

It's interesting, though... since ABC got bought by Disney, it's daring to air this kind of non-secular stuff with a straight face and no apologies. To a religiously Christian, politically liberal viewer, it's both interesting and disconcerting. Talk about ambivalency, eh?

 

Re: Re: ABC special on the afterlife

Not really. The All Souls Unitarian Church in Indy, under Paul Beattie during the Viet Nam War, was very theologically liberal while politically conservative. They supported the war.

I often find many who are politically one way and theologically the other way.

I used to be liberal theologically and politically. Then I became somewhat conservative politically but still remained a theological liberal.

Today, I am somewhat conservative politically and fairly conservative theologically.

Go figure!

 

Re: Re: Re: ABC special on the afterlife

Well, if you notice, I was trying to avoid stating whether I was liberal or conservative theologically by my wording it, "religiously Christian, politically liberal"; and not "theologically" anything, and "politically liberal."

If you take that precise wording to mean that I am theologically conservative because you have trouble visualizing anyone who can call themselves "Christian" not also being theologically conservative, then that's more telling about you than it is about me.



Don't worry, though (not that you are, I realize): I'm pretty theologically liberal, too. I'm at least highly ecumenical... which, if one's to be that with any integrity, pretty much requires theological liberalism. That said, I lament the loss of certain liturgical traditions... as I think I've mentioned to you herein before. Lutheranism (of which I am a lifelong member) has the oldest and perhaps most rich and beautiful liturgical heritage -- without being particularly "high church" -- of all the non-Roman-Catholic traditions; and I lament its loss at the hands of those in my denomination who believe that unless we modernize it all away, we can't attract new members. That's just nonsense. In that sense, I'm strongly conservative. I believe it's possible to have a sociopolitically-liberal/progressive Lutheran church, without throwing-out the very means of worship which partially identifies and defines it... and which is so very beautiful when done properly... or so it is my opinion.

But the single, easiest-to-articulate position I take which pretty much settles all bets as to whether I am theologically liberal is my wholesale rejection of biblical inerrancy... or, if not that, then at least strict biblical literalism.

I don't want this thread to turn into some kind of referendum on that, of course... I mention it only as a way of evidencing that I'm not "politically liberal but theologically conservative." I think I'm probably pretty liberal on both counts... the latter of which doesn't make me any less of a Christian, I would argue (but won't, here... so let's please not take it there). I'm just saying it as a way of illustrating that I'm not liberal in one way and conservative (save, perhaps, for the liturgy part) in another. That's all.

If you think back on how I originally worded it (i.e., "religiously Christian, politically liberal"), I was trying to not even get into theological conservatism versus whatever is its opposite as a means of contrast with my decidely politically liberal/progressive underpinnings. I still wouldn't mind not getting into that, but I have this ominous feeling that that will now be unavoidable.

Oh, well. [sigh]

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: ABC special on the afterlife

How you arrive at this conclusion is beyond me. I know you are a theological liberal. Your posts reflect that. Your denomination is generally considered liberal also, is it not?

Good dialogue!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ABC special on the afterlife

Easy, there. Remember that I began with "if."

The ELCA is theologically liberal... to a point; and I guess I would add politically liberal to a point, too. I am disapointed -- almost beyond my ability to put into words -- by some of the actions taken by my church at its meeting in Orlando this past summer regarding the ordination of gays and lesbians in same-sex relationships; and the blessing of such relationships. The ELCA certainly isn't liberal to that point, is it? (a rhetorical question, of course)

Of the various Lutheran flavors, the ELCA is unquestionably the most both theologically and politically liberal, if that's what you're asking. In my opinion -- and I guess this, too, is a bit of conservatism... at least regarding ELCA polity -- the 1987 merger which created the ELCA in the first place was a mistake. The differences between old LCA Lutherans (the more liberal/progressive kind), and old ALC Lutherans (the somewhat more conservative kind) are irreconcilable... always have been. This is evidenced by the growth of the ultra-conservative Word Alone and Solid Rock Lutherans movements, among some dozen or so other renewal movements within the ELCA. WordAlone has some 200+ churches now in its fold -- most of them former ALC churches -- and such is their fervor that many member WordAlone congregations are now even withholding/redirecting benevolence, which even many old ALC Lutherans I know find abominable... even sinful. WordAlone even has a new hymnal of its own, now... and is actively promoting a new confession to sit alongside the Augsburg Confession as an additional statement of faith. Some WordAlone churches are also LCMC churches... yet still call themselves ELCA.

If ever there seemed a group poised to spin-off and form their own denomination, WordAlone seems so... or so it is my opinion...

...and to be very candid, it's difficult not to just say, "Fine, then. Be gone... and good riddance." But they won't... for much the same reason as a battered woman reasons (wrongly, I might add) that she can actually stay alive longer by staying in the relationship because she knows that her batterer has a "if I can't have her, no one can have her attitude." WordAlone, et al, knows that if it spun off to its own thing, it would weaken those of similar belief who remain in the ELCA, thereby reducing their votes and, therefore, risking allowing the progressives/liberals in the ELCA to finally win on the sexuality issues, among others.

The progressive/liberal side of the ELCA cannot (or at least should not try to) wait-out the conservatives. Life's too short. The conservatives are simply too hell-bent on control... perhaps even vindictiveness. Instead, a new, progressive, liberal, missionary, evangelical Lutheran church should be formed, and the former LCA congregations that have not been brainwashed by the ALC membership should just spin-off and cede the ELCA to the conservatives. I advocate this because it would then give the liberals/progressives the opportunity to put right into its charter the core of its beliefs which can never be changed, even by unanimous vote. Among Luther's most famous quotes is his declaration at the Diet or Worms in 1531:

• "...I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

The shakers and movers behind the 1987 formation of the ELCA tried to be too many things to too many people, and left out of its formational declarations the kind of firm stances on things that would have made the formation of such as the WordAlone movement an impossibility. Reunification has its limits. A new, progressive Lutheran church having the courage of its convictions such that its core beliefs are carved in the very granite of its foundation; and which beliefs can be neither changed or abandoned lest it fall; that is the solution to an increasingly-divided ELCA... or so it is my opinion.

Sorry to have changed it. Here... lemmee get down off my soapbox. What were we talking about again?

 

Sorry, just didn't see the "if." Goes to show we only see what we want, ha!

Denominational mergers are always painful and one of the branches always ends up losing.

When the Evangelical and Reformed Church merged with the Congregationalists to form the United Church of Christ, the E&R group lost out. The Eureka Classis of the E&R church refused to merge and formed the Reformed Church in the U.S.

When the Evangelical United Brethren merged with the Methodists to form the United Methodist Church, the EUB lost out. That's why the Evangelical Chuch was formed. It consists of old EUB folks.

Now, we are seeing splits in major denominations with new ones being formed. Many of these new denominations are opossed to gay marriage and civil unions.

 

Re: Re: Re: ABC special on the afterlife

it's called 'old age', Jimmy!

 

I've managed to go from being a socialist to a libertarian "politically" -- but actually am functionally apolitical on theological grounds (I don't vote). Theologically, I am about as literalist as they come -- but I am for tolerance (meaning -- I don't cringe when self-proclaimed pagans announce themselves -- it's none of my business to try to work out).

I believe in less government everywhere. I once had a boss who made the comment that the "right" typically asked for less government everywhere but people's bedrooms -- where they wanted more government.

I say -- keep it out of schools, out of business, out of bedrooms, out of parenthood -- keep the State out of absolutely everywhere that can survive without it.

As for religion -- keep it a matter of personal conscience/choice.

As for Disney -- just keep it away from me.

 

Richard Gere? He's one of those celebrity-Buddhists. Half of Hollywood has claimed to be Buddhist at one time or another.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_buddhist.html

I mean, Jennifer Lopez? Keanu Reeves? Oliver Stone? Patti Smith? Steven Seagal? Tina Turner? Boy George? David Bowie? ...

I don't know. Perhaps a religion that teaches people how to be less entranced by their own selves can do people like these some good. I imagine that some of them treat Buddhism like a stylish pop psychology. But that's ok, a path has to start somewhere. Still...

Buddhist monks and nuns own a robe and a begging bowl. They remain celibate and aren't supposed to touch money. They don't adorn their bodies and they avoid entertainments and shows. Just the thing for J-Lo.

 

Myself- religiously, I went from being a born again conservative Calvinist to a convinced atheist!

Politically, went from being a right wing conservative to a free market libertarian, but have swung from Rothbard politically to Hayek.

So that destroys my argument of 'age'!

 

So if I remained a five-pointer, but also became a fm-libertarian -- does that make me younger or older than you?

 

Possibly the same age!

 

ABC is doing a documentary on the afterlife??? Isn't that sort of like an athiest doing a documentary on the afterlife???

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: ABC special on the afterlife

I thought it was called "wisdom."

 

Re: Re: ABC special on the afterlife

And the other half, Scientologists!

 

I guess a "convinced atheist" is better than a "confirmed atheist."

 

Re: Re: Re: ABC special on the afterlife

Hey Jimmy! That's because you are getting OLDER. Someone once said that Churchill stated "If you aren't liberal when you are young, you have no heart - if you aren't conservative when you are old, you have no brain!"

However, I did some research. He didn't actually say this. But the meaning is profound in any case.

Something Churchill DID say, though, is highly relevant to the current policies of the Bush Administration regarding detaining people without trial....

"The power of the executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government...."

Food for thought for all ye latter day conservatives!

Have a Happy Holidays!
- Carl

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: ABC special on the afterlife

Hi Carl,

There are so many variations to this line. The most common one is that if you're not a socialist in your 20's you have no heart and if you're still a socialist in your 40's you have no brain.

Actually, I said I was "somewhat politically conservative." I have never considered myself a conservative but a moderate.

But, being a Libertarian now, I defy labels.

Happy Holidays to you too, Carl, and to your Lutheran roots, Merry Christmas.

 

Oh great! Just noticed the ABC Special on Heaven will cut into Nip/Tuck's season finale. The carver is revealed tonight.

Guess I'll have to tape one and watch the other later.

Just finished my final two projects for my third FLET course. Am awaiting my exam to be sent to my proctor.

Have already signed up for the next course. Won't be on Heaven though.