2 - What I do not believe in, and what I will steadfastly refute, is an 'Esoteric Christianity' that is elitist, that holds itself apart from the 'common run' and regards itself as separate, distinct and special, with a body of knowledge unique to itself — this is fundamentally born of a not-love of one's neighbour...
But
wait a minute. This is
exactly the form (and practice) of "Christianity" that I - and so many other people, apparently - have been seeking to escape!
It seems I have not
tried hard enough.
And some feel the severance, the exile, must be complete -
while others simply prefer to drain the murky bathwaters. (I knew that Christ child was in there, somewhere!
)
`Liberal' (Christians/Christianity) seems the proper term, imho, for folks who fit into the latter category. But, how awkward to need to split
Christianity into `Traditional' vs.
anything else. Why not
Orthodox vs. Reformed Judiasm, and Sunni vs. Shi'a Islam?
Esoteric, Mystical, New Age, etc. -
whether referring to Christianity or not, can certainly fit into the current `Alternative' category, but such a thing as
`Alternative Christianity' just doesn't mean much - as Snoopy pointed out.
And Thomas, I will be
the first to defend the notion that every single major religion has its exoteric and its esoteric aspects - each of which are really only definable
one in terms of the other. Just don't pretend that there aren't
esotericists (with
no additional
qualifying label needed) of
any and every exoteric religious interest/tradition/practice (and NONE) ... who MUST BE BOXED into the definition
you provide for
"a Christian esoterism." And don't insist that,
"oh, well - then they must be participants in a Buddhist esoterism, a Sufi esoterism, etc."
Such,
at best, is
your own opinion/experience,
and is begging the question!!!
In the same way that
there exists a Christian Ecumenism, or Ecumenical Movement, so too there exists a
worldwide effort toward Ecumenism between
all religions.
And just as within Christianity, the idea is NOT to "level the playing field," remove all denominational differences, and
define what Christianity means
for everyone ... neither do those who believe in
religious universalism - or
certainly religious pluralism - believe that all differences are irrelevant, or meaningless at the individual level, or even in terms of
denominations, and religions, as a whole.
How does any of this get us closer to
what might be best in terms of administrative/organizational changes at CR? It just comes back to Snoopy's point regarding
civil discussion ... and also to what might be the
agenda which any particular person may be bringing to the table.
There was a great thread about this (
agendas) recently, I thought ... or maybe I just imagined it. I can't find it, at any rate, and I wish I could put my finger on it right now. `Dialogue about dialogue' was good, but I thought there was another about
motivations for being here, or something. Perhaps I interpreted it out of context ...
oh well ...
Peace,
~andrew