Note to Progressive Christians ...

Rosie Perera said:

MJ. Smith said:

Joel Osteen

Belated response. I don't consider Osteen liberal/progressive. I'd put him in the prosperity gospel camp, which is pretty different from what most liberal/progressive theologians teach about wealth & poverty. Wikipedia categorizes him as Word of Faith, a subset of Charismatic Christianity. He attended Oral Roberts University, which is also categorized that way, and as evangelical.

Agreed. Progressives are normally critical of the prosperity gospel and Osteen is the poster child of that camp.

NB.Mick said:

Just to chime in with another voice in this thread: thank you so much, Rosie, for compiling these lists....  It seems that some of your suggestions have been deleted in the meantime?

Are you finding broken links on some of them when you click? Or are you just not finding many of my suggestions when you go to the book suggestions board? If I sort my own suggestions in order of most recent, I'm seeing lots. So I don't get the impression any have been deleted. But let me know if you got a broken link.

NB.Mick said:

I used your links, got about two broken ones but didn't save screenshots or such. Right now trying to find those again I see that the request for RHE's https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/wholehearted-faith gives an "idea not found"-error message.

Ah, I see what went wrong. That should be https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-book-requests/posts/wholehearted-faith.

I had accidentally posted that one and one other onto the Desktop App board and then moved them, but had already pasted the (wrong) link into my forum post. I've just fixed those two. The other one was: 

• Rivers from Eden: 40 Days of Intimate Conversation with God

xnman said:

Why would one want to be liberal or progressive? Isn't the bible good enough?

Because they are not regenerated, it is pretty simple as I look over these threads for the last several months, sad state of affairs when you start getting to far away from the actual scriptures you go from Spirit led into the flesh of man.

One of the reasons after 20 plus years, I am spending with the other guys now.

MJ. Smith said:

You all are NOT going to take my thread off topic. Liberal or progressive are simply words used to refer to a constellation of theological beliefs.

aaaah!!! Now I understand..... Some people have a right to their own threads.... and all this time, I thought it was Logos who owned the threads...

Just because I'm a slow learner.... doen't mean I don't learn... it's just that sometimes I wonder what I am learning.... [8-|]

xnman said:

Why would one want to be liberal or progressive? Isn't the bible good enough?

It maybe in how one interprets the Bible. 

MJ.... You have been very helpful to me in my learning of Logos. Please understand that I appreciate you for this. You have answered a lot of my questions.

I did not try to hijack the thread you started and I apologize to you if my aggressiveness came across that way. I did not mean for that to happen, and I ask you with all my heart to forgive me for any indication to the otherwise. In my mind, I was asking what I thought to be a good question for the thought of the thread...I assure you of that.

I am sure I can look back at the threads I've started and say for some of them, "I didn't want it to go that way". I think that happens to a lot of people using Logos forums. I've taken it to be that is the way on Logos Forums.

I want to be friends with you. It's just that sometimes your remarks seem to be ones that push my buttons whether you meant to or not. 

l will try harder. 

MJ. Smith said:

While others were not pulled off topic by your comment, I let it pass. However, when the response

ReformedDoc said:

Because they are not regenerated, it is pretty simple as I look over these threads for the last several months, sad state of affairs when you start getting to far away from the actual scriptures you go from Spirit led into the flesh of man.

was posted your response was no longer benign - it was used to accuse the liberals and progressive of being (a) unregenerated, (b) too far from Scripture and (c) led away from the Spirit into the flesh of man. That post should not be acceptable to any in the forums.

Not responsible for what others post or posted.... Some people look at what someone says through their own feelings and not as what the person meant when they said it. This is nothing but wrong. It is unloving, unkind and ungodly.  I am very glad God does not do such things.

Enough said.

MJ. Smith said:

xnman said:

Not responsible for what others post or posted.... 

A perfect example of how different our basic assumptions are. If I yell "fire", I bear some responsibility for the resulting actions; the same is true of provocative statements in a forum although at a lower level. 

I think part of the issue is that many (most? certainly some - xnman and I for instance) of us are where we are because of deeply held convictions that we have arrived at after careful study. Some of us after years of private study, some of us after years of formal education, some of us after years and years of both. 

Which creates a hesitancy about other positions outside the ones we have dearly fought for and hard earned. I think then despite how generous and respectful we try to be our bias(es) is/are deeply held and to a point so deep we aren't aware they are affecting us. My own post included. I am not nor have I ever been catholic. I do have family that are/were, and I am aware of what the protestant academy teaches about the catholic position(s). But that isn't the same as understanding and being a part of those streams of thought now, and so bias slips through. 

Plus I think especially newer forum members assume that everyone is in the same school of thought as they are, and takes the authority they hold to as seriously or loosely as they do. 

I have no issue being friends with people who identify as progressive, even though I couldn't be confused for one. I've welcomed such people into my church in the past and would gladly do so again. So long as they can handle me preaching something else than what they are acclimated to.... 

I guess my last question is, are there many that would self identify that way? 

It may be that I just run in the wrong circles, but most of the progressives and liberals (given the definitions posted earlier in the thread) that I know wouldn't consider themselves to be that. 

You might have more luck pushing for one thing at a time. See how cool this new feature could be? Do you love the work of (scholars name here)? He's the pre-eminent (something or other) in (field). Vote for him at this link: user voice/Feedbear (or whatever it's called these days). 

You might find more people that love those previously mentioned authors that way, and perhaps less controversy surrounding labels. Or perhaps more drama like we had surrounding Bram stokers Dracula or Faithlife dating. 

Sean said:

there is a horrible gaping hole in Faithlife's catalogue in that we have almost nothing by Bultmann.

I suspect I'm human; I had to first check my library (1 Bultmann).  And then I checked Logos.com (1 Bultmann).  As far as I can see anyway.  Isn't that interesting.  I also didn't know he did the Johnnine Epistles for Hermeneia.

But I can see how 'Progressive' in the title sparks life into folks.  And I'll be the first to admit, coming into Logosia, I had no idea what Catholics thought (except for our not-a-demomination's labels).  Now, there's 'Progressives', and I'm again lost.  I've been watching and really not making too much progress.  Being a 1700s literalist (how's that), I'm far to their? 'left' (most of conservatism is just late 2nd-century doctrines).

So, this thread is quite educational. Bultmann.  Huh.

Great point on interacting with some of these authors within the Logos Software.

Sean said:

there is a horrible gaping hole in Faithlife's catalogue in that we have almost nothing by Bultmann.

I looked on Feedbear and there was only one request for anything by Bultmann. Worth voting for:

Theology of the New Testament, Bultmann

In the meantime, I've added a couple of others:

Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate

Bultman's views on mythological elements in Christianity, followed by five critical essays by H. Thielicke, A. Farrer, and others.

New Testament & Mythology and Other Writings

Aside from the fact that it is perhaps the single most discussed and controversial theological writing of the century, no one knowledgeable of Bultmann's work could doubt its basic importance for his entire contribution. Although the position is for which it argues was hardly new, having already taken shape in several of his theological essays written during the 1920s, it is nevertheless the classic formulation of this position and as such incomparable in the Bultmann corpus.

Years ago, I spent time in a blue collar, rural community in Ohio. I was surprised to find Bultmann's Jesus Christ and Mythology at the local library's donor-supplied used book sale. Since I paid 25 cents for it, I'll vote for Rosie's suggestions. I'm also surprised his commentary on John is missing in the Logos store. (I wouldn't vote for it since I've exhausted my interest in his approach.) Most of his stuff shows its age, but so do many of the things in my library. And clothes closet, too, I suppose.

MJ. Smith said:

Growing up in a very small-town, rural environment, I got my early "theological" training from Time magazine: the names I learned:

• Paul Tillich
• Martin Buber
• Rudolf Bultman
• Alan Watts
• John A.T. Robinson
• John Shelby Spong
• Thomas Merton
• Dag Hammarskjöld
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I've always been a bit surprised at how lightly Logos covers what I think of as the theologians known "culturally". I consider them (and the ones added over the years) to be essential for apologetics and polemics.

The mid-20C was filled with these remarkable "giants" of the theological scene who were so influential that the mainstream secular press like Time covered them. The winds of culture have changed, of course, but we have few, if any, figures today who are so dominating despite the significance of their work. We need them in Logos. There are, of course, publishing/economic factors that would determine whether they would ever make it into the catalogue--I'm sure FL could sell plenty of Bultmann to make it worthwhile; someone like Spong less so--but I would hope that they would not be barred simply because of their viewpoint. We don't need to have everyone, but it is simply wrong to think that Logos is sufficient for academic-level study of, say, the New Testament with Bultmann's absence.

EDIT: And from Catholic theologians, we need Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Küng, Kasper, and others. We have some books about them but very few by them. I am happy, though, that there is a decent amount of von Balthasar in the catalogue.

Richard Rohr 'And' is on pre-pub.

John said:

Does that happen with theological resources too?

As I hi-lite them, then reread them, my best resources gain the weight of additional wisdom. 

Here's a new resource in pre-pub that looks like it would be of interest to the liberal/progressive folks:

https://www.logos.com/product/259679/the-making-of-american-liberal-theology 

MJ. Smith said:

Please make sure the liberal and progressive views are represented in the feedback.

I was going to ... your points are good, but surprising (I don't use the sermon tools). I decided to move on; the design (design, design, design) is too brittle.  Mark will likely do a little of this and that.  It's a lot like the work-thing (I don't even remember its name).  My impression over the years, is they have a feature budget, they get near its limit, and then they're done.  A few years later, a little this and that.  I suspect that's now even more their future.