Now, I stand for all of these things as well; they are good and worthwhile things, but they are not, in my estimation, especially Christian. The other 17 flats in my block are all inhabited by non-Christians who would whole-heartedly agree with this vision. In fact, pretty much all the world religions, as well as most atheist worldviews, would agree with this. What makes it especially Christian?

Exactly! What a wonderful idea to imagine Christians in harmony healing the world right along side of other religions including atheists! Will you only follow a religious path if it can be proved to be somehow superior to all others? Do you measure the value of your own faith by highlighting the deficiencies of your neighbor’s faith? Isn’t it a better mission to be healing the world together rather than fighting against it? Why do we need to feel like we have something that others don’t have? For me, it is inspirational to think that the message of Jesus (the word of God that was “in the beginning”) has also found its way into language in many different cultures in many different parts of the world. Isn’t the golden rule MORE important since we find it in many cultural expressions or is that truth lessened because it isn’t exclusive to only one messenger?

I completely agree with you that the Virgin birth and resurrection are more important than simply a piece of history; without their relevance to today’s world, they seem to have little meaning. But why reduce them to simply parables?

Why does our theology have to be about believing something that doesn’t happen to you and I? When did being a Christin become believing something that was difficult to believe? To believe in Jesus and accept him is more about believing in his vision and accepting his ideas not about believing in his existence or the facts of a particular narrative about him. Miracle stories originated to validate the meanings. Early Christians didn’t have to bend their worldview in order to follow Jesus so why should we? Do we get more “points” now because we have more information about reality to reject?

Theology should be more about articulating what is observed not buiding up certainty in things we can’t observe. If you or I have never seen a miracle then it makes more sense to simply document that fact rather than running around in circles trying to imagine something that isn’t happening or worse trying to manufacture it. Hey, if you are witnessing miracles then by all means, please include that in your observations. It should be part of your story, but it isn’t part of mine and I’m not going to blame myself or God.

My view isn’t about reducing stories to parables it is about ELEVATING the stories to the level of parables and out of the muck of history telling. The Bible is a miserable history book with lots of holes and almost zero details but it is a wonderful creative narrative. People reduce the value and credibility of the Bible if they try to force it into the genre of history telling. Only a more modern mind would see historical evidence as somehow more valuable than wonderful symbolic narrative.

Why can they not be also historically true?

Simply because there is no reason to think they are historically true. When a story includes a talking snake it is a pretty good sign that the storyteller is about to project a symbolic meaning. The same goes for a virgin birth, a resuscitation from the dead, or a world devouring beast. Why think otherwise? Which way of reading the text is more likely to be true? Did Jesus’ followers complain that the prodigal son story was useless if it never actually happened? Jesus taught in parables about God, so what makes us think that his followers wouldn’t teach about him through parables.

It might go like this… Jesus was so wonderful and so insightful that he must have been “God incarnate”. It is almost as if he was God in human form. His life was too important to have been ended on a cross, so it must have been something God planned from the start and he must still be alive at the right hand of God right now. I can imagine that type of sentiment and it is easy to see how the stories would have formed. They are beautiful parables and life changing in their inspiration. I agree with the sentiment but I don’t think we should be compelled to take those stories literally or feel ashamed if we can’t take them literally. We certainly shouldn’t let the the literal interpretation overpower the more than literal meanings.

To answer your question about what is “new” in the emerging conversation, I think the thing that is new is that people who admit they disagree about theological items are now agreeing to be friends and working together to continue dialogue and share in common goals. In the past, the goal had been to clearly define the boundaries of each group and try to declare victory for one particular definition. For the first time, Christianity is beginning to be defined by its deeper goals and it’s tangible impact not by the boundaries of its individual metaphysical beliefs. In other words, our theological discussion are more about sharing how we both arrive at an appreciation for Jesus and a desire to change the world even if we totally disagree about history or intepretation of texts. I think that type of open attitude is “new” even if the particular theological ideas within the conversation are very old.