|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What exactly Is "not being spiritually fed"?
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
Yesterday I went to my church to help with the Christmas decorating and I got into a discussion with one of the priests there and the topic came about was people leaving a church because as he put it "they weren't being spiritually fed" and if they found it in another denomination fine and dandy.
Yet what exactly is being "spiritually fed"? I have some cousins who at best were nominally Catholic, went to mass almost never they left the church for some happy clappy church, got rebaptized renounced Catholicism etc, and I too thought that it had to do with "not being spiritually fed" until I became more familiar with their church. I attended a couple times with them ( to show I was openminded, it left me cold) and it seemed more like a tax exempt social club than anything else.
7 days a week there were bowling, softball, pot lucks, singles mixers, senior mixers, lectures, retreats, yoga etc etc. In comparrison to their old parish which is my mother's family that we attended since 1899 pretty dowdy and grey but a gorgeous old church nevertheless!.
My question is how as Christians regardless of denomination do we
keep people from not leaving? I had one priest tell me "if they would rather have Walmart than Tiffany & Co good riddance" Should'nt the people not being spiritually nourished play a role in why they feel this way? Is it always the clergy's fault? There is an American expression "If you don't like the news go make some of your own" I.E. if you have an interest in Julian of Norwitch start a book club or a singles social group, a scripture reading group or whatever. The pastor can't do everything, it's their faith community too. People sometimes say "I don't get anything out of it" well what do you put into it? GET INVOLVED! Obviously I have never met every individual who has left a RCC parish for a non denom, but the dozen or so that I have, including my cousins, it seemed more about the social aspects or lack of then anything else, I am sure there are exceptions to my theory.
[ 21. February 2006, 20:41: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Po
Shipmate
# 2456
|
Posted
I would argue that people are supposed to leave churches, and that when people reach a certain level of spirituality they tend to outgrow institutions and see their spiritual life in broader terms. Some are moved to found new churches, while others dispense with the institutional model for churches altogether. (I suggest that Alan Jamieson's findings have provided academic support for this idea.)
So here's your problem: the more you feed people spiritually, the more likely they are to achieve a sense of spiritual self-confidence and independence—and leave.
--------------------
The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is selfishness.
Posts: 797 | From: LA (Little'ampton) | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Is that Biblical?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
What a curious question for an Orthodox to ask! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Po
Shipmate
# 2456
|
Posted
How is the community of Christ to spread unless people are permitted to leave churches?
And don't tell me you are unaware of the powerful thread of anti-institutional thinking that runs through the Gospels. (It's not a popular message with institutions...for obvious reasons.)
FREEDOM
Sing it loud.
--------------------
The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is selfishness.
Posts: 797 | From: LA (Little'ampton) | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sure aint biblical. For missionary work, or "spreading" etc, people don't leave. They are commissioned, sent out, supported.
Doesn't fit "body of Christ" understanding either. The 1 Cor 12 and Eph 4 and Romans 12 pix all demonstrate a notion of the "body of Christ" as a co-operative gathering of diverse gifts and talents, who can do more together than they can do individually.
"Lone ranger" Christianity may be a calling for the odd solitary hermit-type, desert father type - that's been true in church history. But it sure isn't a sign of spiritual development that you get cheesed off with people who aren't as far down the road as you think they are, and take your "superiority" off on your own somewhere. The notion of "outgrowing" the church just looks like pride, or self deception at work.
Visible churches can be "naff" places and people can have bad experience there - and learn from them. But the church is God's idea for the body of Christ on earth - and so far as I am aware, he does not have a "Plan B".
I don't think this view is particularly Catholic, or Orthodox, or Protestant, or whatever. Its just mainstream Christian thinking, common ground to all the denominations I know.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Missed the edit button. I should have said "as far down the road as you think you are". Sorry.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Getting back to the actual topic at hand...
To me "spiritually fed" has several components. Being a Christian in a sacramental tradition, having regular access to the Eucharist would for me be a very real means of being fed spiritually. But I am also spiritually fed by good preaching -- proclaiming the Gospel in a challenging, thought- and action-provoking way. Related to that, I am spiritually fed in a faith community that's intellectually rigorous, that's willing to wrestle with hard questions, that has a strong religious formation program for persons of all ages -- that doesn't ask people to check their brains at the door. I'm spiritually fed by a church that is out and active in the world -- that supports that benedictory "Go in peace and serve the Lord" by actually serving the Lord by serving its neighborhood and community and wider world. I'm spiritually fed by a church that provides spiritual direction for people at various stages in their faith journeys.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
Unfortunately, for some people "not being spiritually fed" actually means my priest is trying to drag me kicking and screaming out of my comfort zone, so I'm off to find one that I agree with completely.
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
it sure isn't a sign of spiritual development that you get cheesed off with people who aren't as far down the road as you think they are, and take your "superiority" off on your own somewhere. The notion of "outgrowing" the church just looks like pride, or self deception at work.
Visible churches can be "naff" places and people can have bad experience there - and learn from them. But the church is God's idea for the body of Christ on earth - and so far as I am aware, he does not have a "Plan B".
I've just been to midnight communion. The place was full, everything was done in order, the people seemed open and friendly. It felt like a genuine community. The sermon was terrible, the church building was not, er, to my taste, but all in all if I'd ignored most of the things being said about God and Jesus this would have been as good a celebration of a winter festival as I could have wanted.
Thing is, all the good in this expression of God-based community was shot through with Incarnation-based theology. To be an open, fully-participating member of this community I'd have to believe that's right. And I don't.
So in the light of this, what does the church say God requires of me? Switch off my search after truth at the Trinity? This is nothing to do with lone rangers or superiority. This is about what the Church has to offer my spirit. Does it really want to connect with people in my kind of situation? How much relevence is being choked or marginalised by locking down the Church's understanding of God in a 4th-century vault?
Christmas Eve communion was good for those of us who were there. I can't help thinking that it could have been so much more. Merry Christmas.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Thing is, all the good in this expression of God-based community was shot through with Incarnation-based theology. To be an open, fully-participating member of this community I'd have to believe that's right. And I don't.
<snip>I can't help thinking that it could have been so much more. Merry Christmas.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Aren't you saying that it could have been so much more than Christian? But then it wouldn't have been the Church.
(Happy Christmas to you though!)
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Doesn't seem like you'd get much out of a Christmas Eve communion service unless you
a) thought you were there with those others to celebrate Jesus in person -- and
b) unless you have some sort of church life with those other people in the pews on other days.
I as an individual am responsible for my relationship to God. As far as the aspects of it that originate with me, I mean. The parts of it that I control, they're up to me.
But there is a real concept of "being fed". Jesus hammered it into Peter that he should "feed my sheep". Paul talks about Christians being ready for "the pure milk of the Word" and for "strong meat". One of the things we expect to happen in amongst our church family is that we can learn and serve and be fed by those farther along the road than we are.
So, yes, I think it's a valid thing to search for a local body to function with as a Christian, if you're feeling a great gaping ragged hole in the teaching where you're at.
But I suppose only you can really know if what you need is a different style or maturity-level of "feeding". Rather than a kick in the butt because you're being a spiritual whiney-brat, I mean.
I can't look at another person and really know which sort of church-leaver they are. I can have my informed opinion, but it doesn't matter much, does it?
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Aren't you saying that it could have been so much more than Christian? But then it wouldn't have been the Church.
I think the Church could be more. And who are we to say it can't?
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
But I suppose only you can really know if what you need is a different style or maturity-level of "feeding". Rather than a kick in the butt because you're being a spiritual whiney-brat, I mean.
Thanks for that. Not. If you think that churches as they are have their theology and practice so right that they have no more to learn, no creativity to explore, nothing new to grow into, you condemn them to being irrelevent curiousities that deserve no future with God. I hope not all churches are like that.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The place was full, everything was done in order, the people seemed open and friendly. It felt like a genuine community.
So, a first big compliment.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The sermon was terrible, the church building was not, er, to my taste, but all in all if I'd ignored most of the things being said about God and Jesus this would have been as good a celebration of a winter festival as I could have wanted.
It wasn't a "celebration of a winter festival", it was the Mass of Christ. If you didn't want to partake in that, why attend? It's of course impossible to judge the sermon from your comments above, it may well have been terrible by anyone's standards. But given your opinions about God and Jesus, it presumably was an orthodox sermon. So, a second big compliment.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Thing is, all the good in this expression of God-based community was shot through with Incarnation-based theology.
So, a third big compliment. Actually, I would be hard pressed to come up with more lavish praise than that. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) All in all, obviously the place is top notch.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
To be an open, fully-participating member of this community I'd have to believe that's right. And I don't.
To be a full member of a Christian church, you have to be a Christian - what a surprise... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) If you don't believe in Christian teachings, why do you hang out in Christian churches? Spiritual masochism? Are you sitting there to demonstrate your excluded-ness to them? Why do you expect all these people to throw their beliefs overboard just to accomodate yours?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
So in the light of this, what does the church say God requires of me? Switch off my search after truth at the Trinity?
The church requires of you to believe in the Truth it faithfully hands on through the millenia. Your search both ends and starts anew in that.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
This is nothing to do with lone rangers or superiority. This is about what the Church has to offer my spirit. Does it really want to connect with people in my kind of situation?
Do you really want to connect to the church? Or do you want to connect only to a church in the image of Dave Marshall? The church offers you what it offers to everybody: the Truth and the Way and the Light. If that's not your truth, your way, and your light, then what is there to be done? The church is supposed to go after the lost sheep, but if the sheep keep running away even faster, is it supposed to turn into a wolf to catch them?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
How much relevence is being choked or marginalised by locking down the Church's understanding of God in a 4th-century vault?
None. The early fathers worked out most truths about Christianity. Truth does not have an expiration date. Clearly we have gone beyond what they thought in many ways, but they will forever provide the solid foundation of Christian theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Christmas Eve communion was good for those of us who were there. I can't help thinking that it could have been so much more.
Were you in communion? It appears not.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Merry Christmas.
Indeed, to you to. A beginning.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Aren't you saying that it could have been so much more than Christian? But then it wouldn't have been the Church.
I think the Church could be more. And who are we to say it can't?
A church that is more than Christian is less.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you think that churches as they are have their theology and practice so right that they have no more to learn, no creativity to explore, nothing new to grow into, you condemn them to being irrelevent curiousities that deserve no future with God. I hope not all churches are like that.
The church is like a tree. Yes, it ever keeps growing from the roots over the trunk to the branches. Yes, it brings forth new leaves and fruits all the time. Yes, new birds can make their nest in it. No, it is not a good idea to chop it off with an axe. Then this tree will die. Maybe something else will grow in its place, but it is this tree which is the tree of knowledge and of eternal life. If you care for that, care for it, put your axe away...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Ever explore Unitarian-Universalists? They admire the teachings of Jesus a great deal -without believing he was the Incarnate God- and the right community can be very active in social justice. You know you are not a traditional Christian, Dave. Why torture yourself by going to traditional churches?
There are people at my ECUSA church who are not Incarnationists. They are quite active in church community and no one gets on their case about their beliefs. And they don't beat the rest of us up for our beliefs, either, or expect us to make them comfortable by not mentioning them, just as we don't put any censure on them when they add their two bits to discussion.
Maybe you could gather your own house church of the like-minded, develop your own exchange of ideas, your own priorities for worshipping and serving God and your fellow humans. If, as you think, there are lots of people out there who find Incarnational Christianity irrelevant, but long for a more deist(?)/theist(?) spirituality, you might find yourself at the head of a Movement. ![[Cool]](cool.gif) I'm not saying this as a person who wouldn't heartily welcome you to my church if you touched down in my part of the world, but you've made it clear that credal churches make you miserable. You seem to wish they'd change over to your vision of belief and worship; I don't think they will.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Dave, what would that church have looked like/felt like to have made you feel less negative about your experience?
The main negative element for me was the assumption of certainty about Jesus being God. If the good stuff in the service - the warm welcome, the familar tunes, the prayers, the ritual meal, the celebration of a festival to remember Jesus' birth - had instead recalled and reflected on Jesus the inspirational man, his teaching, his way, his God, then nothing I value would have been lost. And given familiarity with adjustments to the liturgy that this would require, I'd be surprised if most others there would have objected.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The church is like a tree. Yes, it ever keeps growing from the roots over the trunk to the branches. Yes, it brings forth new leaves and fruits all the time. Yes, new birds can make their nest in it. No, it is not a good idea to chop it off with an axe. Then this tree will die. Maybe something else will grow in its place, but it is this tree which is the tree of knowledge and of eternal life. If you care for that, care for it, put your axe away...
Any tree of substance provides shelter for all manner of life. And the Church does indeed provide shelter for many. But if it is not grounded in a search after truth, if does not have the courage to let go of false certainties, it is not rooted in truth. Tradition has brought it this far. For me and I suspect for many, that's not enough to take it from here to eternity.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'm not saying this as a person who wouldn't heartily welcome you to my church if you touched down in my part of the world, but you've made it clear that credal churches make you miserable. You seem to wish they'd change over to your vision of belief and worship; I don't think they will.
Don't think I'm making myself miserable over this. I'm pretty self-contained. But since I've come to not believe the creeds, I wonder why. Either I'm mistaken, or traditional Christianity is not the ultimate truth it claims to be. The only way I know to find out which is right is to keep on asking questions.
It's not about being tolerated within the Church but about whether the Church is right. There's enough of us about that think large parts of the creeds are nonsense. At some point I hope someone in authority (and that ain't gonna be me ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ) will find themself in a position to bring about radical change. I don't see it's going to happen, but that doesn't seem a good enough reason to stop asking why.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
You need a church that sees the creeds as nonsense. The traditional ones don't; I don't; lots of people on the Ship don't. I only stay a Christian, personally, because I believe in the Incarnation and trust the God who came to earth to live and die, to bridge the gap. I don't know for certain if that is Truth, but I live like it is. With the majority of humanity not believing that, there's a great possibility that I'm wrong as a wrong thing can be. Oh, well. I like the person I am with this belief.
You are on a search for Truth: how will you know when you find it? Can you prove that Jesus isn't the Incarnate God? I sure as hell can't prove that he was, and I don't care, myself. I can't prove Mohammed did or didn't get sacred dictation; I can't prove or disprove whether humans become reincarnated over and over until we get it right; I can't prove whether or not there's a God or a bunch of them or none of them. I can't prove that early Christianity wasn't a big urban legend that took on a life of its own; historians are pretty sure but it might have been quite a game of Telephone Gossip. If you want to spend your life looking and living and deciding on what ways work best in the meriad of choices, just go for it, but don't fool yourself that you will find Truth in any way that will satisfy you with ultimate certainty, unless you end up coming across something that says "Yes" to your soul and your soul says "Yes" to it, and decide as most of the rest of us do that that's as good as it's gonna get. If you don't, it still sounds like such a life should work if you just relax and enjoy the ride.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Dave, what would that church have looked like/felt like to have made you feel less negative about your experience?
The main negative element for me was the assumption of certainty about Jesus being God. If the good stuff in the service - the warm welcome, the familar tunes, the prayers, the ritual meal, the celebration of a festival to remember Jesus' birth - had instead recalled and reflected on Jesus the inspirational man, his teaching, his way, his God, then nothing I value would have been lost. And given familiarity with adjustments to the liturgy that this would require, I'd be surprised if most others there would have objected.
Possibly not. Or possibly. I would have, for when I join in worship with a Christian community I expect the traditional givens of Christian tradition. Or at least variations on a theme of them. If I happen to go to a synagogue or a mosque or a Temple or a wiccan meet I expect something else, but that's a different issue.
Come to think about it, when I go to A Midsummer Night's Dream I don't expect Pinter. I like Pinter .... but haven't completely confused him with Shakespeare.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
the Church does indeed provide shelter for many. But if it is not grounded in a search after truth, if does not have the courage to let go of false certainties, it is not rooted in truth. Tradition has brought it this far. For me and I suspect for many, that's not enough to take it from here to eternity.
May be, and there are strong arguments for change and renewal in the church. But if it becomes for example, a community of one legged thespians who worship black triffids - because that for them is a satisfying and uplifting experience - perhaps it has morphed into something else. When a boy playing soccer at Rugby, England, picked up a ball and ran with it it was a fine move (one of the finest in history ) but that to which it gave birth was not soccer.
[ 26. December 2005, 01:40: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The main negative element for me was the assumption of certainty about Jesus being God.
How ... Christian of them to be certain about that. It's called faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If the good stuff in the service - the warm welcome, the familar tunes, the prayers, the ritual meal, the celebration of a festival to remember Jesus' birth - had instead recalled and reflected on Jesus the inspirational man, his teaching, his way, his God, then nothing I value would have been lost.
Nothing you value would be lost, precisely. The Christian faith however would have been gutted. If Jesus is just an "inspirational man", then we are not saved by His crucifixion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
And given familiarity with adjustments to the liturgy that this would require, I'd be surprised if most others there would have objected.
Too bad, up to this point the church you went to sounded ideal... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But if it is not grounded in a search after truth, if does not have the courage to let go of false certainties, it is not rooted in truth.
And who decides whether it holds on to "false certainties"? Dave Marshall? I think not. The church is not grounded in a search after truth. Never was, never will be. It is grounded in a personal encounter with the Truth. It searches only after the optimal understanding of the Truth it already has received. As for that, one does not reconsider the wheel every time somebody decides it really should be square.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Tradition has brought it this far. For me and I suspect for many, that's not enough to take it from here to eternity.
For many the continuous progress of Tradition unfortunately is not enough to take them from here to eternity. However, the problem is that falsehood does not set free. Tradition cannot incorporate falsehood to reach more people, because then it would save less, not more.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm pretty self-contained.
Yes, Dave, that's precisely your fundamental problem. It's a very old problem, older than humanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But since I've come to not believe the creeds, I wonder why. Either I'm mistaken, or traditional Christianity is not the ultimate truth it claims to be.
Choices, choices, ...
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The only way I know to find out which is right is to keep on asking questions.
No, you are not doing that. One is not truly asking questions if one is not willing to accept any answers (but those one has oneself).
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's not about being tolerated within the Church but about whether the Church is right. There's enough of us about that think large parts of the creeds are nonsense.
Simply form you own believer's club and stop bugging the church?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
I've often observed a pattern amonst post-Christians - whether or not Dave M sees himself in this category is immaterial. Many post-Christians look back on their "Christian Phase" as an embarassment that they've outgrown and - and on those left behind as babes struggling in a morass of myopia ( er, that might be a tortured metaphor!).
On the other had it's not uncommon to hear the sneering Pentecostal "once I was a catholic/anglican/whatever now I'm a Christian." Or the liberal "once I believed in resurrection/walking on water/raising of Lazarus but now I really understand" - to the last I am prone, I admit, in milder forms ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) .
We need naratives with which to adjust to the transitions on our lives. Dave's narrative challenges me - but like Pollyanna I'm glad it does: Dave M throws me back on my narratives of faith to see if they still hold water. As it happens I believe mine - and I'm happy to share it with some wonderful Romeros and Tutus and Bonhoeffers and Kolbes and countless other poor misguided journeyers - does hold water, however mysterious and sometimes nonsensical it seems.
So I kinda hang round the community of faith, I guess.
[ 26. December 2005, 04:13: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But if it is not grounded in a search after truth, if does not have the courage to let go of false certainties, it is not rooted in truth.
But Christianity, by definition, is predicated on the premise that Jesus was God. You might just as well claim that Monotheism is exclusive, because it rules out any possibility that there is no God.
The way I see it, the "search for the truth" is called "philosophy". Christianity is where you go when your philosophy has led you to conclude that the Incarnation is true.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Progradior
Apprentice
# 10832
|
Posted
quote:
The main negative element for me was the assumption of certainty about Jesus being God. If the good stuff in the service - the warm welcome, the familar tunes, the prayers, the ritual meal, the celebration of a festival to remember Jesus' birth - had instead recalled and reflected on Jesus the inspirational man, his teaching, his way, his God, then nothing I value would have been lost. And given familiarity with adjustments to the liturgy that this would require, I'd be surprised if most others there would have objected.
Don't think I'm making myself miserable over this. I'm pretty self-contained. But since I've come to not believe the creeds, I wonder why. Either I'm mistaken, or traditional Christianity is not the ultimate truth it claims to be. The only way I know to find out which is right is to keep on asking questions.
It's not about being tolerated within the Church but about whether the Church is right. There's enough of us about that think large parts of the creeds are nonsense. At some point I hope someone in authority (and that ain't gonna be me ) will find themself in a position to bring about radical change. I don't see it's going to happen, but that doesn't seem a good enough reason to stop asking why.
Dave,
I've read your messages with interest. I have similar problems. I'm a panentheist Christian (a label which I cling to tenaciously despite the opinions of supernatural theists of a more conservative bent as to the second part <g>). That probably means I have less problems with creeds than you do, but I still have problems. Some quick points from my POV which may or may not be of help:-
* I don't personally think the creeds accurately reflect what Jesus said. I don't even think they reflect accurately what the NT writers were trying to say.
* Having said that, they do represent the tradition of the church, which is not likely to change in a hurry, and if you want a faith community (which I think most Christians rightly do) you need to come to terms with that tradition.
* Personally, I resolve that by making a firm distinction between logos and mythos. The tradition is mythos, and mythos is not false under any circumstances, merely of greater or lesser utility to you. Provocatively, therefore, assuming that when you read fiction or watch a fictional film you are able to manage a willing suspension of disbelief, why not in the case of a liturgy?
Any of these points you'd like me to expand, I can. Having said that, I may not get back here all that regularly.....
--------------------
Progradior
"Nothing burns in Hell save self-will" (Theologia Germanica)
Posts: 11 | From: near York, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I like the phrase "courage to let go of false certainties".
Perhaps others don't think they're false, not through lack of courage, but through simple disagreement.
In good faith etc.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You are on a search for Truth: how will you know when you find it?
It's not about finding Truth. That seems beyond us in this life. Instead of choosing a claim to Truth as you have and investing faith in that, I find peace in not knowing more than the natural universe. My theories about God and creation as far as they go let me think and talk about God as creator, but as a concept that reflects some reality beyond our capacity to know. It's this that makes sense of my personal experience and lets me live as if I have an interactive relationship with God.
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
May be, and there are strong arguments for change and renewal in the church. But if it becomes for example, a community of one legged thespians who worship black triffids - because that for them is a satisfying and uplifting experience - perhaps it has morphed into something else.
Yes, I think about this. But so far I always come back to the question of whether the church is really committed to being certain it is right, or does truth have an override. I find it interesting that when pushed, it seems even the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, and certainly the Anglicans, have not I think seen fit to close the door absolutely on doctrinal change about anything, however practically and politically impossible such things appear.
And who's really using the funny shaped ball in this, those of us who see the natural universe as a bottom line or the people who decided a man was God?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The church is not grounded in a search after truth. Never was, never will be.
The RCC is certain those 200-odd de fide statements are The Truth? I thought that was for an ecumencial council to decide.
quote:
No, you are not [keeping asking questions]. One is not truly asking questions if one is not willing to accept any answers (but those one has oneself).
I think I am. I looked long and hard at Christianity from the inside before we ever met on here.
quote:
Simply form you own believer's club and stop bugging the church?
And there was me thinking catholic meant universal...
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
These discussions all seem quite similar, Dave. In purgatorial style, in hellish style....
But despite the times we've gone round the loop, I'm still unsure of what you want from the church in practical terms. Do you want it to accomodate all faiths and philosophies represented in the UK? A subset? A particular approach? (and defined how?)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
This seems akin to someone going to a meeting of the Communist party and complaining that they didn't espouse capitalism. Why go to a service dedicated the incarnation if you don't believe in it? Why expect the church to pander to you?
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Progradior:
I resolve that by making a firm distinction between logos and mythos. The tradition is mythos, and mythos is not false under any circumstances, merely of greater or lesser utility to you. Provocatively, therefore, assuming that when you read fiction or watch a fictional film you are able to manage a willing suspension of disbelief, why not in the case of a liturgy?
Mainly I guess because the liturgy is claimed by the church to refer to truth, not fiction. But welcome to the Ship.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm still unsure of what you want from the church in practical terms.
I don't think I want anything from the church. I'm commenting on the church, asking questions about the church, because church makes claims that often boil down to Christians believing that what is logically beyond our capacity to know a) can be known, b) is known by them, and c) should be believed by me or, in the nicest possible way, I will go to hell. It seems churlish not to respond when I have the chance...
quote:
Originally posted by Chive:
Why go to a service dedicated the incarnation if you don't believe in it?
Mainly because my wife didn't want to go on her own (the church is in the middle of nowhere and the car park has no lighting).
quote:
Why expect the church to pander to you?
This thread's about "not being spiritually fed". I wasn't, in theological terms anyway, at the service I posted about. I was, though, in being made welcome and comfortable with familiar hymns and order of service. Who's expecting pandering?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
I'm having trouble with this thread because I agree with everybody ...
As almost always, I agree with LutheranChk; I've lost count of the threads that I haven't bothered to post on because she's said it already ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) . I agree 100% with Po's sig, and I agree that Christianity has a strong element of anti-institutionalism. But it also has a clear message of the church as the body of Christ and the need to be together as church. So leaving one church for another because of lack of spiritual feeding should not mean leaving church altoghether, and to say that this is something that the more spiritually mature do seems to me to be gnostic, not Christian.
I agree that the church Dave Marshall went to on Christmas Eve sounds great, and incarnational theology is to me a great plus point because I contrast it to a purely substitutionary atonement theology - I believe that the life of Jesus is at least as important as his death.
But then I realised what he meant, which was that if you don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God you can't get anything from a service which not only says this but wraps it up in a story about virgin birth and stables.
We've had other threads about the virgin birth; I don't want to rehash them but to take from the view that there is a narrative truth in them which is not necessarily a factual truth. I think I probably want to extend that to exactly what is meant by Jesus being God.
I have no trouble with saying that, for those who knew him, it seems that the Jesus of History was such an exceptional person, through whom the possibility of what man could be shone through so clearly that he was to them divine. But that is still a long way from the Christ of Faith and the Trinity. I'm not sure that asking whether the Trinity is factually true actually has much meaning, because we're not really in 2+2 territory. But I'm certain that it has a narrative truth. On a good day, it's a narrative truth that I accept in its own right. On an average day, it's probably a truth that I accept existentially rather than anything else - there are probably other truths I could have accepted instead and which would have 'fed' me just as well, but this is the one I have chosen.
Spong
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Po:
So here's your problem: the more you feed people spiritually, the more likely they are to achieve a sense of spiritual self-confidence and independence—and leave.
I'm probably proving the point you're making here, but my own take on this is; if ever I, speaking personally, decide I'm too spiritually self-confident and independent to require the companionship of a worshipping community, I expect I may be fooling myself somewhere down the line. I find it hard enough to try to grow up into a maturing Christian even with the influences of fellow pilgrims to smooth off the edges. So God alone knows what kind of horlicks I'd make of the journey without them. But then maybe, as I say, that proves your point about how immature and unspiritual I am!
Incidentally, a definition of 'spiritually independent' would be useful. Spiritually independent of what, for example? I'm not conscious, myself, of being dependent spiritually on anyone in particular - and sadly not as much as I probably ought to be on God - but humanly speaking I feel a tremendous spiritual reinforcement and support from others in the worshipping community, believing as I do that God works through people's lives through his Holy Spirit. I'm not sure why I would consider myself as being especially spiritually mature, if I wanted to dispense with that expression of God's way of working?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Re: "What is 'not being spiritually fed'". I should be in a position to answer this, since I left a church for the reason of not being spiritually fed. Actually, because I was 'spiritually starving' would be how I described it.
However, I've been in spiritual food refusal since then. Or maybe anorexia. (How far can I stretch the analogy?) And it's been so long now, that I can't really remember what it was like...
I think it was a persistent, sustained feeling of desolation every week while sitting in a service. Completely untouched and unreached. Frustration that there was nothing I could do to improve the situation. And not encountering God. The spiritual feeding also was related to the outworking of the community - how they cared or didn't care for those around them, and how they cared in terms of social justice for the wider community.
God had the food (I still assume). However, I couldn't find the right utensils.
A snippet from Mr Cohen, Tonight will be fine is apposite:
You kept right on loving, I went on a fast. Now I am too thin and your love is too vast.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mgeorge
Shipmate
# 10487
|
Posted
In my ECUSA experience, when people say they are "not being spiritually fed" they really mean "I don't like the way the rector is doing things, so therefore I am leaving the church."
From my POV, however, "spiritually fed" means the satisfaction, knowledge, "lift" and general happiness I give and receive in my Christian life. I think I am "spiritually fed" by a worship service, for instance, when the sermon, community, Eucharist, etc. help make me feel prepared to face the challenges of the real world.
There are other ways to feel spiritually fed--when you help someone in need, for instance.
Posts: 1021 | From: By the beach | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think I want anything from the church. I'm commenting on the church, asking questions about the church, because church makes claims that often boil down to Christians believing that what is logically beyond our capacity to know a) can be known, b) is known by them, and c) should be believed by me or, in the nicest possible way, I will go to hell. It seems churlish not to respond when I have the chance...
I think these are seperate issues; whether the church teaches that you will go to hell if you don't believe certain things (most of it doesn't) and secondly a general approach about whether they can know what they teach (this is the basis of a belief in revelation).
When I said "what you want from them" I didn't mean in the "what things do you want to receive from them?" sense... I meant in the "what do you think they should do?" sense.
It sounds to me like you think they should stop being the church.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It sounds to me like you think they should stop being the church.
Got it in one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Po:
So here's your problem: the more you feed people spiritually, the more likely they are to achieve a sense of spiritual self-confidence and independence—and leave.
I'm probably proving the point you're making here, but my own take on this is; if ever I, speaking personally, decide I'm too spiritually self-confident and independent to require the companionship of a worshipping community, I expect I may be fooling myself somewhere down the line.
I still don't have the words to quite express what I'd like to express here, but the idea of "being so fed that one leaves the church" is, to me, an oxymoron along the lines of "Loving people so much and being so good at interpersonal relationships that one becomes a hermit".
God (the Trinity) is a relationship. Being a Christian is about being drawn into God's Trinitarian relationship in relationship with other believers.
"Not being spiritually fed", from my own experience (meaning this is one experience and not the entirety of the experience of "not being spiritual fed") meant feeling that I could not be honest about what I believed. I felt that there were two things going on; if I occasionally 'let slip' a bit of honesty that I'd be corrected and gently admonished. The time I came out and actually articulated a specific belief, I found that I'd shocked and upset a number of people (before imaginations run riot, I'd said that I didn't think that the Lord's Supper was 'clearly a memorial meal' and that I believed that Christ was present.) For me, this experience meant that I had no room to grow. I chose to leave that congregation and not without quite a bit of regret.
On the other hand, I get quite imaptient with 'I'm not being spiritually fed because I don't like the style of worship' which just seems like religious consumerism to me.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It sounds to me like you think they should stop being the church.
If your concept of the church is tied to a metaphysical entity with it's current expression in spacetime defined say by a commitment to the Nicene Creed, then in some sense you're probably right.
I see the church as a human institution with a long history but that can in reality become what it's current membership choose to make it. From this point of view, the church could be more responsive to how our understanding of the universe has changed since the council of Nicea. These changes, for me anyway, make new theologies possible that are both more credible and more likely to be useful to more people. But YMMV.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
My guess is that the majority of the membership you refer to are broadly in favour of the creeds, and probably wouldn't agree with you that the creeds have been challenged by any recent scientific or philosophical advance.
But I'm presuming your argument doesn't rest on needing any number of people to agree with you...
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Dave Marshall
This is about what the Church has to offer my spirit. Does it really want to connect with people in my kind of situation? How much relevence is being choked or marginalised by locking down the Church's understanding of God in a 4th-century vault?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My guess is that the majority of the membership you refer to are broadly in favour of the creeds, and probably wouldn't agree with you that the creeds have been challenged by any recent scientific or philosophical advance.
But I'm presuming your argument doesn't rest on needing any number of people to agree with you...
Setting up the creeds against science is an unnecessary enterprise that lessens both religious discipline and science. 'Tis the same sort of false dichotomy that got the now-ousted and court-butt-kicked Dover, Pa. Bd. of Ed. in trouble.
Dave: Seriously: you should follow Lyda's advice and check out the local UU meetings. That's where you would probably fit best, in terms of philosophy. Otherwise, as a small-O orthodox Anglican, I feel faintly annoyed that you seem to think my church needs to keep all the liturgical trappings you feel drawn to but drop all the baby-stuff like creedal Christianity in order to get on the wavelength or whatever of people who aren't believers and never will be. What did we ever do to you? And has it occurred to you that the trappings you so enjoy are not just there to please us with their warmth of tradition but in fact exist solely because of the stuff behind the sermon you found so empty? You really can't have your Christmas service without incarnational theology, unless you go to a UU "Service of Light" like they have at the UU meeting down the road from me.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Laura:
Dave: Seriously: you should follow Lyda's advice and check out the local UU meetings. That's where you would probably fit best, in terms of philosophy.
Laura, I considered Lyda's suggestion when she made it. Seriously. And I moved on because, even if there were a UU presence near me, they seem committed to not talking about God as reality. As I thought I'd said before, I'm not looking for somewhere to fit in. You don't appear to understand my philosophy.
quote:
as a small-O orthodox Anglican, I feel faintly annoyed that you seem to think my church needs to keep all the liturgical trappings you feel drawn to but drop all the baby-stuff like creedal Christianity in order to get on the wavelength or whatever of people who aren't believers and never will be. What did we ever do to you? And has it occurred to you that the trappings you so enjoy are not just there to please us with their warmth of tradition but in fact exist solely because of the stuff behind the sermon you found so empty?
As a baptised and confirmed Anglican I also feel somewhat annoyed. Why does your small-o orthodoxy gives you the moral authority to pronounce on how my relationship with the church should progress? If you read (rather than react to) what I've posted you might notice I've said nothing about wanting to keep liturgical trappings. I recognise they're important to many but, like you it seems, I don't see them as central. That doesn't mean my spirit is not fed by the welcome and warmth and familiarity of a church service, even if I don't agree with the theology.
And as for 'what did we ever do to you?', don't paint my posts as some kind of personal attack on 'you'. What the church does by insisting it knows what is beyond out capacity to know is exclude anyone whose search for truth happens to lead them to ask the wrong questions. I'm coming to the view that the church universal should be bigger than that. I guess you disagree.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What the church does by insisting it knows what is beyond out capacity to know is exclude anyone whose search for truth happens to lead them to ask the wrong questions. I'm coming to the view that the church universal should be bigger than that. I guess you disagree.
I don't know if I'm reading you right, but you seem to be arguing a sort of reverse-fundamentalism: "Either the creeds must be factually true in the same way that science is true or they are false."
From my faith perspective (which I think is probably shared by a lot of mainstream Christians) I don't think that the church insists that it knows the unknowable, it simply says that it points to the unknowable.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Dave, others have said it before: You seem to be very annoyed at catholic Christianity in general and the Anglican Communion in particular, for not being more like the First Church of Dave.
You keep making unsubstantiated claims that science somehow negates the central truths of catholic Christianity. Ever hear of John Polkinghorne? Evidently he can be a physicist and an orthodox Christian at the same time -- imagine that. I used to belong to a university parish with a sizeable number of scientists as members in good standing -- imagine that.
And how do you explain the continuing presence of someone like John Shelby Spong in the ECUSA? Or even Marcus Borg, who while affirming the divinity of Christ and the uniqueness of Christ's mission, certainly doesn't hold to a one-dimensional, unquestioning, Sunday-School understanding of the historical creeds.
Speaking as someone not in the AC but with many friends who are, I see it as pitching a very wide tent with ample room for people who wish to "celebrate the Mystery" without boxing it in doctrinally to the extent that other traditions, including my own, tend to do.
Dave, I can't help but think that there's some other issue involved in your antagonism toward the church.
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Dave -- I'm sorry if I misread you, but I think Lutheranchik sensed what I sensed in your writing. You think the Anglican church isn't sufficiently "big" (per your last line in the last post to me) unless it moves beyond the core creedal Christianity. I would suggest that this is an insulting way to assess the beliefs of creedal Christians -- that they make for a "small" church.
I'm not remotely criticising your choice to believe what you want; rather, I'm cricitizing the grounds of your expressed disappointment with Anglican theology.
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Dave, others have said it before: You seem to be very annoyed at catholic Christianity in general and the Anglican Communion in particular, for not being more like the First Church of Dave.
You keep making unsubstantiated claims that science somehow negates the central truths of catholic Christianity. Ever hear of John Polkinghorne? Evidently he can be a physicist and an orthodox Christian at the same time -- imagine that. I used to belong to a university parish with a sizeable number of scientists as members in good standing -- imagine that.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Good grief, Dave, how many threads are you going to try to hijack to discuss your unhappiness with the Church of England preaching what it has always preached?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Dave Marshall said quote:
The main negative element for me was the assumption of certainty about Jesus being God.
I'm with you on this, and it's for this reason that I'm glad Baptists don't have creeds.
I see Christianity as being, as you said, a response to Jesus, his teaching, preaching and life and death, and his interaction with the disciples and others. That's the heart of it all. Then there are subsequent beliefs and doctrines that are a response to all this. They include such ideas as the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Now these may be helpful or not, but I don't think they are 'of God' in the same primary way as the preserved accounts of Jesus. (Even these are not quite the 'real thing' - they are just responses to, versions of, the man who wrote nothing.)
Like you, I get worried when people claim to 'know' in relation to God. Confidence is the antithesis of faith. Christmas brings out the worst of this, inspiring tidy-minded hymn writers to explain how he came down to earth from heaven, and all that stuff: this is what was going on, and this is how we are to understand it all. No. What was going on is far bigger than any explanation or doctrine and must not be domesticated into certain Christian teaching.
This is also what bothers me about the 'not being fed' crowd. In my experience, this is the cry of those who want to be doled out gobbets of clear, definite teaching, bullet-pointed if not numbered. They are most unhappy with picture, story and alusion, with a man who points beyond himself and yet offers himself as the place of divine-human encounter. Tell us what it means, who he really was, where he came from and in which direction he travelled to get here, and what he thought about it all as he lay in the manger or hung on the cross.
I don't think truth is like that.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't know if I'm reading you right, but you seem to be arguing a sort of reverse-fundamentalism: "Either the creeds must be factually true in the same way that science is true or they are false."
No, I'm not arguing that.
quote:
I don't think that the church insists that it knows the unknowable, it simply says that it points to the unknowable.
I thought the church claims it knows that Jesus is God.
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Dave, others have said it before: You seem to be very annoyed at catholic Christianity in general and the Anglican Communion in particular...
What makes you think that? If you're referring to my reply to Laura, that was me not being clear. I was only annoyed with Laura, echoing her annoyance with me.
quote:
You keep making unsubstantiated claims that science somehow negates the central truths of catholic Christianity.
What claims are these? If you mean this
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
the church could be more responsive to how our understanding of the universe has changed since the council of Nicea. These changes, for me anyway, make new theologies possible that are both more credible and more likely to be useful to more people.
what exactly are you objecting to?
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And how do you explain the continuing presence of someone like John Shelby Spong in the ECUSA?
I wasn't aware that +Spong was at all welcome within the vast majority of either ECUSA or Anglicanism worldwide.
quote:
Dave, I can't help but think that there's some other issue involved in your antagonism toward the church.
What other issue? What antagonism? Or is difference antagonism now?
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I'm not remotely criticising your choice to believe what you want; rather, I'm cricitizing the grounds of your expressed disappointment with Anglican theology.
You don't like my grounds for disappointment? What's wrong with them?
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Good grief, Dave, how many threads are you going to try to hijack to discuss your unhappiness with the Church of England preaching what it has always preached?
As you well know, Ruth, I don't hijack threads. You'd never let me get away with it...
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
This is also what bothers me about the 'not being fed' crowd. In my experience, this is the cry of those who want to be doled out gobbets of clear, definite teaching, bullet-pointed if not numbered. They are most unhappy with picture, story and alusion, with a man who points beyond himself and yet offers himself as the place of divine-human encounter. Tell us what it means, who he really was, where he came from and in which direction he travelled to get here, and what he thought about it all as he lay in the manger or hung on the cross.
I don't think truth is like that.
No, me neither.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
andrewschmidt
Shipmate
# 10822
|
Posted
As an Anglican I welcome +Spong, and many others into my tradition (well I am happy to share it with them).
My understanding of trinitarian theology is that it is of equal value as the gospels, since as Dave pointed out, christ never wrote a thing (well except the KJV ), but people in there expereince of Jesus recognised God. That recognition, worked out in the community of faith (and yes I have read some church history so I am not assuming it was all lovey dovey ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) ) meant coming to the creeds.
Do I say the creeds without thinking about the content and reserving some personal judgements, no. ditto the gospels.
I am part of a community that allows my spirit nourishment, in prayer, sacrament, and text (yes all three). The comunity does not say, 'thou should accept this without question', rather it says, we questioned, strove hard for answers and this is what this community has accepted as a comman statement of what we believe.
People will leave the Anglican church and people will join. I will no longer be fed when Dave is told he has to believe as I believe, or I am told I have to believe as Dave does. I may attempt to convince him of the truth of the incarnation, and would expect no less from him.
Salaam
Posts: 73 | From: SEQ Australia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As a baptised and confirmed Anglican I also feel somewhat annoyed. Why does your small-o orthodoxy gives you the moral authority to pronounce on how my relationship with the church should progress?
Actually, Dave, the current church membership has the moral authority to decide what the church should do.
I think the majority of the membership want creeds, liturgy, incarnational theology... in the various doses and combinations available in the different wings of the church.
I'd also disagree that unitarians don't want to discuss God as a reality... but that's peripheral, that I'm still unclear about what you actually want.
The church isn't about to give up its creeds... and would be betraying the majority of it's membership should it do so. So what then?
What do you want? And why?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE]What do you want? And why?
What I hear in Dave's posts is that he wants the Church to speak with less conviction, to preach the Gospel as probably or possibly true, but not to preach it as absolutely true.
Dave, I may be hearing you wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that you have questions, the church's answers don't satisfy you, so she should qualify her answers or change them. Which, of course, she can't do and remain the church.
To make a nod toward the OP, I think that's what many people mean by not being spiritually fed: not hearing what they want to hear, what makes them feel good, or (and I've seen this) not being entertained by the music, the preaching style, or the social activities. (I'm not saying this is you, Dave!). I think "not being spiritually fed" means very different things to people and the meanings range from the trivial to the profound.
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Is that all? Just add a disclaimer of some sort; 'The above/following may/may not be true, we don't claim to be completely certain.'
Would this have to be said each time or would a notice be sufficient?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Po
Shipmate
# 2456
|
Posted
All you who think that spiritual growth couldn't possibly lead people to leave churches should check out the findings of Alan Jamieson. He investigated a bunch of church-leavers expecting to find they'd backslidden. He got a shock when he found they were as spiritually active and committed as ever.
It is institutional thinking that insists spiritual growth will keep people in churches. It mistakes the Body of Christ for the institution. A new model for the church is emerging in our age of communication: people are demanding that spirituality be personal, not institutional.
Christ never dealt with people in an impersonal way. Why then should we be satisfied with impersonal institutions? They were never anything but a compromise solution, a practical necessity.
There is nothing intrinsically unloving about abandoning an institutional relationship.
Statistics showing falling church numbers may be a positive sign. I suggest that many, many people leaving churches are fully Christian. All they've abandoned is their institutionalism.
--------------------
The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is selfishness.
Posts: 797 | From: LA (Little'ampton) | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
