Thread: Purgatory: What exactly Is "not being spiritually fed"? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000997

---

Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Po (# 2456) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Is that Biblical?
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
What a curious question for an Orthodox to ask!
 

---

Posted by Po (# 2456) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Missed the edit button. I should have said "as far down the road as you think you are". Sorry.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

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".

---

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.

---

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!)
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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. 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... 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?

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Merry Christmas.

---

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?

---

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...
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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. 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.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

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?

---

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...

---

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 ) 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.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

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.

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The main negative element for me was the assumption of certainty about Jesus being God.

---

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.

---

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...

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm pretty self-contained.

---

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.

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
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 .

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 ]
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You are on a search for Truth: how will you know when you find it?

---

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.

---

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).

---

quote:

---

Simply form you own believer's club and stop bugging the church?

---

And there was me thinking catholic meant universal...
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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?)
 

---

Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm still unsure of what you want from the church in practical terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chive:
Why go to a service dedicated the incarnation if you don't believe in it?

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :
 
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 . 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
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

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.

---

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...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It sounds to me like you think they should stop being the church.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It sounds to me like you think they should stop being the church.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

The main negative element for me was the assumption of certainty about Jesus being God.

---

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."

---

quote:

---

I don't think that the church insists that it knows the unknowable, it simply says that it points to the unknowable.

---

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...

---

quote:

---

You keep making unsubstantiated claims that science somehow negates the central truths of catholic Christianity.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And how do you explain the continuing presence of someone like John Shelby Spong in the ECUSA?

---

quote:

---

Dave, I can't help but think that there's some other issue involved in your antagonism toward the church.

---

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?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by andrewschmidt (# 10822) on :
 
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 ) 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
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

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?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Po (# 2456) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 
[controversy]

Love can only BE personal! Institutions offer "false-love", that is, a place in something but at the cost of your soul.

[/controversy]


 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
I don't feel particularly "well-fed" by my parish, and Coot's words above resonate with me. But I don't think being "fed" is the whole story: I don't feel at liberty to leave, because this is the church/parish that I find myself in, not the one just over the hill that seems to suit me so much better. (Until I get there)

MsP doesn't share my perspective, and wouldn't blink at me driving away to find something different. My spiritual director's observation is that "successful" worship on Sunday rests on the foundation of one's private devotions during the week, which seems to be a fair call.

I do miss enjoying going to church though.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

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 Po:
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.

---

Jameison also found that, as people become more secure in their own faith that they were willing to listen to the ideas of other people even if they did not agree with them.

Those who were aggressively negative toward the church were negative either because:

1) They thought they had the right take on truth and that the church had lost the plot (although from some of the stories in the book, I wonder if some of the people may have left churches that were abusive; I'm not sure if they actually belonged in this category).

2) They needed to dislike the church. Jamieson called it "counter-dependency".

It's interesting how written word can be interpreted.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Po:
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.

---

quote:

---

People are demanding that spirituality be personal, not institutional.

---

quote:

---

Why then should we be satisfied with impersonal institutions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
"Impersonal institution" vs "personal spirituality" sounds like a straightforward choice.

But couldn't it be framed "Corporate togetherness" vs "Self-serving consumerism"?

---

quote:

---

If my spirituality makes no difference to my relationships with others then it is dead. And if spirituality is relational, then the most fitting place for it is in a community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
The latter sounds a bit like a reticulated, mechanical python, to me.

---

In more ways than one Mdijon, in more ways than one
 

---

Posted by Po (# 2456) on :
 

quote:

---

What's the difference between a "Christian community" and a "church institution"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Po:
A Christian community is a bunch of Christians who love one another in the sense of both agape and philia. Should the love fail, then the community would be over—vanished without trace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Po:
An institution is a mechanical, impersonal structure subject to Darwinian forces, i.e., those that survive have done so by any means necessary. Church institutions are maintained by manipulation of people to extract money, using a variety of excuses—tradition, threats of Hell etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Po:
A Christian community is a bunch of Christians who love one another in the sense of both agape and philia. Should the love fail, then the community would be over?vanished without trace.

An institution is a mechanical, impersonal structure subject to Darwinian forces, i.e., those that survive have done so by any means necessary. Church institutions are maintained by manipulation of people to extract money, using a variety of excuses?tradition, threats of Hell etc.

---

quote:

---

I'm trying to figure out why you seem to be exerting quite a lot of effort and passion to tell those of us who find a Christian community of loving, supportive people within an established denomination how wrong we are.

---

quote:

---

Presumably you think that the monastic orders who for many centuries were the nearest thing Europe had to the welfare state were not institutions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Po:
Let's postulate a monk who looked around and noticed the orders had stopped serving the people, and was now exploiting them for its own purposes.

Don't you think that, for that monk, leaving the order would be a valid option?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Po:
Let's postulate a monk who looked around and noticed the orders had stopped serving the people, and was now exploiting them for its own purposes.

Don't you think that, for that monk, leaving the order would be a valid option?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Without the institutional organisation of an order, the monk's ability to help the poor at all would be severely limited. The structure and discipline of an order allows his help to be distributed more efficiently.

---

Structure and discipline are tools to power but is not love about being loving to those you meet? You cannot be more loving or less loving. You either love or you do not. Love is "distributed" by loving people not by efficiency.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Structure and discipline are tools to power.

---

quote:

---

Love is "distributed" by loving people not by efficiency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
You cannot be more loving or less loving. You either love or you do not.

---

quote:

---

Institutions happen when communities get large.

---

quote:

---

I see this as another example of Lewis' maxim that `the right answer to misuse is not disuse but right use', i.e that institutions have their problems but it is better to challenge them from inside than trying to do without them.

---

quote:

---

It is not because he is less loving than an "institutional" monk, but he doesn't have the structures in place to make his love as effective as it could be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Structure and discipline are tools to power.

---

I would say rather that they are just tools, which may be used or abused.

quote:

---

Love is "distributed" by loving people not by efficiency.

---

You can make the "output" of your love more or less effective. In the case of the lone monk helping the poor, what happens if one day he goes sick? If he were part of a monastic order, another brother could cover for him; as it is, the poor people who depend on him will be left in the lurch. It is not because he is less loving than an "institutional" monk, but he doesn't have the structures in place to make his love as effective as it could be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I admit I do that as well, from time to time.

Am I also an unloving tool for power?

---

You ask me to condemn you? I'm not going to do that
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Po:
I'm tired of being beaten over the head with the dogma that you have to be part of an institution to be a functioning Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I admit I do that as well, from time to time.

Am I also an unloving tool for power?

---

You ask me to condemn you? I'm not going to do that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
What do you want? And why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Sebastian:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
there are many orthodox Christian and Anglican theologians doing work that is quite epistemologically sophisticated. To continue to insist that the entire church, or even the Anglican communion, is epistemologically naive is either to be uninformed or dishonest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I admit I do that as well, from time to time.

Am I also an unloving tool for power?

---

You ask me to condemn you? I'm not going to do that

---

No, I'm making the point that the test you condemn institutions for failing might be quiet a harsh one. If you won't condemn me for it, maybe you shouldn't condemn institutions for the same reason.

---

I dont condemn institutions, I ask if they can in any way help in epiphany (realising that all is made by god and perfect because of this)...but now we are taking the same line in two threads so will leave it to the other one
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What's the purpose of this epistemological sophistication though. It seems to me it's mainly about finding ever more obscure ways to hold on to some intellectual credibility for the traditional creeds, when their plain meaning is unacceptable even to many 'orthodox' Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I find it interesting that you and others assume that I want something from church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
You voice quite strong criticism... which seems to suggest the church is doing the wrong thing, but then seem remarkably coy about stating what it actually should do and talking through the results of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
so why not introduce a new form of words that, alongside the old, is also acceptable as a non-heretical statement of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
How is that going to be sorted out by adding an additional version of the creed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
....say the introduction of an alternative statement by which to say to people, in the nicest possible way, you're not one of us....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
In that regard, do you find all of the Authorised Affirmations of Faith (pp. 144-148) in the Book of Common Worship unusable?

---

quote:

---

But now you mention it, the Nicene Creed as a badge and criteria for membership of a church community is an anachronism that most probably do not believe as written anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
No, they were all in your first post on the subject.

---

quote:

---

It strikes me as odd that you have so little feeling for those that might like the church's general approach as it is;

---

quote:

---

of course want to improve things and accept change as a process, but don't want to get shot of incarnational theology.

---

quote:

---

I'd have thought your current predicament would make you feel for the fate of such people

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
....say the introduction of an alternative statement by which to say to people, in the nicest possible way, you're not one of us....

---

..... it strikes me that you're not best pleased at having been told that yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Tell us what you believe, Dave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What's the purpose of this epistemological sophistication though. It seems to me it's mainly about finding ever more obscure ways to hold on to some intellectual credibility for the traditional creeds, when their plain meaning is unacceptable even to many 'orthodox' Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
In that regard, do you find all of the Authorised Affirmations of Faith (pp. 144-148) in the Book of Common Worship unusable?

---

They're all only forms of the traditional creeds. For me personally they are equally excluding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You are hearing me wrong, but I wonder who it is that decides what 'she' can and can't do and remain the church. Is this God? Or what people think is God? Or what certain people long ago decided? And how does truth figure in this decision-making process?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It's not even that I want the church to preach incarnational theology. It's simply that that is what the church is and does. To do other would not be the church, and I feel unqualified/unworthy to argue for a change in that regard.

---

quote:

---

... many (most, I think) of those in the church would feel a bit bewildered and hurt if their branch of the church dropped incarnational theology

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is it possible that someone could come to a different conclusion from Dave Marshall with respect to the Creeds, and yet still be acting in good faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I do not demand that the church dump the Nicene Creed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What kind of question is that? Not a good faith one, I'd have thought.

---

quote:

---

Of course they can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
To be truthful, I think that you are projecting your own issues onto the rest of us to a great degree

---

quote:

---

Please answer [my question about what you believe, or I'll stamp my feet]. And I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting to read your response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Please answer [my question about what you believe, or I'll stamp my feet].

---

quote:

---

5. Human life alone has eternal significance. The compatibility with eternal values of the values we adopt in this life determines if the identity forged in our humanity continues after death.

Sin and salvation, heaven and hell, have no basis in the universe as we experience it. It's more consistent to imagine that a similar kind of process to the one that controls life within time also applies when life and time separate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The Jamieson (sp?) citation about "counter-dependency" that someone noted in a previous post resonated with me vis-a-vis this thread, and frankly at this point I'm too bored to continue to be your codependent pen pal here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
But the Nicene Creed doesn't "determine membership" in the church. At least not in the Anglican church. We don't even require our bishops to accept it, if you look at +Spong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
what did you actually mean by saying that "epistemological sophistication [is] mainly about finding ever more obscure ways to hold on to some intellectual credibility for the traditional creeds, when their plain meaning is unacceptable even to many 'orthodox' Christians"?

---

quote:

---

DaveMarshall said
I don't know how +Spong deals with it, but as far as I remember in all the C of E communions I've been to, assent to the creed has never been optional.

---

quote:

---

From DM's first post on the thread
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:
how does 'acting in a way that is incompatible with eternal values' differ from 'sin'. That's what sin is, no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:
I was annoyed at how little of what I had just begun to discover in academic theology made its way into the pulpit. Having spent five years preaching, I now understand why - the difficulty is to reach those who have your reaction without destroying the faith of those who don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
...The sermon was terrible....if I'd ignored most of the things being said about God and Jesus this would have been as good ...... all the good in this expression of God-based community was shot through with Incarnation-based theology....what does the church say God requires of me? Switch off my search after truth at the Trinity?....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 Dave Marshall:
....I don't know how many more ways I can say this, but I don't expect the church to drop incarnational theology. I don't expect the church to reflect me. The church will be whatever the church becomes....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As far as I can tell, Christian theology has always been about how to understand God given the Incarnation. If that fundamental question cannot be revisited, which I imagine it can't in small-o orthodox theology, I don't see how any understanding based on it can be effectively other than a justification for it.

There's no intellectual dishonesty involved if you're working within the parameters you're given. But setting the parameters as say, a search after truth, then adding 'but the Incarnation is true' so you can't look at that, that I think would be something else.

---

OK. I think it's not so much that denying the Incarnation is forbidden, but that the question falls outside the scope of small-o orthodox Christian theology (SooCT). I would say that the "search for truth" is Philosophy, and that SooCT is a subset of Philosophy that takes the Incarnation as axiomatic. It's not that orthodox Christians aren't allowed to question the Incarnation, but that when they do so, they're acting as philosophers rather than theologians.

What if a philosopher, with no particular axioms in mind beyond the ordinary tools of logic, came to the conclusion that the Incarnation was reasonable? (Meaning "not true necessarily but the way to bet", which is the most I think you can really say.) Would that still be a "justification"? Or is it your view that that could never happen?

(Btw, apologies for letting sarcasm get the better of me near the bottom of the previous page. )
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me like you want to complain about it, but don't actually want to deal with the consequences of altering it.

We would be having a very different discussion now had it not been kicked off with your first post firing everyone up.

---

quote:

---

Now, I think you said people who didn't agree with the end result should be told, in the nicest possible way, that they weren't part of the church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would say that the "search for truth" is Philosophy, and that SooCT is a subset of Philosophy that takes the Incarnation as axiomatic. It's not that orthodox Christians aren't allowed to question the Incarnation, but that when they do so, they're acting as philosophers rather than theologians.

---

quote:

---

What if a philosopher, with no particular axioms in mind beyond the ordinary tools of logic, came to the conclusion that the Incarnation was reasonable? (Meaning "not true necessarily but the way to bet", which is the most I think you can really say.) Would that still be a "justification"? Or is it your view that that could never happen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you're considering change in a large organisation, say the introduction of an alternative statement by which to say to people, in the nicest possible way, you're not one of us, I guess you'd first have to establish the feasibility of the change in principle. If it appeared feasible in principle, then you define a process, then... etc, etc. If it's ever going to become an authentic expression of the organisation, the instigator cannot say at the start what the outcome will be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You seem to have assumed that because I posted some thoughts about an experience, one I think was very relevent to the OP, that I therefore think this or want that as a consequence. You have made wrong assumptions. I've tried to correct them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
There's a certain irony in your posting that twice, Chesterbelloc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I suggest [something or other] is because you don't have any clear idea about what it is you actually want in place of the church, or how you think it should change. Which is fine; perfectly legitamate to say "I don't like it - but I don't know what workable alternative there is."; but at least say so clearly without this endless circling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It seems very much to me, Dave, as if you've already decided that a belief in the Incarnation (the great feast of which most of us are gladly celebrating right now) is a wrong step on the road to truth.

---

quote:

---

But what if the Church was and is (as most Christians here believe) working for and in the light of the objective truth, and worked towards the conclusion of the Incarnation as an outcome of that search? You seem to have ruled that out.

---

quote:

---

[The Incarnation] became axiomatic only after the process of what the Church believes to be objective reason and divine revelation had run its course. It is only an axiom now because the Church worked towards it (as we believe, by divine uidance) as the keystone to understanding our life in Christ with God - for us, it makes sense of everything.

---

quote:

---

We no longer need to lay it aside as if we were not sure of it - indeed, to do so would hinder our subsequent search for the truth. It seems to me that you want an objective search for truth, but when you're presented with the Church's search and conclusion you rule it out!

---

quote:

---

And how many times do we have to run that again? Until we get a different answer? You can ask the question a smany times as you like, but if you're already ruling out the answer that's already been arrived by most of us, then that's not what I'd call a search for the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It seems very much to me, Dave, as if you've already decided that a belief in the Incarnation (the great feast of which most of us are gladly celebrating right now) is a wrong step on the road to truth.

---

Yes, so far I've come to that conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
In the light of what objective truth? The Incarnation is a choice made by people about an interpretation made by other people of their experiences. I don't see that as objective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't believe the assumption about the Incarnation was right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you, or the Church, already decided that the original decision about the Incarnation was infallible (was this Nicea, circa 436CE?), how can you claim to have ever revisited it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Dave, I really was only emphasising that I didn't have a problem with the idea that someone might say "I don't like this but don't know what to do about it."

Taking such offense and deciding to not respond further seems a bit much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why must the starting point for dialogue with you be the abandonment of what amounts to the very distictiveness of our faith?

---

quote:

---

many Christians "re-discover" the doctrine of the Incarnation all for themselves in a way that makes it theirs, not merely others'. They reach the conclusion, as I did, from initial scepticism and bewilderment on the basis of their experiences and their grappling with it. That process can also begin by accepting it on authority and only later "personally owning" it - and I mention this because you will probably reject this as honest and objective, but it remains the case nonetheless.

---

quote:

---

how is your rejection of the doctrine any more a grapple with the truth than my acceptance of it?

---

quote:

---

What more could we do to acommodate your difficulties with our faith without setting aside that faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
So in terms of a basis for faith, how is the distinction between philosophy and theology (which seems fair enough) helpful?

---

quote:

---

I guess my reservation about this outcome would be concerning the relative weights given to all the influences on that conclusion. If you've worked all your life within a historic tradition that has effectively fixed certain choices, that I think is very likely to colour your thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Because [the distinction between philosphy and theology] saves always having to work everything out from first principles?

---

quote:

---

If Rowan Williams' beliefs are directed by his Christian environment rather than by logic, then his reasoning will be flawed, but it's better to go and find the flaws in his arguments rather than simply suppose that they are there because of his upbringing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall
It's the assumptions of Christian theology that I dispute. I think I have good reasons for that, but for most Christians those assumptions are part of their faith. This often means that any suggestion that they might be flawed tends to be considered a Very Bad Thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's only what can be traced back to logic and the natural universe that I want to use as the basis for my thinking about God. I don't see how anything else can be other than speculation or opinion. Yes, we all have a bias, but at least sticking with this there's always, at least in theory, a way to check.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
I have a assumption that cannot be checked by logic, which would be that I have a personal connection with God, a Higher Power, whatever you wish to call it. To me this is a fact, as much as the moon is a rock, that stars are made up of gas, or that the nine planets exist.

---

quote:

---

The fact that God exists to me is a fact due to the fact that I have a relationship with him which I cannot explain or prove to anyone else.

---

quote:

---

Since I have that relationship, I believe that I can find or be given proof about God and his relationship to this plane of existance.

---

quote:

---

this might be outside of tradtional logic, but not outside of the philosophy of the church as I understand it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
2) us humans are incapable of knowing for sure anything else about God.

---

quote:

---

I'm not knocking Rowan Williams. He was just the first Christian I thought of who I'd heard was also a philosopher. But in his job I'd have thought it would be very difficult to see a pure search after truth as his first priority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I suspect many of us have similar stories to tell, so please don't presuppose that those of us who don't agree with you haven't given any serious thought to our faith.

---

quote:

---

I do struggle though when Christians think that because I don't agree with them, I am presupposing bad things about them as people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
So perhaps you'd also see why I, and others, might find it impossible to comprehend a church that doesn't admit the possibility of direct revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
[QB]For a church like the C of E, structured as it is now, traditional Christianity is effectively exclusive. But is that the only possible structure, or the most useful, in the light of the mission of the church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
[QB]For a church like the C of E, structured as it is now, traditional Christianity is effectively exclusive. But is that the only possible structure, or the most useful, in the light of the mission of the church?

---

Useful to whom?

---

Heathens like Dave and I?

 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Useful to whom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

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.

---

I suppose I have to point out that in the original Greek sense, both logos and mythos conveyed truth, just in different ways, and each reaching parts the other couldn't. The sense of "true mythos" is quite well expressed by a preamble used by some African storytellers "I don't know if it happened like this, but I know this story is true".

I think the modern church does itself an immense disservice by trying to treat mythos as if it were logos. Apart from anything else, it's capitulating to scientific rationalism and materialism and attempting to work by their rules, but with texts which weren't designed to be interpreted that way.

Thanks for the welcome. I have actually been here briefly before, maybe 2 years ago, under a different (now deleted) ID. You probably wouldn't remember it, though
 

---

Posted by Progradior (# 10832) on :
 

quote:

---

In that regard, do you find all of the Authorised Affirmations of Faith (pp. 144-148) in the Book of Common Worship unusable? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You're right about not believing in 'revelation' being the root of my difference with Christianity. I cannot reconcile the idea of a creator capable of sustaining life as we know it with one who for example inspires messages in human language, or becomes part of creation in such a way that it just happens to satisfy certain human aspirations.

I can't disprove the possibility of revelation as the church understands it, but on balance I think its likelyhood is negligable. The only direct connection between God and us that I find plausible is one with our mind at some deep level, with our spirit perhaps. But that's something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Progradior:
That creator appears (via your conception of God) to be inspiring the above message...

---

quote:

---

although everyone's experience of God is subjective, doesn't religious language offer us an opportunity of exchanging at least something of our respective subjective experiences, and through that (in a relativistic world) giving us parellax?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Useful to whom?

---

Ah well, that's the question. Who is the church for. Should Papio and I have any expectations of it?

Or perhaps, what is the mission of the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
[The mission of the church is] to preach the gospel. Something you don't seem to agree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The main negative element for me was the assumption of certainty about Jesus being God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think that's anything I'm arguing for. Although I suppose I am assuming that a) the church is first and foremost a community, and b) in principle at least, traditional Christianity and alternative theologies like mine do not have to be mutually exclusive criteria for membership.

For a church like the C of E, structured as it is now, traditional Christianity is effectively exclusive. But is that the only possible structure, or the most useful, in the light of the mission of the church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
[The mission of the church is] to preach the gospel [and specifically that Jesus is God]. Something you don't seem to agree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think that the church does allow membership of people with alternative theologies. You won't necessarily be given a pulpit to proclaim them from, but you won't be denied membership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think the benefits of church membership, essentially the God-based community and encouragement to include God in our thinking, really have anything to do with believing Jesus is God. The gospel, the good news, as I understand it is that it a relationship with God can make life better. How that works, how we think about God, is a personal thing. The church should no more be presenting the Jesus is God theory as the be all and end all of a relationship with God than dictate what clothes we wear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think the benefits of church membership, essentially the God-based community and encouragement to include God in our thinking, really have anything to do with believing Jesus is God. The gospel, the good news, as I understand it is that it a relationship with God can make life better. How that works, how we think about God, is a personal thing. The church should no more be presenting the Jesus is God theory as the be all and end all of a relationship with God than dictate what clothes we wear.

---

I think the problem I'm having with this debate is understanding exactly where, if at all, you DO place Jesus. Do you see him as part of the process you describe at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:
You see, I think there are ways that the church can and should deal with those who don't 'believe that Jesus is the Son of God', but who still follow Jesus, not least by looking at the meaning of each of the words in the phrase. The Creeds to me are living texts, and we will interpret them afresh in each generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Officially allowing genuinely different beliefs about Jesus would of itself change nothing on the ground.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:
I think the problem I'm having with this debate is understanding exactly where, if at all, you DO place Jesus. Do you see him as part of the process you describe at all?

---

quote:

---

I think there are ways that the church can and should deal with those who don't 'believe that Jesus is the Son of God', but who still follow Jesus, not least by looking at the meaning of each of the words in the phrase. The Creeds to me are living texts, and we will interpret them afresh in each generation.

---

quote:

---

Dave's posts don't seem to put Jesus anywhere in the picture though. If that's right, then I don't think the church can be asked to engage in a self-transformational way with that except in the way that it would deal with another faith such as Judaism for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I work for a church that officially allows genuinely different beliefs about Jesus, and it in fact changes a lot of things. It affects every aspect of the services--liturgy, preaching, and hymns must all reflect a theology which does not assume that Jesus is God, which means that those members who do believe that Jesus is God never see this traditionally central Christian doctrine reflected in the Sunday morning service, or any other service, for that matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
It doesn't stop there. It affects every aspect of the church. Overall, I don't think the effect is good, because in the end the community is not built up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
It affects Sunday attendance: the number of official members has remained stable, but Sunday attendance is steadily falling off. I think this can be traced back to the theology, and the senior minister, who believes in this theological diversity and preaches that Jesus was in fact not God incarnate, agrees with me. People don't feel like they need to come to church just about every Sunday, which is fine, right? Because people should feel free to do their own thing, and I don't want the church to be coercive about Sunday attendance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaveMarshall
I don't see politically how the church can reject the Incarnation and Trinity as valid 'truths' of some kind, but I think it could let go of its certainty. If it can't, it will force new thinking to take root elsewhere. Maybe that's what has to happen.

---

From my own point of view I find this very interesting because it forces me to confront my own 'thus far and no further' point. I think you've pushed just past it for me. I'm assuming you see no point to the death and resurrection narrative either, and I don't think I could accept as Christian a belief system which didn't require those as part of its necessary belief system, however non-realistically people might want to take them. It does seem to me that you are arguing for a form of unitarianism, and for me some form of engagement with the trinitarian nature of Christianity is fundamental to it. Good Lord, I'm a fundamentalist....

On the other hand, I distinctly remember the phase when I thought I was fairly liberal but thought a belief in a literal resurrection was still non-negotiable. I dunno.

Spong
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 
Spong, can a person get away with believing the death bit without the resurrection bit? Or is that really pushing the boundaries?
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
However, it means that people like me (probably few of us!) don't really have anywhere to go unless we opt to go along with the crowd, so to speak, while knowing we're actually not being honest. I tried that awhile, and gave up in the end, especially once I tried expressing my views. Hmmm! That didn't go down so well! So I opted out of church life altogether.

---

It was a question of priorities for me. Being ignored or patronised, getting annoyed about it, seeing no way to contribute constructively.

Depressing to think back to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:
I'm assuming you see no point to the death and resurrection narrative

---

quote:

---

I don't think I could accept as Christian a belief system which didn't require those as part of its necessary belief system, however non-realistically people might want to take them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
It affects Sunday attendance: the number of official members has remained stable, but Sunday attendance is steadily falling off. I think this can be traced back to the theology, and the senior minister, who believes in this theological diversity and preaches that Jesus was in fact not God incarnate, agrees with me. People don't feel like they need to come to church just about every Sunday, which is fine, right? Because people should feel free to do their own thing, and I don't want the church to be coercive about Sunday attendance.

---

This is interesting. So in effect, doctrinal certainty is somehow tied in with discipline?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The thing I'd point out about removing the doctrinal certainty about the incarnation and resurrection in order to make the church open to people like you is that it makes the church impossible for people like me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
They don't have the "you gotta do the liturgy and take communion" notion that the ECUSA parish has, and they don't have the "you gotta get nourished in the Word" notion that the Baptist church has. Saying that people need to be in church on a regular basis really goes against the notion that everyone is on their own spiritual journey, which is what you get once you remove the central uniting beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'd say a church encounter with God is very like a concert or walk or book can be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Of course that's not always what we want. But I think knowing it's there is good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I wonder if that's not the kind of thing that the dwindling membership of RuthW's employing church would be saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
....but have nothing to build on in their place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
....but have nothing to build on in their place.

---

That puts a finger on the problem of the church without revelation, IMHO.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0