Ship of Fools: Agnostic and Church Attendance

Thread: Agnostic and Church Attendance Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020266

Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on :

Are many shipmates here agnostic and still attend church services? How do you reconcile a lack of faith and still receive the Eucharist, engage in the life of the parish, etc?

Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :

If you feel your church is a force for your view of social good, then supporting its activities and continuance is a good reason to attend.

Not sure about Eucharist - we do have people attend who like the service, but don't come up to the rail for communion. One chap keeps an eye on vising dogs while the owner goes forward though.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I suspect those who are agnostic aren't generally agnostic about absolutely everything.

You can be a believer and be agnostic over particular aspects. Besides, it can wax and wane just like convictions and certainties can.

But it would be interesting to hear from avowed agnostics. I know people with no discernible faith whatsoever who attend church, but I think that's increasingly rare these days.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

May I define things differently? At time god has seemed to be agnostic of me and my family. Which has left me at those times with finding comfort where it can be had. This has resulted in attending church and going the through the motions, not because I believed anything just then, but because it (a) brought me comfort, (b) was a place where I could ponder things. I have periods of hostile agnosticism and periods of sad agnosticism. I am continuing to learn patience about it and other big things. And to take myself less seriously. I do like some of the people at church, and sometimes it's enough.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Surely we are all agnostic - it means we don't KNOW. Faith is not knowledge.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I'd say I was agnostic, earning contempt from the atheists and sadness from the believers among my acquaintance.

The Quakers accept me uncritically as a (silent) attender at their meetings, which suits me.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I can see that people who are agnostic about the details of faith still find spiritual meaning in Eucharist.

In fact, there is an argument that this is all it is ever about for most attendees. I suspect that taking Eucharist is, for many, part of being a member of hte community, part of the spiritual exercise of being in a church. Not a clearly defined part of their belief system.

Of course, for many, their belief system includes being a part of a church fully as a necessary part of being a Christian. I suspect for many it is pretty much the heart of their faith.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Why should agnostic mean that the provisional position taken is atheism? Why can one not be agnostic but identify as Christian in the hope that this turns out to be true, even if one does not believe 100% that it is?

Isn't everyone in this position to a certain extent? Is anyone really 100% sure?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

A while ago I came across an article about people who were Religious but not spiritual. Maybe someone on the ship can find it but by google foo is poor tonight and the closest I have got is this article. Basically, it looks at people who belong to a Church community but would not classify themselves as Christian. Their belonging included attendance at worship and I think at least some of those in the article would have classified themselves as Atheist. Such people do exist for much the same reason as the Sunday Assembly exists

Jengie

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why should agnostic mean that the provisional position taken is atheism? Why can one not be agnostic but identify as Christian in the hope that this turns out to be true, even if one does not believe 100% that it is?

Isn't everyone in this position to a certain extent? Is anyone really 100% sure?

Thanks Karl - that captures what I wanted to say, but more clearly than I could today.

I was thinking of the words in the committal "In sure and certain hope..." That's probably as far I get, not certainty as such, but with the hope of certainty.

There have been, and probably will again be, times when hope is hard to hear - but then it would be harder not to hear.

While we were waiting for our new Minister to be called we had a variety of ordained clergy filling in. The ones who sounded absolutely certain offered me the least hope.

Huia

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

I note I'm a church going atheist though sometimes it is to a local Unitarian Universalist church and usually to a small local mainline Christian church. The UUs of course have fair number of atheists (of the humanist variety). At the mainline Christian church I don't hide but nor do I shout what I am. They have a fairly active social justice program and also quite intellectual (it draws from a university community) both in the sciences and in theology) though some members avoid theological discussions. I don't take communion nor am I a member. I will note that many of the mainline churches around here tend to be quite progressive.

There are local humanist groups that meet regularly. Sometimes within the shadow of a UU congregation, sometimes as Sunday Assemblies, Ethical Culture, or standalone humanist groups though the last tend to be low on ritual.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Very happy to have agnostics in church. I think it's good for the church (ballast against Enthusiasm & fundamentalism) and good for society (the Church as a social institution) that people who don't necessarily Believe still want to Belong.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
Are many shipmates here agnostic and still attend church services? How do you reconcile a lack of faith and still receive the Eucharist, engage in the life of the parish, etc?

I'm pretty close to agnostic these days 'tho I have the occasional flash of what may be called faith.

I go to Church, I don't say anything about my lack of belief. I'm honest when asked, but I'm very rarely asked.

I'm no longer a Worship Leader. When I gave up I explained to the minister that it was wrong for me to lead worship when I'm not worshiping myself.

I prepare the visuals and work the sound desk and AV, this keeps me out of trouble and busy. The GD puppy comes too
as 'settling while Mum is working' is a big part of a GDs job.

All my friends are at Church and I still enjoy a good Methodist 'clart' (rousing singing) in Church.

In other words I still go for what used to be called 'fellowship'. God almost never intrudes.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why can one not be agnostic but identify as Christian in the hope that this turns out to be true, even if one does not believe 100% that it is?

That is exactly me. The Bible talks about hope as well as faith, and I often find it easier to use the word "hope" rather than "faith". But they are clearly linked concepts.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I will admit most of the time I am more agnostic than I am a believer. I have been this way for a long time. I go back and forth on this.

I find a couple of quotes that help me through this.

One is an old AA saying "Fake it until you make it"

The other is from Paul Tillich: "The enemy of faith is not doubt, it is certitude."

I believe, O Lord, help my unbelief.

Taking the Eucharist is still a spiritual event for me even in my times of deep doubt. I realize when I am taking it, I am participating in something much bigger than myself. Something that goes back to the last supper of the Lord to the end of the church on earth.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

IMHO, faith can be as a mustard seed. Which in that rabbi's 2,000 year old tale means "extremely small".

On a bad day and sometimes for Many bad days too, my faith can be minuscule.
But my lack of faith or belief does not stop me from presenting myself at the communion rail. I am there in the full and certain knowledge that it's about God.

Not me; not what i can do/ can believe / can have the faith for.
Goodness if it was That the show would be over.

There's something about belonging and leaving the rest to God.

At other times, well maybe it's better to be around people than not? Last time i looked... my church anyway... vows that it's there for the parish. Not the congregation.

Not all churches are the same though. So maybe i should be grateful for small mercies!
.
.
.
.

[ 21. August 2017, 19:30: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

So we are in good company here, away from the fanatics and the evangelicals, whom, I wonder if they are not fanatical because they're over-compensating for doubt.

Christianity is also mythology, poetic mythology, often set to good music (we hope it is good): I think when we abandon the poetry of religion, we also abandon the sublime. Why can't an agnostic experience the sublime? Mightn't religion have explanatory power beyond the mere ideas and beliefs?

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I'm a Christian but I find it hard to attend my local services because I'm also a slack bastard. I also find talking to people at church difficult, because I often find myself saying the most stupid things for reasons that escape me. I still regularly berate myself for something awful that I said about 7 years ago in response to a compliment about my job outside one of my churches. I also attend both Catholic and Anglican churches, something that definitely raises eyebrows in Catholic settings, less so these days in Anglican ones. So I have a long list of reasons to be a slack bastard, but the truth is that I would go weekly to the 9am Anglican service if I could just gather the will to get out of bed. I'm about 2 weeks off a tablet that made me drowsy, so here's hoping.

My main Mick Mass is at St Francis in the city. I'll be there this Friday all being well. I go about once a month when I meet my mate from Mornington in the city. Mass there is fantastic. Everyone's a stranger, there's a large diversity in ethnicity, and the evangelical (there's a better word) Catholics do amusing things. Last time the Priest had a bee in his bonnet about mobile phones and actually stopped in the middle of his sermon to identify and shame the owner of a buzzing mobile. I laughed and laughed and laughed. It was so Father Ted. Then a few months ago, another Priest gave a stern talk to the congregation about inventing new mysteries. He reckoned he had seen people jumping from one communion queue to the other so they could get their wafer from the Priest instead of the lay server. He insisted that they had all been subjected to the same treatment and the hand didn't matter. I might have snorted. Now THIS is worship!

When my wife has finally had enough of me and I've lost my job, I'm going to be one of those people who attend mass daily and mumble aggressively at those who try to speak to them, unless they are nuns.

Edit: I was going to make this relevant to the thread, but it would have been too long.

[ 22. August 2017, 01:16: Message edited by: simontoad ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It was Baptist Trainfan, I think, who quoted a minister of his acquaintance saying "I believe fewer things than I used to, but I believe more deeply the things I do believe in".

It's an odd, journey, the journey of faith. When you've been on the road a long time, doctrinal and dogmatic certainties seem to lead at best to paradoxes. Using some Orthodox language, kataphatic and apophatic theology meet head on, often leading to headaches! "What is truth" we ask ourselves, echoing Pilate. Or more simply "you know what, I'm confused!".

I think we learn to take our ignorance seriously. Which can make us seem quite wafty, malleable and compromised to the more certain. But, mostly, they learn in time that faith is not so simple when you take it seriously.

[ 22. August 2017, 08:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Did I? I don't recall it. But I agree with the post.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I spent quite a long time as a non-realist Christian. Ironically, there is nothing to reconcile, since going to church, the Eucharist, and so on, make perfect sense in a non-realist way. I suppose there is a tension with Christians who are realists, i.e. actually believe that Christ was/is God in an objective way, but I never got into fights over it.

But the symbols began to fade for me. Maybe this is the fate of non-realism, to fade away into realism!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I only know two regular churchgoers who have told me that they identify as agnostics. Both of them are evensong-attenders, and one of them told me that he sees no point in attending a eucharist as he is not sufficiently engaged to participate at any level and, as he is musically inclined, there is much more spoken text than music than at evensong. The other told me that she was an introvert and that people left her alone at evensong, so she could focus on the service.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Talking with someone recently on this very topic, they came out with the phrase " I'm not going to bother trying to work it all out anymore, i'm just going to listen for the wind and go with it."

Can't remember the last time i lost sleep over truth, belief and anything remotely like the importance of all that.
.
.
+ another one here who could happily become a daily communicant!
.
.
.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I have never believed in God in the traditional sense and wasn't brought up in a church going family. Nevertheless I had the big, so-called, Born again hit aged 40, having been laid low by a couple of life crisis', and attended church regularly for several years.

The Christian Faith and the Bible are largely baffling to me, apart a few bits and pieces. Consequently I still identify as agnostic, one who would probably be better off practicing yoga, meditation, or something similar.
Despite all this I still occasionally attend a small rural church, read at the lectern and take communion. And, for some strange reason, (because most of my previous euphoria has ebbed), I can feel spiritually lifted even after the driest Church service. Mixing with other folk does seem to be part of it.

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

What exactly do we mean by "agnostic"?

Surely we are all agnostic to a certain extent because we can never be sure about absolutely everything.

Isn't that what faith is about? It's not certainty. If it was certainty it would not be faith.

So therefore there are elements of agnosticism within faith by its very definition.

It's finding your way through the forest of doubts and questions and perhaps never finding the answers to all your questions.

That's faith to me.

Surely as Christian churches we should be welcoming people with doubt?

Look at doubting Peter! He wasn't excluded by Jesus. The opposite in fact.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
What exactly do we mean by "agnostic"?

Surely we are all agnostic to a certain extent because we can never be sure about absolutely everything.

Isn't that what faith is about? It's not certainty. If it was certainty it would not be faith.

So therefore there are elements of agnosticism within faith by its very definition.

It's finding your way through the forest of doubts and questions and perhaps never finding the answers to all your questions.

That's faith to me.

Surely as Christian churches we should be welcoming people with doubt?

Look at doubting Peter! He wasn't excluded by Jesus. The opposite in fact.

So it seems to me, but there are certainly people who while not sure on all the details, seem absolutely convinced that God exists and loves them, and that Christianity is essentially true. They feel his presence, know he's there. They have a personal relationship with him, although I've never really understood what that means.

There was a time when I claimed to be one of them. I had "numinous" experiences. I heard the voice of God. But then I realised I had no means of telling these experiences and hearing God with working myself up into an emotional state or hearing my own imagination. Since that is so, I cannot know that anything I experience without external corroboration is anything but self-generated. So I do not know. I don't even think it likely that many of these experiences were actually of God. Indeed, the one I felt very keenly and now know about was not God, not unless God gets things done by misleading and deceiving us.

I think that the OP is more about Christians like me and thee who acknowledge that we hope and even dare to want to try to believe, but do not know.

[ 31. August 2017, 11:03: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

"...hearing God with working myself..." -> "...hearing God from working myself..."

Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :

I would definitely describe myself as an atheist, and that means, in my case, that I cannot believe in any god as thus far envisaged by humans. The Christian God, as described in the Bible, isn't credible to me.

All the same, I have always been drawn to Christianity for unknown reasons - I'm beginning to wonder about ancestry, because many of my ancestors were devout Christians. Anyway, I like going to church and I have no idea why. I haven't been lately due to a change of rector and that whole uncomfortable thing about being a non-believer and obviously not taking communion or going up for a blessing (I couldn't take it that far!). The previous rector knew I was an atheist.

As someone else mentioned earlier on, Evensong is easier. There's no communion, no 'passing of the peace' and pretty much no need for any interaction. Sadly my little village church only does one Evensong per year and that has always been very poorly attended with maybe 10 people present.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

It is getting increasingly difficult for me to say the Creeds without crossing my fingers.

Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :

No offense to those that declared themselves agnotstic or atheist in the posts above but my question would be. If that's the case, why not just sleep in on Sundays like a sensible person?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:
No offense to those that declared themselves agnotstic or atheist in the posts above but my question would be. If that's the case, why not just sleep in on Sundays like a sensible person?

Because church isn't until lunchtime

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Fellowship and community, Clutch. As well, our oldest son runs the sound board and our youngest son is a server and choir member.

Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Fellowship and community, Clutch. As well, our oldest son runs the sound board and our youngest son is a server and choir member.

Which is great and all, and I'm certainly not knocking it. I just find it personally speaking to be a sort of mental gymnastics one would have to do.

I can't personally do that. I've got to be committed to what get involved with otherwise for me, I might as well be fishing in a dry riverbed.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Fellowship and community, Clutch. As well, our oldest son runs the sound board and our youngest son is a server and choir member.
Which is great and all, and I'm certainly not knocking it. I just find it personally speaking to be a sort of mental gymnastics one would have to do.

I can't personally do that. I've got to be committed to what get involved with otherwise for me, I might as well be fishing in a dry riverbed.

It's not, for me, about 'getting involved'. It's about already being involved.

I've been going to my Church for 40 years now, all my friends are there and I run the sound/AV. My faith has gone from dramatic conversion (June 6th 1990) to GLE to now, almost agnostic.

I choose the visuals for the PP really carefully and every week people say they are blessed by them. God can use anyone, even the faithless? (I should be preparing this Sunday's instead of messing about aboard the Ship)

I don't do any mental gymnastics. Where the words don't agree with what I believe - I simply acknowledge to myself 'I don't believe that' and spend a little time thinking what I do now believe about that bit. If anyone asks, I tell them. Few ask - they don't want to know my doubts much as they love me. The new minister tried for a while, giving me books etc. She's given up now, but I'm sure prays fervently for this lost sheep [Biased]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:
No offense to those that declared themselves agnotstic or atheist in the posts above but my question would be. If that's the case, why not just sleep in on Sundays like a sensible person?

I don't sleep in any day, I raise puppies!

[Big Grin]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect those who are agnostic aren't
>generally agnostic about absolutely everything.
<snip>
But it would be interesting to hear from avowed agnostics. I know people with no discernible faith whatsoever who attend church, but I think that's increasingly rare these days.

I am an agnostic, but only because it is scientifically or pedantically correct to be so. There must always be the faint possibility - however vanishingly small that might be - for a God to be objectively proved one day.
Too often though agnostic is taken to mean a sort of 50-50 stance between belief and non-belief.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I'd say I was agnostic, earning contempt from the atheists and sadness from the believers among my acquaintance.

The Quakers accept me uncritically as a (silent) attender at their meetings, which suits me.

I'm sorry to hear that some atheists you know treat your agnosticism with contempt. I cannot think of any reasonable excuse for this.

Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I'd say I was agnostic, earning contempt from the atheists and sadness from the believers among my acquaintance.

The Quakers accept me uncritically as a (silent) attender at their meetings, which suits me.
I'm sorry to hear that some atheists you know treat your agnosticism with contempt. I cannot think of any reasonable excuse for this.

Maybe it's the same type of fundamentalist zeal that infuses a growing proprotion of atheists/agnostics these days causes some of the contempt. Treating the irreligion they profess as a new one as vocally and as uncompromisingly as the religious right does with it's narrow version of Christianity?

Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am an agnostic, but only because it is scientifically or pedantically correct to be so.

This notion always baffles me. Why is it against scientific reasoning to have faith or Vice versa? This makes no sense to me personally. I'm a perfectly orthodox Christian that just happenes to think Scince and Faith go together quite well.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
It is getting increasingly difficult for me to say the Creeds without crossing my fingers.

Ah, yes! One of the many reasons I stopped attending vchurch, even though I loved being a choir member, because I had already erased the idea of God from the small space it occupied in my brain! [Smile]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am an agnostic, but only because it is scientifically or pedantically correct to be so.
This notion always baffles me. Why is it against scientific reasoning to have faith or Vice versa? This makes no sense to me personally. I'm a perfectly orthodox Christian that just happenes to think Scince and Faith go together quite well.

Do you 100% know God exists? If not, you're an agnostic. If you do, how do you know that?

Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am an agnostic, but only because it is scientifically or pedantically correct to be so.
This notion always baffles me. Why is it against scientific reasoning to have faith or Vice versa? This makes no sense to me personally. I'm a perfectly orthodox Christian that just happenes to think Scince and Faith go together quite well.
Do you 100% know God exists? If not, you're an agnostic. If you do, how do you know that?

Chicken before the egg question right there.

Faith is believe without seeing. And don't scientist act on faith in the sense "There is something more to this particular question...therefore I must search to find it."

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

This isn't about science and faith. This is about not knowing = agnosticism, by definition. I'm agnostic with a provisional working model of God existing. Why would I either pretend to have knowledge, or conversely stay im bed on a Sunday?

Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :

I still don't see how this is not still a chicken before the egg type of circular logic. Faith requires no conventional proofs to exist.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:
I still don't see how this is not still a chicken before the egg type of circular logic. Faith requires no conventional proofs to exist.

Then faith is a form of agnosticism, unless you have some other non-conventional means of knowing. If that is so, what is that non-conventional means?

I do not contrast faith with agnosticism. I contrast knowing and believing.

[ 31. August 2017, 17:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am an agnostic, but only because it is scientifically or pedantically correct to be so.
This notion always baffles me. Why is it against scientific reasoning to have faith or Vice versa? This makes no sense to me personally. I'm a perfectly orthodoxChristian that just happenes to think Scince and Faith go together quite well.

It is not, as far as I know, absolutely against scientific reasoning to have faith, but all the things I have faith in have objective facts to back them up, even if those facts are not complete. Science does not ever claim to have proved something 100%, does it. There is always the chance that a new fact might emerge which will show the Theory to be incorrect, or, as most often, needs an updating. With a 100% faith belief, there are no observations that can be made to form a question in the first place, let alone one which can be tested. As I understand itt there is a minority of scientists who have a faith belief and they are found in the Psychology, Psychiatry fields of Science where they can compartmentalise science and faith. They are not in the biology, chemistry and physics fields, unless someone can show this not to be so!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Well, there is our own Alan Cresswell, SD

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am an agnostic, but only because it is scientifically or pedantically correct to be so.
This notion always baffles me. Why is it against scientific reasoning to have faith or Vice versa? This makes no sense to me personally. I'm a perfectly orthodoxChristian that just happenes to think Scince and Faith go together quite well.
It is not, as far as I know, absolutely against scientific reasoning to have faith, but all the things I have faith in have objective facts to back them up, even if those facts are not complete. Science does not ever claim to have proved something 100%, does it. There is always the chance that a new fact might emerge which will show the Theory to be incorrect, or, as most often, needs an updating. With a 100% faith belief, there are no observations that can be made to form a question in the first place, let alone one which can be tested. As I understand itt there is a minority of scientists who have a faith belief and they are found in the Psychology, Psychiatry fields of Science where they can compartmentalise science and faith. They are not in the biology, chemistry and physics fields, unless someone can show this not to be so!

Susan, meet John Polkinghorne

Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:
I still don't see how this is not still a chicken before the egg type of circular logic. Faith requires no conventional proofs to exist.
Then faith is a form of agnosticism, unless you have some other non-conventional means of knowing. If that is so, what is that non-conventional means?

I do not contrast faith with agnosticism. I contrast knowing and believing.

Merriam-Webster defins agonsitic as the following:

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something political agnostics

Unconventional does not equal agnostic. Therefore I'm not sure what you are trying to get across.

And Susan, you are misconstruing conventional applications of religion into a context surrounding a question of faith. Can we fully prove that the events in the NT happened as recorded and therefore are actual events? No. Does that mean I can't believe that they might be as concrete and real as the law of thermodynamics. Of course. How though. My truth in that depends on what evidence other then words compiled in a book written in the first century of the common era? I can't prove it behind a feeling, which is what faith ultimately boils down to.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

SusanDoris wrote:

quote:
As I understand itt there is a minority of scientists who have a faith belief and they are found in the Psychology, Psychiatry fields of Science where they can compartmentalise science and faith. They are not in the biology, chemistry and physics fields, unless someone can show this not to be so!

Actually, it is the other way around. The two disciplines (sciences only here) that show the lowest levels of religious belief are biology and psychology. There's more than one study that looked at this (Gross and Simmons in a survey of "College and University Professors" and Stirrat and Cornwell in a survey of Fellows of the Royal Society).

On the subject of compartmentalisation, I suspect that depends on the religious belief and also to a degree the levels of belief in other things. Clearly a young-earth creationist working as an evolutionary biologist is going to suffer chronic cognitive dissonance if s/he does not compartmentalise. But I doubt there are many YEC scientists in the UK. In the USA where that sort of thing has more currency, it's notable that of scientists who are religious believers, far fewer declare themselves to be evangelicals that would be expected from the rest of the population (2009 Pew Research Survey.) I don't think most scientists would otherwise need to compartmentalise their thinking, which is not to say they may not think about these things at different times.

Incidentally, the same Pew Research Survey in 2009 found that belief in God or some higher power was about half as prevalent amongst scientists as compared to the rest of the population. Whilst that was a US figure, I can't find a UK study that looks at the broad incidence of belief, but I'm not sure I would necessarily expect the ratio to be wildly different in the UK.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:
I still don't see how this is not still a chicken before the egg type of circular logic. Faith requires no conventional proofs to exist.
Then faith is a form of agnosticism, unless you have some other non-conventional means of knowing. If that is so, what is that non-conventional means?

I do not contrast faith with agnosticism. I contrast knowing and believing.
Merriam-Webster defins agonsitic as the following:

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Yep, that's me. I don't claim that God definitely exists, or that he doesn't. I work on the provisional basis that he does. If he wants me to have a stronger belief than that, the ball is in his court. And he's apparently said that himself; Faith as the gift of God? I never said I was faithless, just that I do not know that my faith is justified. So, if that's not the sort of faith God wants, we're back to the ball being in his court.

quote:
Unconventional does not equal agnostic. Therefore I'm not sure what you are trying to get across.

This bit is really bizarre. The only sense in which I've used the concept of "unconventional" is in the sense of types of evidence or reasons for belief. Where you got the idea I equated unconventionality with agnosticism I have no idea.

quote:
I can't prove it behind a feeling, which is what faith ultimately boils down to.

You seem to use "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably. If faith is just a feeling then it seems a very vague and ephemeral thing; I can have a feeling that my train's going to be late but I wouldn't be inclined to dawdle to the railway station on that basis.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Like I said, in Church - and I go every week - I will simply think to myself 'I don't believe that' and consider what I do believe. I don't sing or say any words which make no sense to me.

I still enjoy going to Church. I enjoy the ritual (such as it is in an evangelical Methodist Church). I love the people and it's excellent practice for my Guide Dog puppy. I have a role to play (AV person). We have a daily soup kitchen in town, a weekly luncheon club and we support several charities including in Mexico, Uganda and Kenya all of which I have visited and delivered staff training.

I no longer worship God and I'm not even certain s/he exists.

Is this compartmentalism? Is it cognitive dissonance?

I don't think so.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Certainly sounds like honesty...

IJ

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am an agnostic, but only because it is scientifically or pedantically correct to be so. There must always be the faint possibility - however vanishingly small that might be - for a God to be objectively proved one day.

This is my understanding of agnosticism as well. I have heard self-proclaimed atheists loudly say "There is no god!" then when questioned admit, "Well, there has been no proof, and I don't believe what hasn't been proven." In other words they are really agnostics using "atheism" wrong. Of course the way language works, if enough people use a word wrong, eventually that usage becomes right. Which would be a pity because the current distinction between "atheism" and "agnosticism" is useful and meaningful.

Of course I have also heard people who call themselves atheists who are really and truly atheists -- they believe in their very soul of souls that they know there is no god. They are, of course, deluded -- there is no proving a negative existence claim. ("One black swan is all it takes....") I sometimes wonder if their spittle-flecked enthusiasm isn't related to the fundamentalism noted above -- they put up a very stern front because underneath they aren't really certain at all, but in the crowd they hang with, you have to pretend to be certain.

quote:
Too often though agnostic is taken to mean a sort of 50-50 stance between belief and non-belief.

Agreed. Which is very unhelpful.

quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Look at doubting Peter! He wasn't excluded by Jesus. The opposite in fact.

Forgive the impudence here, but do you mean Doubting Thomas?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Christianity is also mythology, poetic mythology, often set to good music (we hope it is good): I think when we abandon the poetry of religion, we also abandon the sublime. Why can't an agnostic experience the sublime?

I guess we'd have to first decide on the meaning of "sublime." To me it has connotations of metaphysics. If you open a thread on this I would love to discuss the whole thing with you and everybody else!

quote:
Mightn't religion have explanatory power beyond the mere ideas and beliefs?

I'm sure I don't understand this. Explaining what? Does experiencing the sublime have explanatory powers? What do I understand better after an encounter with the sublime than before it? Again my thoughts here of experiencing the sublime are tied to the Cloud of Unknowing, in which the experience is most assuredly not explanatory, but an entity (for want of a better word) not intellectually connected to any ideas or words beyond itself.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The Bible talks about hope as well as faith, and I often find it easier to use the word "hope" rather than "faith". But they are clearly linked concepts.

Dunno if this helps but here goes. There is a line in Hebrews (I'm pretty sure) that says "Faith is the confidence in things hoped for." Frankly I found that never helped me much. Although it occurs to me right now as I type this that "confidence" here might mean not "free of doubt" but rather "willing to act on it."

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, Hebrews 11 v1:

'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.'

That's from the New Revised Standard Version, but the Good News version (my personal favourite, on account of Annie Vallotton's illustrations!) says:

'To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.'

Does that help?

IJ

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If anyone asks, I tell them. Few ask - they don't want to know my doubts much as they love me. The new minister tried for a while, giving me books etc. She's given up now, but I'm sure prays fervently for this lost sheep

I had a friend (he has passed away now, and the bitterness of that loss still wrings my heart) who was a pagan. I don't mean a neopagan. His family remained dedicated to the old gods and old ways when Scotland was evangelized, and remained so through the long centuries right down to the 20th. (I called him a paleopagan and he thought that was hilarious.) He said that of course they went to kirk and went through the motions, because they didn't want their farms to be burned and to die on a gibbet (aren't Christians wonderful folk?). Some priests (later pastors/ministers) were deemed trustworthy enough to know the family secret; most of course were not. Those who knew did not bother the F. family or attempt to convert them. They were part of the community, and if they were anything like my friend, they were solid and compassionate people. Good folk. My friend was more "Christian" than half or more of the Christians I know.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Your faith journey (or, lack of faith journey as the case may be) is your own. It is really no one else's business.

So, if you want to participate in the church services, or social life, or whatever, it is not harming the believers. My personal belief is that God is not going to get bent out of shape if you participate in the Eucharist with doubts, or even disbelief.

And, if you don't believe in God what do you care if someone says this fictional character is going to get mad if you participate in a ceremony honoring someone who does not exist?

If you happen to see things while you are there that make you think this faith whiz may be worth pursuing, great. If not life will go on.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Worship of God doesn't cause me a problem, but worship of Jesus causes me huge problems - I would particularly find it difficult going to an Evangelical church for this reason. I'd have trouble singing a lot of the worship songs (Jesus, Oh Jesus, come and fill your lambs...) but also the way the theology is expressed in sermons and prayers.

I've encountered criticism on the Ship for this point of view (friendly criticism I might add), but in a more traditional CofE church nobody much minds (and indeed expects you to make up your own mind). Choral Evensong - my preferred service - seems to big up on God and the historical person of Jesus rather more than in Evangelical circles, so the theology seems more balanced.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, Hebrews 11 v1:

'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.'

That's from the New Revised Standard Version, but the Good News version (my personal favourite, on account of Annie Vallotton's illustrations!) says:

'To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.'

Does that help?

IJ

At this point I think we'd need help from an NT Greek scholar to unpack the word "assurance."

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, as I read the verse (in both versions), the same thought occurred...

[Paranoid]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
At this point I think we'd need help from an NT Greek scholar to unpack the word "assurance."

I'm not a Greek scholar, but I have some useful books. The Greek word is υποστασις

My Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament has this to say. The most common meanings of this word are 'substance', 'property','effects'. Less common meanings are 'expectations', 'a written undertaking'.

The authors go on to say:*

quote:
These varied uses are at first sight somewhat perplexing, but in all cases there is the same central idea of something that underlies visible conditions and guarantees a future possession

. They suggest that in Hebrews 11:1 the word could be translated as 'title deed'.

*Moulton and Milliken: The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament p.659

Moo

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Isn't that the 'things hoped for' part of the phrase rather than the 'assurance'?

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

If you have agnostic patches, having the Eucharist as the main service is very difficult. In a small church, people will notice if you don't participate. Not that they will necessarily mind, but it is disconcerting that your private doubts become so immediately obvious.
Having the Eucharist as the main service also makes it difficult to invite agnostic friends to attend.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
If you have agnostic patches, having the Eucharist as the main service is very difficult. In a small church, people will notice if you don't participate. Not that they will necessarily mind, but it is disconcerting that your private doubts become so immediately obvious.
Having the Eucharist as the main service also makes it difficult to invite agnostic friends to attend.

I couldn't agree less. To me, a sacrament is liberating at such times because the words become less important. The action is the main focus, which one can take at the level which makes sense between you and God at the time. This doesn't deal with times of deepest doubt, admittedly, but the invitation is still there, and (for me at least) far easier to deal with at such times than assault with weapons-grade doctrine or scriptural sucker punches.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I agree that a Eucharistic service is not a barrier to an agnostic's presence. Even in small chur hes it's common for people to " sit it ou"...at least in my experience. And if you don't -- "Help thou my unbelief." I suspect God cares much less about a seeking person who can't cross all the t's and dot all the i's theologically yet goes yo p to the rail than a spirutual poseur who goes through the motions for self-serving reasons.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Isn't that the 'things hoped for' part of the phrase rather than the 'assurance'?

No,the 'things hoped for' derive from the word for hope. A title deed is a guarantee.

Moo

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

Thunderbunk, I take your point and I can see that the Eucharist may be helpful for some people in that situation, but believe me it doesn't work that way for everyone.

And some churches are so keen to welcome everyone to the Eucharist that there seems to be no concept of anyone actually wanting to sit out of that bit. Once when I quietly omitted going up to the altar rail, the priest kindly brought communion over to where I was sitting. [Confused]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Many year ago I heard a splendid sermon from a bishop - at a confirmation service - who said that anyone who claimed never to have had doubts would fall into one of three camps: (1) they were not being truthful; (2) they had a knee-jerk faith big on platitudes and short on understanding; or (3) they were a child and had yet to have to cope the harsher realities of life.

I think that holds good.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Indeed it does. Well said, that Bishop!

[Overused]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Many year ago I heard a splendid sermon from a bishop {snip} I think that holds good.

Indeed, very wisely said.

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
If you have agnostic patches, having the Eucharist as the main service is very difficult. In a small church, people will notice if you don't participate. Not that they will necessarily mind, but it is disconcerting that your private doubts become so immediately obvious.
Having the Eucharist as the main service also makes it difficult to invite agnostic friends to attend.

In this instance Orthodox piety is a godsend. There are many reasons people might not partake of the Eucharist, and people are inclined to not notice or care whether somebody else approaches the chalice. Indeed in some Orthodox traditions you only take communion once a year (the clergy try to fight this practice but we're talking Orthodoxy here, and everything takes forever). At any rate, if you don't go up, the odds that someone thinks, "that person is having doubts about the Eucharist" are vanishingly small. Indeed the odds that they think about your not going up are slim, unless they notice and kindly bring you a piece of antidoron (semi-blessed bread).

quote:
And some churches are so keen to welcome everyone to the Eucharist that there seems to be no concept of anyone actually wanting to sit out of that bit. Once when I quietly omitted going up to the altar rail, the priest kindly brought communion over to where I was sitting.

I'd say that was jaw-droppingly presumptuous.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

There are one or two in our little congregation who, for reasons known to themselves, do not receive Communion. They do, however, come to the altar rail for a prayer of blessing.

Now and then, we get visitors, who might remain in their seats at Communion-time, though our custom is to extend an invitation to all to come forward for Communion or blessing. I would never, ever, be so presumptuous as to take the Sacrament to them willy-nilly...

[Eek!]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Whilst I agree that it is perfectly possible for someone to attend the Eucharist as an observer, or partial participant, it is much easier for someone to attend Evensong in this vein. I am sometimes accompanied to Evensong by someone who is not a believer, who enjoys it at the level of a concert. Other attendees might be full believers or those somewhere in between the two extremes. It really does have something for people at all stages.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

One of the stalwarts of our congregation, now sadly deceased, was agnostic. His wife is a firm believer. For the best part of 6 years, he would accompany her each Sunday to the main service, enjoy the music, the company and the sermon, but never take communion. He'd help serve tea and coffee on rostered days, and would work as agent for his wife in engaging strangers in conversation and making them feel welcome. Other days of the week would see him helping with the grounds, and similar tasks. The rector took his funeral and said that it was perhaps the most difficult he had ever had to take, acknowledging the deceased's non-belief while supporting his widow and family.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Thunderbunk, I take your point and I can see that the Eucharist may be helpful for some people in that situation, but believe me it doesn't work that way for everyone.

And some churches are so keen to welcome everyone to the Eucharist that there seems to be no concept of anyone actually wanting to sit out of that bit. Once when I quietly omitted going up to the altar rail, the priest kindly brought communion over to where I was sitting.

It's normal for our minister to bring communion to the seated people they stay seated because they can't walk - not because they don't want communion.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Just to clarify: would your priest do that automatically to anyone who stayed seated, even if they were visitors? Or does notice have to be given before the service?

In our set up, the Deacons come round serving everyone at their seats. I always announce that anyone can receive, whether they are members of this church, another church, or of no church,and whether they feel their faith is strong or weak - and that, if they prefer not to receive, they should simply nod to the Deacon and they will go on to serve the next person.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

In my experience, in most Anglican settings where there are likely to be visitors something is usually said to set the scene beforehand so they know what to expect at communion. I suspect the mileage does vary.

The only instances I've known of where the clergy-person will approach someone who is seated during communion would be if they knew them already and knew they were unable to come up for communion for reasons of disability or frailty - or if it'd been pointed out to them that someone was present who wanted to receive but couldn't make it to the rail as it were ...

On the Orthodox thing that Mousethief mentions - yes, I get that. I've never felt awkward not being able to receive communion in an Orthodox Liturgy, even though I might be the only person there who doesn't ... most Liturgies I've attended have involved a small number of people.

I can remember one occasion, it may have been the Orthodox equivalent of Holy Cross, in September I think, when there was clearly an expectation that people would queue up (in US parlance, line-up) to kiss the Cross and do some spiritual aerobics. The priest waited for me for a moment or two after everyone else had done it - they sort of do a prostration/bow thing that looked like a complicated manouevre to this poorly co-ordinated Prot ... and then quietly put it aside.

I'd imagine he was expecting me to join in as it had been my custom during prior visits to kiss the Cross before receiving the antidoron - people queue up for that after they've received communion.

I declined not through any Protestant squeamishness but because I wasn't sure how to do the acrobatic bit.

So, yes, on the whole I've found the Orthodox unintrusive and not at all concerned about what you do or don't do during a service - although I have heard some horror stories, mind.

That said, I once tried to lend a hand snuffing out the candles after one service using the holy candle-snuffer-outer-oxy-doron-opoupopolopodus thing they used for the purpose (ordinary items have whacky names in Orthodoxy when there are perfectly good English equivalents - such as candle-snuffer) ...

On that occasion I thought I was going to be struck down like Uzzah. Anyone would have thought the sky was about to fall in ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

In our set up, the Deacons come round serving everyone at their seats. I always announce that anyone can receive, whether they are members of this church, another church, or of no church,and whether they feel their faith is strong or weak - and that, if they prefer not to receive, they should simply nod to the Deacon and they will go on to serve the next person.

That's interesting, I'd not heard of a Baptist church before which was this open. So how would you feel about someone receiving who you knew was an agnostic and who maybe just felt that it was a thing to do in the moment?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience, in most Anglican settings where there are likely to be visitors something is usually said to set the scene beforehand so they know what to expect at communion. I suspect the mileage does vary.

I've never seen anyone "pressurised" - even accidentally - to take communion. That's a very worrying report.

I've been in loads of services where the immobile have elements distributed where they're seated, but someone (sidesperson or the president) always asks them first.

Fwiw, I've always thought it much more difficult to pass when in a Baptist setting (ie one where a deacon offers the elements to congregants in their seats) than in an Anglican setting.

In fact the different attitude to HC was one of the major attractions for me of the Anglican church in the first place.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Just to clarify: would your priest do that automatically to anyone who stayed seated, even if they were visitors? Or does notice have to be given before the service?

In our set up, the Deacons come round serving everyone at their seats. I always announce that anyone can receive, whether they are members of this church, another church, or of no church,and whether they feel their faith is strong or weak - and that, if they prefer not to receive, they should simply nod to the Deacon and they will go on to serve the next person.

Similar words are said before our communion services, without the nod bit. I'll have to ask what she does when visitors stay seated. But, when there's a baptism and half the visitors stay seated it's obvious they don't want to receive.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's normal for our minister to bring communion to the seated people they stay seated because they can't walk - not because they don't want communion.

Yes, this seems to be common in Methodist churches, which are keen for everyone to participate in communion.

However, I find myself wondering about the reason for the open communion table. Methodists and many others frequently take a memorialist view, so they don't see communion as a factor in anyone's salvation. Yet the urge to encourage everyone to participate suggests that there's more to it than just remembering Christ's sacrifice.

IMO the open table communion service is treated by MOTR mainstream churches as a kind of recruitment activity. We want attenders to feel that they belong to our church so they'll stay. Encouraging them to participate in one of our most ancient rituals is a way for us to tell them they do belong. It doesn't matter very much to church leaders exactly what communicants believe, because belonging and participating come before (and sometimes instead of) believing, and 'belief' itself is viewed as a shifting commodity.

As for the agnostic individuals at the other end of the ritual, what do they think is going on during this ritual? And why would those attenders who are very unconvinced about both belonging and believing participate in communion?

Few agnostics are likely to be sacramentalists, although there may be superstitious people among them who believe the elements to have a special power unrelated to official clergy pronouncements. In that case, the bland 'all are welcome' approach might not seem very convincing; you'll participate if it accords with your own specific needs of the moment, and your own brand of 'Sheilaism', but not otherwise.

Some might be in the pews in spite of themselves, vaguely attracted to spiritual things, and perhaps the aesthetics of a traditional service, but otherwise suspicious of official religion and unwilling to give the clergy the satisfaction of a crowded communion rail.

I also think that the 'all are welcome' slogan is somewhat undermined by the communion liturgy. What if you don't think the Lord always deserves our 'thanks and praise'? What if you don't believe that 'Christ is risen', or that you belong to any 'royal priesthood'? What if the notion of falling into 'sin' makes no sense to you?

Regular church folk come to realise that these ideas are negotiable, or even that they offer a sort of mood music rather than a fixed theology, but perhaps this isn't clear to less embedded attenders. The vicar might make some friendly, inclusive noises, but the printed page has more authority than s/he does.

Now, I fully accept that the above is all just conjecture, but what I'm saying is that there must be many reasons why attenders might choose not to participate in our ancient ritual. The usual assumption is that worshippers refuse because they think themselves 'unworthy', but I don't believe this is the whole truth.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If anyone asks, I tell them. Few ask - they don't want to know my doubts much as they love me. The new minister tried for a while, giving me books etc. She's given up now, but I'm sure prays fervently for this lost sheep
I had a friend (he has passed away now, and the bitterness of that loss still wrings my heart) who was a pagan. I don't mean a neopagan. His family remained dedicated to the old gods and old ways when Scotland was evangelized, and remained so through the long centuries right down to the 20th. (I called him a paleopagan and he thought that was hilarious.) He said that of course they went to kirk and went through the motions, because they didn't want their farms to be burned and to die on a gibbet (aren't Christians wonderful folk?). Some priests (later pastors/ministers) were deemed trustworthy enough to know the family secret; most of course were not. Those who knew did not bother the F. family or attempt to convert them. They were part of the community, and if they were anything like my friend, they were solid and compassionate people. Good folk. My friend was more "Christian" than half or more of the Christians I know.

Did they leave any record of what they believed? So little is known about pre-Christian Celtic belief (the Church did a really good job of turning the gods into mere human folk heroes and fairies) that it would be an invaluable resource.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Svitlana wrote:

quote:
IMO the open table communion service is treated by MOTR mainstream churches as a kind of recruitment activity. We want attenders to feel that they belong to our church so they'll stay. Encouraging them to participate in one of our most ancient rituals is a way for us to tell them they do belong. It doesn't matter very much to church leaders exactly what communicants believe, because belonging and participating come before (and sometimes instead of) believing, and 'belief' itself is viewed as a shifting commodity.

That's a pretty good expansion of 'praxis not doxis', which I was always told was a Jewish approach to faith. Doing not believing, I suppose. It seems very odd to reverse it, since as you say, belief is not a fixed category.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

In our set up, the Deacons come round serving everyone at their seats. I always announce that anyone can receive, whether they are members of this church, another church, or of no church,and whether they feel their faith is strong or weak - and that, if they prefer not to receive, they should simply nod to the Deacon and they will go on to serve the next person.
That's interesting, I'd not heard of a Baptist church before which was this open. So how would you feel about someone receiving who you knew was an agnostic and who maybe just felt that it was a thing to do in the moment?

Baptist churches do vary. Some, by Constitution and Trust Deed going back many years, have a "Closed Table" which would technically mean they were breaking the law if they offered Communion to everyone!

In answer to your question: it's between them and God, and I believe that the very act of offering or participating in Communion can say something to someone about God's grace. I'm not like the old Scottish ministers who were so concerned about people receiving "unworthily" that they "fenced the table" vigorously with the result that hardly anyone "communed"!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

"Having doubts" does not make someone an agnostic. Nor does a person have to screw themselves up to have lots of confident faith, otherwise they should not take communion. There are plenty of times in virtually every Christian's life when God seems far away, when the oil is low, the candle seems to be flickering, and almost going out. Those are definitely times when keeping up the steady disciplines of faith is a good thing even if they don't seem to be working.

It strikes me that an agnostic is a person whose settled position is that they do not know whether there is a God or not, consciously don't want to make up their mind, or in many cases really can't be bothered.

I have to admit that I can't really see why such a person would attend church other than for weddings and funerals. It would be odd if they did.

However they describe themselves, a person who would like to believe more is not an agnostic. They are a person whose faith is weak, uncertain or flickering. Obviously, it would be better for them if they believed more, just as it would be better for those of us whose faith is more settled, if our faith was stronger and more courageous than it is. One would hope that by attending church, their faith will grow.

I don't think it encourages that, if we redesign our services so as to avoid anything that might unsettle, stimulate or challenge those whose faith is weak.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
One of the stalwarts of our congregation, now sadly deceased, was agnostic. His wife is a firm believer. For the best part of 6 years, he would accompany her each Sunday to the main service, enjoy the music, the company and the sermon, but never take communion. He'd help serve tea and coffee on rostered days, and would work as agent for his wife in engaging strangers in conversation and making them feel welcome. Other days of the week would see him helping with the grounds, and similar tasks. The rector took his funeral and said that it was perhaps the most difficult he had ever had to take, acknowledging the deceased's non-belief while supporting his widow and family.

What a godly man! (He just didn't realise it.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm afraid I find your friend's story hard to believe, Mousethief. The idea of an unbroken succession of pagan belief persisting in Scotland is pure moonshine.

Granted, there are vestigial fragments of Celtic pagan lore within popular religion in Ireland and the Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland but the idea of an unbroken chain of pagan belief persisting until modern times rather stretches credulity.

Heck, even in the film 'The Wicker Man' the pagans were neo.

All contemporary pagans are neo-pagan.

End of.

I'm not suggesting your friend was deliberately telling porkies, but I've known enough instances of Irish and Scots folk winding up gullible US tourists and convincing them that they still believe in 'The Little People' and so on to take your pal's story with a very large dose of salt or tot of single malt.

Sorry.

But he was talking bollocks.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
One of the stalwarts of our congregation, now sadly deceased, was agnostic. His wife is a firm believer. For the best part of 6 years, he would accompany her each Sunday to the main service, enjoy the music, the company and the sermon, but never take communion. He'd help serve tea and coffee on rostered days, and would work as agent for his wife in engaging strangers in conversation and making them feel welcome. Other days of the week would see him helping with the grounds, and similar tasks. The rector took his funeral and said that it was perhaps the most difficult he had ever had to take, acknowledging the deceased's non-belief while supporting his widow and family.
What a godly man! (He just didn't realise it.)

Yes indeed.

I just noticed the typo - it should have been 60 years, not 6!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm afraid I find your friend's story hard to believe, Mousethief. The idea of an unbroken succession of pagan belief persisting in Scotland is pure moonshine.

Well at very least it'd have to have been passed down undetected through about 30-40 generations.

I'd guess (of course, no more than a guess) it is more likely wishful thinking begun by Victorians and passed down from that period. There was quite a lot of that kind of thing emerging around then.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Baptist churches do vary. Some, by Constitution and Trust Deed going back many years, have a "Closed Table" which would technically mean they were breaking the law if they offered Communion to everyone!

Yeah. I wasn't thinking of "closed communion", I was mostly thinking of the various types of "open communion".

In most Anglican churches I've ever been in, there is no effort to screen people going forward for communion - whereas I've seen a variety of practices in "open communion" baptist (and baptist-type Evangelical churches). I don't think that the minister and deacons would knowingly distribute to a visiting Sikh (as a random example) who thought it was appropriate in the moment to take the elements in any of the Baptist/Evangelical churches I know of.

It is possible that Anglican presidents might not (possibly thinking about the implications for the Sikh from his own faith community), but I think it is much more likely that an Anglican church would offer the elements to anyone who looked like they wanted them than any kind of Baptist.

But it sounds like at least some Baptists have developed practices that are more like the Anglican ones in at least this respect.

quote:
In answer to your question: it's between them and God, and I believe that the very act of offering or participating in Communion can say something to someone about God's grace. I'm not like the old Scottish ministers who were so concerned about people receiving "unworthily" that they "fenced the table" vigorously with the result that hardly anyone "communed"!

Fair enough. That feels like unusual Baptist practice to me, but maybe I'm out of touch.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I agree with Gamaliel about the claim that any family in Scotland remained resolutely pagan in spite of everyone and everything else around them. That's 14-15 centuries he is claiming they have kept it up for. I just don't believe it.

Mousethief was the person who made this claim still resident in Scotland or had he or his forbears migrated to the New World?

And what was it he claimed they actually believed and did all that time? I can't really imagine anyone getting away with sneaking up the glen to sacrifice the odd sheep from time to time. I'd say that any sort of paganism which doesn't involve slaughtering animals is bound to be neo.

There's a certain type of folklorist who likes to see things that they can attribute to pagan survival, whether it's morris dancing or corn dollies, but most (I'd actually say 'all') of it is wishful thinking.

John Barleycorn is a song about beer, to be sung while drinking it. That's it. Get over it.

[ 04. September 2017, 08:05: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree with Gamaliel about the claim that any family in Scotland remained resolutely pagan in spite of everyone and everything else around them. That's 14-15 centuries he is claiming they have kept it up for. I just don't believe it.

Mmm. I'm possibly arguing against myself here, but I think there is some evidence of continuation of pagan beliefs in Scandinavia so I suppose it is possible that a family in Shetland had relatives or close links to Scandinavia as recently as the 18 century.

I still think it is a bit unlikely, but I'm not sure one can be totally dismissive of the idea.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Anyway, I'm not really sure it matters: unless the guy is being entirely disingenuous, presumably he believes that his family paganism goes back a long way in his family and that he - personally - has been shielding it whilst continuing with outward Christian religiosity for the sake of community relations.

I'm not sure it matters if the reality is that the "paganism" was really created in the 18 century, goes back to Viking beliefs from the 15-17 century or goes back a lot further.

[ 04. September 2017, 08:55: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyway, I'm not really sure it matters: ...

Anthropologically, yes it does matter.

We know next to nothing about how real northern European pagans thought or felt, how they saw themselves and their cosmological identity. If this were a genuine survival, then it just might contain a smidgeon of a relic of that, even if it was difficult to identify it. If it were just a neo re-creation, whether early C20, C19, or whenever, then it will contain no genuine echo. It is merely retro, formed by and in reaction to the prevailing Christian culture of the time, no more the real thing than the tat shops in Glastonbury High Street.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There's a simple explanation, I think.

If the guy was of Scottish heritage and living in the US he may have been tempted to 'big that up' as certain among the Irish diaspora have done - or the Welsh in Pennsylvania even though they pronounce all the words incorrectly ...

[Biased]

What I suspect has happened is that Mousethief's informant put two and two together and made five.

He'll have heard a few scraps and vestiges of ancient lore and practices - which certainly did survive in a kind of decontextualised way - and put two and two together and assumed it all amounted to some kind of seamless continuation from pagan times.

Which is bollocks.

Just because there are some throw-backs to pagan rituals and so on doesn't mean that it survived as a complete belief-system until modern times.

The most that could be hoped for would be a form of syncretism.

As a boy in South Wales I knew old people from the Forest of Dean who believed all sorts of wierd and wonderful stuff - herbal remedies, ghouls and ghosts and things that went bump in the night, the devil being seen in a fiery chariot riding across the sky ...

Go back a few hundred years and there'd have been a lot more of that.

Heck, I read the other day that it was estimated in 1935 that a certain community in the West of Ireland had preserved more oral tradition and folklore than the rest of Western Europe combined ...

So, no, I'm not doubting that elements of pagan customs survived and were absorbed into Christianity - but the idea that paganism continued in some parallel form outwith a largely Christianised society is stretching it a bit. And then some ...

Sorry Mousethief. I don't doubt your friend was/is an impressive guy but he doesn't Pass Go, he doesn't collect his £200 ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK, you've made your point (numerous times now), how about we stop judging someone who isn't here to defend themselves.

Anthropologically it might be all bollocks, but that might not change the fact that there is a guy who sat in a church for much of his life who was not only an agnostic but who believed (rightly or wrongly) that he was from a long line of pagans.

We can invent a flight of fancy based on very limited information about him "finding himself" as a Scottish American within neo-paganism or that he was simply winding up MT.

But it is far simpler to believe that MT might know when he was being wound-up and that this guy actually believed what he is saying.

You or I might not like it, but that's really immaterial if he really believed it about himself.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, you've made your point (numerous times now), how about we stop judging someone who isn't here to defend themselves.

Anthropologically it might be all bollocks, but that might not change the fact that there is a guy who sat in a church for much of his life who was not only an agnostic but who believed (rightly or wrongly) that he was from a long line of pagans.

We can invent a flight of fancy based on very limited information about him "finding himself" as a Scottish American within neo-paganism or that he was simply winding up MT.

But it is far simpler to believe that MT might know when he was being wound-up and that this guy actually believed what he is saying.

You or I might not like it, but that's really immaterial if he really believed it about himself.

None of which obviates what I wrote.

He may well have believed it himself. What I wrote left that open as a possibility.

That doesn't make it any less bollocks.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
None of which obviates what I wrote.

He may well have believed it himself. What I wrote left that open as a possibility.

That doesn't make it any less bollocks.

Ye gods.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

Sorry, I should add that the Sunday on which the vicar brought me communion I didn't really want was a Sunday when I was playing the organ, so the assumption was probably that I didn't have time to walk to the altar. I am sure it was charitably meant.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That makes sense, Aravis.

mr cheesy [Confused]

Surely more [Roll Eyes]

than

but YMMV as they say aboard Ship.

But there we are ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

mr cheesy

Surely more than but YMMV as they say aboard Ship.

But there we are ...

No it is

because you seem to think that everything you write needs to be reinforced in triplicate.

Fair enough comment, but seems to me that you're making rather a meal of it given nobody is really disagreeing with you about it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, I am thoroughly Trinitarian ...

But fair do's mind ...

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Sorry, I should add that the Sunday on which the vicar brought me communion I didn't really want was a Sunday when I was playing the organ, so the assumption was probably that I didn't have time to walk to the altar. I am sure it was charitably meant.

Eat it, eat it NOW!! (And did you?)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Sorry, I should add that the Sunday on which the vicar brought me communion I didn't really want was a Sunday when I was playing the organ, so the assumption was probably that I didn't have time to walk to the altar. I am sure it was charitably meant.
Eat it, eat it NOW!! (And did you?)

"I'm not going to end the service until you've partaken".

"Some poor child in a denomination where they only have communion once a year would be glad to receive what I'm offering you".

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Church attendance and participation in communion is something that maybe we take for granted as A Personal Choice. It has not always been so.

In East Anglia i well remember hearing that unless a certain family attended the parish church + took communion, their father would not have his job and they would not have had their home. Those children did not welcome the benefits received from the hand of their fathers employer and none of them are now members or even occasional attendees at any church or chapel.

Whilst Wales and other mining areas have their own shaming and stocking stories of what happened if miners and their families did not attend the church, or chapel, decreed by their mine owner. Again, no job and no home.

Choice is a luxury.

[ 06. September 2017, 10:58: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Actually, it wasn't quite as simple as that, Ethne Alba. There have been historical studies in Huddersfield and other parts of the old West Riding which indicate that the choice of chapel was practically the only choice people had, so that was why there were so many of them ...

Equally, in my native South Wales a lot of the chapels were set up by the miners and foundry workers themselves, not by the mine owners or iron-masters.

Sure, there were chapels and churches where people were 'expected' to attend but things were rather more complex than that. In the 1851 religious census some 50% of the population were in some form of church or chapel on the census Sunday.

That's a whole load of people but also a lot of folk who weren't.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

I can only speak of what i know. I know nothing of the West Riding, but i am very glad that they at least had choice of where to attend worship.

And i don't want to get specific about areas of South Wales on a public page. But (without involving people related to those still living) whilst in South Wales i heard some appalling histories....very calmly spoken....over nice cups of tea....by elderly people..

I have no reason to dispute the life stories given. The people concerned had no gain from telling their stories and in fact had plenty of shame from living their lives up until that point. Certainly the most harrowing were from a village midwife.....

Power and the ability to wield it is not reserved for the owners of places of employment. Sometimes it is a manager.

And, I don't know about matters 'not being quite as simple as that', or 'being a bit more complex than that'....
Lives ruined in the name of religion is something that is neither simple nor complex. It's plain wrong.

But maybe we are straying far from the OP?

Interestingly, some people reacted to their upbringing by refusing to attend church. Other attended, but if pushed would say they were at best agnostic and at worst atheist....but were still there.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:

And, I don't know about matters 'not being quite as simple as that', or 'being a bit more complex than that'....
Lives ruined in the name of religion is something that is neither simple nor complex. It's plain wrong.

But maybe we are straying far from the OP?

I don't see any reason to disbelieve the accounts either. There was often a very odd relationship between miners and mine owners.

I don't think any of the churches here (town in the Eastern Valleys, South Wales) were directly paid for by the mine owners - but I'm not sure that detail really matters. There is good evidence that chapel attendance was "expected" by the owners, who seemed at times to see their role to be overlords of the workers in various aspects of life. I can well imagine that a smaller community with a single mine employer might have a chapel built by the owners.

quote:
Interestingly, some people reacted to their upbringing by refusing to attend church. Other attended, but if pushed would say they were at best agnostic and at worst atheist....but were still there.

It's fairly clear to me that many went to chapel (if voluntarily at all) because of the social/community aspects.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

What about social pressures, not from employers but from neighbours/ peers? The great divide between the respectable and the respectable? Might apply to church and chapel, although there is a strand in welsh nonconformity that historically mistrusted the Church because, in addition to all the other class and political baggage that the church/chapel divide carried, *anybody* could go to the church, but you had to be good to go to chapel. (I simplify a little, but it's certainly there.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The point I'm making is that the situation was pretty mixed - and there would have been every conceivable gradation between expectation, peer-pressure and even sheer coercion through to a happy voluntarism ...

One of the things that the West Riding study I mentioned touched on was that there was quite literally bugger all else to do in some mill-village communities if you didn't want to go to the pub all the time ...

The whole social life of these places revolved around the chapels.

There were Sunday school outings, Band Clubs, magic-lantern slides ...

It's where you went to meet other people includiing potential partners.

Strikingly, once public transport opened up in the 1920s and as the cinema grew in popularity attendance at chapels dropped off dramatically. People suddenly had other options in terms of what to do with their time.

I'm by no means minimising 'lives ruined in the name of religion', all I'm doing is suggesting that the situation was more complex than foul mill-owners and mine owners compelling people to attend church or chapel.

Sure, that undoubtedly went on, but it wasn't the full picture.

Strange as it may sound to us, there's plenty of evidence that people from remote mid-Wales farmsteads welcomed the opportunity to migrate to the South Wales mining valleys because, for all the grim conditions, they at least had a regular wage (as opposed to subsistence farming) and there things they could do - such as join a choir or brass-band, a workers' library or some kind of 'friendly society' ...

If you were half-way up a rain-lashed hillside with your nearest neighbour over the other side of the mountain then living in a terraced house surrounded by other people was a welcome change ...

None of that excuses the bastardliness of the Crawshaw Baileys or the mine-owners ...

Heck, I knew an old brother and sister whose father had been the gardener for one of these bastards. He wasn't even allowed to take carrots home for his family that the horses wouldn't eat. They all had to doff their caps and tug their forelocks as he went past - and he even had to have a cavalry escort when he went out to inspect his mines ... (This would have been around 1910) ...

As far as the chapels went, yes, some were virtually 'company' chapels, but others - particularly some of the independent and more fervent types, were built by miners and agricultural workers. I could cite quite a number of those too.

So, yes, whilst there was sometimes overt coercion and pressure we're mainly talking about cultural expectations rather than 'go to church/chapel or lose your job' - although that certainly happened as well.

Just as, despite all the myths surrounding the Welsh Revival and the hwyl and so on, there were instances of violence, shunning and sendings-to-Coventry aimed at Anglicans by non-conformists in the slate-valleys of North Wales ...

There were even instances of people driven from their homes because they were Anglicans and Conservative and living in predominantly non-conformist and Liberal areas. And I say that as someone who hasn't got a Tory bone in his body.

These things cut both ways.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And shunnings of Anglicans in S Wales too. The former Archbishop of wales, Barry Morgan, told me that his grandmother, in Gwaun-Cae-gurwen, had been given a very hard time by her neighbours because she was Church rather than Chapel.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Oh aye, that too - chapel culture could be very tribal and incredibly gossipy and judgemental.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0