South Coast Kevin: Am I becoming a (cue sinister music) Liberal Christian?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:In my case, because I cannot make myself believe things that I don't believe. Having said that, I can't find much, despite self-identifying as liberal, that goes against orthodox Christianity. Some people's versions of it, sure.
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
I have doubts that 'liberal' Christianity can be authentically Christian. Why not just be an orthodox Christian.
quote:What a strange interpretation of what I said!
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Karl, it sounds to me like liberal Christians like to place limits or conditions on God, or at least on their faith?
quote:
we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.
quote:
Simply put, we Christians already know how to do two things very well. First, some of us know how to have a strong Christian identity that responds negatively toward other religions. The stronger our Christian commitment, the stronger our aversion or opposition to other religions.... Alternatively, others of us know how to have a more positive, accepting response to other religions. We never prosyletize. We always show respect for other religions and their adherents. We always minimize differences and maximizes commonalities. But we typically achieve coexistence by weakening our Christian identity... I’m convinced that neither of these responses is good enough for today’s world. (Brian D. McLaren, Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? p. 9-10)
quote:Just believe, Karl. Believe!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't by dint of effort or intention make myself believe any of them. It's nothing to do with placing limits on anything; merely the stating of the (to me) fairly obvious fact that I cannot make myself believe something that's pretty evidently (to me) false, any more than I can look at a blade of grass and insist to myself that it's cerise.
quote:I call that "pretending" and like all forms of dishonesty my experience is that it's ultimately self-defeating.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Just believe, Karl. Believe!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't by dint of effort or intention make myself believe any of them. It's nothing to do with placing limits on anything; merely the stating of the (to me) fairly obvious fact that I cannot make myself believe something that's pretty evidently (to me) false, any more than I can look at a blade of grass and insist to myself that it's cerise.
I suppose what we can do is act as if we believe what some institution or authority says, even though we don't actually believe it (at the moment). We set aside our own views, acknowledging that - for example - the institution has a particular relationship with God such that we should trust its official view more than we trust our own.
quote:I'd find out why they're saying it and see if it's sufficient to change my mind. If it is, well and good, if not, then they're still wrong, aren't they?
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't know if it's 'pretending', necessarily...? I'm thinking about how we relate to other authorities, like scientists or business leaders. If someone we respect says something that doesn't ring true with us, we might set aside our own doubt because of our strong respect for that person's wisdom and expertise. Isn't that similar to how we might relate to a religious leader or institution telling us something we can't really accept?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:This ignores the innate ability of humans in all our glorious, non-linear, self-contradictory messiness to be utterly right about some things and utterly wrong about others, often in the same breath. From Scripture I give you Peter earning a rebuke from Paul. From our modern world I give you Ian Paisley (gifted evangelist, less so at interdenominational relations) or Mother Teresa (living saint in dealing with poor people, medieval on contraception and abortion). So, no matter how august the authority or institution, and no matter how right they are on other matters - as Karl says, if they're wrong, they're wrong.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't know if it's 'pretending', necessarily...? I'm thinking about how we relate to other authorities, like scientists or business leaders. If someone we respect says something that doesn't ring true with us, we might set aside our own doubt because of our strong respect for that person's wisdom and expertise. Isn't that similar to how we might relate to a religious leader or institution telling us something we can't really accept?
quote:Your knowledge and experience of it are clearly on a par with your understanding of correct apostrophe use.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Liberal Christianity. Isn't it just new ageism and batty nuns praying to mother earth? That's pretty much how I see it with it's adherents generally being ex-hippies approaching retirement.
quote:Yes. That some X is Y does not imply that all Y is X.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You'd be surprised what I've seen. Yes, I have seen batty nuns praying to mother earth and yes, it is my experience that the liberal Christian is more likely than not to be rather long in the tooth. Now have you anything to say, old chap, other than pointing out other posters' typos?
quote:We had a thread on Liberalism last year that was quite good.
The Liberal tradition has emphasized the importance of the use of reason in theological exploration. It has stressed the need to develop Christian belief and practice in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding and the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom.”
Affirming Liberalism seeks to enhance this ‘enrichment’ of the Christian faith and support ordained and lay Christians of the Liberal Anglican tradition by:
1. Affirming faith in Jesus’ life, teaching, death and resurrection as revealing God’s limitless love for all humanity in this life and the next.
2. Affirming the dynamic action of God’s Spirit in dispersing this divine love throughout the world.
3. Affirming the beneficial insights of biblical, literary and historical criticism for our understanding of Scripture and Tradition.
4. Affirming a free, questioning and philosophical approach to Christian faith through God-given reason.
5. Affirming the profound significance of science and mathematics in forming a Christian world-view and understanding of the universe.
6. Affirming the positive benefits of the social sciences for comprehending human nature and society, and in developing Christian ethics.
7. Affirming appreciation of the distinctive nature of religious language in vibrant worship which connects us to the divine.
8. Affirming the vitality of the performing and creative arts in shaping a dynamic Christian vision of life lived in relation to God.
9. Affirming open, creative conversation between Liberals, Evangelicals and Catholics as a means of enriching our understanding of the Christian gospel.
10. Affirming open, creative conversation with other faith traditions and cultures as a way of deepening our understanding of God.
quote:Don't forget the flowers in our hair. I won't take part if I don't get to have those.
Ad Orientem: Liberal Christianity. Isn't it just new ageism and batty nuns praying to mother earth?
quote:I think you're being unkind Karl. He's got two out of three apostrophes right.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Your knowledge and experience of it are clearly on a par with your understanding of correct apostrophe use.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Liberal Christianity. Isn't it just new ageism and batty nuns praying to mother earth? That's pretty much how I see it with it's adherents generally being ex-hippies approaching retirement.
quote:I was 26 when I came to Christ.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You'd be surprised what I've seen. Yes, I have seen batty nuns praying to mother earth and yes, it is my experience that the liberal Christian is more likely than not to be rather long in the tooth.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:What if those in authority are pretending? If they are asking the same questions as Karl?
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't know if it's 'pretending', necessarily...? I'm thinking about how we relate to other authorities, like scientists or business leaders. If someone we respect says something that doesn't ring true with us, we might set aside our own doubt because of our strong respect for that person's wisdom and expertise. Isn't that similar to how we might relate to a religious leader or institution telling us something we can't really accept?
quote:Really. I doubt that you have worked through anything remotely resembling "compelling evidence" for 99% of the "scientific facts" that you carry around in your head. You know that water is H2O how? You know that there was a big bang how? You know that power can be derived from splitting or fusing atoms how? You know that your have a heart that pumps blood through your body how? You know that continents drift how? You know that AIDS is caused by HIV how? You know that the sun is a star how? You know that epilepsy is a brain disease how? You know that there are electromagnetic waves how? You know that there is DNA in your cells how? Etc.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think I really get "authority". I don't believe a scientist because he's a clever scientist; I believe him if he can demonstrate what he's saying is true with evidence.
quote:Maybe religion is entirely within the realm of individual human capacity and experience, then your response may make sense. But if it is anything like science, fundamentally supra-personal in scope, then religious authority is necessary for both personal and communal progress.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I feel similarly about religious authority - "because the Magisterium/Bible/Calvin's Institutes say so" just elicits "so what?" from me.
quote:But there must come a point where your reasoning and knowledge are insufficient to assess whatever evidence some scientist might present in defence of their view on something. At that point, you have to trust their judgement.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't believe a scientist because he's a clever scientist; I believe him if he can demonstrate what he's saying is true with evidence.
quote:Oh, definitely. I'm very much on the same page as Karl on this issue, but just trying to see the other side of things (as is my wont!). However, I think there is a place for the 'appeal to authority' argument, because there are limits to each individual's knowledge and expertise.
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
This ignores the innate ability of humans in all our glorious, non-linear, self-contradictory messiness to be utterly right about some things and utterly wrong about others, often in the same breath... [N]o matter how august the authority or institution, and no matter how right they are on other matters - as Karl says, if they're wrong, they're wrong.
quote:Heh heh. Bang on the money.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That some X is Y does not imply that all Y is X.
By your reasoning, all Orthodox are queer bashing skinhead idiots.
quote:Yes, I like that too. Am I becoming a (cue sinister music) Liberal Christian?
Originally posted by Evensong:
I rather like the Affirming Liberalism definition of liberal Christianity...
quote:Sorry, I missed this off my epic multi-point reply a moment ago. The tree transplanting is a good analogy, I think. I certainly feel my faith is more - searching for the word - 'whole', more genuine than when I unthinkingly assented to the evangelical shibboleths.
Originally posted by The Midge:
It is something to do with exploring questions together, sharng stories and exploring the wild kingdom country. This requires a certain amount of humility and ackowledgement that we may be wrong or only know in part.
I liken it to taking a tree out of a pot and transplating it. It is a little traumatic at first but when your roots find all the space, food and water then, wow!, you can grow.
quote:Come over to the Dark Side. You know you want to.
South Coast Kevin: Am I becoming a (cue sinister music) Liberal Christian?
quote:In theory, sure. But in practice? I don't know if you're a scientist, Karl, so maybe you're able to do this, but it sounds very tedious to try to replicate every bit of knowledge you're given, or even to examine the evidence for it. And anyway, as I'm sure Emily Windsor-Cragg could tell you, you're taking the evidence on the scientist's authority anyway.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think I really get "authority". I don't believe a scientist because he's a clever scientist; I believe him if he can demonstrate what he's saying is true with evidence..
quote:[I think this answers IngoB and Kevin as well]
Originally posted by Bostonman:
This is to say nothing of relying on your doctor for medical advice, and so on. The world would be paralyzed if we didn't rely on others' expertise at times; we'd spend all our time reading the New England Journal of Medicine.
quote:Or the Halleluia chorus perhaps- there is more rejoicing in heaven...
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Yes, I like that too. Am I becoming a (cue sinister music) Liberal Christian?
Originally posted by Evensong:
I rather like the Affirming Liberalism definition of liberal Christianity...
may be you are becoming a post evangelical.
quote:Yes, I think that's part of it.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:[I think this answers IngoB and Kevin as well]
Originally posted by Bostonman:
This is to say nothing of relying on your doctor for medical advice, and so on. The world would be paralyzed if we didn't rely on others' expertise at times; we'd spend all our time reading the New England Journal of Medicine.
But I think there's a difference in that scientists have an obvious reason to be better informed, because they have all the relevant equipment.
I mean, a lot of quantum physics sounds like nonsense to me, but I'm not the one with the laboratory and the expensive machines that go ping.
However, in the context of religion, it's not clear what religious leaders have that corresponds to the laboratory. They may claim a special connection to the Holy Spirit, but you won't find a title deed for it anywhere ...
quote:Is it? My (admittedly anecdotal) experience seems to suggest otherwise.
Enoch: 2. Creedal liberalism is likely to lead you down the primrose path into de facto agnosticism.
Also true. Again, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
quote:Taking a step back, this argument rests on certain suppositions about how God relates to humanity. Some Christians certainly do claim that a particular person or group of people (e.g. ministers / leaders in their church, the Pope) have some kind of special connection to God. Obviously, any appeal to authority is only going to 'work' if that belief in a special connection is shared...
Originally posted by Ricardus:
However, in the context of religion, it's not clear what religious leaders have that corresponds to the laboratory. They may claim a special connection to the Holy Spirit, but you won't find a title deed for it anywhere ...
quote:Yes, that's probably it. Not liberal yet!
Originally posted by The Midge:
Or [Dramatic Chord]
quote:Indeed - to say nothing of those who don't consider Catholics (or Orthodoxen, if they have even heard of the Orthodox church which those kinds of evangelicals often haven't) to be Christians. Scarily common amongst Christian Unions.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
'sall a matter of definition anyway. Hardly any of us here are Biblical inerrantist young earth creationists who believe that every person who doesn't adhere to fundamentalist Christian beliefs will burn in Hell eternally in conscious torment, and by plenty of people's definitions that I've come across that means we're all liberals.
quote:As with everything, it depends on the context.
It's a far more complex picture, and like many posters I wonder if the term liberal christian has a clear enough meaning to be useful.
quote:FWIW, I don't use this term to describe myself outside of the Ship (it seems like a useful shorthand here sometimes).
Anglican_Brat: It has become a term devoid of any actual meaning.
quote:That is what Theo Hobson is saying of the sort of liberal Christianity he thinks is a dead end.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Is it? My (admittedly anecdotal) experience seems to suggest otherwise.
Enoch: 2. Creedal liberalism is likely to lead you down the primrose path into de facto agnosticism.
Also true. Again, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
quote:Here's a shot in the dark.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Good points, so the question is why can I make myself believe that people are shot in Syria because the BBC says so, but can't make myself believe that Mary remained a virgin just because the Magisterium says she did?
Put it another way, why do you, or Ingo, for that matter, believe the BBC, but not believe the Islamic tradition that says that the Koran was dictated to Mohammed?
quote:An apparent qualitative difference is that people shooting each other in Syria is inherently believable, whereas virgins giving birth is inherently unbelievable. In the case of the BBC you are using authority to upgrade probability from unlikely (people do not shot each other often, generally speaking) to highly likely (if the BBC says so in this case, it's probably true), whereas in the case of the magisterium you would be using authority to upgrade the probability from impossible to highly likely.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Good points, so the question is why can I make myself believe that people are shot in Syria because the BBC says so, but can't make myself believe that Mary remained a virgin just because the Magisterium says she did? ... There's something different about religious truth claims which I feel instinctively but I am struggling to formularise.
quote:I consider it possible that the Quran was dictated to Mohammed by an incorporeal spirit, just not by the Archangel Gabriel or indeed any other messenger from God... The reasons why I believe in Christianity rather than any other religion are complicated and at times hard to express, but there are reasons for uniquely selecting this religion for me, and they are not based on purely subjective experience. The same I can say for Roman Catholicism as my chosen form of Christianity. I do not believe that these reasons are compelling, i.e., I do not see all other choices as strictly irrational (though some choices I do consider as strictly irrational, for example atheism or open theism). However, I feel (non-rationally and partly based on subjective experience) that it is not sufficient to leave one's options open, so to speak. Hence I have decided to embrace what I consider most rationally plausible, supplying the lacking certainty by the intrinsic force of that decision (if there is a fork in the road and no time to investigate both sides, then taking one side de facto seals where one is going, even if one cannot exclude that the other side would have been right).
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Put it another way, why do you, or Ingo, for that matter, believe the BBC, but not believe the Islamic tradition that says that the Koran was dictated to Mohammed?
quote:FWIW, I do not see the "religious authority" of scripture and in part the magisterium as equivalent to scientists and their experiments and theories. Is see such "religious authority" as equivalent to data. The scientists in this picture are all of us. We are doing the experimenting and theorising. Some of us, say academic theologians, do so at a professional level. But we all are taking part of the Divine data that is accessible and play around with it in all sorts of ways, some good and some bad.
Originally posted by anteater:
Whilst I'm more with Ingo than you as regards the need to accept authority, there is one consideration that does make me hesitate as regards religious authority. It is that by and large scientists love nothin better than to overturn a theory with a new one. They really get kudos for that. With many religious groups, the goal is to establish received doctrine. This the more so once it has been defined to be part of the faith. It's never 100% but by and large scientists are more inclined to test to destruction existing theories.
quote:Okay, now I'm curious. What process did you use to determine that "the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel" is false data?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I consider it possible that the Quran was dictated to Mohammed by an incorporeal spirit, just not by the Archangel Gabriel or indeed any other messenger from God... The reasons why I believe in Christianity rather than any other religion are complicated and at times hard to express, but there are reasons for uniquely selecting this religion for me, and they are not based on purely subjective experience.
<snip>
FWIW, I do not see the "religious authority" of scripture and in part the magisterium as equivalent to scientists and their experiments and theories. Is see such "religious authority" as equivalent to data. The scientists in this picture are all of us. We are doing the experimenting and theorising. Some of us, say academic theologians, do so at a professional level. But we all are taking part of the Divine data that is accessible and play around with it in all sorts of ways, some good and some bad.
The relationship scientists have to data is exactly as we should have to such "religious authority". Data has the final say. Beautiful theories can get killed by an inconvenient fact. There is a possibility of doubting data, sometimes mistakes are made in collecting it. But in the end, only data can correct data. A false observation or corrupt experiment is exposed by right observation and proper experiment. Likewise, real "religious authority" cannot be wrong in the ultimate sense. Then it simply is not religious authority. And one cannot "stand against" religious authority, there simply is nothing else that can speak to this topic. One can only "stand with" one part of religious authority, rightly received, against another part, wrongly received. Just as one can side with a good experiment against a bad experiment if the data is in apparent contradiction.
quote:But not everyone has the time or inclination for a discussion; you just want to know, vaguely, where someone stands, if only to avoid offending them.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I feel quite happy not having a label at all. I can't see the point. If someone is interested in my ideas, then we can talk about them. What good does a label do?
quote:Karl, is that you hear from most orthodox Christians?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:What a strange interpretation of what I said!
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Karl, it sounds to me like liberal Christians like to place limits or conditions on God, or at least on their faith?
There are some things that some conservative Christians believe. They tell me that unless I believe them, I'm a liberal (interesting definition, but I'll live with it for now for the sake of argument). For example (in no particular order of contentiousness):
1. The world was made in six days.
2. Everyone who's not a Christian will burn in a literal eternal Hell.
3. The Bible is inerrant.
Now, for various reasons, I pretty much know that 1 is utterly false; 2. is incompatible with other things I know to be true and/or that Christianity teaches are true, and 3. is as near as makes no odds implausible. I can't by dint of effort or intention make myself believe any of them. It's nothing to do with placing limits on anything; merely the stating of the (to me) fairly obvious fact that I cannot make myself believe something that's pretty evidently (to me) false, any more than I can look at a blade of grass and insist to myself that it's cerise.
quote:Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
quote:Karl, is that you hear from most orthodox Christians?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:What a strange interpretation of what I said!
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Karl, it sounds to me like liberal Christians like to place limits or conditions on God, or at least on their faith?
There are some things that some conservative Christians believe. They tell me that unless I believe them, I'm a liberal (interesting definition, but I'll live with it for now for the sake of argument). For example (in no particular order of contentiousness):
1. The world was made in six days.
2. Everyone who's not a Christian will burn in a literal eternal Hell.
3. The Bible is inerrant.
Now, for various reasons, I pretty much know that 1 is utterly false; 2. is incompatible with other things I know to be true and/or that Christianity teaches are true, and 3. is as near as makes no odds implausible. I can't by dint of effort or intention make myself believe any of them. It's nothing to do with placing limits on anything; merely the stating of the (to me) fairly obvious fact that I cannot make myself believe something that's pretty evidently (to me) false, any more than I can look at a blade of grass and insist to myself that it's cerise.
I hear liberals denying the resurrection of Christ, denying the divinity of Christ, denying the existence of sin, and denying that God is creator. All of that seems to place limits on God.
quote:I have reasons to believe that at least parts of the Quran are false, a prominent example is Surah 4:157. I also have reasons to believe that God always speaks the truth (or is truth, really) and that His chosen messengers are not falsifying His message (certainly not to the degree necessary to make the Quran a product of Chinese whispers). Consequently, it must be false that the Quran as we know it was dictated by the Archangel Gabriel in a word by word sense.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Okay, now I'm curious. What process did you use to determine that "the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel" is false data?
quote:I think of that as theologically orthodox, socially progressive. In the classic catholic/evangelical/liberal split I'd put it in the first two. And I think it's completely possible to be socially progressive because theologically orthodox.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
quote:I would agree, but that position certainly gets called liberal by some.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:I think of that as theologically orthodox, socially progressive. In the classic catholic/evangelical/liberal split I'd put it in the first two. And I think it's completely possible to be socially progressive because theologically orthodox.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
quote:If we're limiting the definition of liberal to "doesn't actually believe but likes to sing and/or dress up on Sunday" then that's a rather different kettle of fish. I don't think I've encountered in real life anyone who met that definition.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:I think of that as theologically orthodox, socially progressive. In the classic catholic/evangelical/liberal split I'd put it in the first two. And I think it's completely possible to be socially progressive because theologically orthodox.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
quote:I have, but they didn't identify as a Christian, just as a church-goer.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:If we're limiting the definition of liberal to "doesn't actually believe but likes to sing and/or dress up on Sunday" then that's a rather different kettle of fish. I don't think I've encountered in real life anyone who met that definition.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:I think of that as theologically orthodox, socially progressive. In the classic catholic/evangelical/liberal split I'd put it in the first two. And I think it's completely possible to be socially progressive because theologically orthodox.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
quote:Actually, the point was that I think most people on here would actually agree with me in rejecting those three things. But some people would consider them necessary aspects of orthodox Christian belief. The point is, as I tried to illustrate in my subsequent post, you can always find someone whose beliefs cast you as a liberal, because the only functional definition of liberal I've ever come across that actually covers the term as its used in various scenarios is "doesn't believe some of the things I do". It's not binary; it's a spectrum.
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
quote:Karl, is that you hear from most orthodox Christians?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:What a strange interpretation of what I said!
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Karl, it sounds to me like liberal Christians like to place limits or conditions on God, or at least on their faith?
There are some things that some conservative Christians believe. They tell me that unless I believe them, I'm a liberal (interesting definition, but I'll live with it for now for the sake of argument). For example (in no particular order of contentiousness):
1. The world was made in six days.
2. Everyone who's not a Christian will burn in a literal eternal Hell.
3. The Bible is inerrant.
Now, for various reasons, I pretty much know that 1 is utterly false; 2. is incompatible with other things I know to be true and/or that Christianity teaches are true, and 3. is as near as makes no odds implausible. I can't by dint of effort or intention make myself believe any of them. It's nothing to do with placing limits on anything; merely the stating of the (to me) fairly obvious fact that I cannot make myself believe something that's pretty evidently (to me) false, any more than I can look at a blade of grass and insist to myself that it's cerise.
I hear liberals denying the resurrection of Christ, denying the divinity of Christ, denying the existence of sin, and denying that God is creator. All of that seems to place limits on God.
quote:But what does 'place limits on God' even mean?
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
All of that seems to place limits on God.
quote:Not if you can support your rejection of young earth creationism with scripture, which is what I try to do.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Rather the point there; there are plenty of people who'd say that rejecting the "clear teaching of Scripture" in not accepting a six day creation has forced you to qualify your acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture. Which is what liberals do, the wicked compromisers with the world that they are... etc. etc.
quote:IMO science has to trump scripture, because here 'scripture' actually means 'one particular interpretation of scripture'. It's never an edifying sight, seeing Christians deny the more-or-less utterly settled scientific opinion on something. But I suppose we must go to Dead Horses for any more discussion on the specific creation / evolution issue...
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Not if you can support your rejection of young earth creationism with scripture, which is what I try to do.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Rather the point there; there are plenty of people who'd say that rejecting the "clear teaching of Scripture" in not accepting a six day creation has forced you to qualify your acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture. Which is what liberals do, the wicked compromisers with the world that they are... etc. etc.
quote:Except of course that that scriptural support for the rejection of YEC seldom apparently occurred to anyone prior to the discovery of deep time by early geologists, which rather does suggest that it's not exactly obvious.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Not if you can support your rejection of young earth creationism with scripture, which is what I try to do.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Rather the point there; there are plenty of people who'd say that rejecting the "clear teaching of Scripture" in not accepting a six day creation has forced you to qualify your acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture. Which is what liberals do, the wicked compromisers with the world that they are... etc. etc.
quote:I think St Augustine was prior to 'deep time' and as this article by Alaistair McGrath points out didnt take a YEC view at all.
Originally posted by
Karl:Liberal Backslider
Except of course that that scriptural support for the rejection of YEC seldom apparently occurred to anyone prior to the discovery of deep time by early geologists, which rather does suggest that it's not exactly obvious.
As YECcie conservatives would be quick to point out to you. They'd probably say something about "twisting" scripture as well. And "liberal interpretation."
quote:I like this list to but from my (rather dated) memory of being Anglican, what used to be called 'mainstream' Evangelical Anglicans , for example of the John Stott type, would be able to sign up to much of this list.
Originally Posted by Evensong
I rather like the Affirming Liberalism definition of liberal Christianity:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Liberal tradition has emphasized the importance of the use of reason in theological exploration. It has stressed the need to develop Christian belief and practice in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding and the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom.”
Affirming Liberalism seeks to enhance this ‘enrichment’ of the Christian faith and support ordained and lay Christians of the Liberal Anglican tradition by:
1. Affirming faith in Jesus’ life, teaching, death and resurrection as revealing God’s limitless love for all humanity in this life and the next.
2. Affirming the dynamic action of God’s Spirit in dispersing this divine love throughout the world.
3. Affirming the beneficial insights of biblical, literary and historical criticism for our understanding of Scripture and Tradition.
4. Affirming a free, questioning and philosophical approach to Christian faith through God-given reason.
5. Affirming the profound significance of science and mathematics in forming a Christian world-view and understanding of the universe.
6. Affirming the positive benefits of the social sciences for comprehending human nature and society, and in developing Christian ethics.
7. Affirming appreciation of the distinctive nature of religious language in vibrant worship which connects us to the divine.
8. Affirming the vitality of the performing and creative arts in shaping a dynamic Christian vision of life lived in relation to God.
9. Affirming open, creative conversation between Liberals, Evangelicals and Catholics as a means of enriching our understanding of the Christian gospel.
10. Affirming open, creative conversation with other faith traditions and cultures as a way of deepening our understanding of God.
quote:I don't think that's entirely true. The Medieval Scholastics certainly thought the Bible could be read on multiple levels - literal, analogical, moral and anagogical, and I think in many cases they saw the literal as the least important. It doesn't follow that they rejected the literal meaning altogether.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not so at all Karl!
Biblical literalism only became fashionable after the Reformation.
quote:Would you define this "literalism" please?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not so at all Karl!
Biblical literalism only became fashionable after the Reformation.
quote:It appears to me that you have left God and multi-dimensionality (Hell, Physical Earth, Heaven and Cosmos) out of the picture entirely.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
I read a Theo Hobson’s brief articles in the Guardian here and here regarding liberal Christianity with interest. I wonder how far shipmates would agree with Hobson’s premise that liberal Christianity needs to be rescued from the “deathly embrace” of secular humanism?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Emily
quote:I'm sorry, I read the two Guardian articles only now. I can't say that I agree much with them.
Hairy Biker: I read a Theo Hobson’s brief articles in the Guardian here and here regarding liberal Christianity with interest.
quote:I don't. I don't think that there is anything wrong with secular humanism. Of course, Christianity is more than that. I guess my answer to this lies in a spiritual connection with God, with the world and with myself.
Hairy Biker: I wonder how far shipmates would agree with Hobson’s premise that liberal Christianity needs to be rescued from the “deathly embrace” of secular humanism?
quote:Strongly disagree with the first part. In his analysis, Hobson only considers the power relations between the individual and the State. I believe that we should always include the private sector in this analysis too. If you give the word 'liberalism' the West-European meaning of 'an individual should be more free from the State' (which Hobson seems to do here), then in practice this will often lead to power shifting to the private sector, not necessarily to the individual.
Hairy Biker: And to what extent would you agree with his conclusions, that liberal Christianity should embrace the USA model of capitalist democracy and separation of church and state
quote:I'm not sure if I can answer this quickly, I guess it's a whole discussion on its own.
Hairy Biker: and that liberal Christianity requires an emphasis on ritual, but not necessarily traditional ritual?
quote:I think I get the gist of what you're saying but it is anachronistic to say what we say is literally and historically true is what the ancients saw as literally and historically true. Literature and hermeneutics just don't work that way. They change all the time.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The focus on the literality of the texts perhaps so, but there was the assumption in the absence of any obvious reason not to take them so, that the texts were also literally and historically true.
quote:Good question. Hard to do. I couldn't even define it in a modern sense let alone an ancient sense.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Would you define this "literalism" please?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not so at all Karl!
Biblical literalism only became fashionable after the Reformation.
quote:
On the question of "literal" interpretation:
I think one writer put it best when writing about the historicity of the Gospels. The Gospel writers principally intended to convey who Jesus Christ was and why he was important. Yes, indeed, since there was a Historical Jesus, we can say that the Gospel writers were indeed communicating history, but it was history interpreted and indeed, shaped in order to present theology.
Tomorrow, the Gospel reading is the anointing of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. All Four Gospels present the anointing of Jesus differently in accordance with their different theological emphases. We can try to explain away these contradictions by writing that they refer to multiple events, for example. But I think that the explanation in order to justify the contradiction misses the fact that each gospel wanted to present its own perspective on this story. A fundamentalist reading of Scripture misses the creativity of the author in understanding a story for his or her audiences.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Thanks for that, Anglican Brat. Creativity, imagination, an awareness of context and multiple points of view, etc., are among the most wonderful aspects of God's creation. They can -- when cultivated thoughtfully and with reverence -- help us to get closer to God's purpose for us. Literalists, in their pursuit of what sometimes seems like One Meaning for All People All the Time, leave out an awful lot.
quote:Nice one.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As I said to the ever so nice lady who came to our cell group three or four years ago to tell us how to be evangelists, 'Show me.'. She never said another word.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:The orthodox critique of liberalism is that with a denial of the objective resurrection of Jesus Christ, liberal theology amounts to nothing more than a glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history.
When I find aspects of "The New Liberal Christianity" I feel that I am discovering the character of Jesus, with his startling and joyfully generous love that opens our eyes to the good news of the kingdom just here. When I am in the company of those who disapprove of such an enterprise I might disagree with what they say, but I mainly feel sad.
quote:And that's the major criticism of liberal Christianity. That all it is is warm fuzzy feelings with no real substance. Hardly something that demands a life commitment.
The impulse towards liberalism is for me a feeling, or a searching after a feeling or an intuition. I am about to try to write a liberal sermon this morning. That feels much more like trying to hone a good joke, or compose a picture, or craft a poem than writing an accurate description or a set of instructions.
quote:What is resurrection if not the glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:The orthodox critique of liberalism is that with a denial of the objective resurrection of Jesus Christ, liberal theology amounts to nothing more than a glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history.
When I find aspects of "The New Liberal Christianity" I feel that I am discovering the character of Jesus, with his startling and joyfully generous love that opens our eyes to the good news of the kingdom just here. When I am in the company of those who disapprove of such an enterprise I might disagree with what they say, but I mainly feel sad.
quote:What else is going to motivate a life commitment? Not brute dead facts, that's for sure.
quote:And that's the major criticism of liberal Christianity. That all it is is warm fuzzy feelings with no real substance. Hardly something that demands a life commitment.
The impulse towards liberalism is for me a feeling, or a searching after a feeling or an intuition. I am about to try to write a liberal sermon this morning. That feels much more like trying to hone a good joke, or compose a picture, or craft a poem than writing an accurate description or a set of instructions.
quote:I like this.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberal Christianity must be strong and benevolent. Benevolent on refusing to be alienated, to have enemies.
quote:What motivates a dedication to Christianity is the core conviction that God indeed literally raised Jesus Christ from the dead. I think Christianity is a preposterous faith and a type of liberal rationalism that attempts to play down this fact ends up diluting the religion to a point that it is not worth following.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:What is resurrection if not the glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:The orthodox critique of liberalism is that with a denial of the objective resurrection of Jesus Christ, liberal theology amounts to nothing more than a glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history.
When I find aspects of "The New Liberal Christianity" I feel that I am discovering the character of Jesus, with his startling and joyfully generous love that opens our eyes to the good news of the kingdom just here. When I am in the company of those who disapprove of such an enterprise I might disagree with what they say, but I mainly feel sad.quote:What else is going to motivate a life commitment? Not brute dead facts, that's for sure.
quote:And that's the major criticism of liberal Christianity. That all it is is warm fuzzy feelings with no real substance. Hardly something that demands a life commitment.
The impulse towards liberalism is for me a feeling, or a searching after a feeling or an intuition. I am about to try to write a liberal sermon this morning. That feels much more like trying to hone a good joke, or compose a picture, or craft a poem than writing an accurate description or a set of instructions.
quote:The central issue is whether or not this claim is true. The trouble is that orthodox Christianity has had two thousand years to come up with convincing proof, and all it has is "because we say so".
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
...The absurdity is simply this, the orthodox claim is that the first century Jewish prophet called Jesus of Nazareth is in fact, truly, Lord and God of the universe. Anything less than this proclamation robs Christianity of its power.
quote:There was the whole performing miracles and rising from the dead thing he did. *shrug*
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:The central issue is whether or not this claim is true. The trouble is that orthodox Christianity has had two thousand years to come up with convincing proof, and all it has is "because we say so".
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
...The absurdity is simply this, the orthodox claim is that the first century Jewish prophet called Jesus of Nazareth is in fact, truly, Lord and God of the universe. Anything less than this proclamation robs Christianity of its power.
quote:So do I, but how are you going to get there? And how do you establish 'the Way of Jesus' if you have little interest in 'putative facts about events in 1st Century Palestine'?
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:I like this.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberal Christianity must be strong and benevolent. Benevolent on refusing to be alienated, to have enemies.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Right-wing Christianity is no Christianity at all. Just the same old, rehashed, self-righteousness masquerading as morality using the Jesus figure as a flag of convenience for whatever particular self-worshipping agenda is being pushed.
You're welcome, CL.
--Tom Clune
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:But maybe the impact that Jesus had on others had something to do with those 'putative facts' that some would rather dismiss.....
Originally posted by hatless:
The way of Jesus is known through the reactions of others. Jesus had an impact on disciples and opponents. In gospels and epistles we have texts that reveal the interactions between Jesus and his way and many different people and communities. There are 'putative facts' in there, but they come already wrapped in interpretations and meanings.
quote:I beg to differ.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't find much, despite self-identifying as liberal, that goes against orthodox Christianity.
quote:Care to expand?
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:I beg to differ.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't find much, despite self-identifying as liberal, that goes against orthodox Christianity.
quote:We should always be suspicious of 'facts', which are generally introduced into a conversation to disqualify other people's opinions. There is data, there are measurements, but by the time they become facts there is always a narrative an agenda and an interpretation at work.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:But maybe the impact that Jesus had on others had something to do with those 'putative facts' that some would rather dismiss.....
Originally posted by hatless:
The way of Jesus is known through the reactions of others. Jesus had an impact on disciples and opponents. In gospels and epistles we have texts that reveal the interactions between Jesus and his way and many different people and communities. There are 'putative facts' in there, but they come already wrapped in interpretations and meanings.
quote:That is faith! You mean belief would no longer be required, belief being convictions about things known only uncertainly.
The answer to this problem might be for every age to create its own religion, so that it no longer needs to rely on the impact or the doings of men who lived so long ago that noone can conclusively authenticate what they said or did. Faith would no longer be a sticking point, because it wouldn't really be required.
quote:Being able to recite the Nicene creed without crossing my fingers should go a long way, one would have thought.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:I beg to differ.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't find much, despite self-identifying as liberal, that goes against orthodox Christianity.
quote:I think that depends on the type of religion you have or want. If you want a myth to live by and also a strong ethical framework, yes, you could probably invent a new religion and have it work well.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The answer to this problem might be for every age to create its own religion, so that it no longer needs to rely on the impact or the doings of men who lived so long ago that noone can conclusively authenticate what they said or did. Faith would no longer be a sticking point, because it wouldn't really be required.
quote:For some people, the old traditions are meaningless, incomprehensible and irrelevant to their lives. That's what is wrong with them.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What does he mean by implying that we need a whole bunch of new traditions (rituals)? What's wrong with the old ones?
quote:What you seem to be saying is that there's probably very little of the NT left once we've rejected every unverifiable act and every unreasonable or inappropriate assumption or interpretation!
Originally posted by hatless:
We have limited access to historical data, and there's very little about Jesus which we can consider in this way. What we have plenty of is the reactions and responses to him of people and groups - mostly embedded in texts written by people who were responding to him at second or third hand, and therefore also giving their own reactions and interpretations.
[...]
Every age does indeed create its own religion, and a jolly good thing too.
quote:This liberal doesn't have a problem with the resurrection of Jesus.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:The orthodox critique of liberalism is that with a denial of the objective resurrection of Jesus Christ, liberal theology amounts to nothing more than a glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history.
When I find aspects of "The New Liberal Christianity" I feel that I am discovering the character of Jesus, with his startling and joyfully generous love that opens our eyes to the good news of the kingdom just here. When I am in the company of those who disapprove of such an enterprise I might disagree with what they say, but I mainly feel sad.
quote:Perhaps "invitation via mystery and narrative based on history" is a more accurate description.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:And that's the major criticism of liberal Christianity. That all it is is warm fuzzy feelings with no real substance. Hardly something that demands a life commitment.
The impulse towards liberalism is for me a feeling, or a searching after a feeling or an intuition. I am about to try to write a liberal sermon this morning. That feels much more like trying to hone a good joke, or compose a picture, or craft a poem than writing an accurate description or a set of instructions.
quote:Another strawman. Liberal Christianity is the most interested in the historical Jesus.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:So do I, but how are you going to get there? And how do you establish 'the Way of Jesus' if you have little interest in 'putative facts about events in 1st Century Palestine'?
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:I like this.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberal Christianity must be strong and benevolent. Benevolent on refusing to be alienated, to have enemies.
quote:Oh, artists, poets and musicians get lots of mileage out of him, certainly!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jesus remains fascinating.
quote:You say that as if artists, poets and musicians are inferior to, say, astronomers, physicists and medical workers.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:Oh, artists, poets and musicians get lots of mileage out of him, certainly!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jesus remains fascinating.
quote:In my case, I like the old traditions because I don't need them - I'm not bound to them.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:For some people, the old traditions are meaningless, incomprehensible and irrelevant to their lives. That's what is wrong with them.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What does he mean by implying that we need a whole bunch of new traditions (rituals)? What's wrong with the old ones?
Of course, I realise all that is of no consequence for those whose doctrinal position requires the traditions / rituals to be preserved. But if one's doctrinal view is that the traditions / rituals can be changed then I reckon those are good reasons to do so.
quote:No, that's not it. Actually, I incline more towards artistic people, especially towards writers, than towards scientists. I simply feel a little cynical about (and also fascinated by) the creative possibilities that Jesus conveniently presents to mostly agnostic and atheistic artistic people. Some scholars say that increasing secularisation has made faith in general (and the Jesus-story in particular) an even more fascinating concept for non-religious writers to explore than would otherwise be the case.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:You say that as if artists, poets and musicians are inferior to, say, astronomers, physicists and medical workers.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:Oh, artists, poets and musicians get lots of mileage out of him, certainly!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jesus remains fascinating.
quote:No, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by that phrase. Before I agree with it, for example.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On the resurrection I find there's a difference in emphasis.
Which demands a life commitment - that Jesus supposedly came back to life 2000 years ago, or that Jesus is still alive today?
The exact mode of that "still being alive" is less important than the assertion that he is.
quote:That's the point, though. Now that Christianity is no longer compulsory, or the only religion permitted, Liberal Christianity isn't required any longer, except for those older folk who've been attending church all their lives. There's really no reason for a younger, unchurched person not to explore other expressions of spirituality these days, or to worship non-Christian deities. The old norms of religions being in tightly defined boxes is just going to go out of the window entirely, I reckon - religion is going to look much more like it did in pre-Christian times, with gods and goddesses from Paganism, from Voudoun, from Hinduism, rubbing shoulders with Jesus and Mary and Allah and the rest of them, with the best parts of all different religions brought into a new, open synthesis. At least, I think that's what I'd like to see.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I just feel that there must come a point where it's more honest to move beyond the Jesus story and find something new. I understand that 'Jesus' and 'Christianity' are recognisable brand names, and that churches, hymns and Sunday sermons are recognisable ways of doing religion in our culture. But maybe a 'new liberal Christianity' needs to be much more radical than any of that stuff.
Each to his own, though.
quote:Is the above fact an exception to the rule? Or should we be suspicious of it?
Originally posted by hatless:
We should always be suspicious of 'facts', which are generally introduced into a conversation to disqualify other people's opinions. There is data, there are measurements, but by the time they become facts there is always a narrative an agenda and an interpretation at work.
quote:I'm not sure that means anything. If it does I can't work out what it is other than "science was too hard for me at school".
Originally posted by hatless:
I think we are simply seeing faith freeing itself from the modernist, scientist, objectivist obsession with facts and verifiability.
quote:Pity the poor lawyers and accountants then.
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't think faith can ever be at home amongst people who want to insist on correctness.
quote:It's not a fact. It's a statement of my opinion, and an argument I'm advancing.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Is the above fact an exception to the rule? Or should we be suspicious of it?
Originally posted by hatless:
We should always be suspicious of 'facts', which are generally introduced into a conversation to disqualify other people's opinions. There is data, there are measurements, but by the time they become facts there is always a narrative an agenda and an interpretation at work.
quote:Yes, real science is something else entirely. It's the popular obsession with facts and certainty that I think we've got bogged down by. If you were there on Easter morning with a video camera, what would it record? That sort of nonsense.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:I'm not sure that means anything. If it does I can't work out what it is other than "science was too hard for me at school".
Originally posted by hatless:
I think we are simply seeing faith freeing itself from the modernist, scientist, objectivist obsession with facts and verifiability.
quote:Pity the poor lawyers and accountants then.
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't think faith can ever be at home amongst people who want to insist on correctness.
Scientists on the other hand will be OK being so used to uncertainlty, probabilty, and estimates of error.
quote:Ah - I advance arguments; you want facts; he disqualifies other people's opinions?
Originally posted by hatless:
It's not a fact. It's a statement of my opinion, and an argument I'm advancing.
quote:I want to reply to this, but Purgatory is not the right place... let's go to the Circus!
If you were there on Easter morning with a video camera, what would it record?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Ah - I advance arguments; you want facts; he disqualifies other people's opinions?
Originally posted by hatless:
It's not a fact. It's a statement of my opinion, and an argument I'm advancing.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:I know very little about Buddhism I'm afraid, but I think it's probably taking things too far to see Rowan Williams as a representative of popular spirituality.... It would be very interesting to be proved wrong, though.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Rowan Williams recently defined God as unconditioned reality. Is it me, or does that not smack a bit of the Buddhist idea of non-discrimination, as against discrimination? I'm not sure, but so-called 'theistic personalism' seems to me to be retreating somewhat.
quote:Did he? Can one define God? Isn't 'define God' as daft a statement as 'define quetzalcoatl'?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Rowan Williams recently defined God as unconditioned reality. ...
quote:I don't see much difference in the relevant respects between what you're doing and what the people you object to are doing. You just call it by a pejorative name when someone else does it and a positive label when you do it.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:Sorry. I don't understand.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ah - I advance arguments; you want facts; he disqualifies other people's opinions?
quote:I think this is more in your mind than in the expressions used. Your "irregular verb" attempt illustrates this well -- it just doesn't work. You might as well say, "I love; you work out; he robs banks." The list seems just random.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I don't see much difference in the relevant respects between what you're doing and what the people you object to are doing. You just call it by a pejorative name when someone else does it and a positive label when you do it.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:Sorry. I don't understand.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ah - I advance arguments; you want facts; he disqualifies other people's opinions?
quote:Well, I take the 'unconditioned' itself to be pretty undefinable, or at least, indescribable.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Did he? Can one define God? Isn't 'define God' as daft a statement as 'define quetzalcoatl'?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Rowan Williams recently defined God as unconditioned reality. ...
quote:Yes, I get that. I just don't understand how anyone could seriously think that.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I don't see much difference in the relevant respects between what you're doing and what the people you object to are doing. You just call it by a pejorative name when someone else does it and a positive label when you do it.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:Sorry. I don't understand.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ah - I advance arguments; you want facts; he disqualifies other people's opinions?
quote:If you say some statement is a fact you are saying that it is a statement to which you assent and to which in your opinion other people should assent.
Originally posted by hatless:
You seem to think that this:
We should always be suspicious of 'facts', which are generally introduced into a conversation to disqualify other people's opinions. There is data, there are measurements, but by the time they become facts there is always a narrative an agenda and an interpretation at work.
is a fact. I'm baffled. How is that a fact?
quote:Yeah. Totally misses the point.
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can't get away from moralistic tosh in liberal churches.
The moralism is mainly directed at our obligation to further the Kingdom by helping those less fortunate than ourselves however.
quote:An opinion is something that the person who holds it thinks is more likely to be a fact than not. A description too. A theory likewise.
Originally posted by hatless:
So almost anything is a fact, is it? An opinion is a fact, a description is a fact, a theory is a fact?
quote:I've never seen anyone use 'poetry' in this context who is thinking about actual poems. At best they're thinking about isolated nuggets of poems.
I was using the term fact, or 'fact', to refer to those those little hard nuggets of theoretically verifiable truth claims that some say are essential to the faith: the tomb was empty on Easter morning, Mary's hymen was intact after the birth of Jesus, Paul really did write Ephesians, etc. I contrasted it with poetry and story, as alternative modes of communication and doing theology.
quote:Yes. But if so your distinction between facts and interpretation collapses. Given that there's no facts without interpretation and equally no interpretation without facts, presenting an opposition between facts and interpretation is recreating the error that you think you're rejecting. Just in reverse.
I am also suggesting that the alleged facts of the objectivist school of theology, are actually also already wrapped in narrative and all sorts of human context; it is just concealed. (I actually think this is true of all facts, not just theological ones.)
quote:What is true and what is objectively the case are interchangeable. (Things that are subjective are things you can't be wrong about; things you can't be wrong about are things you can't be right about; if you can't be right about it it's not true.) So what you're saying is that facts are simple statements. I'm not sure why singling out simple statements for special treatment is worth doing. And how simple is simple?
Originally posted by hatless:
Dafyd, you use 'is a fact' where I would simply say 'is true.' People do indeed use it this way: I don't like sprouts, and that's a fact. But I'm using it in the sense of a simple statement that is objectively, perhaps provably, the case. Jesus was thirty three when he died, say.
quote:You might as well say that the statement makes a powerful point verifiably, where the verifiability you're thinking of is not the actual process of verification.
Yes, the poetry I'm thinking of is fragmentary, rather than actual poems. When Peter says 'You have the words of eternal life,' that is not a factual statement. I don't think you could unpack it's meaning it in a way that would enable you to verify or falsify it. But it is a statement that makes a powerful point poetically, and one that I feel the force and truth of.
quote:Actually, from what I've heard, there are more and more people who believe in 'something out there', presumably as opposed to a God who knows us and loves us individually. I don't know if this 'something' is what Rowan Williams was referring to. I suspect not.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, I take the 'unconditioned' itself to be pretty undefinable, or at least, indescribable.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Did he? Can one define God? Isn't 'define God' as daft a statement as 'define quetzalcoatl'?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Rowan Williams recently defined God as unconditioned reality. ...
quote:Nothing subjective can be true? I think I probably am arguing exactly the opposite of that. Of course there is objective truth, but it's mostly trivial. What counts are those things which have meaning for us because we are involved with them. The subjective aspects of life.
What is true and what is objectively the case are interchangeable. (Things that are subjective are things you can't be wrong about; things you can't be wrong about are things you can't be right about; if you can't be right about it it's not true.) So what you're saying is that facts are simple statements. I'm not sure why singling out simple statements for special treatment is worth doing. And how simple is simple?
quote:What is 'us' and 'we' doing there?
Originally posted by hatless:
Nothing subjective can be true? I think I probably am arguing exactly the opposite of that. Of course there is objective truth, but it's mostly trivial. What counts are those things which have meaning for us because we are involved with them. The subjective aspects of life.
quote:In my experience, clarification brings to life.
I heard someone say today that Jesus was an amazing man; the things he did and said amazed people. I think that's a very important truth about Jesus. It's not an analysis-ready fact. To become objective or verifiable it would need the sort of clarification and tidying up that would kill it.
quote:That ISTM is the essence of liberalism. Liberals are free to question, without becoming Judas thereby.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think I really get "authority".
quote:Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Originally posted by Russ:
It's not that liberals reject any of the content of Christianity. It's that they reject the process of imposing conformity with officially-accepted doctrine.
quote:The problem for those who want to be instructed is this would mean the institution itself becoming essentially liberal. If it no longer claims its doctrines are 'the truth' the instructees will howl 'Judas', because in their model the institution defines 'the truth'.
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe we don't need a new liberal movement with new liberal doctrines. We just need a place and a space in our existing institutions where people can go deeper, even when this looks to others like going outside. Whilst still having a place and a space for those who want to be instructed in the revealed truth.
quote:CL, I guess the very essence of educated society has passed you by. In science and mathematics, for example, there are "doctrines" that everyone is expected to question and evaluate for themselves. The reason that they have emerged as shared belief is that they have withstood the constant probing through time.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Originally posted by Russ:
It's not that liberals reject any of the content of Christianity. It's that they reject the process of imposing conformity with officially-accepted doctrine.
quote:Yet the CofE is famously diverse already, so becoming an 'explicity liberal institution' might actually have the opposite effect, and simply drive away quite a few people who aren't 'liberal'. Whether the CofE could afford to lose a large portion of its evangelicals and other committed non-liberal participants is the question.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think the Church of England should separate its institutional framework from how the Christian tradition is expressed within it. If it became an explicitly liberal institution, all shades of Christian perspective could legitimately and honestly express their diversity within it.
quote:Instead of continuing to drive away the majority of the population who are 'liberal' in theological terms? The question is whether the doctrinally preservative Church this 'quite a few' want has any value as a national institution. I'd like to think this was a matter for debate, but the C of E no longer seems politically capable of such things...
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yet the CofE is famously diverse already, so becoming an 'explicity liberal institution' might actually have the opposite effect, and simply drive away quite a few people who aren't 'liberal'.
quote:I understand the problem. The trouble is that settled denominations are cautious institutions, and driving away many of the people you already have in the hope of gaining different people who've shown little sign of wanting to get involved is a very risky strategy. State churches by their very nature are unwilling to take great risks. New church movements tend to be better at this. They have less to lose.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Instead of continuing to drive away the majority of the population who are 'liberal' in theological terms? The question is whether the doctrinally preservative Church this 'quite a few' want has any value as a national institution. I'd like to think this was a matter for debate, but the C of E no longer seems politically capable of such things...
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yet the CofE is famously diverse already, so becoming an 'explicity liberal institution' might actually have the opposite effect, and simply drive away quite a few people who aren't 'liberal'.
quote:I've they've actually got a website, and it doesn't have a section headed "what's on" last updated in 2007, then they're almost certainly Evangelical.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:I understand the problem. The trouble is that settled denominations are cautious institutions, and driving away many of the people you already have in the hope of gaining different people who've shown little sign of wanting to get involved is a very risky strategy. State churches by their very nature are unwilling to take great risks. New church movements tend to be better at this. They have less to lose.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Instead of continuing to drive away the majority of the population who are 'liberal' in theological terms? The question is whether the doctrinally preservative Church this 'quite a few' want has any value as a national institution. I'd like to think this was a matter for debate, but the C of E no longer seems politically capable of such things...
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yet the CofE is famously diverse already, so becoming an 'explicity liberal institution' might actually have the opposite effect, and simply drive away quite a few people who aren't 'liberal'.
Other denominations haven't benefited numerically from their more extreme trajectory towards liberalism. Or if they have, it's from such a small base (after a long period of decline) that their figures haven't shown much sign of troubling the churchgoing profile of the nation.
Maybe the CofE could become a kind of franchise operation, whereby each church choses one of a set of clearly defined theological identities and promotes itself openly on the basis of its theological identity. Its bishops would be chosen to match the theological profile of the churches under their care rather than having a geographically-based oversight. The CofE label would primarily be for PR purposes, and perhaps also for the care of ancient buildings.
This solution might help because at present the most theologically liberal congregations seem to have the weakest identity; moreover, for non-Anglicans or non-churchgoers it's currently very difficult to establish the theological identity of any particular church without doing a lot of sniffing round, without attending for a while or speaking to people. This puts a lot of onus on the individual, who may have very little experience of churchgoing, rather than making it easy for them. Why is it that church noticeboards almost never explicitly claim a particular congregation for liberalism, evangelicalism, or whatever? In my area, only Anglo-Catholicism names itself. Of course the websites help, but even they can be a bit vague, unless you know the tell-tale words to look for. Most people wouldn't.
quote:I don't see the Church of England can really be compared with other denominations in this respect. It's a unique institution in which 'non-members' (as far as anyone in England is) have a stakeholding role. That's quite different to RC, Eastern Orthodox or non-conformist institutions.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Other denominations haven't benefited numerically from their more extreme trajectory towards liberalism.
quote:I'd prefer to leave theological identity open to encourage innovation and development, but in terms of use of buildings and other resources that might be a way forward. There would be devils in every detail, but the key to even exploring the possibility would be willingness in principle to take that step. Where in the C of E hierarchy could such a willingness be expressed?
Maybe the CofE could become a kind of franchise operation, whereby each church choses one of a set of clearly defined theological identities and promotes itself openly on the basis of its theological identity.
quote:Nope. The idea of 'the faith' is only something Church leaders use to exclude those who disagree with them. Each person's faith is unique to them because it's a product of their background and experience. We're Christian as far as we choose to work that out within some expression of the Christian tradition, of which the C of E is one.
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
It's the job of people in the C of E to tell people about the faith
quote:What on Earth does that mean? You say that "the faith" is only used as a means to exclude and then you immediately start setting up your own means of excluding others by setting up your own boundries, that "expression of the Christian tradition" within which, you say, we should "choose to work".
Nope. The idea of 'the faith' is only something Church leaders use to exclude those who disagree with them. Each person's faith is unique to them because it's a product of their background and experience. We're Christian as far as we choose to work that out within some expression of the Christian tradition, of which the C of E is one.
quote:The only boundary I suggested was one that reasonably reflects the broad historical meaning of 'Christian'. I don't have a problem with that, whereas 'the faith' is one of those devices that conservative (or unaware) church people use to imply there is only one possible interpretation of Christian tradition. I think that's unhelpful.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You say that "the faith" is only used as a means to exclude and then you immediately start setting up your own means of excluding others by setting up your own boundries
quote:Where does the Creed, for instance, fit into that? Wasn't the Creed designed by the Council, including all dogmatic theology to which the Creed belongs, to exclude heresy from the Church? Or was the Council wrong to judge against Arius in such a way? If not, how do you justify such a stance yet still critise its use today?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:The only boundary I suggested was one that reasonably reflects the broad historical meaning of 'Christian'. I don't have a problem with that, whereas 'the faith' is one of those devices that conservative (or unaware) church people use to imply there is only one possible interpretation of Christian tradition. I think that's unhelpful.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You say that "the faith" is only used as a means to exclude and then you immediately start setting up your own means of excluding others by setting up your own boundries
quote:...a hymn written by Fr Faber, founder of the London Oratory, that well know bastion of liberalism...
Originally posted by leo:
If anything, it is the conservatives who place limits on God.
quote:
we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.
quote:Ah, you think I'm someone who subscribes to the idea of heresy. We're talking about new liberal Christianity here. It sounds like you're struggling to imagine such a thing.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Where does the Creed, for instance, fit into that? Wasn't the Creed designed by the Council, including all dogmatic theology to which the Creed belongs, to exclude heresy from the Church? Or was the Council wrong to judge against Arius in such a way? If not, how do you justify such a stance yet still critise its use today?
quote:I do struggle, simply because I find it diffult to see how such a thing can even define itself (which is why asked what on Earth does this mean? in the first place) As for heresy, if there is no such thing how is it you can talk of boundries, however broad they might be in your mind?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Ah, you think I'm someone who subscribes to the idea of heresy. We're talking about new liberal Christianity here. It sounds like you're struggling to imagine such a thing.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Where does the Creed, for instance, fit into that? Wasn't the Creed designed by the Council, including all dogmatic theology to which the Creed belongs, to exclude heresy from the Church? Or was the Council wrong to judge against Arius in such a way? If not, how do you justify such a stance yet still critise its use today?
quote:To be honest, I find it difficult to define the term 'liberal Christianity' too. In fact, I don't use it for myself except on the Ship, because it seems to facilitate communication here.
Ad Orientem: We're talking about new liberal Christianity here. It sounds like you're struggling to imagine such a thing.
quote:The boundary I used was simply a reasonable interpretation of language, because history has provided us with a concept we refer to as 'Christianity'.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As for heresy, if there is no such thing how is it you can talk of boundries, however broad they might be in your mind?
quote:I don't know much more about Fr Faber other than that hymn, and that from his photo he looked like my old vicar. But I'll hazard a guess that he wrote the above because he was neither a conservative or a liberal, but a traditionalist. Not a traditionalist in the sense that he obsessed over the style of chasubles, but in that he saw himself within the mainstream of the Christian tradition. Hence he didn't need to be insecure about boundaries or whether other people belonged within them or not.
Originally posted by Bax:
quote:...a hymn written by Fr Faber, founder of the London Oratory, that well know bastion of liberalism...
Originally posted by leo:
If anything, it is the conservatives who place limits on God.
quote:
we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_William_Faber
quote:Thank you, Angloid.
I don't know much more about Fr Faber other than that hymn, and that from his photo he looked like my old vicar. But I'll hazard a guess that he wrote the above because he was neither a conservative or a liberal, but a traditionalist. Not a traditionalist in the sense that he obsessed over the style of chasubles, but in that he saw himself within the mainstream of the Christian tradition. Hence he didn't need to be insecure about boundaries or whether other people belonged within them or not.
quote:Referring to the idea as a 'brave new church' and claiming no interest in a fairly fundamental difference in approach, it sounds like you want nothing to do with it either. I think it's a little disingenuous to attempt to distance yourself from a conservative position on that basis.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I was wondering about this brave new church. I understand that those who self-describe as conservatives would probably want nothing to do with it. But what about the rest of us? What of those who have no interest in this conservative/liberal dichotomy?
quote:Let me try another way then.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Referring to the idea as a 'brave new church' and claiming no interest in a fairly fundamental difference in approach, it sounds like you want nothing to do with it either. I think it's a little disingenuous to attempt to distance yourself from a conservative position on that basis.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I was wondering about this brave new church. I understand that those who self-describe as conservatives would probably want nothing to do with it. But what about the rest of us? What of those who have no interest in this conservative/liberal dichotomy?
quote:Any description of church will do that, though pretty well all would be disappointed if their actions were thought of as just that, I suspect. The thing is, I do not think the church is a tabula rasa on which we can write narratives of our own devising. Which stories are we to tell? Which practices are we to conserve? Why? Says who? You? Me? The Tunbridge Wells synod?
a national church perhaps, based on say commitment to preserving the stories and practices of the Christian tradition and their use in making sense of this life and what might lie beyond.
quote:Why am I reminded of the famous Marxist* quote that any club willing to have me as a member isn't the sort of club I want to join?
Honest Ron Bacardi
Perhaps you'll just have to stick with whichever crowd you get on with best? After all, you're just as socially-conditioned as everyone else. [Smile]
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:I actually think there's quite a lot of mileage in the idea of the church's role being to tell stories, rather than to teach. The key story being what one might call 'the great story of God', i.e. God's interaction with humanity from the very beginning of us as a species right up to the present day.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
You have, it seems to me, evacuated the church of its role in teaching, and turned it to story-telling. I'm really toiling to find any other intellectual endeavour that is set up this way. All the sciences would laugh at you for suggesting it. Perhaps some of the more abstruse arts might go with it, though most of them deny the existence of any story at all. Why exclude people by telling just Christian stories? Could you not tell other stories? It seems to me you are going backwards into a world of Norse sagas and boy scout yarns around the camp fire.
quote:But once we accept that the church has a teaching role, then it surely becomes problematic to maintain the stance you expressed earlier:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
At some point we all need to take a decision when we feel something is wrong, and a denial of the teaching role of the church is to me a wrong thing. That's not to say that we haven't got things wrong or handled them abysmally of course.
quote:Once the church begins to 'teach' then it inevitably ends up somewhere on the axis, ISTM.
What of those who have no interest in this conservative/liberal dichotomy? What is to happen to us? Especially those of us who do not consider ourselves at some point along your axis, but who reject the very axis itself as being a socially-conditioned artefact.
quote:Well - I did say that story telling was something that all churches would be doing. My beef was not with that at all, but rather the restriction to that alone.
I actually think there's quite a lot of mileage in the idea of the church's role being to tell stories, rather than to teach. The key story being what one might call 'the great story of God', i.e. God's interaction with humanity from the very beginning of us as a species right up to the present day.
Certainly if one is thinking of the church's role in society at large, I'd say it's rather presumptuous for us to assume any kind of teaching role; it implies a certain superiority and haughtiness which isn't there with the story-telling role.
I found your description of the church's role as an 'intellectual endeavour' interesting, as it's not a phrase I'd use at all. It seems horribly narrow, although I must admit I'm not quite sure what phrase I'd use instead...
quote:I'm not averse to categorisation when we come to discuss items of faith. If I say something that is urging more open-mindedness on something, by all means call it a liberal view. And so on. Conservative and Liberal are not meaningless terms.
You may not wish to label yourself, but as soon as you begin to talk about your faith, someone else is going to slot you into a category! As soon as you mention which denomination you belong to, or which church you attend, others will have a vague idea where you stand, and they'll have a name for that. It's human nature.
quote:What is going on is that you're attempting to frame the discussion in terms that cloak your actual position. Of course labels like 'conservative' and 'liberal' are generalisations. I don't self-identify as liberal any more than you do as conservative, but as a member of an organisation with a liberal ethos I can't complain if that's how others categorise me.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
your last post has trumpeted to the world that you are utterly incapable of resolving issues to do with the church, except only along this wretched liberal/conservative axis? What is going on here?
quote:And yet you think this not what you are doing? 'Liberals' have no power to impose a narrative. The unholy illiberal alliance of evangelical and anglo-catholic orthodoxies that dominates the church hierarchy wields that power with a chilling sense of entitlement.
totalising narratives are just plain anti-intellectual. They reject any other way of framing issues. And when pushed they become what is called epistemic violence - the refusal to allow discourse where others are using other ways of looking at things.
quote:I wasn't suggesting it as a description of church. It could be the basis for an institution within which diverse expressions of church legitimately co-exist. Including those that reflect the convictions of someone like you.
back to the reason for asking you about what the future may hold for someone like me. Your proposal is for:quote:Any description of church will do that, though pretty well all would be disappointed if their actions were thought of as just that, I suspect.
a national church perhaps, based on say commitment to preserving the stories and practices of the Christian tradition and their use in making sense of this life and what might lie beyond.
quote:Those your expression of church values. If they happen to be exactly those embodied in the current C of E constitution I don't see any change would be required. Except of course that you would no longer be entitled to impose your narrative and practice on the rest of us.
The thing is, I do not think the church is a tabula rasa on which we can write narratives of our own devising. Which stories are we to tell? Which practices are we to conserve?
quote:That's probably the essence of it.
You have, it seems to me, evacuated the church of its role in teaching, and turned it to story-telling.
quote:You would doubtless be missed. Some of us might however, if such a thing ever came about, be tempted to gently point out that what goes around come around. The Church's illiberality has and continues to put the entire non-church-going population in exactly the position you are not wanting to be in yourself.
Those of us who think there is a profound meaning and significance in what the church is are not going to be able to hang about.
quote:Ah, I didn't realise you were referring to the culture wars in the USA. I'm not sure how your country is going to escape from those wars. From what I understand, the USA is becoming ever more polarised, economically and presumably also culturally and socially. It'll take more than changing the vocabulary to change that. The British context for those words is less polarised and confrontational.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm not averse to categorisation when we come to discuss items of faith. If I say something that is urging more open-mindedness on something, by all means call it a liberal view. And so on. Conservative and Liberal are not meaningless terms.
The problem comes when those terms are extended in remit - as is the case for example in "Liberal Christianity". If liberal christianity referred to its liberality towards other people then the adjective may still have some value. Probably in some places it still does.
But in its current iteration, those two descriptors are overwhelmingly now understood to refer to cultural membership. And the two cultures are at loggerheads. Though they both have antecedents, this configuration has its origins in the cultures of American protestantism - originally millennial puritan thought. This war of two cultures has long since spun out of that milieu, but it carries all the acrimony, the will to dominate thought, the obsession with utopianism and all the rest of it which are visible in its origins. To sign up to this - which is what I mean by "this axis" - will increasingly expose you to the gatekeepers of orthodoxy who will tell you what to think. And being social animals we will gradually find ourselves fitting in more and more. How comforting that is! And indeed how very bad our adversaries gradually become.
Enough culture wars stuff already. My point is simply to demonstrate why I am antagonistic towards that whole way of thinking, and I do not think it at all inevitable that this axis need dominate. It has seemingly come to dominate the scene in US church life, but there is no reason why the rest of us need tag along behind.
I'm not sure I follow your first point earlier in your post - any chance of developing it a little? It's probably just me being a bit slow this morning.
quote:Having lived through the 1960s, I can say categorically that the US is not more polarized than before -- at least culturally and socially. The political paralysis is a matter of changes in how politics is done (way more than ever before, money is what determines what a politician says or does, and it always had a huge amount to do with what they said and did. The SCOTUS has a lot to answer for on this.)
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ah, I didn't realise you were referring to the culture wars in the USA. I'm not sure how your country is going to escape from those wars. From what I understand, the USA is becoming ever more polarised, economically and presumably also culturally and socially.
quote:I don't see that increasing polarisation between religious and atheistic Americans is much of an issue. Atheism is no where as big a phenomenon in the US as it is in some other parts of the Western world. True, some on the conservative side claim atheism is a big deal in the U.S., but that is mostly a straw man. They tend to call atheism any version of religion that is not their own narrow version. That includes what used to be called "mainline" beliefs. (Or sometimes they call what that of which they disapprove paganism.)
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand that the 60s was an era of confrontation, but that's not exactly the same thing. Polarisation doesn't necessarily demand that different groups in society have to turn on each other - they simply have to feel alienated from each other.
The ever increasing gap between rich and poor Americans will have a polarising effect even if the rich and the poor never meet to clash swords. I've also read that there's increasing polarisation between religious and atheistic Americans. They're finding it ever harder to understand each other. Of course, there are atheists and religious people living together in English cities, but the sense of mutual incomprehension doesn't seem to be so prevalent, for various reasons. (This situation may change, though!)
