quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Here ExclamationMark - http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000516;p=2#000054 and here EtymologicalEvangelical http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=018317;p=2#000074 blame liberal theology for killing the church.

Fine.

But what do you expect and want us liberals to do? What exactly should I do, given that I want to be a follower of Jesus but do not, in my heart of hearts, really believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the divine authorship of Scripture, the physical Resurrection, the historicity of Moses etc. etc.? It's not that I believe that the above examples are false, it's just that I don't believe with any confidence that they are true, and therefore I need to work out my faith in a way that it is not destroyed if these things do indeed turn out to be untrue - to put it another way, if my faith is only as sure as my confidence in the Virgin Birth, then it's pretty weak.

So, what do you want us to do? Pretend we really believe things we don't? Stop coming to church? Just shut up? Stop calling ourselves Christian? Fuck off and die?

I really want to know.

---

Imho, the onus is not on you to do anything, Karl.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&version=NIV
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I reckon we've just got to sit tight until the modernists grow up and abandon their White Queen approach to belief.
 

---

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What exactly should I do, given that I want to be a follower of Jesus but do not, in my heart of hearts, really believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the divine authorship of Scripture, the physical Resurrection, the historicity of Moses etc. etc.? It's not that I believe that the above examples are false, it's just that I don't believe with any confidence that they are true, and therefore I need to work out my faith in a way that it is not destroyed if these things do indeed turn out to be untrue - to put it another way, if my faith is only as sure as my confidence in the Virgin Birth, then it's pretty weak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What exactly should I do, given that I want to be a follower of Jesus but do not, in my heart of hearts, really believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the divine authorship of Scripture, the physical Resurrection, the historicity of Moses etc. etc.? It's not that I believe that the above examples are false, it's just that I don't believe with any confidence that they are true, and therefore I need to work out my faith in a way that it is not destroyed if these things do indeed turn out to be untrue - to put it another way, if my faith is only as sure as my confidence in the Virgin Birth, then it's pretty weak.

---

What do you think it means to be a follower of Jesus without believing in his Virgin Birth or Resurrection? Also, how will these things turn out to be untrue? I mean, at what point will you consider it proven that they are untrue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What exactly should I do, given that I want to be a follower of Jesus but do not, in my heart of hearts, really believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the divine authorship of Scripture, the physical Resurrection, the historicity of Moses etc. etc.? It's not that I believe that the above examples are false, it's just that I don't believe with any confidence that they are true, and therefore I need to work out my faith in a way that it is not destroyed if these things do indeed turn out to be untrue - to put it another way, if my faith is only as sure as my confidence in the Virgin Birth, then it's pretty weak.

---

What do you think it means to be a follower of Jesus without believing in his Virgin Birth or Resurrection? Also, how will these things turn out to be untrue? I mean, at what point will you consider it proven that they are untrue?

---

I do not think being a follower of Jesus is about signing up to a series of propositions about him. I do not expect any of these propositions to be proven or unproven at any point; my point is that I do not know whether they are true or not but do not want my discipleship (such as it is) to be only as strong as my confidence that they are, which is very weak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
The conversions described in Acts (Pentecost, Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius) all show people understanding the story of Christ's death and resurrection. Maybe go through those verses and try to understand what the basics of Christian belief were for the early believers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do not think being a follower of Jesus is about signing up to a series of propositions about him.

---

Well, I dunno ... "My Lord and my God!"? (Thomas). And "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life ...no-one comes to the Father except through me." Don't blame me, I didn't say it. It's Jesus who is being all spiky and uncompromising-like here ... Although I certainly don't think this means He requires everybody to tick every single doctrinal thing on the box. Christ is far more generous and understanding than many who claim to follow Him. But if He isn't the one who changes everything - including death itself - then I see no point to Christianity at all. Take away Christ's most startling, difficult, downright weird claims about Himself and you're left with ... well, what, just another nice guy?

FWIW, I certainly wouldn't want liberals 'driven out' of the church. I'm no fan of rigid fundamentalism, which crushes people spiritually, emotionally and intellectually, and there are strands of liberalism which perhaps evangelicals (for example) can and should fruitfully dialogue with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do not expect any of these propositions to be proven or unproven at any point; my point is that I do not know whether they are true or not but do not want my discipleship (such as it is) to be only as strong as my confidence that they are, which is very weak.

---

I sometimes wonder, "is all this just a beautiful fairytale I tell myself to ward off the bleakness of an indifferent universe, a lie I tell myself in the face of my own mortality?" I can hardly be the only Christian, evangelical or any other flavour, who wonders that.

I also think those kinds of hard questions can strengthen faith, rather than weaken it. One of my favourite sayings in the Gospels is the father who said to Jesus, "Lord, I do believe ... help Thou my unbelief." I relate.

And to this: "I believe in Christ and confess him not like some child; my hosanna has passed through an enormous furnace of doubt." (Dostoevsky).
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
laurelin wrote

quote:

---

I sometimes wonder, "is all this just a beautiful fairytale I tell myself to ward off the bleakness of an indifferent universe, a lie I tell myself in the face of my own mortality?" I can hardly be the only Christian, evangelical or any other flavour, who wonders that. [Cool]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm saying that those stories don't include anything about the virgin birth, Moses, etc. so maybe the basics might be more acceptable to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:


But what do you expect and want us liberals to do? What exactly should I do, given that I want to be a follower of Jesus but do not, in my heart of hearts, really believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the divine authorship of Scripture, the physical Resurrection, the historicity of Moses etc. etc.?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
The conversions described in Acts (Pentecost, Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius) all show people understanding the story of Christ's death and resurrection. Maybe go through those verses and try to understand what the basics of Christian belief were for the early believers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm saying that those stories don't include anything about the virgin birth, Moses, etc. so maybe the basics might be more acceptable to him.

---

But Karl also said he can't give strong assent to Jesus' physical resurrection, which (as you said) is a key part of those conversion accounts in Acts. So I don't see how reading those accounts will help Karl at this time with this issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
And is that enough? Is the beauty of your fairytale, like the beauty a physicist might see in a set of equations (each to their own), a suggestion that the fairytale is true?

---

I like your equation with physics. A lot.

You're right: a fairytale wouldn't be enough. Not nearly enough. An imaginative work of fiction like 'The Lord of the Rings' inspires my imagination and moves me on a deep level, but it wasn't LotR I was thinking of when I sat by my dying friend's bedside last year. I needed a hell of a lot more than a fictional world to get me through my friend's death.

Books, poems and music do help a lot, actually, they're soul-food, but faith - in the face of the impossible - offers a deeper foundation, I humbly submit. One must also face objective reality. Once someone's dead, they're dead. Which is why I also believe in the miracle of resurrection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
For me it's not important what you "believe", but what you do. Does a liberal approach to Christianity allow you to be a Christian, when a conservative approach would make you walk away? If that's the case, then stay where you are (or rather, don't - go and follow Him).

For me it comes down to two questions - do my beliefs help me to do what Jesus wanted from me? and do they help me to recommend Jesus to the rest of the world?

---

I like this too.

Scolding people for having doubts hardly seems productive, at any rate.
 

---

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
For me it's not important what you "believe", but what you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You mean like treating the elements of the Eucharist as if it really were the body and blood of Christ whilst one actually holds that that is a pious fiction which is helpful for maintaining due reverence but isn't actually literally true?

[I know I'm going to get flak for that one...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.

---

This.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So, what do you want us to do? Pretend we really believe things we don't? Stop coming to church? Just shut up? Stop calling ourselves Christian? Fuck off and die? I really want to know.

---

quote:

---

Blaise Pascal "Pensées" (public domain)
252. For we must not misunderstand ourselves; we are as much automatic as intellectual; and hence it comes that the instrument by which conviction is attained is not demonstrated alone. How few things are demonstrated! Proofs only convince the mind. Custom is the source of our strongest and most believed proofs. It bends the automaton, which persuades the mind without its thinking about the matter. Who has demonstrated that there will be a tomorrow and that we shall die? And what is more believed? It is, then, custom which persuades us of it; it is custom that makes so many men Christians; custom that makes them Turks, heathens, artisans, soldiers, etc. (Faith in baptism is more received among Christians than among Turks.) Finally, we must have recourse to it when once the mind has seen where the truth is, in order to quench our thirst, and steep ourselves in that belief, which escapes us at every hour; for always to have proofs ready is too much trouble. We must get an easier belief, which is that of custom, which, without violence, without art, without argument, makes us believe things and inclines all our powers to this belief, so that our soul falls naturally into it. It is not enough to believe only by force of conviction, when the automaton is inclined to believe the contrary. Both our parts must be made to believe, the mind by reasons which it is sufficient to have seen once in a lifetime, and the automaton by custom, and by not allowing it to incline to the contrary. Inclina cor meum, Deus. [Ps. 119. 36. "Incline my heart, O Lord."]

The reason acts slowly, with so many examinations and on so many principles, which must be always present, that at every hour it falls asleep, or wanders, through want of having all its principles present. Feeling does not act thus; it acts in a moment, and is always ready to act. We must then put our faith in feeling; otherwise it will be always vacillating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.

---

While that is true in part, I think its more helpful to realise that belief includes both allegience to, and knowledge of. Without assenting to the propositions of Christianity about Jesus then who are we putting our faith in?.

Our belief in Jesus needs to be firmly rooted in the reality of the actual historical man who lived, died and rose again. Belief in Jesus has to mean not only belief in the ideas that Jesus represents, but also belief in certain facts about Jesus. That He was God, that He was sinless, that he was born as a man among His people as one of us, that He died for the World, and that He defeated death and sin in order to bring us back to a right relationship with God. That He rose back to life as a signifier and guarantee of that.

There are some propositions about Jesus that are of secondary importance of course. But I think belief in certain essential facts about Him is necessary for our belief in Him to have any meaning outside ourselves. And thus necessary for our Salvation.
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
What a great thread - well done.

My suggestion would be to acknowledge that 'liberals' really aren't all that liberal; that their universe view is hardly demonstrably larger than the 'conservatives' they routinely disdain.

It would be a start.


Alternatively, FOAD.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
What a great thread - well done.

My suggestion would be to acknowledge that 'liberals' really aren't all that liberal; that their universe view is hardly demonstrably larger than the 'conservatives' they routinely disdain.

It would be a start.


Alternatively, FOAD.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.

---

While that is true in part, I think its more helpful to realise that belief includes both allegience to, and knowledge of. Without assenting to the propositions of Christianity about Jesus then who are we putting our faith in?.

Our belief in Jesus needs to be firmly rooted in the reality of the actual historical man who lived, died and rose again. Belief in Jesus has to mean not only belief in the ideas that Jesus represents, but also belief in certain facts about Jesus. That He was God, that He was sinless, that he was born as a man among His people as one of us, that He died for the World, and that He defeated death and sin in order to bring us back to a right relationship with God. That He rose back to life as a signifier and guarantee of that.

There are some propositions about Jesus that are of secondary importance of course. But I think belief in certain essential facts about Him is necessary for our belief in Him to have any meaning outside ourselves. And thus necessary for our Salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[qb] I do not think being a follower of Jesus is about signing up to a series of propositions about him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
...I think its more helpful to realise that belief includes both allegience to, and knowledge of. Without assenting to the propositions of Christianity about Jesus then who are we putting our faith in?

---

Really? Then that's salvation for the severely learning-disabled off of the table then, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
For me it's not important what you "believe", but what you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[qb] I do not think being a follower of Jesus is about signing up to a series of propositions about him.

---

I agree. It is about Christ living in you. It is about God's spirit joining with your human spirit to make a new creation, a new life.

If you take that as a statement of reality, rather than as a clever metaphor, it puts a different complexion on Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.

---

This.

---

But how do you know who or what you're giving allegiance to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know, I think seeing Jesus merely as the greatest human ever doesn't put enough distance between how I feel about him and how I feel about Gandhi.

---

I think that would make you a Unitarian (and they're fairly fond of Gandhi as well)
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
But that was for the early believers. 2000 years ago. 100 generations of Christian ago. Haven't we had more time to reflect on these events since then and develop our understanding of what happened and what it meant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

Third, I would ask you to consider importance first, then truth, and where you see little importance to be generous about demanding the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...
So, what do you want us to do? Pretend we really believe things we don't? Stop coming to church? Just shut up? Stop calling ourselves Christian? Fuck off and die?

I really want to know.

---

I don't think you're ever going to get validation for your liberal beliefs from those who are staunchly conservative - they're never going to say, "yes, it's perfectly OK to be a Christian even though you don't believe in the Resurrection", are they? The most you can expect is that your beliefs are accepted (or at least tolerated) at the church which you attend yourself. In your average, mainstream church, people don't go around asking nosey and impertinent questions about other peoples' faith, and vicars are perfectly used to people having 'doubts' about some or all of the main tenets of Christianity. Perhaps you just have to get used to the fact that they're people who disagree with you.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...
So, what do you want us to do? Pretend we really believe things we don't? Stop coming to church? Just shut up? Stop calling ourselves Christian? Fuck off and die?

I really want to know.

---

I don't think you're ever going to get validation for your liberal beliefs from those who are staunchly conservative - they're never going to say, "yes, it's perfectly OK to be a Christian even though you don't believe in the Resurrection", are they? The most you can expect is that your beliefs are accepted (or at least tolerated) at the church which you attend yourself. In your average, mainstream church, people don't go around asking nosey and impertinent questions about other peoples' faith, and vicars are perfectly used to people having 'doubts' about some or all of the main tenets of Christianity. Perhaps you just have to get used to the fact that they're people who disagree with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Missing the point. I know that they don't agree with me, by definition. I'm just curious as to what they want us to actually do, given that we can't make ourselves believe things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
What do people mean by taking things on trust? I once said to someone that I could now say all of the Apostles Creed and mean it as Truth. I just didn't take two lines completely literally. He said he had been the same way for years until he decided to take it on trust and decide to believe it. It was only a while later that I realized I had no idea what he really meant.

---

quote:

---

But what do you expect and want us liberals to do? What exactly should I do, given that I want to be a follower of Jesus but do not, in my heart of hearts, really believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the divine authorship of Scripture, the physical Resurrection, the historicity of Moses etc. etc.? It's not that I believe that the above examples are false, it's just that I don't believe with any confidence that they are true, and therefore I need to work out my faith in a way that it is not destroyed if these things do indeed turn out to be untrue - to put it another way, if my faith is only as sure as my confidence in the Virgin Birth, then it's pretty weak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Missing the point. I know that they don't agree with me, by definition. I'm just curious as to what they want us to actually do, given that we can't make ourselves believe things.

---

Pray! Pray for the gift of faith, for wisdom and guidance in understanding why the Bible is communicating in a way you find hard to take seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And when that doesn't work, SS? What do you want us to do then? And what do you expect us to do in the meantime?

The point of my question is not "how can we become sure of all these truths like you?", it's "given that we're not, what do you expect us to do in the church?" When we're told we're destroying the church, as in the posts in the OP on this thread, my reaction is "Ah. So you are trying to blackmail us into one of pretending we believe what you do, shutting up, or disappearing altogether. So which is it?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
What do people mean by taking things on trust? I once said to someone that I could now say all of the Apostles Creed and mean it as Truth. I just didn't take two lines completely literally. He said he had been the same way for years until he decided to take it on trust and decide to believe it. It was only a while later that I realized I had no idea what he really meant.

---

Nor me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The point of my question is not "how can we become sure of all these truths like you?", it's "given that we're not, what do you expect us to do in the church?" When we're told we're destroying the church, as in the posts in the OP on this thread, my reaction is "Ah. So you are trying to blackmail us into one of pretending we believe what you do, shutting up, or disappearing altogether. So which is it?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
What do people mean by taking things on trust? I once said to someone that I could now say all of the Apostles Creed and mean it as Truth. I just didn't take two lines completely literally. He said he had been the same way for years until he decided to take it on trust and decide to believe it. It was only a while later that I realized I had no idea what he really meant.

---

Nor me.

---

It means to come to a realisation that my finite brain cannot hope to entirely comprehend all of the infinite Godhead and therefore to accept that limitation and choose to believe that which has been revealed as Truth nevertheless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I've never really understood the difference between, the separateness of, the first and third persons of the Trinity. So I'm not really sure what I mean when I say I believe in the Trinity. Is that important?

---

quote:

---

Well, Mr LB, you are destroying the church, if Zach82 is right to say 'the Church stands or falls on the truth of those doctrines', the doctrines you're finding it difficult to subscribe to.

If, however, that view isn't right, well I'm not exactly sure what it means for folks like Karl who can't sign up to all those doctrines, but surely there is at least room for them to be welcomed into the church? (Involvement in leadership etc. might be a bridge too far, I don't know.) Belonging before believing is the right way to go, IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
...I think its more helpful to realise that belief includes both allegience to, and knowledge of. Without assenting to the propositions of Christianity about Jesus then who are we putting our faith in?

---

Really? Then that's salvation for the severely learning-disabled off of the table then, isn't it?

---

I agree with Karl. The ability to becoming a Christian should be accessible to everyone, not limited to those with a high intellectual ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
What do people mean by taking things on trust? I once said to someone that I could now say all of the Apostles Creed and mean it as Truth. I just didn't take two lines completely literally. He said he had been the same way for years until he decided to take it on trust and decide to believe it. It was only a while later that I realized I had no idea what he really meant.

---

Nor me.

---

It means to come to a realisation that my finite brain cannot hope to entirely comprehend all of the infinite Godhead and therefore to accept that limitation and choose to believe that which has been revealed as Truth nevertheless.

---

I can do the first bit. I can't however make myself believe something by merely choosing to do so. Indeed, "choosing to believe" doesn't mean anything to me; it's something I say to the kids "I'm choosing to believe you did wash your hands after using the bog", but they know, and I know, it means "I'm pretty sure you didn't but can't prove it so I'm going to act as if I think you did even though we both know I don't really believe that."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:


... I'm not exactly sure what it means for folks like Karl who can't sign up to all those doctrines, but surely there is at least room for them to be welcomed into the church? (Involvement in leadership etc. might be a bridge too far, I don't know.) Belonging before believing is the right way to go, IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
What do people mean by taking things on trust? I once said to someone that I could now say all of the Apostles Creed and mean it as Truth. I just didn't take two lines completely literally. He said he had been the same way for years until he decided to take it on trust and decide to believe it. It was only a while later that I realized I had no idea what he really meant.

---

Nor me.

---

It means to come to a realisation that my finite brain cannot hope to entirely comprehend all of the infinite Godhead and therefore to accept that limitation and choose to believe that which has been revealed as Truth nevertheless.

---

I can do the first bit. I can't however make myself believe something by merely choosing to do so.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, "choosing to believe" doesn't mean anything to me; it's something I say to the kids "I'm choosing to believe you did wash your hands after using the bog", but they know, and I know, it means "I'm pretty sure you didn't but can't prove it so I'm going to act as if I think you did even though we both know I don't really believe that."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
For me, "believe" is synonymous with "think is true". Since I do not have enough data to decide whether I think that, for example, Jesus was born of a Virgin - he might have been, he might not - I can't say "I think he was", or, alternatively "I believe he was". No amount of effort or decision on my part makes it any more likely that he was, so I cannot "decide" that he was. My decisions do not dictate reality, and belief for me is about trying to figure out what's real.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Is absolute intellectual certitude the basis of most of our beliefs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Is absolute intellectual certitude the basis of most of our beliefs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
What do people mean by taking things on trust? I once said to someone that I could now say all of the Apostles Creed and mean it as Truth. I just didn't take two lines completely literally. He said he had been the same way for years until he decided to take it on trust and decide to believe it. It was only a while later that I realized I had no idea what he really meant.

---

Nor me.

---

It means to come to a realisation that my finite brain cannot hope to entirely comprehend all of the infinite Godhead and therefore to accept that limitation and choose to believe that which has been revealed as Truth nevertheless.

---

I can do the first bit. I can't however make myself believe something by merely choosing to do so.

---

Oh? Why not?

quote:

---

Indeed, "choosing to believe" doesn't mean anything to me; it's something I say to the kids "I'm choosing to believe you did wash your hands after using the bog", but they know, and I know, it means "I'm pretty sure you didn't but can't prove it so I'm going to act as if I think you did even though we both know I don't really believe that."

---

But you have to choose to act in some way which flows from your view of their assertion (either you accept they did wash their hands in which case they can sit at the table or whatever, or you make them go back to the bog and supervise their handwashing; either which way you have a choice - an act of will - to make).

---

Yeah, but there I'm choosing to act in a particular way despite my real belief that they probably didn't actually wash their hands.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I'm not sure but I believe it to be true. Do they serve Boddington's at you local? If so, mine's a pint.

[cp - the analogy with kids perhaps isn't fair as our children aren't God (though mine often behave like they want to be ). The whole essence of faith is to choose to take as fact things which we can't really know for sure to be true - perhaps a rubbish paraphrase of Hebrews 11:1 but it works for me]

[ 10. September 2013, 15:27: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
In the UK liberal thinking seems to be at its most fruitful in the CofE, a denomination where there's still a certain amount of traditionalism. It doesn't tend to thrive so well when it's by itself. The problem is that in a broad church like the CofE the need to compromise is ever present. I suppose that's the price to be paid for liberalism to maintain some status and influence.

I don't think either of the posts linked to in the OP were by Anglicans. Perhaps we shouldn't worry too much about what Christians in other denominations think.....

[ 10. September 2013, 15:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure but I believe it to be true. Do they serve Boddington's at you local? If so, mine's a pint.

---

You'll not catch me in a pub that sells that cats' widdle.

[ 10. September 2013, 15:27: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I believe in the Real Ale myself.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Is absolute intellectual certitude the basis of most of our beliefs?

---

Well, if we can all admit that we're not sure Jesus really rose from the dead or he was born of a virgin then we can close the thread and go down the pub.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the UK liberal thinking seems to be at its most fruitful in the CofE, a denomination where there's still a certain amount of traditionalism. It doesn't tend to thrive so well when it's by itself. The problem is that in a broad church like the CofE the need to compromise is ever present. I suppose that's the price to be paid for liberalism to maintain some status and influence.

I don't think either of the posts linked to in the OP were by Anglicans. Perhaps we shouldn't worry too much about what Christians in other denominations think.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Is absolute intellectual certitude the basis of most of our beliefs?

---

Well, if we can all admit that we're not sure Jesus really rose from the dead or he was born of a virgin then we can close the thread and go down the pub.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If you're coughing that much, you definitely need a drink!

What Zach said, BTW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, Zach. I'd like to be able to even expect the same of Church dogma as I do of scientists. Scientists work from evidence. They can show me that evidence. Church dogma is simply "because it says so". How do I know that the Bible is really that literally true? I don't. Why the Bible and not the Koran?

Can't be more than hopeful about any of it, really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

I'm a Worship Leader at quite an evangelical Church (Methodist) 'tho our new minister is nothing like as con-evo as the last one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider;

*cough* Reform *cough* Anglican Mainstream *cough*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Is absolute intellectual certitude the basis of most of our beliefs?

---

Well, if we can all admit that we're not sure Jesus really rose from the dead or he was born of a virgin then we can close the thread and go down the pub.

---

quote:

---

Summa Theologiae IIa IIae q1 a4: "Whether the object of faith can be something seen?"
Faith implies assent of the intellect to that which is believed. Now the intellect assents to a thing in two ways. First, through being moved to assent by its very object, which is known either by itself (as in the case of first principles, which are held by the habit of understanding), or through something else already known (as in the case of conclusions which are held by the habit of science). Secondly the intellect assents to something, not through being sufficiently moved to this assent by its proper object, but through an act of choice, whereby it turns voluntarily to one side rather than to the other: and if this be accompanied by doubt or fear of the opposite side, there will be opinion, while, if there be certainty and no fear of the other side, there will be faith.

Now those things are said to be seen which, of themselves, move the intellect or the senses to knowledge of them. Wherefore it is evident that neither faith nor opinion can be of things seen either by the senses or by the intellect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you don't mind me asking, wouldn't it make more sense for you to be a Worship Leader at a more liberal church? Why attend a church where you're always on guard against saying things that you don't believe? Perhaps the social aspect or general atmosphere of this church are more more important to you than its theology?

---

Far more important. They are my second family, people that I love dearly and have known for well over 30 years.

It's me who has changed, not them. I don't hide my beliefs at all, but I don't broadcast them either. There's no need.

I have spoken at length to our Minister and she is happy for me to be a liberal believer and lead worship.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Interesting, thanks. As a Worship Leader, though, you are contributing to the spiritual side of the church, and not just the social side.

It shows that congregations as well as individuals change, because a con-evo congregation of the past would probably not have been keen to have a liberal church leader. So regarding the question: 'So what exactly do you expect us to do?' the answer is perhaps: 'Wait'.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
Someone said to me this week that those who are not 'on fire for the Lord' are not proper Christians and their churches should fold

We all come to faith in different ways and from all directions. Someone who is able to take the stories at face value is as much a Christian as someone who struggles to take them literally. For me, struggling with the impossibility of miracles and with the parables, and with the rest of the scriptures, and with the intellectual thinking of the last 2000 years (if I can begin to grasp what they're trying to say), has all been part of the faith journey.

The Holy Spirit working as a flaming fire in one person and a deep pool in another doesn't see one as superior to the other. God will work as he will. Blessed are those who haven't seen Jesus and yet believe. If we can hold on to the glimmer of belief in our hearts, while continuing to keep open minds, building on what we have however small, and serving God as best we can, it's for no-one else to deny us our faith or tell us that theirs is the only way to believe. God is bigger than that. We're more diverse than that.

Our failure to embrace each other as fellow pilgrims will itself damage the Church, the body of Christ.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I doubt there is a one-size-fits-all formula for resolving the dilemma presented by the OP. I can only report how I've attempted to deal with similar issues.

For me, worrying about the precise phenomenology of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead isn't particularly important. The problem, perhaps, is that this is supposed to be the cornerstone of the Christian faith. ISTM that it's possible to extend a credibility to the doctrine, whilst remaining agnostic on the details. We can perhaps say a few things about what it is and is not that the scriptural record presents. It does NOT present the resucitation of a corpse. The Risen Christ isn't observed to act either as a disembodied spirit or as a normally physically material human being. He is experienced as solid and material, yet as apparently materialising through walls and suddenly disappearing at other times when recognised. Whatever the Resurrection is, it is something outside the realm of normal human experience and perception.

To me, extending faith in the Sacraments - and especially in the Eucharist - is a crucial thing. So one has doubts; so what? Keep making your communions and extend faith that the Risen Christ is present and received in the Eucharist.

To my mind, theism preceeds subscription to specifically Christian doctrine, or that of any other religious system. For me, aesthetically if not entirely rationally, existence of anything at all only makes sense in the context of a Deity that has agency and which gives rise to a Creation that unfolds through the processes of physics and evolutionary biology -- a Creation that is thus at some levels chaotic, unpredictable, practically infinitely plastic, and in this sense expresses an essential type of freedom or free will vis a vis the Creator.

It is perhaps at this juncture that a raw theism and Christian doctrine mutually inform one another. If it is in the essential nature of God to create, what else can we say about this creative energy? What is our own human experience of creativity, of generativity? Passion - Love - Libido/the Life Instincts are at the heart of our own creative and generative drives and experience. It would not be unreasonable to impute something similar, if grander, on the part of the Deity. However, the person of Jesus of Nazareth reveals as his essential characteristic Love. Irrespective of the "mechanics" of the Incarnation, to be Christian - I would assert - is to believe that the nature of God is uniquely revealed in the person of Jesus. I'd suggest that one can engage with the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Church regarding the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth, as articulated in the Creeds, without making these details into stumbling blocks because of some need to explain them rationally. If we see God operative and working in the person of Jesus - then much of the other stuff needn't be a matter for much worry or obsessing.

Finally, as to that outlandish doctrine, the Trinity, I'd suggest one might do best to think in terms of a Triune God. We know God encompasses the creative and generative agency that gives rise to existence itself. Apart from all other evidences of God's redeeming action, as Christians we see the redemptive personality and action of God in Christ Jesus. And it is to be hoped that we also at the very least catch glimpses of God expressing Himself through the unexpected, the prophetic, the courageous in the Church and the world, in the Person of God the Holy Spirit. Again, I'd say, engage both with the lived experience of the Triune God and with the formulations of the Creeds, without worrying too much about what does or doesn't constitute strict orthodoxy. Maybe one's thought tends toward a modalist conception of the Trinity -- doesn't matter, as long as you keep on engaging with the doctrine in lived experience.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
What should we do? Keep turning up to church, that's what. I wish people didn't think that, when they start getting doubts, they have to leave and give up on religion.

When my sons reached their teenage years, I said to them, 'Aren't you lucky you go to the sort of church where you don't have to believe everything in order to attend?' We need churches where people can feel free to question, or even more are going to disappear.
 

---

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.

---

This.

---

But how do you know who or what you're giving allegiance to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What am I sure about? That I can't somehow ignore Jesus, even if I can't be sure about some of the things people say about him. Christianity, doubts notwithstanding, is a habit I can't somehow shake off.

---

That's exactly why I believe, Karl. I was just getting ready to say something like that in answer to your analogy about choosing to believe with what is essentially pretending to believe that your children washed their hands. For me, choosing to believe is not pretending to believe something my brain really isn't buying. I choose to believe Jesus died for me because something deep inside me really longs to believe it and I think that very longing is my "proof."
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Karl, I've hesitated to post to this thread. People are making any of the points I might, better than I might.

I take blood pressure medication because a physician told me that my numbers were a bit high. I felt nothing. I feel nothing with taking the pills. I do what the doc said re taking the pills because I think he must know what he's talking about and because it seemed like a good idea. Years since I started I still don't notice anything and apparently my numbers are good, as in there is no indication of anything wrong.

I'm taking Jesus and all the other stuff the same way. It's a routine, it probably is a good idea, though it might be a sham. It doesn't hurt, and people who seem to know what they're talking about say it is a good idea. What do I believe about it? It depends on the day. More so if there was decent liturgy or the music moved me. It's more of an aesthetic thing. Just like the positive idea of not dying because a blood vessel burst in my head. So I both attend church and take the pills, i.e., believe less and do more.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I feel like I'm in the next room Karl Liberal Backslider. With an open adjoining door. I have no problem with the vast, unbelievable, outrageous claims about Jesus. They all work for me. Lucky me. NOTHING ELSE does, just about. Nothing. Apart from His teachings, His stunning example. Virtually nothing outside the story of Jesus works as history, reportage for me. And within it the search for meaning, or better the journey of meaning has undergone an explosion comparable with the inflationary phase of the universe for me in the past five years.

I'm looking through the mainly curtained portal in to the kitchen where my wife is playing our new Message bible CDs, the voice of Eugene Petersen is most engaging. You're just behind the curtain.

I must remember to include our conservative brethren who have been me and I them for 90% of my life. Even here.

What we must do, Karl Liberal Backslider, is stay put. That's if we're in uncomfortable fellowship. I certainly am. I thought I was going to have an aneurysm during last Sunday morning's service. If we're not in one, find one! The one round the corner. Which is now five miles away. The one across the road, literally, will be where I end up when we're old and poor enough. Hopefully I'll be mellow enough to bear it. Unless my spikily dangerously high blood pressure gets me first.

Our excellent charismatic evangelical vicar has pointed us at his pet liberal trusties and the missus is searching for ones email address now. I emailed another one a week ago. He must be on holiday ...
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You merely say that you don't quite get it, which is fine as such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But it all gets a bit scary when you contemplate the fact that people have actually *died* to defend these beliefs. That kind of "belief" is surely very different from "believing" that one or more of the mysteries tells us something important about God and our relationship with him. You are going to say now that, fortunately, I am highly unlikely to face martyrdom...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There are things that I would say I believe, and if someone asked me why, I would just have to say "Because the Church says it is so" and/or "Because it is important to me to believe it."

---

quote:

---

It is important to me to believe that God is more than one person, because I believe that Love has always existed, and Love requires at least two participants.

---

quote:

---

For other reasons, it is important to me to believe that the Blessed Sacrament is the very body and blood of Jesus, that Jesus rose from the dead etc etc.

---

quote:

---

It all gets a bit scary when you contemplate the fact that people have actually *died* to defend these beliefs. That kind of "belief" is surely very different from "believing" that one or more of the mysteries tells us something important about God and our relationship with him.

You are going to say now that, fortunately, I am highly unlikely to face martyrdom...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It is important to me to believe that God is more than one person, because I believe that Love has always existed, and Love requires at least two participants.

---

I'm not sure that I either follow your logic or accept your premises, but I personally wouldn't believe something in order to satisfy other beliefs.
.....

Personally, I prefer the second type of belief you mention, because I happen to think that there is some truth in it, and because it is true, then it doesn't need defending.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
...But the first example *is* the second type of belief. The doctrine of the Trinity tells us something important about the nature of God, so it's important to me to "believe" it.

---

quote:

---

Clearly this use of "believe" can't mean understanding it in any kind of scientifically credible way, because I know I don't.

---

That would also apply to my beliefs. I think that the difference is that I would not hold that 'believing' is a good thing in itself, other than for the reason that the object of one's belief is true. The Church, OTOH, seems to have always made a fetish out of 'belief' and 'faith', and turned belief in Christian teaching into a moral imperative in its own right. It is really so much simpler if you forget about believing things because you want to, and concentrate on deciding whether things are true or false.

My own suspicion is that it wouldn't have done this unless it secretly harboured doubts about its own teaching, and wanted to try its hardest to avoid thinking about them.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It is really so much simpler if you forget about believing things because you want to, and concentrate on deciding whether things are true or false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.

---

This.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It is really so much simpler if you forget about believing things because you want to, and concentrate on deciding whether things are true or false.

---

But surely "deciding that certain things are true" about the nature of God is exactly the same as "choosing to believe" things?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...at least, that's not the subject of this thread. It's more a reaction to folk telling liberal types that they're destroying the church, emptying the pews etc. Given that we do have these doubts, or indeed some things we simply don't believe, what do these folk expect we're going to do? It's like they want us to shut up and stop scaring the horses. We can't make ourselves believe things, so of course we're going to say what we believe - and what we don't! We're not going to magically turn into conservatives just because someone tells us our position is destroying the church; it doesn't work like that.

---

• You must accept that you are a sinner and then come to Christ to be saved.
• You know that your life is not all it could be, so come to Christ who offers life in all its fulness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't worry about it too much; at least, that's not the subject of this thread. It's more a reaction to folk telling liberal types that they're destroying the church, emptying the pews etc. Given that we do have these doubts, or indeed some things we simply don't believe, what do these folk expect we're going to do? It's like they want us to shut up and stop scaring the horses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dal Segno:
It seems to me that there are two distinct ways to present the gospel:

• You must accept that you are a sinner and then come to Christ to be saved.
• You know that your life is not all it could be, so come to Christ who offers life in all its fulness.

...Both messages start with a conviction that things are not right. Both lead to faith in Christ. But I think that the first message no longer makes sense to the unchurched in the Western world. The disconnect has become so great that we need to re-think how we present the message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A cynic might say the most liberally-inclined should all join the CofE and leave the other denominations alone! But over the past decade or two the evangelical side of the CofE has become much more prominent anyway, so perhaps it's no longer such a good choice.

---

quote:

---

A cynic might say the most liberally-inclined should all join the CofE and leave the other denominations alone!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It is really so much simpler if you forget about believing things because you want to, and concentrate on deciding whether things are true or false.

---

But surely "deciding that certain things are true" about the nature of God is exactly the same as "choosing to believe" things?

---

Well, not really, because my only criteria for believing something is whether or not it is true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It is really so much simpler if you forget about believing things because you want to, and concentrate on deciding whether things are true or false.

---

But surely "deciding that certain things are true" about the nature of God is exactly the same as "choosing to believe" things?

---

Well, not really, because my only criteria for believing something is whether or not it is true.

---

That's not really 'belief' though, is it? That's 'certainty'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It is really so much simpler if you forget about believing things because you want to, and concentrate on deciding whether things are true or false.

---

But surely "deciding that certain things are true" about the nature of God is exactly the same as "choosing to believe" things?

---

Well, not really, because my only criteria for believing something is whether or not it is true.

---

That's not really 'belief' though, is it? That's 'certainty'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't worry about it too much; at least, that's not the subject of this thread. It's more a reaction to folk telling liberal types that they're destroying the church, emptying the pews etc. Given that we do have these doubts, or indeed some things we simply don't believe, what do these folk expect we're going to do? It's like they want us to shut up and stop scaring the horses. We can't make ourselves believe things, so of course we're going to say what we believe - and what we don't! We;re not going to magically turn into conservatives just because someone tells us our position is destroying the church; it doesn't work like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
My own conservatism, traditionalism, or whatever label you want to give it, is really a defensive "it's broke somehow, but if you don't know what you are doing, then trying to fix it will probably make it worse" posture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Matt - what I mean by 'takes you by surprise' is you find yourself thinking 'come to think of it that is really far fetched and if that claim was made in any other context, I wouldn't believe it.'

It can be when you read a passage or when you hear other Christians talking. Probably the most difficult one for me was when you read an argument that you find really unpersuasive and you notice, by accident, that it has alarming similarities with how Christian apologetics often works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
While I call my christianity progressive rather than liberal, I line up alongside the uncomplicated liberals who have posted. My worldview is that of the 21st century, not the 1st, and as Wilfred Cantwell Smith put it: “Beliefs must be distinguished from faith. Beliefs belong to the century one lives in. Faith goes on from age to age because it is not a set of beliefs but an attitude – the attitude of trust.” It confuses things somewhat that some contributors use the word ‘belief’ to mean ‘assent to statements’ and others mean ‘wholehearted passionate acceptance’.

GG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I believe you are all real people, but who knows - you could be AI constructs, aliens from outer space or specially trained dolphins. I haven't met any of you in person, so I can't be sure.

---

Dammit. Rumbled.

(but I'll at least leave you guessing whether I'm actually an alien or a dolphin)
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Matt - what I mean by 'takes you by surprise' is you find yourself thinking 'come to think of it that is really far fetched and if that claim was made in any other context, I wouldn't believe it.'

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What exactly should I do, given that I want to be a follower of Jesus but do not, in my heart of hearts, really believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the divine authorship of Scripture, the physical Resurrection, the historicity of Moses etc. etc.?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So, what do you want us to do? Pretend we really believe things we don't? Stop coming to church? Just shut up? Stop calling ourselves Christian? Fuck off and die?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

A cynic might say the most liberally-inclined should all join the CofE and leave the other denominations alone! But over the past decade or two the evangelical side of the CofE has become much more prominent anyway, so perhaps it's no longer such a good choice.

---

Why would that be cynical? They may as well, and they needn't come into contact with the evangelicals unless they want to. Where's the downside?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

Are you saying the CofE is the only denomination that allows its members to question and explore their beliefs? Sounds like you want everyone else to stagnate. That would be a pity, because some of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church are non-Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

A cynic might say the most liberally-inclined should all join the CofE and leave the other denominations alone! But over the past decade or two the evangelical side of the CofE has become much more prominent anyway, so perhaps it's no longer such a good choice.

---

Why would that be cynical? They may as well, and they needn't come into contact with the evangelicals unless they want to. Where's the downside?

---

Some Anglicans just focus on their own congregation, true, but others publicly complain about how Anglicans of a different type are having a bad influence on the wider denomination. It must be quite tiring always having to defend yourself against people in your own denomination!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
So to ask Ingo B, why should using reasoning post-conversion be treated with such scepticism and yet the one decision (to become a Christian) at one point in time should be regarded as trumping all other reasoning. In every area of life I have constantly re-evaluated what I think, why should my faith be any different. This whole I can choose to believe (and believe for evermore) strikes me as an overly defensive position. It is almost as if this position has to be adopted because otherwise faith will almost always fall apart.

---

Allow me to just quote myself (from here): "Assume you are with a large group of people stuck in the desert, and want to get out of there lest you die. Different people suggest different directions to head in (or indeed, to stay put), giving a variety of more or less convincing reasons and appealing to a variety of more or less convincing data. But none of them has an utterly compelling case, i.e., nobody has a working SatNav that has both maps of the areas and receives the GPS signal. So what is the reasonable thing to do? Well, you weigh the options to the best of your abilities, and then you go for what seems most probable without looking back. Oscillating between various options (unless they are very close to each other) is generally not going to help, but is going to decrease your survival chances. If you think that one direction is right, then strain to reach the border of the desert that way. Maybe you are right and make it out, maybe you are wrong and will die at the end of a ruinous path, but running around like a headless chicken is going to get you killed for sure. This dedication does not mean however that one must stumble along blindly. If there is serious new information suggesting a change of direction, then one should follow it."

I am myself a two times convert, once from apathetic atheism to pretty serious practice of Soto Zen Buddhism, and then eventually from that to Roman Catholicism. So I do not think that I protect my faith against serious changes based on new information or experience. But that does not mean that I'm doubt-striken all the time, nor indeed that I'm cautious about giving myself to what I think is the right way. I think that that is foolish. I think it ignores the basic mechanism of faith.

And the basic mechanism of faith is nothing but a choice in spite of insufficient information. You cannot "constantly re-evalute" your faith, because it does not "evaluate" in the first place. Faith is not a conclusion, it is not logically derived from undisputed premises. It is of course possible that the case which motivated your choice crumbles under new input, and then you are by reason forced to reassess that choice, and hence your faith. But that is not a particularly common thing, because you didn't have a watertight case in the first place. Your decision covers many gaps, and information which simply points to these gaps does not do anything concerning your faith. And yes, faith will fall apart if you constantly question it. Because you can alway break any faith by pointing to the gaps it covers, and insisting that they are more important. And if you constantly re-aim your reason at your faith, then it will go for the gaps and dig into them. That's just the nature of "critical questioning". And while that's often a good thing, it isn't here, because you already know about these gaps and you have decided to cover them. You are hence simply going back on yourself. In terms of the analogy above, you don't need to constantly question whether you know where you are going. You know that you do not really know, that's why you picked the most likely path and choose to just go for that one. Unless there is serious new information (and that is unfortunately not a common occurrence), there is not point in going over all that again. Just walk.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I'm not sure I made a good job of the OP. There's developed (and I think it's because I messed up the OP) a conflation of two things:

1. Things that are often taught as truth that I actually think are wrong - historicity of the whole OT, inerrancy of Scripture, male headship, eternal conscious torment in Hell, God's alleged command to commit genocide etc.

2. Things that I'm really not sure I actually believe are true, but on which I take a provisional view that they are the case - physical resurrection of Christ (as opposed to a vaguer statement that Jesus is alive, which I think of as (a) more important, and (b) not the same thing at all), existence of God in the first place, existence post-death.

There's also a sort of zeroeth category of things that don't really matter very much to me and I'm not really that bothered whether they're true or not - all of Jesus' miracles, the Virgin Birth, what really happened at the transfiguration, Jesus wooshing up to heaven in a cloud, this sort of thing.

I'm not sure that I have any heretical beliefs, just a few things that in category 2 above that if I moved them into 1 would be decidedly unorthodox. I'm happy with that.

I'm aware that the OP (which as I said I don't think I worded well) might give the impression I believe even less than I do
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It hasn't really existed for me since I made the decision to believe it.

---

quote:

---

If people don't share a vision and are also unhappy about the image other church members are presenting to the world then where's the unity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not sure I made a good job of the OP. There's developed (and I think it's because I messed up the OP) a conflation of two things:

1. Things that are often taught as truth that I actually think are wrong - historicity of the whole OT, inerrancy of Scripture, male headship, eternal conscious torment in Hell, God's alleged command to commit genocide etc.

2. Things that I'm really not sure I actually believe are true, but on which I take a provisional view that they are the case - physical resurrection of Christ (as opposed to a vaguer statement that Jesus is alive, which I think of as (a) more important, and (b) not the same thing at all), existence of God in the first place, existence post-death.

There's also a sort of zeroeth category of things that don't really matter very much to me and I'm not really that bothered whether they're true or not - all of Jesus' miracles, the Virgin Birth, what really happened at the transfiguration, Jesus wooshing up to heaven in a cloud, this sort of thing.

I'm not sure that I have any heretical beliefs, just a few things that in category 2 above that if I moved them into 1 would be decidedly unorthodox. I'm happy with that.

I'm aware that the OP (which as I said I don't think I worded well) might give the impression I believe even less than I do

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And the prize for the least helpful post on the thread goes to...

---

Sweet... I can only hope THIS is the year TPTB resurrect the Simmies!

What do you really expect me to do, replying to someone who still seems mired in labels like 'liberal'? <shrug>


And any idea what Martyn's doing these days? I'm going to have to dig out his CDs and give them another listen.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Nobody cares what they think except people who already agree with them. Those they're complaining about, if they get wind of the statement at all, feel a glow of self-righteousness. They must be doing right if *those people* disapprove. Priests write letters to newspapers, but most of us aren't priests. There are a few broad streams in the Church of England, and they have almost nothing to say to each other. This is why I think it's perfectly workable to suggest that all liberals should come on over. You could probably spend a lifetime in the Church of England and never meet a conservative evangelical.

---

quote:

---

If I can butt in to what you said to Jane R: what interest? What prestige? Where? From whom? [...]

I don't think unity is desirable, really. What is unity for? I mean, how does it help anyone to do what they go to church to do? If you have real diversity, which we do, you don't need pretend unity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've probably been given an slightly inaccurate impression by the Ship, which is full of Anglicans of one type (politely or not so politely) criticising Anglicans of another!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My impression is that the CofE, and more broadly the Anglican Communion, has an especially high regard for institutional unity partly to compensate for the lack of theological unity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unity is normally considered a positive characteristic. It creates strength, and hence institutional impact and prestige. To encompass many views within a single institution creates diversity - which conveniently allows the institution to speak on behalf of everyone, and therefore to extend its influence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

Within the Church, unity is mainly the concern of people who want to keep us yoked to them forever.
[...]
Why would unity actually be a positive thing? Other than allowing us to throw our weight around, what would it actually help? Again, we have no prestige. Diversity is tremendously helpful, yes, though not because it extends the church's 'influence', but because it frees the people within the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Are you an Anglican? It's curious to me that you would insist that the CofE, a state church, has no prestige. If you're right, why doesn't the British media pay more attention to other denominations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In fact, secularisation has probably given the CofE more dominance than it would otherwise have, because the smaller denominations have almost completely disappeared from public consciousness. Fewer people now care about or understand the differences between denominations, which makes it easier just to focus on one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In other senses, though, smaller denominations may be more liberating; smallness creates greater opportunities for participation, and there may be fewer inhibiting class and social distinctions between clergy and laity. I acknowledge that this kind of freedom wouldn't be so valuable for most people here on the Ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Getting back to the topic, though, perhaps the most liberal Christians should follow your example; get involved in a tolerant Anglican church and completely ignore what evangelicals in other congregations and other denominations think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know atheists don't care. Yet when the general culture (which is not entirely atheistic) deigns to record the words of church leaders, it gives a soapbox to Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It doesn't do the same for Methodists, or others. I suppose I can understand now why this is an irrelevant detail for an Anglican, but to me your position is quite ironic. Let's agree to disagree on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I was looking for a definition to explain to a friend what was meant by a liberal Christian (which we all seem to understand without defining here), and found this:

Urban Dictionary

After commenting on the grammatical weaknesses of the posters, I came to the bottom of the page, which, if it is the same for you, had an advert which was not entirely appropriate for the page content. (Male gamers only, with image not appealing to any sort of Christian.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Plique-à-jour

IMO tradition and monarchy are elements of general British/English culture, which is a hybrid, slippery thing that encompasses both modernity and tradition. Secularisation has created indifference and hostility towards organised religion, but it's also created a degree of fascination. It's not a straightforward case of everyone either hating or admiring Christianity and Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For example, where I live 'friends outside the church' are just as likely to be Muslims as atheists. The idea that atheists carry all before them takes no account of a more postmodern reading of the culture, which is that many different things are happening at once, that there are different 'tribes' believing and doing different things, maybe swapping back and forth, etc.

Perhaps an authentically postmodern mind would accept the irrelevance of the CofE and its established status as all of a piece. I'll reflect on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know atheists don't care. Yet when the general culture (which is not entirely atheistic) deigns to record the words of church leaders, it gives a soapbox to Anglicans.

---

They get on the news because of tradition and the monarchy. That's not the general culture.

---

Of course, that's just the UK. In the US the soapbox is generally given to extreme right-wing "non-denominational" preachers, who call themselves "Christian" without qualification, in the media buys into that, infuriatingly giving the impression that their views are the default Christian view.
 

---

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Karl:
(Tangent: Tech Anal Chesterfield. Not CSC by any chance).

As to your point, despite the interesting posts, I've just got back from hols, and I confess that I have not read all the posts. So if I'm just saying what has already been said, I'll take any rebuke.

So when I was a Conservative I had a ready reply, and I still think it's worth considering.

Because there are denominations that are up-front liberal: Quakers and Unitarians spring to mind. And if you think there should be a set of options for those who are drawn to Christ but less so to dogma, it sort of makes sense that these should be live options, whereas at present, the Unitarian church is really pretty run down. Would it not be a good thing for those who are decided liberals, to try and get involved to breathe life (and resources) into such a denomination, so that it could exist as a viable alternative in the UK religious scene?

I did (in my journey from JW to conservative calvinist) attend a Unitarian church in Manchester and it was ok. They tend to be stronger in t'North, but don't know about C'field.

Ever thought of that?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I'm happy in my church; very happy. I don't get problems there. It's the wider church that I'm addressing in my OP. In that context, your post could be interpreted as "piss off and join the Unitarians"

Which I'm unlikely to do because I'm not one.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm happy in my church; very happy. I don't get problems there. It's the wider church that I'm addressing in my OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm happy in my church; very happy. I don't get problems there. It's the wider church that I'm addressing in my OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.

---

While that is true in part, I think its more helpful to realise that belief includes both allegience to, and knowledge of. Without assenting to the propositions of Christianity about Jesus then who are we putting our faith in?.

Our belief in Jesus needs to be firmly rooted in the reality of the actual historical man who lived, died and rose again. Belief in Jesus has to mean not only belief in the ideas that Jesus represents, but also belief in certain facts about Jesus. That He was God, that He was sinless, that he was born as a man among His people as one of us, that He died for the World, and that He defeated death and sin in order to bring us back to a right relationship with God. That He rose back to life as a signifier and guarantee of that.

There are some propositions about Jesus that are of secondary importance of course. But I think belief in certain essential facts about Him is necessary for our belief in Him to have any meaning outside ourselves. And thus necessary for our Salvation.

---

Really? Then that's salvation for the severely learning-disabled off of the table then, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If you can doubt so much that we don't know about, why not dismiss the provably false idea that everyone in the Church is somehow in some wider communion with each other, even though they don't agree at all on what they're supposed to do? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hugorune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If you can doubt so much that we don't know about, why not dismiss the provably false idea that everyone in the Church is somehow in some wider communion with each other, even though they don't agree at all on what they're supposed to do?

---

Don't you think, though, that the communion of all believers is rather important? We all believe in the same God, we all commit the same sins (with a few bits of individual flavour), and we are all redeemed the same way, from Catholics to Calvinists. Or so I thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hugorune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If you can doubt so much that we don't know about, why not dismiss the provably false idea that everyone in the Church is somehow in some wider communion with each other, even though they don't agree at all on what they're supposed to do?

---

Don't you think, though, that the communion of all believers is rather important? We all believe in the same God, we all commit the same sins (with a few bits of individual flavour), and we are all redeemed the same way, from Catholics to Calvinists. Or so I thought.

---

No, I don't think it's important at all. We don't believe God wants us to do the same things, we don't believe that grace has the same meaning for how we should live, we don't believe that the same participation in the world is required of Christians. Until secularism began to make inroads, people were content to define themselves by their doctrinal differences rather than their membership in the big tent. I see no reason why, now we're civilised enough or moderated enough not to harm each other, we can't be like those relatives who only hear from each other at Christmas or New Year. There's a certain percentage of indifference in the idea of 'live and let live', it's not an adversarial thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hugorune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If you can doubt so much that we don't know about, why not dismiss the provably false idea that everyone in the Church is somehow in some wider communion with each other, even though they don't agree at all on what they're supposed to do?

---

Don't you think, though, that the communion of all believers is rather important? We all believe in the same God, we all commit the same sins (with a few bits of individual flavour), and we are all redeemed the same way, from Catholics to Calvinists. Or so I thought.

---

No, I don't think it's important at all. We don't believe God wants us to do the same things, we don't believe that grace has the same meaning for how we should live, we don't believe that the same participation in the world is required of Christians. Until secularism began to make inroads, people were content to define themselves by their doctrinal differences rather than their membership in the big tent. I see no reason why, now we're civilised enough or moderated enough not to harm each other, we can't be like those relatives who only hear from each other at Christmas or New Year. There's a certain percentage of indifference in the idea of 'live and let live', it's not an adversarial thing.

---

Until someone gets hurt. And every single faction has a large subset who think that the other faction is engaging in direct harm. I've heard folks say that conservatives harm gay folks by telling them they're going to hell. The liberals harm gay folks by telling them they're not going to hell. The conservatives are harming people by claiming that the only charity that works is private charity. The liberals are harming people by taking their resources without their consent. It goes on, and on, and on.

These aren't necessarily abstractions that only affect the individuals who harbor them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But believe doesn't mean assent to propositions (as if that were under voluntary control). It means give your allegiance to. We join up with Jesus, we enlist, we subscribe, we pledge allegiance to, we self-identify with, we idolise him, make him our hero, and worship him. That's belief, not holding some opinion about post-burial shenanigans.

---

While that is true in part, I think its more helpful to realise that belief includes both allegience to, and knowledge of. Without assenting to the propositions of Christianity about Jesus then who are we putting our faith in?.

Our belief in Jesus needs to be firmly rooted in the reality of the actual historical man who lived, died and rose again. Belief in Jesus has to mean not only belief in the ideas that Jesus represents, but also belief in certain facts about Jesus. That He was God, that He was sinless, that he was born as a man among His people as one of us, that He died for the World, and that He defeated death and sin in order to bring us back to a right relationship with God. That He rose back to life as a signifier and guarantee of that.

There are some propositions about Jesus that are of secondary importance of course. But I think belief in certain essential facts about Him is necessary for our belief in Him to have any meaning outside ourselves. And thus necessary for our Salvation.

---

Really? Then that's salvation for the severely learning-disabled off of the table then, isn't it?

---

...and Jesus said, 'What is that to you? You follow me..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
That's much better, though I don't like the reference to Marcion, nor the suggestion that it is only liberals who regard language about God as limited (that view is highly orthodox)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
That's much better, though I don't like the reference to Marcion, nor the suggestion that it is only liberals who regard language about God as limited (that view is highly orthodox)

---

Do you mean the eastern tradition of the apophatic?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0