Ship of Fools: When is it time to give up calling yourself a Christian?

Thread: When is it time to give up calling yourself a Christian? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026705

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! (Revelation 3:15, ESV)

Externally, given the icons that litter my room, the Bible that remains unread on my bedside table, the quick prayers I say internally before meals, I may be going along with it, but...

Internally...I do not see it. I have a desire to pray, but no real will. I can't see how my faith impacts anything I do or the way I think/act. I get no joy from hearing about others' delight in Christ.

It seems I am more in love with a nice organ tune and hymn than God. Or a nice Orthodox service of Vespers with poetic words and imagery. But taking on board the meaning, forming a relationship, and -- God forbid! -- taking on board a cross? No thanks. I'll read a spiritual book over the Bible anytime: the Bible, for all its beauty, inspires nothing and no reaction in me.

Yet, oddly, I do deeply believe it all: Virgin Birth, physical Resurrection and Ascension. Yet I'm not sure what impact this has.

Is it time to throw in the towel? Is there something wrong with me [excluding psychological nuttery]? Am I to be damned? I really do not know. All I know is I think I've been a fraud these last 15 years. Does/Has anyone feel/felt similar? What did you do? Or, from an outside perspective, if you can make sense of it all, what do you think?

Thanks.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think you're okay. I might be totally misunderstanding (and forgive me if I am) but it sounds like your feelings, senses, emotions and desires are not matching what you do in fact believe. I think some people call it a spiritual desert, or dryness. And that's a really nasty place to be in, but you are still a Christian. I was in this state for several years sustained, and dip into it again on and off.

What helped me (as much as anything can) is just to say "here I am, and this sucks, this really really sucks. But I don't have to do anything about it. God can deal with it in his own good time." Because it's nothing you're doing wrong. If it's what I think it is, it's a natural season in the CHristian life. Brrrrrr.

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

My advice, based on my personal experience, which may be not at all transferable - is to not give up yet. Especially if you still "do deeply believe".

I think it's easier to hold on to something than to grasp it again once you let it go. When I left the church, after a few months I spoke to a friend of mine all about it, laid out all my doubts and questions and so on. Told him how I could just keep going but I'd feel intellectually dishonest. He asked whether I couldn't still have all those questions and do all the figuring out, exploring of doubts etc, but do it from the inside rather than the outside.

I really wish I'd taken his advice.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Our sermon was sort of about this on Sunday, which was refreshing, as I sometimes wonder the same thing about myself. Our preacher was talking about a time when she had given up on God, or at least the God she had convinced herself existed based on her early education and insecurities. When, later in life, she was introduced to a different vision of God, she discovered that while she had given up on God, God had not given up on her, and was waiting for her.

If you believe that God is waiting for you, I think you still have enough belief to stay with it.

Some schools of Hinduism, I believe, recognize that your dharma (your duty under cosmic law) changes from one stage in life to the next, and state that the change is fine. I think that it is a healthy acknowledgement- that as life changes, your priorities change, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you are striving to do the best you can in whatever stage of life you are in. It is natural to change in a way so that the old faith life you were living no longer fulfills you. But the old way is not the only way of being a Christian- you just have to work to find one that fits your current stage in life.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What Lamb Chopped said. If you believe, stay the course.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

I have to agree with what everyone else has said thus far. I also have long periods of time where I just think to myself, "Why in the world do I bother with any of this? It's not as though I'm making much of a difference in anyone's life or advancing the Kingdom or anything". I truly believe God is okay with my fumblings and periods of mentally throwing my hands into the air. As a disabled woman, I sometimes fall into great despair about my meager contribution to the world but I have to remember that God gave me a great sense of fun and humor, and I have loads of compassion for people who struggle with family issues/depression/things like that. I can best serve God by cheering people up when I can and by praying for them through their trials. Other than that, I don't worry that I hardly ever crack open a bible or go to church. I hope my words here help you in some way.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Frankly, I think it's okay to keep going with the Christian label if you think Jesus is a good guy and nothing more. That sort of tenuous hold on it is enough to see what might happen if you are patient. It's also okay to "not really believe" and follow Christianity as a 'cultural Christian', because again, who knows where it might go.

I personally thought at one point, maybe 10 years ago that I'd figured it out, and it all fell down. Faith can be Humpty Dumpty and you can't put it together the way it was, but what might it be if you're willing?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

He who perseveres etc. I've gone through long periods similar to what you've decribed, for instance when I gave up on Roman Catholicism and before I discovered Orthodoxy or when my brother died. I've only just started picking up the pieces again after a period of mild depression. I sometimes think it would just be easier to give up on it all but then I can't just unbelieve because I really do believe. Hope is what keeps me going because it's never really completely faded and if you also have hope then all is not yet lost. I hope God will have mercy on my faults.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Thank you for all the replies and personal stories; greatly appreciated.

No misunderstanding Lamb Chopped, I think the experience is transferable Late Paul, thanks Ad Orientem for sharing, and yours words helped The 5th Mary: as did everyone's. The sermon is one I'd like to hear one day Og, and the Humpty Dumpty analogy is one I will ponder no prophet. And thanks mousethief; your and Josephine's plotting ways [Biased]

sent me to the Bosphorus and I am happy here.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
He who perseveres etc. I've gone through long I sometimes think it would just be easier to give up on it all but then I can't just unbelieve because I really do believe.

This resonates with me: I wish I could switch it off sometimes, but I can't as I believe it with all my being.

LC's spiritual desert is one I have heard before: perhaps I'm too eager for the oases; perseverance may be what I am called to.

As per posts above about changes, I suppose I just worry when the things that kept me anchored [such as Vespers or the Lenten services (this is going back some time)] all of a sudden lose any sense of meaning. And I wonder why I find the Divine Liturgy [Eucharist service] so different to others -- it frightens me to be honest; I feel so unworthy and fearful -- who say how meaningful and peace-inducing it is.

Perhaps my mental issues play some part [Vespers gets 6-8 people...I could handle that], but I wish I had that joy others have there -- and perhaps I am thinking as I do not have it something is wrong.

Plenty to think on. Thanks again.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I can't just unbelieve because I really do believe.

This is where I'm at as well. I hope God is satisfied with my plodding because I feel it's as much as I can do most days/weeks/years.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I can't just unbelieve because I really do believe.
This is where I'm at as well. I hope God is satisfied with my plodding because I feel it's as much as I can do most days/weeks/years.

Chalk it up, I agree with Ad Orientem on something.

I'm no longer a church goer, and I don't think I'll ever return, but, but, but, I still believe, strongly, enthusiastically, in a way that forms my attitudes and actions.

There's nothing wrong with liking nice music and good words - these things are given to us to hold on to when the going gets tough. And personally, I'd rather listen to a wonderful performance of the Bach St John Passion, or the Verdi Requiem, than any number of sermons.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I laughed when I saw the title, as I've spent some time wondering that, and then it just became obvious that I wasn't a Christian. After 50 years!

Very curious, and I feel a mixture of sadness and relief and of course, guilt. I said to my wife - ever feel that you're not in charge?

Well, so many things have been peeling away from me in the last few years, and here is another.

Into the unknown! But please note, not an atheist.

[ 21. January 2014, 04:41: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Welcome back, Ian Climacus! It's good to see you again.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

To expand a bit on what The5thMary posted, it seems to me that the important question is how much you care about the things God cares about most, as in Micah 6:8:

quote:
He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Personally, I'd be more worried if I found that I no longer felt any compassion for others than if I found that I no longer felt any joy from church services.

And, in line with what Og, King of Bashan posted, does your vision of God include seeing Him as the source and the champion of all that is good and worthwhile in your life? If not, where do you think it comes from?

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

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I can't just unbelieve because I really do believe.
This is where I'm at as well. I hope God is satisfied with my plodding because I feel it's as much as I can do most days/weeks/years.

Well I hope he is, because if he isn't he sure isn't going to be satisfied with my mere hoping.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Hi Ian, glad to see you are still around.

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I have a desire to pray, but no real will.

There are many ways and modes of prayer, perhaps you still need to find yours. But perhaps not. That's where discipline comes in. In my case, I always manage to at least drag myself to Sunday mass and when I kneel there I do have some minutes of prayer. The interesting bit is that this usually is a good experience, but does not necessarily on its own motivate me to pray at other times. So it really is the discipline, or perhaps the habit, that creates the mental space for getting into prayer. So if I wanted to "push harder" on prayer, I would not primarily look to find something super-motivating or über-inspirational. I would look at establishing a new routine by sheer discipline, until there's a new habitual space formed for my mind to relax into.

I don't think that this is psychologically really all that different from trying to convince yourself to do some sports in order to lose some weight. Good motivations rarely overcome inertia for more than a handful of attempts.

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I can't see how my faith impacts anything I do or the way I think/act.

Well, you are posting here about matter of faith. You also appear to be cluttering your rooms with icons. Etc. If that's not an impact of faith on the way you think/act, then I don't know what it is...

Perhaps you are looking for something grander? Or more expressly charitable? (That dissatisfaction is by the way of course also faith impacting on the way you think.) Well, on one hand not everybody is cut out for the heroic sanctity of the canonised saints. Personally, I'd happily settle for scraping into heaven. And on the other hand, I think the above applies. If you want to get into "doing good", say, then have your own discipline kick your own arse into establishing some new routine (serving at the soup kitchen or whatever it might be). Once you are established in a new behavioural pattern, you might well find that it all flows quite smoothly. But you should not expect your faith to be so strong to literally rip you out of your current habits, revolutionise your life and make you all amazing Christ-like in one go. Ask of your faith to help you with the discipline that will establish one new habit of your choosing. Faith can move mountains (Matt 17:20), but note that Jesus did not talk about the means there. I imagine if one of the apostle's had had the wits to ask for a demonstration, Jesus would have pointed at a shovel, pickaxe and wheelbarrow, and said "Well, get cracking."

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I get no joy from hearing about others' delight in Christ.

If my son tells me "I had a great meal", I feel joy - because it is my son, and him feeling good makes me feel good. If a random stranger tells me this, then I will make some polite noises (and perhaps mentally make a note where this great meal could be had). All this is really saying then is that you are not overly invested in your Christian brothers and sisters. Frankly, that's fine. Again, it would perhaps be ideal if all and sundry were spiritually near and dear to your heart. But perhaps rather start with one or two people you actually really like and connect to strongly anyway. If you feel joyful if they find joy in Christ, you can go on to add other people. And perhaps that starts to become a habit through which eventually you can embrace the world. Or perhaps not. Perhaps working on some other habit is better for you. And again, heroic sanctity is not the norm by which we all are measured.

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
It seems I am more in love with a nice organ tune and hymn than God. Or a nice Orthodox service of Vespers with poetic words and imagery. But taking on board the meaning, forming a relationship, and -- God forbid! -- taking on board a cross? No thanks.

Is this some kind of "no pain, no gain" thinking? So you do have something Christian that you actually enjoy, but you are suspicious of not suffering enough? Well, what the heck - it's not as if the Christian tradition does not offer plenty of methods for introducing some ... challenge to one's life. I'm happy to discuss some appropriate mortification here, but perhaps it would be better to organically grow the challenge out of the enjoyment? So, start singing (whether alone at home or in a choir). Compose poems to God. Help with preparing a service. Etc. If you feel that that is too easy, we can always discuss wearing a cilice or something of that sort.

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I'll read a spiritual book over the Bible anytime: the Bible, for all its beauty, inspires nothing and no reaction in me.

To be blunt, so what? Who says that religion is all fun and games? If you think that you should read the bible, then read the bible. If your really are so untouched, then we have just found the perfect mortification for you: a one year bible reading plan. Follow it every day, by the force of discipline at least initially, and we will see what happens if you carry that particular cross to the finish line. Maybe nothing, maybe something, but it is certainly a God-fearing thing to do.

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Yet, oddly, I do deeply believe it all: Virgin Birth, physical Resurrection and Ascension. Yet I'm not sure what impact this has.

So your faith is stronger than that of about 90% of Christians, I would say. Perhaps rejoice a little bit in that, before going back to beating yourself up about those parts of the Christian life where you are not in the top 10%?

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Is it time to throw in the towel? Is there something wrong with me [excluding psychological nuttery]? Am I to be damned? I really do not know. All I know is I think I've been a fraud these last 15 years. Does/Has anyone feel/felt similar? What did you do? Or, from an outside perspective, if you can make sense of it all, what do you think?

I feel like a fraud much of the time about many things, including my religious activities. But I've learned by experience that if I ignore the naysaying chatter in my head, calmly identify targets, make plans and follow through, I typically end up in a situation where other people tell me loudly enough how well I'm doing to drown out the self-doubt. And where it doesn't work out, self-doubt gets replaced by self-knowledge. Of weakness. That does not feel good, but is helpful.

Anyway, do what you must. But lead with your true mind, not with the chatter. And think small but persistent if you are in a tough spot, grand designs are best made when one is on the top of the world. Good luck.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:
“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! (Revelation 3:15, ESV)

I've often heard people use this verse to advocate the heat of personal religious zeal. I don't think it's about that. It's addressed to a church community, the corporate body of Christ in a given city. In fact, it's addressed to the angel of a church; the corporate personality of a local gathering of Christians.

Jesus wants the Christian community to be cold or hot, but not lukewarm. But it's not about the virtues of a white hot faith. It's more to do with something being what it should be: the first cup of tea of the day should be hot. If it's lukewarm it's not fit for purpose. A can of coke on a summer's day should be ice cold. If it's lukewarm, it's just not refreshing. The church should be what the church is supposed to be, not lukewarm.

IMO, it's lukewarmness in the community of faith that Jesus finds distasteful, not spiritual struggles in the individual Christian. In other words, lukewarmness is a corporate sin, not so much an individual one. This lukewarmness isn't about personal piety or spiritual passion; it's about corporate purpose in the body of Christ.

So to the OP: I think it's time to stop calling yourself a Christian if you have no sense of shared Christ-centred purpose with those whom God has placed you in a local church. In other words, when you've passion for the purpose and mission of the church.

[ 21. January 2014, 12:53: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Excellent advice, IngoB.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It's a very black and white theology that demands you call yourself 'A Christian' or 'Not a Christian' - perhaps there is another name, which people who are going through a change or crisis in their faith can use, which might be a better fit. 'Lapsed Christian', 'Confused Christian', 'Questioning Christian', 'Former Christian', 'Agnostic' - maybe you can think of others. These show that you are still flexible and might find a way back if circumstances change, rather than burning bridges and deciding to give it all up.

[ 21. January 2014, 16:05: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

How about puling moribund Christian?

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Ian Climacus

I think I can bring a different spin to this, as I'm a former Christian, now-atheist.

I went through phases like what you describe, but that is not what took me out of being a Christian. What took me out was stopping believing in the things you DO believe. I do not believe in the virgin-birth, miracles, etc etc.

I did/do relate to "I can't see how my faith impacts anything I do or the way I think/act. I get no joy from hearing about others' delight in Christ." Completely.

You sound like a "Believer" to me, and specifically a Christian Believer. I definitely don't think there is anything "wrong" with you. I think a lot of Christians go through dark nights and think they are alone in that. Us non-Christians do. I think that is being human.

I would say this....when you stop believing in Virgin Births, and such, then you probably aren't a Christian anymore, and are then an agnostic/atheist/None.

Just my tuppence.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

If someone you recognised as Jesus knocked on your door, would you invite Him in for tea and talk, or slam the door in His face ?

Did He not say something like "He who is not against me is for me" ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Mt 12:30 has "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Which is close, but not exactly the same.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I think IngoB is on the money here. Should I be worried? [Biased]

Speaking as someone with chronic depression, I often have similar times like the OP - intellectually I believe but there is no feeling there. I just trust that God can use me regardless of where I am at, that His mercy does not rely on me (thank goodness!) and that faith the size of a mustard seed is good enough for Jesus, so it's not for me to beat myself up about it.

I do think that more strictly sola fidei positions can, ironically, turn faith into a work and this is unhelpful.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Mt 12:30 has "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Which is close, but not exactly the same.

But Mark 9:40 has "Whoever is not against us is for us."

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Thanks TSA and Ingo for the welcome; nice to see familiar, and new!, faces.

Thanks again to all for the comments: and thanks Ingo for the comprehensive reply and pointing out quite a few things I need to ponder before I could even reply... And things to try to put into effect. I will decline the cilice though. [Smile]

Much appreciated again, all: thank you for sharing your experiences, suggestions and thoughts.

Jade Constable's bringing up of depression probably has me thinking that, and my personality, may play some part. But that's for another place.

Daron: thanks for the thoughts on that passage. I was confused by your last paragraph, though, and perhaps this is where an issue may be:

quote:
I think it's time to stop calling yourself a Christian if you have no sense of shared Christ-centred purpose with those whom God has placed you in a local church. In other words, when you've passion for the purpose and mission of the church.

What do you see as "the purpose and mission of the church" and how does this link with the "local church"? I'm not sure I share a "Christ-centred" purpose...perhaps I do and do not realise it. I do not think of it much: I tend to go as I find glorifying God a proper response to His creating and sustaining me, Church is a gathering where we can do this corporately and get encouragement, and I do rather enjoy it besides that mostly.

I ask on "local church"...though perhaps more for the All Saints thread but I have not darkened "my" church for sometime as much as I want to, sneaking into the back row of the Anglican cathedral nearby or a local Catholic church so I can remain anonymous due to various anxiety issues: and escape as soon as the service is over. I was helping at my parish in reading, (poorly) chanting, cleaning on odd days before Feasts, and assisting in the altar for Liturgy: but I got to a point where I felt like a fraud/bad example and thus I-should-not-be-there and my anxiety kicked in. I do miss it in some respect. But Ingo and others above have given me some thoughts there so no need to rehash it.

[ 22. January 2014, 03:09: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is where I'm at as well. I hope God is satisfied with my plodding because I feel it's as much as I can do most days/weeks/years.
Well I hope he is, because if he isn't he sure isn't going to be satisfied with my mere hoping.

Well if God is a homicidal bastard, there's not much I could do to please him anyway. If he requires on-fire nonstop hardcore excitement faith, he needs to give me a little more to go on, or turn me into the sort of person who can manufacture that kind of faith from whole cloth.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think this is probably AS rather than Purg. Recently discovered the Doubting thread and the very recent Journey Back thread there. But this one's rather good innit!

I'm going to leave it here pro tem for the more general serious discussion which can indeed include some constructive personal experiences. If another Purg Host or AS Host, thinks the other place is better, I doubt whether my position is defensible!

Meanwhile, carry on please!

B62, Purg Host.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

RealLivePreacher crystallised it for me in "I may not (always) have faith, but I can be faithful."

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Daron: thanks for the thoughts on that passage. I was confused by your last paragraph, though, and perhaps this is where an issue may be:

quote:
I think it's time to stop calling yourself a Christian if you have no sense of shared Christ-centred purpose with those whom God has placed you in a local church. In other words, when you've passion for the purpose and mission of the church.
What do you see as "the purpose and mission of the church" and how does this link with the "local church"? I'm not sure I share a "Christ-centred" purpose...perhaps I do and do not realise it. I do not think of it much: I tend to go as I find glorifying God a proper response to His creating and sustaining me, Church is a gathering where we can do this corporately and get encouragement, and I do rather enjoy it besides that mostly.

I ask on "local church"...though perhaps more for the All Saints thread but I have not darkened "my" church for sometime as much as I want to, sneaking into the back row of the Anglican cathedral nearby or a local Catholic church so I can remain anonymous due to various anxiety issues: and escape as soon as the service is over. I was helping at my parish in reading, (poorly) chanting, cleaning on odd days before Feasts, and assisting in the altar for Liturgy: but I got to a point where I felt like a fraud/bad example and thus I-should-not-be-there and my anxiety kicked in. I do miss it in some respect. But Ingo and others above have given me some thoughts there so no need to rehash it.

My apologies. I missed the edit window after noticing a typo in that paragraph. It should have read:

quote:
I think it's time to stop calling yourself a Christian if you have no sense of shared Christ-centred purpose with those whom God has placed you in a local church. In other words, when you've got no passion for the purpose and mission of the church, it's time to stop calling yourself a Christian.

I think the purpose and mission of the church is to make disciples of Christ; baptised people who being taught to obey Christ's teachings. It is the duty and privilege of every local gathering of Christians to work together in this mission of drawing people into the eucharistic community and seeing them brought to maturity in Christ. In this way we begin to see the gospel as being about more than our personal piety and religious observance. It starts being about Jesus and his mission of transformative love in the world.

IMO, it's not possible to be an active participant in this mission simply by attending acts of worship anonymously. That would simply be form with no substance, whereas the true substance of the faith exists chiefly in what I would call missiological koinonia - fellowship in mission.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Personally, I would never advise someone to stop calling themselves a Christian. If they are hanging on to the edge of a cliff by their fingernails it isn't going to help them to stamp on their hands.

Ian - any old halfwit can be a Christian when they are filled with the love of Jesus and humanity. Going through the motions when you are just plain tired and feeling an utter fraud is what sorts out the time wasters from the real deal. You hang on in there brother.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Thank you for all the wonderful posts on this thread. You are all so helpful sometimes, and maybe you don't even know you're doing it.

Ian: The next time I'm sat at the keyboard in Mass wondering what on earth I'm doing and why, I'm going to imagine I'm playing for you, sitting in the back row.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
IMO, it's not possible to be an active participant in this mission simply by attending acts of worship anonymously. That would simply be form with no substance, whereas the true substance of the faith exists chiefly in what I would call missiological koinonia - fellowship in mission.

Sometimes it's not possible or necessary to be an active participant. Which is what the OP is about. Does one remain a passive participant, or piss off? You seem to be saying, "piss off."

I'd say the "substance of the faith" (an odd expression I've never seen either in Scripture or in Tradition) relates very strongly to the first couplet of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Re daronmedway quote: I would disagree about that - if you are unsure in your faith but keep attending anyway, you are acting as a huge encouragement to other people who are beginning to get disheartened. They would be even more disheartened if they were the only person, or one of a handful of people to turn up. Seeing others also there is tremendously helpful.

[ 22. January 2014, 16:17: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

It also raises the chances for you to be encouraged by something at church - stopping attending because you are doubting will only increase the doubt, and I can't really believe that any Christian would prefer a doubter to fall away totally - unless it's some Calvinist way of proving that they are not Elect. A bit shitty either way.

Lots of people stay at the sidelines because that's all they can cope with, and church still acts as a conduit for God's grace for them.

Of course, making sure it's not the individual church causing the doubting is also necessary.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
IMO, it's not possible to be an active participant in this mission simply by attending acts of worship anonymously. That would simply be form with no substance, whereas the true substance of the faith exists chiefly in what I would call missiological koinonia - fellowship in mission.
Sometimes it's not possible or necessary to be an active participant. Which is what the OP is about. Does one remain a passive participant, or piss off? You seem to be saying, "piss off."

I haven't put any positive minimum requirement for what I think constitutes participation as yet. But I'm inclined to think that habitually sitting at the back during public worship and then slipping out without speaking to anyone doesn't constitute meaningful fellowship as the NT seems to define it. That doesn't mean that I think people who do that should go away. On contrary, I think they should be shown hospitality and invited into closer fellowship.

quote:
I'd say the "substance of the faith" (an odd expression I've never seen either in Scripture or in Tradition) relates very strongly to the first couplet of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Yes, I think the chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. But as Lewis says,

quote:
I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation.

This, I think, expresses the inherently missiological nature of truly enjoying God. We don't just praise God to God. We praise God to others. And this, essentially, is mission.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Re daronmedway quote: I would disagree about that - if you are unsure in your faith but keep attending anyway, you are acting as a huge encouragement to other people who are beginning to get disheartened. They would be even more disheartened if they were the only person, or one of a handful of people to turn up. Seeing others also there is tremendously helpful.

I dunno - I guess people just think differently. The above sounds to me to be on a similar plane to advice given to family members to just plaster on a smile and keep going in order to avoid making others upset. The problem with this approach is that it's entirely possible that everyone is wearing a plastered on smile, and no issues are ever approached or resolved.

Obviously I am speaking from my own experience here somewhat, and, back when I was going to church, I frequently used to look around and think to myself, 'are you all happy with this? Not dragging yourself here by the collar every week? No questions? No doubts? No rage and rebellion? No? Just me, then. Oh well.' Now that's disheartening.

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

You can call yourself what you want. If you find that terming yourself "Christian" helps to give some focus or form to your faith, then stick with it. The label are not important, what is important is that you are seeking to grow spiritually.

I left church 2 years ago. I still call myself a Christian and an evangelical, although there are those who would disagree with that (see my blog for why I hang onto the evo label). For me, it still defines what I believe better than anything else.

The point is not to fit a mold, not to be what others want or expect you to be. The point of an authentic spiritual life - whether defined as Christian or not - is to be moving, growing, changing, challenging. For me, leaving church was the best way to do that. Maybe for you, starting this thread, and exploring what the label means is yours.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Ian Climacus

I think I can bring a different spin to this, as I'm a former Christian, now-atheist.

I went through phases like what you describe, but that is not what took me out of being a Christian. What took me out was stopping believing in the things you DO believe. I do not believe in the virgin-birth, miracles, etc etc.

I did/do relate to "I can't see how my faith impacts anything I do or the way I think/act. I get no joy from hearing about others' delight in Christ." Completely.

You sound like a "Believer" to me, and specifically a Christian Believer. I definitely don't think there is anything "wrong" with you. I think a lot of Christians go through dark nights and think they are alone in that. Us non-Christians do. I think that is being human.

I would say this....when you stop believing in Virgin Births, and such, then you probably aren't a Christian anymore, and are then an agnostic/atheist/None.

Just my tuppence.

Yep. And if it happens, you'll know, you won't have to agonise over it.

Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
I think it's time to stop calling yourself a Christian if you have no sense of shared Christ-centred purpose with those whom God has placed you in a local church. In other words, when you've got no passion for the purpose and mission of the church, it's time to stop calling yourself a Christian.
I think the purpose and mission of the church is to make disciples of Christ; baptised people who being taught to obey Christ's teachings. It is the duty and privilege of every local gathering of Christians to work together in this mission of drawing people into the eucharistic community and seeing them brought to maturity in Christ. In this way we begin to see the gospel as being about more than our personal piety and religious observance. It starts being about Jesus and his mission of transformative love in the world.

IMO, it's not possible to be an active participant in this mission simply by attending acts of worship anonymously. That would simply be form with no substance, whereas the true substance of the faith exists chiefly in what I would call missiological koinonia - fellowship in mission.

On the whole, I can see what you're saying, and I can see how it applies to many people most of the time. I'm not convinced that you can turn it into a rule of thumb in order to define who is "out", though.

One issue I have is with the word "passion", which IMO qualifies for one of the most overused words of the decade. I have an upcoming job interview, and my theoretical answer to the question "what are you passionate about?" is "If you are looking for someone with passion, I am not the person for the job. I am the yin to passion's yang. My aim to is to be reliable, dependable, trustworthy in all aspects of my job, and to do it well, but I do not call this aim a passion."

Of course we need passionate people - but we also need the people who keep on going when wrongly directed passion has caused damage, when the fires of enthusiasm have burnt out, when the clashes between the dynamos in opposing camps have split the church.

quote:
IMO, it's not possible to be an active participant in this mission simply by attending acts of worship anonymously. That would simply be form with no substance

I realise you've qualified this with IMO, and I agree that there is some truth to it. However I can think of a lot of counterexamples - especially shy or introverted people in particular contexts.

One example - in my past I travelled a lot, and often attended local churches, sometimes without speaking to anyone afterwards. Travelling can be an opportunity to have in depth conversations with random strangers, sometimes pertaining to religion - so any "evangelising" I did on my travels was independent of the local church, yet my faith had been built up by my anonymous attendance there.

Another example - elderly people might find the church they have attended for decades has changed beyond all recognition. The friends who used to greet them have died, they can't hear the names of new people (let alone follow a conversation) in the buzz of the after-church-coffee crowd, so they don't stay to chat. The mission programmes are all aimed at families with young children. The attendance of these elderly people at church does not deserve to be labelled as form with no substance.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Fair point, LucyP, using the word "passion" was lazy of me. I mean, there are chefs on TV these days who claim to be "passionate" about salt-baked turnips.

Regarding the participation of older people in mission, and at the risk of further cliche, the majority of the praying in many churches is done by them. And yes, I do think prayer is essential to mission.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Thanks for expanding your reply daron; need to think more on it all -- and everyone else's thoughts and responses which I appreciate. So much swirling around I cannot form a reply yet.

Thanks also to those who are in similar situations, and in particular those who have left church or Christianity and posted: I appreciate you sharing your journey and thoughts, and it gives me some guidance as to where I am.

And thanks Erroneous Monk : those who play the organ need many [Overused]

imnsho.

Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :

Thanks for clarifying, Daron. And best wishes to Ian and to all those on the fringes who are not sure where, or if, they fit (from a fellow fringe dweller).

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
IMO, it's not possible to be an active participant in this mission simply by attending acts of worship anonymously. That would simply be form with no substance, whereas the true substance of the faith exists chiefly in what I would call missiological koinonia - fellowship in mission.

Am I reading this correctly? If we don't agree with you that this "fellowship in mission" is the essential purpose of church-going, and indeed of Christianity itself, we might as well consider ourselves somehow defective and not worthy of pretending to be a Christian?

That seems quite a stretch from the text (and context) of the relevant passage from Revelation. I am a member of an Episcopal church who attends and communes regularly, more than tithes to parish and diocese, and is affable to all. I admit that I would probably attend less often, if it were not for my partner, who is genuinely fond of church membership. I am not naturally fond of these things and never have been. There are other kinds of spirituality. There are also other institutions -- those involved in the arts, for example -- that do much that is valuable and elevate the spirit at the same time. But I walk the walk in church, and do so much more than might be natural or comfortable.

Knowing that there are self-defined Christians who would still feel that my kind of church-going -- and those of the writer of the OP -- deserve being vomited (or spit) up, in the words of Revelation, hardly makes me want to join that club.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I can understand daronmedway's position. St. Paul himself had high expectations of Christians gathering together to support, encourage and edify each other, but this is hard to achieve when Christians prefer to stay on the fringes.

Moreover, the church in the UK is in a much more challenging situation than it is in the USA. Small congregations here are frequently overwhelmed by both internal and external needs, and there are almost always too few hands at the plough, leading to strain and burnout for those who do invest time and effort in church life. This was a serious issue at my last and now defunct (Methodist) church, where I was one of the church stewards. Many occasional or fringe churchgoers seem unaware of these problems.

In my time of transition (to what?) the CofE has graciously welcomed me in as a non-committed pew-dwelling worshipper, but I know from my own experience, etc., that this isn't going to keep these churches alive for the next 20+ years. I'm much more committed to the Friday fellowship I attend, but still....

Getting back on topic, sometimes I wonder if I have enough faith to justify calling myself a Christian. One thing I do know is that I feel very sad when I hear people disparaging Christianity, especially when they mock the name of Jesus Christ.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

Ian C said:

quote:
Yet, oddly, I do deeply believe it all: Virgin Birth, physical Resurrection and Ascension. Yet I'm not sure what impact this has.

Now I don't believe in the virgin birth etc and I certainly regard myself as a christian.
I do believe in the Something More that we call God, which is the meaning of our existence and the source of the impulse to love; and in what we learn from Jesus the Galilean, who had the greatest understanding of God – even if he expressed it in the terms of another worldview than mine.
My faith leads me to constantly seek God in many ways and in many places, but often in the company of other christians, whose actual beliefs might be quite different from mine.

GG

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
IMO, it's not possible to be an active participant in this mission simply by attending acts of worship anonymously. That would simply be form with no substance, whereas the true substance of the faith exists chiefly in what I would call missiological koinonia - fellowship in mission.
Am I reading this correctly? If we don't agree with you that this "fellowship in mission" is the essential purpose of church-going, and indeed of Christianity itself, we might as well consider ourselves somehow defective and not worthy of pretending to be a Christian?

On the basis of my understanding of Scripture I define a local church as a eucharistic and missional community of baptised Christians who gather regularly to worship God through Jesus Christ, to be taught and exhorted from Holy Scripture under the guidance of duly ordained leadership.

The missional aspect of that definition comes from a conviction that Jesus' charge to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19-20 can rightly be extended to the Apostolic church in every age. So, in answer your question, no I don't think you have to agree with my personal definition of fellowship in mission to qualify as Christian, but I do think you would have to convince me that I'm reading Matthew 29:19-20 incorrectly for me remove it from my definition of the local church.

And by extension, I would be inclined to question your commitment to obeying the teachings of Jesus (which I assume Christians wish to do) if you rejected his command in Matthew 28:19-20 without having an sound argument as to why such an action is permissible for Christians to do.

[ 23. January 2014, 08:01: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

Ian C said:

quote:
Yet, oddly, I do deeply believe it all: Virgin Birth, physical Resurrection and Ascension. Yet I'm not sure what impact this has.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Daronmedway, I don’t know if you’ve ever been depressed. But your comment about enjoyment is telling to me. I have only ever experienced mild depression (in response to colossal stress, and not requiring medication etc.), but for me one of its defining characteristics is precisely that it robs you of the ability to enjoy *anything*. Depression IME = one giant world of “meh, who cares?” Even in response to stuff that I usually really enjoy and feel excited about.

Talking to a depressed person about enjoying God, church or indeed anything else feels a bit unfair to me.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Going back to the OP - I'm curious as to when and in what context people call themselves Christian.

I describe myself as a churchgoer: if someone takes the line that I have to be because of what I do for a living, then I stress that I'd go to a church anyway, but a Christian - not a description I use, perhaps because conscious of failing to live up to the ideal?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Personally speaking it was when I decided I didn't want to base so many of my decisions and world view on faith. I needed a system where I could understand, work out, weigh up the evidence and then say, "With the evidence at hand this looks like the best decision to make".

I got a bit uncomfortable with "I ought to believe this" and much prefer "What I see leads me to believe".

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Personally speaking it was when I decided I didn't want to base so many of my decisions and world view on faith. I needed a system where I could understand, work out, weigh up the evidence and then say, "With the evidence at hand this looks like the best decision to make".

I got a bit uncomfortable with "I ought to believe this" and much prefer "What I see leads me to believe".

Yes. I got uncomfortable with guesses, I suppose. But I suppose that all accounts of reality are guesses, aren't they? <fades off into incoherent grumbling, weather, young people, pains in legs, getting old ...>

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

And by extension, I would be inclined to question your commitment to obeying the teachings of Jesus (which I assume Christians wish to do) if you rejected his command in Matthew 28:19-20 without having an sound argument as to why such an action is permissible for Christians to do. [/QB]

Thank you, daronmedway. I expected as much and am glad to have this confirmed.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

daronmedway:

quote:
I would be inclined to question your commitment to obeying the teachings of Jesus (which I assume Christians wish to do) if you rejected his command in Matthew 28:19-20 without having an sound argument as to why such an action is permissible for Christians to do.

I don't often give in to the temptation to proof-text, but I see your Matthew 28:19-20 (a command given to the eleven apostles, not to all of his disciples) and raise you 1 Corinthians 12:4-31. Which may not be Jesus' own words, but ARE addressed to the whole church, not just its leaders.

1 Corinthians 13 is probably relevant here, too.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Daron I think you are confused between what is the ideal of what a Christian should be, and what is acceptable to God because it's the best you can do at a given time. You keep demanding of a bruised and broken Christian that they either shape up or justify why their refusal to shape up is what God wants for all Christians. What you are missing is that someone who can't force themselves into the mold you hold open for them CAN'T. It's not that they refuse to. Clearly you have never been there. Thank God for that. And stop beating other people up.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Daron I think you are confused between what is the ideal of what a Christian should be, and what is acceptable to God because it's the best you can do at a given time. You keep demanding of a bruised and broken Christian that they either shape up or justify why their refusal to shape up is what God wants for all Christians. What you are missing is that someone who can't force themselves into the mold you hold open for them CAN'T. It's not that they refuse to. Clearly you have never been there. Thank God for that. And stop beating other people up.

Wise words. It does seem like an impossibly bracing and muscular Christianity, where weaklings are castigated as not up to it.

I was contrasting some of the poems by G. M. Hopkins about his despair and helplessness - 'Not, I'll not, carrion comfort, Despair, not feast on thee'.

I thought that being poor in spirit might actually count for something.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I've more than once heard the phrase:

"Christianity: the only religion that kills its own wounded."

I would not have it be so.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Daron I think you are confused between what is the ideal of what a Christian should be, and what is acceptable to God because it's the best you can do at a given time. You keep demanding of a bruised and broken Christian that they either shape up or justify why their refusal to shape up is what God wants for all Christians. What you are missing is that someone who can't force themselves into the mold you hold open for them CAN'T.

I think it would be far, far easier to give up if things were as cut and dried as daronmedway suggests. In fact, I would have given up ages ago if they were. As it is I'm still hanging on by my fingernails.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
daronmedway:
quote:
I would be inclined to question your commitment to obeying the teachings of Jesus (which I assume Christians wish to do) if you rejected his command in Matthew 28:19-20 without having an sound argument as to why such an action is permissible for Christians to do.
I don't often give in to the temptation to proof-text, but I see your Matthew 28:19-20 (a command given to the eleven apostles, not to all of his disciples) and raise you 1 Corinthians 12

My original post addresses this view. I think it's wrong. Attached to the command is a promise. The promise that Jesus will be with them until the very end of the age. This suggests to me that the command to the Apostles also extends to the end of the age and is thereby applicable to the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

daronmedway:

quote:
My original post addresses this view. I think it's wrong.

So, you think I'm wrong. Why should I pay any more attention to your view than you do to mine?

Oh, and what Mousethief said.

[Roll Eyes]

[ 23. January 2014, 18:24: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I rarely call myself a Christian because some bunches of nincompoops have bastardized the word to make it mean fascist flat earth believing anti government moron. I hope someone else might call me one occasionally, nevertheless. That aside ...

IngoB nails it for me. Good God - I haven't fuzzy feelings about faith per se for 30+ years. I have experienced liturgies that have raised my heart to the heavenlies, but sunsets and good books and good movies, too. Don't expect eloquent, passionate, deeply profound ecstasies from this little black duck: I blunder along saying a few prayers, singing a few (magnificent) hymns, preaching a few sermons that I hope help others on this clutzy journey, reaching out clumsy hands to receive the kiss of God in bread and wine, a myriad other drunklike stumblings because ...

... well in my case it's a little easier: I was a fucking basket case in the making before I stumbled into faith, and I sure ain't wanting to go back there. (Psychologists can say what they like about that - I've rarely met a convincingly sane one anyway). But I don't expect it all to be swinging-from-the-chandeliers-wonderful ever again ... It's just that I kinda muttered once to the God I couldn't see that I would blunder along within those divine footprints, and have falteringly crawled, often accidentally, ever since.

Oh ... I guess I wouldn't mind if I have a kind of warm fuzzy beatific vision sometime when I'm in my death throes. Just to get me over the hump, you understand? But there's no guarantees, and I'm more likely to die screaming "fuck shit fuck"* then "Lord have mercy". But this bewildering God can cope, I reckon.

*That based on the experience of being hauled out of a swimming pool with double leg cramps this week.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Daron I think you are confused between what is the ideal of what a Christian should be, and what is acceptable to God because it's the best you can do at a given time. You keep demanding of a bruised and broken Christian that they either shape up or justify why their refusal to shape up is what God wants for all Christians. What you are missing is that someone who can't force themselves into the mold you hold open for them CAN'T. It's not that they refuse to. Clearly you have never been there. Thank God for that. And stop beating other people up.

I don't want to beat anyone up, least of all Ian. That's truly not my intention and I'm sorry if that's how I've come across. What I'm suggesting is that the type of fellowship one gets from being an active part of the Eucharistic and missional community with a sense of shared corporate purpose beyond the scruples of personal piety can be the perfect antidote to the private and internal spiritual anxiety that Ian has described. In short, Christians are called to spur one another on to love and good deeds. But that spurring on should take the form of "together we can do it", not just "you can do it".

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
daronmedway:
quote:
My original post addresses this view. I think it's wrong.
So, you think I'm wrong. Why should I pay any more attention to your view than you do to mine?

You don't have to agree with someone to pay attention to their view. And paying attention someone's view shouldn't necessarily lead to bland agreement. What it requires, I think, is civility and a willingness to explain why one holds a particular view over against other views being presented in the debate.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't want to beat anyone up, least of all Ian. That's truly not my intention and I'm sorry if that's how I've come across.

Thank you.

quote:
What I'm suggesting is that the type of fellowship one gets from being an active part of the Eucharistic and missional community with a sense of shared corporate purpose beyond the scruples of personal piety can be the perfect antidote to the private and internal spiritual anxiety that Ian has described.

Doubtless. But you're still not coming to grips with the fact that some people just aren't able to take such an active part. It's like saying, "depressed people would be so much better off with five to twenty minutes of aerobic exercise every day." Well, sure. But when you're in the throws of a major depressive episode, it's hard enough to drag yourself out of bed, let alone do twenty minutes of aerobic exercise. You don't appear to have a place in your theory for people who aren't yet up to exercising.

quote:
In short, Christians are called to spur one another on to love and good deeds. But that spurring on should take the form of "together we can do it", not just "you can do it".

I'd say before "together we can do it," which implies a we-ness that may not exist or that the person may not feel, should come "Can I help you in any way?" or "I'm here if you ever need to talk." Expressions of there-for-you-ness, that acknowledge a person may be in a hard place but don't try to "fix" things for the person or supply unwanted advice, if they are perceived as sincere and well-meaning, may be just what the doctor ordered. "By golly we can do this together" messages, maybe no to much so. In large part it depends on how well you know the person. You may know that what they need is a little "let's git 'er done." But in absence of such knowledge, a gentler approach is probably warranted.

In short, again, sometimes people who are just getting by spiritually just need a space where they can just get by for a while.

Madeleine L'Engle interprets the verse "Bear one another's burdens" to go so far as to mean that when a person gets so low they can't even believe in God or Jesus, the rest of the body can bear them up and believe on their behalf, until they're able to believe again. That strikes me as a better model than, "You know, you're not being very missional right now."

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've more than once heard the phrase:

"Christianity: the only religion that kills its own wounded."

I would not have it be so.

That is definitely a danger, isn't it? Because my own experience was very different, I know it's not always true, and not sure how frequently it is true. But I'm with you, mousethief, in believing it should never be true.

The saying I do recall in this context is that Jesus came to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. He sure didn't come to afflict the afflicted.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've more than once heard the phrase:

"Christianity: the only religion that kills its own wounded."

I would not have it be so.

Perhaps it's because of Jesus himself rejecting his own followers in Matthew 7:21-23. Does Mohammed say anything similar to this in the Quran? What about the Hindus?

I'm not pointing the finger at anyone else (four would point back at me, etc.), but Jesus wasn't always indulgent. I suppose we just have to hope he meant someone else, not us!

[Eek!]

[ 23. January 2014, 22:22: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

In context, SvitlanaV2, Jesus is warning the self-righteous and judgmental, not the wounded. In respect of mousethief's quote, it is not the wounded who need to repent, but the self-righteous who put them down.

I always remember Paul Simon at this point.

"In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade
And he carries the reminders
Of every blow that laid him down or cut him
Til he cried out, in his anger and his pain
'I am leaving, I am leaving'
but the fighter still remains"

Sometimes the fight just gets knocked so much out of wounded folks that their only option is to run away. And I always hope that some of the fighter remains, so that they do not fall into complete despair.

The visible church can sometimes do that to people. I don't think Jesus is very pleased when it does. IMO perpetrators had better look out. Not much room for complacency in their following of Jesus on that point. They've screwed up.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I take your point.

I do find mousethief's quote fascinating, though. Why is Christianity like this but not other religions? Does Christianity generate self-righteousness whereas other religions don't? Are Christian institutions inherently less compassionate to the wounded than religious institutions elsewhere? Why would this be?

These aren't questions for you (or anyone) to answer, but they perhaps lead to disturbing conclusions in themselves regarding Christianity's suitability as a religion for the wounded. Perhaps it's too easy for Christianity to be all things to all (wo)men, which undermines its ability to speak with a clear voice on behalf of certain groups even as it attempts to do so. This malleability is both a blessing and a curse.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I prefer to think of it as something that sometimes gets forgotten, or mislaid. "See how these Christians love one another" started off as an awed compliment. Maybe not so much these days? We can always rediscover what has always been there in standing orders.

Gee D quoted this in another context.

"A new commandment I give unto you that you love one another as I have loved you".

Its the agape-love there; this one

quote:
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Sometimes I think there's just a little bit of "rejoicing" in other folks failings, or difficulties. "Lord I thank you that I am not like this one next to me " The sense that at least "I'm further up the pecking order than that".

The rebuke against that was also in the standing orders. Better learn to be kind at least and stuff any expression of condescension right at the bottom of the sock drawer. Even better, just throw it out. The sock is full of holes, throw it away.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

daronmedway:

quote:
You don't have to agree with someone to pay attention to their view. And paying attention someone's view shouldn't necessarily lead to bland agreement. What it requires, I think, is civility and a willingness to explain why one holds a particular view over against other views being presented in the debate.

Yes, you're right. I apologise for the tone of my previous post; composed at a bad moment.

But I still agree with Mousethief and Barnabas62. Not everyone has the skills to go out and 'make disciples of all the nations'. 1 Corinthians, which goes into more detail about how a church should be organised than Matthew (for obvious reasons), doesn't say they should. You can't tell just by looking at the people who turn up and polish a pew with their backside for an hour on Sunday whether they are wrestling with personal demons and holding on to faith by their fingernails, devoutly spending the rest of the week in private prayer or so busy with other voluntary work that they don't have time for extra church activities but they are showing Christ's love to the wider community. By contrast, someone who is frantically busy with study groups and various other church stuff every evening of the week may be trying to conceal the fact that their faith is wobbling, or too busy to really think about what they're doing, or even (in Britain) cynically going through the motions to get their children into the local religious school.

The first group may look lukewarm to you; the second may seem to be on fire with the Spirit. But what matters is how God sees them, and I am not comfortable trying to second-guess Him.

[ 24. January 2014, 08:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"See how these Christians love one another" started off as an awed compliment. Maybe not so much these days? We can always rediscover what has always been there in standing orders.

In those days I suppose persecution or the threat of persecution concentrated the mind. People argued about doctrine, but the religion hadn't been around long enough to create a large army of doubters on the fringes who didn't know if they belonged or not....

Being practical about it, we in the modern Western world do need the kind of churches where people can hang about on the fringes. Postmodernity means there are shades of grey and not just black and white; some of us want to be both in and out, have a foot in different camps, have the option of a quick withdrawal rather than getting in deep and having trouble extracting ourselves. I'm in this situation myself.

OTOH, as a former church steward I realise that this way of being is inconvenient for the church-as-institution, even if it's very convenient for the individual. Only a certain kind of church, at a certain stage in its life cycle, can happily maintain a fringe while also generating the greater commitment needed to function successfully at another level.

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

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Only a certain kind of church, at a certain stage in its life cycle, can happily maintain a fringe while also generating the greater commitment needed to function successfully at another level.

Why? Surely this would be expected to be Business As Usual?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Only a certain kind of church, at a certain stage in its life cycle, can happily maintain a fringe while also generating the greater commitment needed to function successfully at another level.
Why? Surely this would be expected to be Business As Usual?

In some churches, yes. This is what comes to mind:

It requires a church that's already well supplied with committed volunteers so that it doesn't need to pester people on the fringes to 'get more involved'.

It requires a good source of income (internal or external) so it doesn't have to pester everyone, including those who only come occasionally, to give more money.

It needs to be in the right sort of area so it doesn't feel obliged to run community social projects that require church folk to offer more of their time than just Sunday mornings.

It can't be the kind of church that makes a big deal out of small groups and Bible studies, etc. because that promoting that kind of thing will only alienate the people who just want to turn up to church on their own terms.

Well-heeled CofE congregations (but not too evangelical) probably offer the right kind of environment in the English setting. The Methodists would be okay in theory but they're often desperate for volunteers, so you won't be left alone on the fringes for long if you turn up regularly and show any signs of being personable, fairly intelligent and able-bodied. Similar for the URC I expect.

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

There are challenges, yes, but they will always somehow to be faced, because people on the fringes exist everywhere; I'd suggest any church that doesn't have them is going to see very little in the way of new members.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Obviously, for most churches people on the fringes are welcomed because it's hoped that they can be encouraged into more commitment at some point. (And I understand that some evangelical churches actually have a very high number of non-members, although non-membership there might represent a deeper commitment than simply sitting at the back and wanting to be left in peace.)

But this thread hasn't really been focusing on the fringe as a potential source of new members, but as a state of being, so to speak. Or so ISTM.

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

The Fringe is a bit like the Oort cloud, it seems to me; objects may orbit for years, then one of them dives towards the sun. If it's in luck, it becomes a periodic comet. If it's not, it gets burnt to smithereens. But there's no difference between the objects before their paths are perturbed towards the sun, and they exist in and of themselves, quite apart from their potentiality as comets.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Interestingly enough I find that mission-minded congregations and communities tend to be more pastorally responsive to newcomers and those on the fringe of the fellowship than "pastorally" minded communities. IME, pastorally minded communities can easily degenerate into 'clubs' that exist for the benefit of the inner ring of old timers and power families. The church exists for the pastoral needs of the inner ring.

Conversely, mission minded communities can actually be easier for "outsiders" to find a place in the fellowship. People are actively welcomed into the fellowship and quickly encouraged to participate, contribute and to enjoy the benefits of being included.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Conversely, mission minded communities can actually be easier for "outsiders" to find a place in the fellowship. People are actively welcomed into the fellowship and quickly encouraged to participate, contribute and to enjoy the benefits of being included.

But what about those who do not want "to participate, contribute and to enjoy the benefits of being included" (yet)? Are they allowed to come in at their own pace or badgered every week?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

As SvitlanaV2 has said, being fringe should really be understood as a liminal or transitionary state rather than a permanent state of being. And I don't think being encouraged to understand and embrace one's part in the great commission should be described as badgering.

Of course it takes pastoral sensitivity to discern the difference between a smouldering wick and a pew potato, but that's no reason to avoid the practice regular invitation.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Interestingly enough I find that mission-minded congregations and communities tend to be more pastorally responsive to newcomers and those on the fringe of the fellowship than "pastorally" minded communities. IME, pastorally minded communities can easily degenerate into 'clubs' that exist for the benefit of the inner ring of old timers and power families. The church exists for the pastoral needs of the inner ring.

Conversely, mission minded communities can actually be easier for "outsiders" to find a place in the fellowship. People are actively welcomed into the fellowship and quickly encouraged to participate, contribute and to enjoy the benefits of being included.

I can see this, but as a definite introvert I find the approach of a lot of evangelical churches totally offputting. Being badgered into a home group on the first visit is guaranteed to make an introvert never come back.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being badgered into a home group on the first visit is guaranteed to make an introvert never come back.

Amen

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But this thread hasn't really been focusing on the fringe as a potential source of new members, but as a state of being, so to speak. Or so ISTM.

One of the best insights for my money in that bedside book of ex-charismatics Restoring the Kingdom is the observation (by a housechurch "survivor") that healthy churches need fringe memberships to avoid becoming cults (his housechurch didn't have one). I have always thought there was sense in that and I still do.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I love the way Anne Rice did it: “In the name of Christ… I quit Christianity and being Christian.”

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I love the way Anne Rice did it: “In the name of Christ… I quit Christianity and being Christian.”

Couldn't she just have turned Episcopalian instead? Or Quaker? She could even have started her own church.

Perhaps her point is that since all churches and religions are inherently awful it's best to follow Christ alone, without reference to anyone else.

[ 24. January 2014, 19:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I love the way Anne Rice did it: “In the name of Christ… I quit Christianity and being Christian.”
Couldn't she just have turned Episcopalian instead? Or Quaker? She could even have started her own church.

Perhaps her point is that since all churches and religions are inherently awful it's best to follow Christ alone, without reference to anyone else.

Slightly

at TEC and Quaker being both considered non-Christian! The US still has a significant Christocentric Quaker population (significant within Quakerism that is) btw. Episcopalians are definitely Christians.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

No, you've misunderstood - I wasn't saying that TEC or the Quakers were non-Christian. (American Quakers are closer to Christianity than British ones, so I've read.)

My point was that if she gave up being a Christian because the churches were full of bad things (which is what the link seems to imply) that was unnecessary, because not all Christianity nor all Christians are guilty in the way that she claims. If she'd wanted to, she could have found a more congenial alternative to the RCC.

Obviously she didn't want to, and there must be additional reasons as to why. But I do realise that it can be very difficult to drop one denomination and take up another.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
No, you've misunderstood - I wasn't saying that TEC or the Quakers were non-Christian. (American Quakers are closer to Christianity than British ones, so I've read.)

My point was that if she gave up being a Christian because the churches were full of bad things (which is what the link seems to imply) that was unnecessary, because not all Christianity nor all Christians are guilty in the way that she claims. If she'd wanted to, she could have found a more congenial alternative to the RCC.

Obviously she didn't want to, and there must be additional reasons as to why. But I do realise that it can be very difficult to drop one denomination and take up another.

Whoops - apologies.

IME though, lapsed Catholics often still believe the RCC to be the true church that Jesus founded, they just think it's also horrible.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0