|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A broad (non)church
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
(Having written all this, I'm now seriously pondering about hitting 'Add new thread' as it's all a bit vague. However, I shall chuck it out there and see if there are any echoes!)
One of the things I'm find interesting about the threads on this board is the fellow-feeling, commonality/common identity, and to some extent common experience between people who in other ways appear to have ended up in very different places regarding the nebulous thing "faith".
I'm therefore curious as to how folk see their current 'state' for want of a better word, and the implications of that (although I'm not sure I could answer the "for what" part of implications!).
e.g.
Some folk still identify as Christian/believers in Jesus, but detached/separate/(r)ejected from church[1].
Some have clearly gone from a 'strong'[2] faith or one stripe or another to an atheist (or agnostic?) position.
Some seem to feel they have gone from a 'strong'[2] faith to a 'weak'[2] one, or perhaps conservative to more liberal[3]
Is there a significant difference in chucking in church but keeping Jesus, vs chucking in the whole lot? How does that work out in practice? What precisely is it that one has lost/rejected/given up on?
I appreciate that's a bit vague - I'm struggling to articulate a single clear discussion point, probably because to do so would potentially be overly blunt and focused, and also not fully encompass what's rattling around my skull. It's almost like "What exactly is it that you don't believe?"!
Some of what's behind this meandering is my own increasingly complicated relationship with faith, with 'church' the big faceless Other from "The Church Is ...", with 'church' my local fellowship, and with 'churches' in the sense of any organised and thus tending towards self-perpetuating local body of believers.
At times it feels like a maturing, a developing of nuance, a stripping away of the BS from youthful ignorance, dogmatism and certainty leaving behind a core of refined, concrete-yet-ephemeral truth. At others it feels close to a denial of there being any truth in the core tenants of Christianity[4] at all (which my innermost being simultaneously rebels against and shrugs with a 'Yeah, well, obvs it's mostly bullshit, innit').
[1] Supplementary one: by that does one mean "Church the denominational organisation and system of regularised corporate worship" or "Church, the body of Christ"?
[2] Supplementary two: how the heck does one actually define strong and weak in this context anyway? They're words that are often used, and superficially one feels one has a grasp of them, but if you actually stop and examine them, they seem to slip away into a subjective mish-mash.
[3] Not that I am seeking to equate strong/conservative and weak/liberal; I'm just using them as two different scales for of expression with no assumed correlation between them.
[4] And by extension any religion, because clearly the rest of them are either total fantasist bollocks or at best misguided/misunderstood revelation because, well, you know, Jesus and a Christian background ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
As someone who has gone from sixty years of strong faith to a non-theist position ….
I believe that Jesus existed but whether he was, or which one of the Jesus’s, was the Jesus of the Gospels I have no idea. There probably were several people of that name who preached and did good things. I certainly do not look upon any of them as divine. And I am not at all sure that what they said is unique, so I don’t see any need for me to acknowledge or deny the Jesus of the Gospels (in his human sense). However, my journey found that it was much more difficult to reject the concept of GOD: that took some heart-searching. Strangely …. you know how one of the ‘evangelical’ ideas is that when we come to Jesus we get to know a deep inner peace. That was what it felt like for me when I finally concluded that I had no GOD.
As regards ‘faith’ – I’m still working on what that is. I suspect, but I am not yet sure, that I have no faith. For example, ‘faith’ in the good spirituality that I find in some people? Is that faith? Just because I reject faith in GOD, does that mean I have no spiritual faith? I don’t know – hopefully one day I will solve the question. Or maybe not.
I think there is a big difference between rejecting the church and rejecting the concept of GOD. It is easy, in an intellectual sense ISTM, to believe in GOD and to reject the church – that was one of the stages on my pilgrimage.
My first gut reaction to ‘what is church?’ is that for me it means the whole horrid lot of it. Stopping to think …. the people that make up individual church congregations seem to me, by and large, to be good folk. In the congregation that I know best, I could be critical of some who are lazy, some who don’t stop to think and many who lack any sort of ‘umph’. But there are good, kind, devout people there (who also may be critical of the church) who I love and respect. My reasons for non-attendance are not really to do with the people who are to be found in church.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Snags - I have been trying to formulate a similar starting question, with no success, so I think we can just see if this works out.
I know some people consider what they do as "deconstructing" (from David Hayward, The Naked Pastor). For me, it is not that, it is re-constructing. But for others, this is what they are doing - unpacking where they were and making something else.
Others embrace "Progressive" Christianity or something similar. They call it liberal or whatever, but it is accepting another label to define where they now are. Personally, I have enough labels.
Some people define themselves as SBNR - Spiritual but not Religious. Again, I think this is a label.
For me, I want to talk about spiritual matters with people. and that means listening to people too, and engaging with where they are. I don't really want anything to do with the church and the system, because (for me) it is an abusive system. But I want to help people engage with God (however they understand that). I want people to find themselves.
I also think that the question of "where are you" is a misleading one, because I am on a journey, and (in a very quantum way) I don't necessarily know where I am now until I have moved on. All I can explore is where I was, but know that I am not there now.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Personally, I have enough labels.
[...]
For me, I want to talk about spiritual matters with people. and that means listening to people too, and engaging with where they are. I don't really want anything to do with the church and the system, because (for me) it is an abusive system. But I want to help people engage with God (however they understand that). I want people to find themselves.
But won't most people want to know where you are before they unburden their souls to you? How can you tell them who you are if you refuse to use any labels? Labels seem limiting, but the alternative is often a lot of verbiage that can itself switch people off, I would have thought.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
There is a poster I remember which says something like 'Accept me as I am - only then can we engage together' or something similar. A good place to start, IMO.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
The folks who are wanting to unburden their souls might not be finding any useful labels, either.
Sometimes labels are useful as indicators of your general approach, what you aren't, and/or where your journey has taken you. For example, "I used to think of myself as a Universalist, but now am somewhere between SBNR and Pastafarian". It reminds me of a good friend who was puzzling over whether she was a Buddhist Presbyterian or a Presbyterian Buddhist. In that sense they serve as landmarks to some extent for describing your location and/or path, even if you aren't exactly at one of them.
That's not to say they are required - I generally don't label myself, because I probably couldn't define what that label meant to someone else even if it exactly represented my views this morning. I use "atheist" and sometimes "Taoist" here on the Ship more often because it is a place where we often talk about our spiritual journeys, and they give folks a bit of a sense of at least which quadrant I'm wandering in at the moment, even if I am far afield from what some folks expect from such labels.
How do you share where you are spiritually, especially when your beliefs aren't necessarily consistent or fixed? It's not easy, and certainly requires a lot of listening. At best I think we can get a sense of someone from what seems to be important to them, how they describe themselves, and the experiences that seem to have shaped their view of the world. I accept that I'll never understand someone else's beliefs entirely, because they will probably change in the process, as mine might as well. (And I don't even claim to understand by own beliefs enough to communicate them to someone else.)
If we want to help them on their path, that may not be necessary. Perhaps the best we can do is to allow them to be uncertain, accept that they are more on a path than at a particular point, and help them to be open to whatever they have to learn from the present moment. At times that means encouraging them to take a risk and trust their gut sense when their path appears to take them in an unexpected direction. It could mean sharing pieces of our own journey - not in the expectation that they would have a similar experience, but rather as an example of the openness, trust, wonder, or other attributes contributed to the path that we found / chose for ourselves.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I didn't say I was against labels, just that I have enough. I quite like them, but I don't need more trendy ones just to be accepted.
What I really meant is that I was not wanting just to change one label for another, or add more to my package. I have enough labels to clarify to anyone where I stand. But most of the interesting discussion seems to come when others start by not caring what labels I have.
I wear the labels of Christian, Evangelical, Feminist quite happily, and they do define my position reasonably well, until you start making assumptions about what they mean.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
I can agree with that. A good start to a conversation might be, "what do you mean when you call yourself a <insert label here>".
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think my guiding principle is "who knows, eh?" - the only thing I'm convinced of is that all claims of religious truth must be provisional and uncertain. We cannot, absolutely cannot, know. We can hope. We can suspect. We can even set up useful pious fictions. But we cannot know. Even science cannot know things are true, although it can come as close as damnit to knowing some things aren't ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I think I'm more certain about some aspects of morality and ethics than I am about any theological statement.
So when I doubt things in the creed, it's not that I'm thinking e.g. "I think that actually Mary wasn't a virgin" or "I think Jesus' body stayed in the tomb", it's rather "I do not and can't know whether Mary was a virgin, or whether Jesus really physically rose from the dead." This is why whilst I gain a lot from liberal and progressive sources, I don't quite identify with them as they seem to be positions to subscribe to just as much as TULIP Calvinism or the pronouncements of the Magisterium. Or the Westminster Confession.
Because I don't think that a person can actually know these things, I don't actually think I'm much different from any other Christian in kind, just in degree. So I'm comfortable with continuing to self-identify as Christian, and I'm a member of a somewhat odd but very accepting congregation which is filled, to be honest, with refugees from more enthusiastic, and less inclined to acknowledge uncertainty, traditions within the church.
[ 17. December 2014, 08:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I'm not sure where to put this, but it seems to fit here somewhat, in thinking about what do I have, what don't I have:
Since "coming out" last week with my unbelief on this board (thank you Schroedinger's Cat for thinking up this board!!!!!!), I find myself experiencing immense relief. I was at the rehearsal and then performance for a community Messiah sing these last two days, and it was immensely relieving to just enjoy the music and words, and think about the feeling they give me, and not worry if I believe the right Christian things about these matters.
I suppose it's odd perhaps that given how iconoclastic I can be, that while I was trying to be believing I believed that there was an answer; that it was important to understand what the church has traditionally taught (or the range of things it has traditionally taught) and if I was going to believe something different to have good reasons for it, and that there must be a lack in me that I couldn't believe these things and I couldn't understand people's explanations of them (at least, not in a way that would leave me to think they were in any way believable or merited having faith in), and mostly I just felt inadequate because so much of Christian standard teaching just made less and less sense to me.
But be that as it may, I feel now quite free of that, and quite willing for there to be a range of different answers people have about their faith and belief, and quite free to find my own answers without feeling I ought to be able to cram them into someone else's box.
It's an immense relief.
[ 17. December 2014, 13:07: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Autenrieth Road: I was going to say AMEN! HALLELUJAH!! But I won't.
This is what I said above : quote:
Strangely …. you know how one of the ‘evangelical’ ideas is that when we come to Jesus we get to know a deep inner peace. That was what it felt like for me when I finally concluded that I had no GOD.
I was somewhat surprised - as you sound.
You make me wonder whether there is any way that the things that are being stated on this board, things from the depths of our hearts, can be made known to 'people up there' who are in a position to bring change in church - to make it more acceptable to question; to facilitate diversity; to encourage open-mindedness. Perhaps those who can, do. I suppose it can only be done at a local level. Such radical change in my local church could just get me back. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think my guiding principle is "who knows, eh?"
I think that's a really healthy stance.
But I find myself thinking more and more often "who cares?" - which isn't imo ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I think "Who knows, eh?" is a great approach, also. Boogie - I see what you mean about "Who cares?" - I suppose my response is that "I do." I care in as far as it's important that good, right things are done, even though who does them and why doesn't matter.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I think "Who knows, eh?" is a great approach, also. Boogie - I see what you mean about "Who cares?" - I suppose my response is that "I do." I care in as far as it's important that good, right things are done, even though who does them and why doesn't matter.
Yes, me too.
Sorry, I should have made it clearer. My "who cares?" is about the religious stuff, not life in general ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
I'll drink to that.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Mark Wuntoo, thanks. Every interaction I've been having with religious stuff the last few weeks has been a little strange, as I come to things with a new viewpoint. I don't have any finished ideas; it's all just "huh, that's different, I'll have to reflect on that more." But it's really really really nice, even if quite disorienting.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
It is so nice not to have that nagging anxiety of whether what I was doing was Gods will or not, or whether my doctrine or belief was quite right on a matter or agonising over why I wasn't feeling Gods peace/comfort/whatever else was promised.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
You make me wonder whether there is any way that the things that are being stated on this board, things from the depths of our hearts, can be made known to 'people up there' who are in a position to bring change in church - to make it more acceptable to question; to facilitate diversity; to encourage open-mindedness.
Based on the book Spiritual Pathways which I described on a different thread, I suspect there are people for whom church "works" well. It makes them feel whole, connected, spiritually fulfilled. If so, they see no reason for change and believe those requesting change are "obviously" wrong and threatening to destroy a "really good thing."
In which case the question is not "how can church change" but "how can we who have left (or are in the process of leaving) because it is so dysfunctional for our personality types, how do we find each other so we can share spirituality in ways healthy for us non-church types?
And can we find ways to share spirituality without falling into the habit of mimicking church ways, which we know don't work for us!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Who knows? is a good stance. I makes me so angry when people in the church I am very, very loosely attached to, state things they say are DEFINITELY RIGHT! (ie everyone else is wrong) So little dogma can be proved.
Actually, there is quite a lot of science that can be proved right! And a lot of it counteracts anything said in the Bible (think creation, evolution, etc.)
Do I believe in an afterlife? No, I don't think I do. Do I care, no, I don't. Will I make it to the end of 2015, who knows or cares?
So why is there this teeny tiny niggle at the back of me that spells *hell*?????
Ways of getting rid of that teeny niggle would be gratefully received.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
The surest way of putting hell to bed once and for all is atheism. Lack of belief in God is, as far as I am concerned, accompanied by lack of belief in Satan, both of their homes, and a post-death sheep/goats sorting exercise.
But I recognise that can't simply be done to order. What about this as another way? Try looking at the Bible as a case of history written by the winners. All the badmouthing of the devil and hell is just what you would expect from a winners' history where the aim is to get you to support Side A not Side B. So in the unlikely event that hell actually exists it almost certainly won't be as bad as the Bible makes it out to be.
As usual Edmund Blackadder has some wise words to say on the matter:
quote:
Well, well, let's take Hell: You know, Hell isn't as bad as it's cracked up to be.
No, you see, the thing about Heaven, is that Heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go on in Heaven, like, uh, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot plants...
Whereas Hell, on the other hand, is for people who like the other sorts of things: adultery, pillage, torture -- those areas. Give your lands to the Crown, and once you're dead, you'll have the time of your life!
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beenster
Shipmate
# 242
|
Posted
It hurts my brain to really think about it but I'm a bit of a zeitgeist persona, Jesus slotted into a framework of a messiah / god that had gone before in the forms of Horus, Dionysus and so on. Dec 25 is a significant date for the northern hemisphere as that is the date when the sun begins to lengthen in duration so there is much to look forward to - it is the date that was celebrated for the sun.
I also believe that we are no longer in the age of Pisces - aka Jesus. Think of all those FISH! We are now in the age of aquarius and there will be a new messiah(s) at some point.
I would actually recommend a good old read of Zeitgeist, it puts it better than me and gives me comfort that perhaps I wasn't totally deluded in believing in Jesus at some point.
I do believe in a God / god. I believe in mother earth, I believe in the moon and the love and warmth from her energies. I believe in the sky and the sun and the stars. I believe in animal archetypes who work with us if we let them. And when I really stop and think, I see the Christian god at some point but what I see is much much deeper than that.
I hate saying that as it sounds so patronising towards the christian god but it's not meant as such. More a case of - if it works for you then great but if not, there are other ways of finding things.
As you can see, I think a lot of things and confuse myself but there's so much to ponder and wonder on. At times it drives me nuts but other times it si exciting.
Posts: 1885 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Have to point out that much the Horus/Mithras/Dionysus being precursor to Jesus is modern fantasy.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Have to point out that much the Horus/Mithras/Dionysus being precursor to Jesus is modern fantasy.
Could you expand on this please?
I think it is pretty undeniable that the statues of isis with baby Horus influenced statues of Mary with baby Jesus - although the dying and resurrected god is actually Osiris rather than Horus.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Have to point out that much the Horus/Mithras/Dionysus being precursor to Jesus is modern fantasy.
Could you expand on this please?
I think it is pretty undeniable that the statues of isis with baby Horus influenced statues of Mary with baby Jesus - although the dying and resurrected god is actually Osiris rather than Horus.
As I said, 'much' not 'all'. Some (again not all) of the current crop of mythicists seem to be spinning extra connections out of wishful thinking and too many atheists are falling for it. Isis also was called Queen of Heaven but that title was not unique to her among ancient goddesses.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bob Two-Owls
Shipmate
# 9680
|
Posted
But the Horus/Mithras/Dionysus stuff helps me to cling on to a belief in a divine being rather than going full atheist. The fact that there are things that have been common to so many religions gives me hope that there is someone up there who kicked it all off and who may or may not have an afterlife for us to enter. I have often said that if it were possible to be a Christian and not be a part of any church then I would be one, having a nebulous belief in a divine being is about the only way open to me. Fortunately that divine being can be seen in many other faiths, so I don't feel tied to any one particular way.
Posts: 1262 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I have often said that if it were possible to be a Christian and not be a part of any church then I would be one, having a nebulous belief in a divine being is about the only way open to me.
There must be loads of people who see themselves as Christians without being part of any church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I have often said that if it were possible to be a Christian and not be a part of any church then I would be one, having a nebulous belief in a divine being is about the only way open to me.
There must be loads of people who see themselves as Christians without being part of any church.
Most of my Christian friends, actually. One is a seminary grad who was in training to be a Catholic priest and was months away from vows when he realized he wanted to marry some day. He attends on Christmas and Easter, only. But daily conversations are often about God.
There's also the question "what is a church?" The years I was in a house church only, I got scolded by church-goers for "not attending any church."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bob Two-Owls
Shipmate
# 9680
|
Posted
But my overall experience, including conversations here on The Ship is that being a Christian in isolation from others is impossible. I was told that so often that I came to agree.
Posts: 1262 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, the orthodox position is that Christians who are serious about their faith should meet with each other for mutual spiritual guidance and support. That's what St Paul thought.
In reality, things are more complicated. I.e. what counts as 'church'? Was Paul even talking about people meeting every week at 10.30am on Sunday mornings? Some people feel more can be learnt and taught in informal and casual meetings or conversations.
A more widespread challenge is that church has become a cultural activity from which many people feel alienated. If you don't have the right clothes, come from the right class, have enough money to give, enjoy listening to monologues or feel that you're valued or really learning or sharing anything worthwhile, etc., then the habit of regular churchgoing might seem problematic.
Some feel that once you've learnt the basic Christian message and values, churchgoing has served its major purpose and you can just go about your life, without concerning yourself with the niceties of orthodox doctrines and teachings, or participating in group rituals.
Others see themselves vaguely as 'cultural Christians' due to their ethnicity or ancestral heritage rather than because spiritual matters are of much interest to them.
Obviously, Christians who are committed to spiritual mutuality and development in an orthodox context will stress the importance of churchgoing. But Christianity is also a remarkably individualistic religion to a certain extent. The Bible suggests that we're saved (if I may use that word) as individuals, not in groups. Jesus spoke to groups, but he also spoke to many individuals - and he didn't always insist that they had to join his travelling band.
There's a sense in which lonesomeness is a part of the Christian tradition, that despite churches and mutual support we can really only be known by God. It's sometimes stressed that we should rely on God far more than people - which to some extent undermines the importance of church life. Christianity used to produce hermits who took that to heart, though that way of life seems very unfashionable now.
Having said that, I think one advantage of church life is that it should give us the chance to serve other Christians, and hence serve the Christian cause. Being concerned only about your own spiritual condition seems to be a bit self-centred. It doesn't have to take much; sometimes I feel that simply by sitting in a small corner of an otherwise fairly empty Anglican church I'm giving encouragement to the handful of other worshippers and preacher present.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
One of the things I find confusing about what is posted on this board, is that many of the positions people describe as faithfree or non-Christian, non-theist etc are part of my religious tradition. This is what I mean. So I experience it as a kind of wierd dislocation, when people say I think x ("statement a quaker elder might make in the course of conversation over coffee") and therefore that belief defines me as no longer Christian / religous or faithfree.
[ 06. January 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Doublethink - is it more that people have come to a particular belief that may not be incompatible with all church or faith, but is incompatible with their own church. Yes, they might find a place where that is resolved in another church, but it is just a "final straw", and there are actually a range of other things that are also issues.
I know, for me, the Quakers theology and approach to worship is probably a lot closer to what I believe than most other churches. However, the quiet approach is not for me - I want that theological approach, but with a very different style.
So group X might address my problem Y. However it will then emphasise my problem Z, which will be another X.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The questioning, tolerant Unitarians also have sermons and singing, so they represent another option here. Unfortunately, they don't have a strong contemporary image, and I get the impression that they're actually quite traditional in their own way.
Maybe more post-evangelicals should set up alternative forms of church on behalf of the Quakers and the Unitarians. Now that would be selfless!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe more post-evangelicals should set up alternative forms of church on behalf of the Quakers and the Unitarians. Now that would be selfless!
Don't we have enough now? It sounds more like seeking power to me and selfish.
Or perhaps I misunderstand you?
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I don't know which country you live in, but the UK is hardly overrun with Unitarian churches.
My point was that it's no good complaining that the right sorts of churches don't exist if no one is willing to create them. I'm not arguing for a new denomination, but simply suggesting that more help could be given to the denominations at the most liberal end.
Evangelicals often come from churches that have more experience of church planting, of using modern technology, of developing alternative forms of church, etc.; they could contribute these skills to the most liberal denominations when they leave evangelicalism behind. A bit of googling shows that the British Quakers and Unitarians are currently looking into how they could stimulate growth.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
I'm obviously confused!
By 'alternative' I thought you meant alternative to Unitarian and Quaker - thus a new denomination, or at least a new independent congregation.
Now you seem to be advocating new styles of church within more liberal denominations. But don't churches already do that? Messy Church,Fresh Expressions, even Labyrinths and so on. (Memories of The Nine O'clock Service!)
Here is a link to what Methodism is saying about this.
Not sure why I am posting this - there's no point in having new churches / styles of worship unless there is a GOD. Reminds myself - gods are created by people and they need to do them homage.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
For me it is more that I don't want another church. I am sick of churches. It is SO not that I want a different church, but that I am sick of them all, of the concept as it is shown today.
In the end, it is the things that churches have in common that I have problems with, not the things they differ in.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
By 'alternative' I thought you meant alternative to Unitarian and Quaker - thus a new denomination, or at least a new independent congregation.
Now you seem to be advocating new styles of church within more liberal denominations. But don't churches already do that? Messy Church,Fresh Expressions, even Labyrinths and so
on. (Memories of The Nine O'clock Service!) [...]
The term 'alternative forms of church' tends to refer to new or unusual ways of being church, rather than indicating new denominations. At least, that's what I've always understood.
As for the Nine O'clock Service, I thought that was in an evangelical CofE framework?
I agree with you that Fresh Expressions can be seen as alternative forms of church, but 'FE' normally refers to alternative forms of church in Methodist and CofE contexts. I was specifically talking about the Unitarians and the Quakers, who don't seem to be all that adventurous in the UK. Maybe some of them are, though.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
For me it is more that I don't want another church. I am sick of churches. It is SO not that I want a different church, but that I am sick of them all, of the concept as it is shown today.
In the end, it is the things that churches have in common that I have problems with, not the things they differ in.
So whether or not the Quakers sing or sit in silence is neither here nor there, then.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
The phrase I often use is 'meet me where I am, not where you expect me to be'
In addition, 'not everything that fits in a box is a box'
Both cautioning that expectations and labels can de-personalise.
Is a church a collective of parts, or individuals ? Or both ? Each answer creates a tension of exclusion or inclusion.
Do we find language itself can be a barrier to connection ? Is this the curse of Babel ?
[ 12. January 2015, 11:51: Message edited by: DOEPUBLIC ]
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
For me it is more that I don't want another church. I am sick of churches. It is SO not that I want a different church, but that I am sick of them all, of the concept as it is shown today.
Yup. My problem is with the modern Western church. All of them (that I have seen).
I'm thinking when Paul said don't forsake gathering with fellow Christians he did NOT have in mind anything remotely related to the highly stylized rigid depersonalizing and anti-creativity structure and program of today's "church."
He describes something that sounds more like pot lucks, get together over a meal, the original "eucharist" was part of a meal, like saying "grace" is.
Humans are social animals, and we are influenced by those we spend time with, so Paul may well be advising simply to make sure some of the people you hang out with are Christ-followers, not just your old friends, like we tell former drug addicts to hang out with some non drug users instead of just his former still drug using friends.
The past few months I have I have been showing up only for coffee, chatting with people, then rounding up any who will come - friends, strangers, people I like, people I don't much like - "let's go to lunch." Used to be no one would say yes. Then one. Then two. Now several. (The couples say no, they only socialize with other couples, but lots of widows and widowers attend church. Maybe I'll put in the bulletin "join us for lunch after coffee" to reach more who go home to eat alone.)
Why isn't a relaxed lunch gathering as much - or more - a church gathering than the official program of never saying a word to anyone except a brief phrase at the "peace"?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
I understand, BR, that Paul was encouraging, not forsaking the coverage of the 'wings' of Christ. As when Jesus longed to gather the people under His wings.Being beyond His presence. As I imply in my previous post, the core of His position becomes contensious. (Christ in me, or in the church. Body part or individual)
I see your approach as valid, as you are gently and safely journeying from where you are. The tension of others expectations can cause the disconnect.
[ 12. January 2015, 12:45: Message edited by: DOEPUBLIC ]
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The past few months I have I have been showing up [at church] only for coffee, chatting with people, then rounding up any who will come - friends, strangers, people I like, people I don't much like - "let's go to lunch." Used to be no one would say yes. Then one. Then two. Now several. (The couples say no, they only socialize with other couples, but lots of widows and widowers attend church. Maybe I'll put in the bulletin "join us for lunch after coffee" to reach more who go home to eat alone.)
That's a bit cheeky! Turning up at the end just to round up churchgoers to hang out with you! I can't imagine many British ex-churchgoers trying that, although maybe in a big, busy congregation they could get away with it.
It seems a bit parasitic (no nicer synonym seems to exist. It's not quite sheep stealing, is it?...); you say you disapprove of the church, yet you're benefiting from it because it conveniently gathers up anyone who might join your subversive social and religious circle, at the same place and the same time each week, which suits your lunching agenda perfectly!
Not that I'm saying you shouldn't, mind. Props to you if your agenda works. You've got more b***s than most!
[ 12. January 2015, 18:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I didn't see it like that at all SvitlanaV2.
I thought "what an excellent way to gather people for lunch/chat/a sociable time. Some may be very lonely and thankful for the invitation."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It's nice to offer company to lonely churchgoers, but we know that behind this offer of company lies a severe critique of the church. Are the lonely churchgoers aware of that? And would they be less lonely if they gave up on going to church altogether?
In the British context, I imagine that loneliness is a bigger problem among unattached people who don't go to church than those who do, so if that's the main issue then it would make more sense to look outside the church for ways to help people overcome loneliness.
What I will say is a problem in churches is that people tend to wait on someone else to come up with good ideas and then to put them in action. All these lonely people could arrange to meet up with each other, but instead of that they've waited for someone who disapproves of their church to come and provide the means and the motivation for them! Church can be disempowering; that's a big issue.
[ 12. January 2015, 18:43: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's nice to offer company to lonely churchgoers, but we know that behind this offer of company lies a severe critique of the church. Are the lonely churchgoers aware of that? And would they be less lonely if they gave up on going to church altogether?
In the British context, I imagine that loneliness is a bigger problem among unattached people who don't go to church than those who do, so if that's the main issue then it would make more sense to look outside the church for ways to help people overcome loneliness.
What I will say is a problem in churches is that people tend to wait on someone else to come up with good ideas and then to put them in action. All these lonely people could arrange to meet up with each other, but instead of that they've waited for someone who disapproves of their church to come and provide the means and the motivation for them! Church can be disempowering; that's a big issue.
Intrigued has to how the British context perception is arrived at, and compared to whom ?
The concept of herding and personal choice highlights the axis of authority. Are they as explicit as you imply ?
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's nice to offer company to lonely churchgoers, but we know that behind this offer of company lies a severe critique of the church. Are the lonely churchgoers aware of that?
Sounds like a trick question -- if no, you'll say I'm being deceitful; if yes, you'll say I'm trying to get people to leave church? The motives of anyone who dislikes Sunday morning can only be bad if they want to participate in the soup kitchen or the kiddie music program or gather strays for lunch? Strange world view. quote:
...All these lonely people could arrange to meet up with each other, but instead of that they've waited for someone who disapproves of their church to come and provide the means and the motivation for them!
Nothing was preventing people getting together. If it takes me to do that, maybe that's my best role in that church.
Strange to be criticized for enjoying people instead of program and inviting people to spend lunch time together instead of going home alone. Very strange. To me, Christianity is specifically about people, NOT about programs! Part of why I dislike church (not specifically this church - Western church) - is the too many people determined to impose their own narrow view of how everyone must behave (or else leave).
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Belle Ringer
Of course, I'm not saying that what you're doing is bad - I tried to make that clear. It's just strange to me that you disapprove of church yet your focus is on people who are apparently quite happy with church. But your venture is obviously fulfilling a need, and that's very much to be admired. Putting yourself out for others is a good thing!
In the UK Christians who have issues with normative church culture (and I have such issues myself) have often envisioned themselves creating the sort of 'non-church church' that will attract non-churchgoers (as have I!). In reality, they've often found it much harder to appeal to non-churchgoers than to disgruntled churchgoers. One of the criticisms of café churches and emergent churches, etc. is that they tend to coalesce around people who already are (or have been) churchgoers.
In your case, this problem doesn't arise because you're happy to work with people who are already in the church. And they don't even seem all that disgruntled! Perhaps the main difference is that yours is a more churched culture and you can easily share your ideas with a diverse group of people who already value the communality of church life, even if theirs isn't church as you would have it.
Over here, though, congregations are smaller and less representative of the society. The concern is about the difficulty of connecting with the very many outsiders who distrust any sort of religious togetherness. British people are also less clubby. However, IME of local churches the ministers are well aware of the appeal of gatherings that involve food. It's not something that happens every week, though. The costs would be prohibitive, among other things.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...your focus is on people who are apparently quite happy with church...
In the UK Christians who have issues with normative church culture (and I have such issues myself)...
Over the decades I've been surprised at how many people make their own "church is boring", "I have issues with it" statements (not prodded by me!) including vestry members, Sunday school leaders, youth workers, never miss a Sunday folks, and of course children (they being more outspoken than adults). An assumption the people at coffee are happy with church may not be accurate.
The Abelene Paradox comes to mind, although maybe it's more that people have been "brainwashed" to think putting up with "church" is "good for you" even though distasteful. quote:
they've often found it much harder to appeal to non-churchgoers than to disgruntled churchgoers.
If (as I increasingly suspect - I used to think I was the lone oddball) many churched people are somewhat disgruntled with it, why would an outsider be attracted? quote:
yours is a more churched culture... people who already value the communality of church life
Is it "enjoying communality" when there's no chit chat before church, the "peace" thing is brief and formal, and 90% head straight home? Few show up for "coffee" to chat. It's like the communality of going to a movie theater when you don't know or care who else is there, minimal communality at best. quote:
well aware of the appeal of gatherings that involve food. It's not...every week, though. The costs would be prohibitive
Food is cheaper in USA (heavily subsidized by government taxes), a big breakfast at a Mexican place costs less than one hour of minimum wage, plus tip. But for some people breakfast out means not able to buy a couple of chocolate bars or a Starbucks latte that week, which can seem too big a tradeoff.
How to appeal to unchurched? Genuinely enjoy church, so mention of it is a normal part of your eye-sparkling chit chat.
The early Christ-followers were excited! We seem to be mostly dully dutiful. That contrast is the biggest clue (to me) that we are mis-understanding or mis-doing the concept of church.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
An assumption the people at coffee are happy with church may not be accurate.
[...]
Maybe it's more that people have been "brainwashed" to think putting up with "church" is "good for you" even though distasteful.
This is where Americans are perhaps a little different: many of them still think 'church' is 'good for you'.
British people are no longer convinced of this, living in a largely unchurched culture. And those remaining churchgoers who do end up leaving boring churches don't then go on to found churches or satellite church groups that are deemed to be more 'enjoyable'. IMO the culture is less religiously entrepreneurial than used to be the case, Fresh Expressions notwithstanding.
quote:
How to appeal to unchurched? Genuinely enjoy church, so mention of it is a normal part of your eye-sparkling chit chat.
The early Christ-followers were excited! We seem to be mostly dully dutiful. That contrast is the biggest clue (to me) that we are mis-understanding or mis-doing the concept of church.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
I often wonder about the possibility of founding an organic church group. But I couldn't guarantee that it would all be 'fun', or that there would be lots of 'eye-sparkling chit chat'. The communities I know about face problems. Many church members are elderly and they, along with others in the community, suffer with their health. And being in a multicultural, multifaith area presents its own challenges. Becoming a very close community would seriously involve paying more than lip service to being willing and able to bear each other's burdens - which can be very hard work indeed. The burden on younger, able-bodied, educated group members (particularly single women...) would obviously increase dramatically.
In other places the burdens and challenges would be a bit different, but they'd still be present. At least one poster on this website complains that youngish middle class charismatic churchgoers already spend too much time together, not too little, and they wouldn't really want to see that replicated too often in (semi-)independent church fellowships.
Every church and context is different, but I really don't get the general feeling that either the people who remain in the British churches or those who leave are begging for different ways of being church. There's lots of grumbling, but if Christians really want something different then they need to demand it and create it. To me, that's the Protestant way! As I said above, IME we've created a disempowering church culture. But both laity and clergy collude in that.
[ 13. January 2015, 16:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Believe you me, if you do succeed in creating something new that the disgruntled and bored do find more meaningful, you end up having to defend its existence against the people who can't see what's "wrong" with the mainstream.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Believe you me, if you do succeed in creating something new that the disgruntled and bored do find more meaningful, you end up having to defend its existence against the people who can't see what's "wrong" with the mainstream.
Much like Jesus Himself meeting the women at the well.Or even being born in a stable because the House of David had no room. Not everything that fits in a box is a box. However, healthy responses to discontent are the challenge across the world, despite the country or continent.Not being prepared to treasure the individual within the combined is the imbalance IMO.Though 'God'equivalent credentials of institution, person and structure can also be a barrier.
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
