|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Freedom to belong
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Given this hostly adjudication, I thought I would do the decent thing, and ask the question here. Why can I do all of these things from within my denomination whereas others have to leave all forms of organised religion to find the same freedom?
I suspect the answer has to do with something I actually posted elsewhere on the Faithfree board. I spend much of my life living in ambiguity, so being in a denomination,and more immediately a congregation, without being entirely of it isn't unduly uncomfortable or restricting for me. In fact, it gives me the freedom to give and receive as much as I can without feeling constrained or constricted beyond a certain point.
Sometimes, I think there's a darker side to it, and the ambiguity reflects my own fundamental ambivalence towards my own stance, as if I can't entirely own my own position, stand there and move on from it. But there we are.
Anyway, what is other people's experience of this? And yes, please, my primary interest is in experience rather than any intellectual or doctrinal formulae, though I know I can't be prescriptive on this issue.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
In my church there is no requirement to uphold any particular detail of faith. We say the creed (in various forms) each week and someone preaches but we are not expected to agree with anything.
I suppose that there is an assumption that if you say the creed you agree with it but if anyone chooses not to say it (and at baptisms etc where there might be plenty of non-church goers it is emphasised that people should say the words only if they are comfortable with them) no fingers are pointed.
In our small groups people are free to say they don't understand or agree.
Is my church (bog standard C of E in covenant with the Methodists up the road) unusual?
There was one time when I was on the rota for the intercessions. I had an email asking me to pray in favour of an issue (an up-coming vote in Parliament) that I actually disagreed with. As it happened I had just swapped my day with someone else so I didn't have the dilemma but I expect I would have either prayed for all those involved in the issue without showing support on either side or I would have asked that someone else pray for that issue after I had finished. I don't think this will have changed what anyone thinks of me and I am not aware of any other time when this kind of request has been made.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
In my church, we are left to believe whatever we want to believe and we have preachers who are willing to admit that they are ambivalent, uncertain, or doubtful about certain things. The counter-side to this is that our church is seen as liberal and we do not attract converts because, I think, there is no concrete certainty to latch onto.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I've always felt free to take or leave anything that is said or done in a church of whichever denomination. I think that the truth is at the heart of Christianity along with love and hope. Any denomination which insisted that I professed to believe what I didn't believe would be freely embracing deception.
It's true to say that if a group of like-minded people want to exclude those of another mindset, that is their prerogative: but then, who else would want to be a part of their group?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I think that's right: many people are looking for religion to give them simple certainties in a confusing world.
But not everyone ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I didn't have to leave organised religion to do this; I'm on the MOC of a FE congregation ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But I did have to let go of a lot of things I used to believe, or, rather, ways of believing them, as absolutes.
There are certainly some churches, denominations and organisations where I would have, at the least, to keep very quiet about some of the things I think, but it's long since I was part of one of them.
I see the Faithfree board as not just about being an ex-Christian, having left church, but also about having moved on from a particular mode of spiritual expression to another or potentially to none at all. I am an ex-evangelical, ex-charismatic, ex-dogmatist, but not an ex-Christian, although my evangelical charismatic dogmatic self of twenty-five years ago might beg to differ on that point.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
There are two parts to the question: does your congregation demand absolute toeing-of-the-line? and: do you demand absolutes of yourself?
In the former case, the congregation has built up expectations that can't be met. Neither faith nor belief live in being forced to do anything.
In the latter, one has to live with the fact that everyone changes as life goes along, so that what seems obvious at one age ("My father is stupid") is just silly at another ("Look how smart my father has become"). Demanding unconditional acceptance of things as they were is going to cause internal problems for you.
It has been pointed out on the Ship many times that doubt heralds a changing point of vies, with the "doubt" stage being the one in which you work out what that change is.
If your congregation or denomination can't handle doubt, they are exhibiting anxiety that they are refusing to deal with.
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
In my church, we are left to believe whatever we want to believe and we have preachers who are willing to admit that they are ambivalent, uncertain, or doubtful about certain things. The counter-side to this is that our church is seen as liberal and we do not attract converts because, I think, there is no concrete certainty to latch onto.
I think your last sentence is quite an instructive one.
Many people on the Ship have struggled with membership in fairly conservative evangelical churches, but the interesting fact is that they joined such churches in the first place. They didn't join MOTR Anglican or Methodist churches, where they would have been relatively free to believe what they wanted, or to have significant doubts.
From a sociological point of view one could perhaps say that the purpose of evangelical churches is to generate enthusiasm and conversions, whereas the traditional churches have the role of offering a 'freedom to belong', often to mature ex-evangelicals. To each, his niche.
It's a very imperfect division of labour, though. Many ex-evangelicals are so disillusioned they abandon the church and even Christianity altogether, and many traditional moderate congregations are too staid and/or too beleaguered to be able to hold onto their own members, let alone to attract ex-evangelicals or others. This is how ISTM.
I think the moderate churches need to become far more engaging places in order to benefit from their tolerance and freedom. But I don't think many of them in the UK will be able to transform themselves in time; the age profile is just too skewed in many places (although in others, the traditional churches are doing OK). I'm concerned about the future.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think that's a good observation. I know I've railed against evangelical charismatic outfits at times on these boards but the reality is, they were exactly where I was 'at' when I was about 19/20 years old in many ways ...
I had started attending MoR settings (Methodist and Anglican etc) until I found out that there were 'lively' places around and so on.
I suspect I'd have 'stayed the course' and got involved with something more traditional and 'mainstream' if the grass hadn't appeared greener over in the charismatic evangelical direction.
Looking back, I think I could have started going out with a lass from a MoR Methodist setting ... but I backed off for some reason, I was a bit nervous ... and had I done so I have no doubt that I could have settled there quite happily.
But I think the overall sociological points you make here are sound observations.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
This is a fairly well-trodden path, so I would like to redirect the discussion slightly. What is the difference in experience which leaves some faithfree and some differently faithful? Is God equally present in both?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
...The counter-side to this is that our church is seen as liberal and we do not attract converts because, I think, there is no concrete certainty to latch onto.
I think the moderate churches need to become far more engaging places in order to benefit from their tolerance and freedom.
I should mull this one a few days first! Pre-mulling:
No one can control what another believes; in that sense anyone in any church is free to believe whatever they want, and I suspect it's rare for anyone to wholly toe the line with their church's official teachings.
And yet as social animals most people want to fit in. Many (in any social situation, not just church) feel an internal pressure to not voice disagreements openly. How marginal or central the points of disagreement affect how minor or major the discomfort.
Like, that guy you know constantly spouting a political position. If you agree, it can be a warm friendship; if you disagree maybe you can ignore those comments or maybe they are so central to how you see life that his presence becomes unbearable even if he prefaces his rants with "you don't have to agree with me."
Liberal churches can be rigid. If you take the Bible somewhat literally you may be publicly scorned (seen it happen) in TEC. If you think Islam and Christianity do NOT worship the same God, you may be told you don't fit in here. Or sharply chided for being "narrow minded."
When you don't resonate with what's regularly coming from the pulpit and everyone else either believes it or pretends to, a person can feel rejected by that church, socially and intellectually isolated, even if no one said "you must leave."
I do think mainline's appeal is to lovers of (watered down) medieval ritual; that's a portion of the public. To reach more people some other attractivenesses need to be added. People will put up with a program they don't like if something else they value is on offer. (Opportunity to work in a soup kitchen; get your kids in a good school; one friend changed churches to be in the spectacular Christmas show).
Alas, medieval ritual lovers tend to insist the ritual is the definition of worship and the reason for church and anyone who dislikes it is wrong and unspiritual (conservatives would say "rebelling"). So I don't expect to see much interest in finding additional ways to attract people.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Many people on the Ship have struggled with membership in fairly conservative evangelical churches, but the interesting fact is that they joined such churches in the first place.
You have to control for selection bias though. To an extent at least some people are here because they actively want to interact with Christians of other persuasions.
Evangelicals are generally fairly vocal about their beliefs, it shouldn't be a surprise that in a setting such as this some of them also become vocal about their struggles.
quote:
They didn't join MOTR Anglican or Methodist churches, where they would have been relatively free to believe what they wanted, or to have significant doubts.
Firstly, I agree with Belle's comments above about rigidity of belief in certain circles. Secondly, this leads to it's own issues - namely that there is often nothing you can actually 'interact' with meaningfully in such settings. Certainly not much that isn't replicated elsewhere.
So I don't think that less didactic churches are necessarily a good fit for conservative evangelicals struggling with their place in church, because of the sort of people those people actually are (speaking as an occasional member of that group).
[ 27. January 2015, 16:04: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the moderate churches need to become far more engaging places in order to benefit from their tolerance and freedom. But I don't think many of them in the UK will be able to transform themselves in time; the age profile is just too skewed in many places (although in others, the traditional churches are doing OK). I'm concerned about the future.
I agree. Many "liberal" or "progressive" churches seem very traditional or even old-fashioned in their worship. They - rightly from their POV - eschew modern Evangelical worship songs, but fail to have an adequate substitute to connect with the younger audience. (And, yes, I do know that not all younger people like "modern" music).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I've discovered that participation may be a goal in itself. That other-worldly goals and the effects of prayer etc are issues for others, not me.
I have recently wondered if the current data/computer age hasn't pushed us to be more concerned about rightness of belief and adherence, notwithstanding inquisitions and religious wars in past show that such issues cycle.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Of course, I agree with the points made in response to my post above, particularly the thought that the lack of spaces in which to circulate challenging ideas can make the MOTR churches unappealing to people who want a liberating (not just a liberal) alternative to evangelicalism.
I've mentioned this before, but the Methodist circuit I used to belong to created a forum for discussing unorthodox theological ideas, and the meetings have gone from strength to strength, so I understand. It's an idea that deserves to be developed on a national and ecumenical scale, I think.
However, I get the impression that ThunderBunk wanted to discuss something a bit different from all this, namely:
quote:
What is the difference in experience which leaves some faithfree and some differently faithful? Is God equally present in both?
My response, admittedly inadequate, would be that some people really seem to own their faith, whereas others borrow it from the people around them. The latter seems to provide shaky foundations for lasting faith, because even inspirational Christians can behave very badly and let you down. You have to put your trust in Christ alone.
Moreover, whether taught explicitly or just assumed by the layperson, the idea that God should and will take away all our pain and distress also seems likely to lead to trouble.
Is God present in 'faithfree' and 'differently faithful' contexts? I believe so. Others may not.
[ 27. January 2015, 18:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I fear I may have done something a little foolish. What, or at least what of any actual meaning or value, could it mean for God to be present in a faithfree context? Is the phrase "faithfree" being given its appropriate weight and value if God is being avowed as present in such a context?
Ultimately, the answer of faith must be "yes", because God is both all and in all, and therefore gets everywhere. It is not a mark of disrespect to those who do not experience her presence; it is simply an avowal of my own.
The value of the "faithfree" concept in this context, I would propose, is the invitation to rediscover faith in freedom, rather than under obligation to established certainties. In this respect, serving God both is and is absolutely dependant on perfect freedom.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
In the sharing of a space you would hope all parties have a choice to belong, however in reality it is possible for people,to choose, to not meet you or miss you. Limiting your choice.
Is God obliged to declare His presence ?
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
Poem about choice (scroll down on link)
The woman
I saw the woman in the chair; she was in church again today.
Someone said they’ve sold their house; they’re going to move away.
Oh, no! I cried. They cannot go! They cannot move away.
I didn’t get to know her. There’s something I need to say:
Please tell me your secret ma’m; I want to sit at your feet.
I need to know how you handle the pain that is your daily meat.
How do you keep on smiling when each day your health grows worse?
How do you keep depending on God when it looks like you’re living with a curse?
Every time I see her; her smile comes from deep within.
I know her fellowship with God isn’t scarred by the chair she’s in.
She admits her health is failing; she knows she’s fading away.
How can she remain so calm when I would be running away?
My friend, can you tell me how you can trust the Lord
How can you stay so gentle and sweet when He seems to wield a sword?
You are to me a promise that even in the midst of pain
God is near and faithful if I will turn to Him again.
[ 28. January 2015, 08:26: Message edited by: DOEPUBLIC ]
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I fear I may have done something a little foolish. What, or at least what of any actual meaning or value, could it mean for God to be present in a faithfree context?
Most of my atheist friends were reared in church-going households. They rejected the brutal God they were taught.
In that rejecting, I believe they show more spiritual wisdom than some of my Christian friends who are sure God values punishment (their definition of justice) more than love, and who believe the holy cannot tolerate the presence of sinners (was Jesus not holy?).
I have no problem with the idea of God rescuing people from a brutally wrong concept of God to not believing in any God. They become free to see what is good and true instead of blindly pursuing evil claiming it's good because their church says so.
My friends who approved of Bush's torturing captives were all from brutal-god churches - I think that dishonored God and mistaught what values to strive for; rejecting such a God allows a person to grow in love and respect for all humans - grow in Christ-likeness just by observing life themselves,even though Christ-likeness is not an intentional goal.
Can God be at work in pulling someone out of believing in a cruel God to atheism? Yes.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Can God be at work in pulling someone out of believing in a cruel God to atheism? Yes.
That's an interesting idea, and it must be taken seriously by those of us who believe that God is at work in all things [Romans 8:28], but presumably your atheists friends would dismiss it since they don't believe God is at work at all....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Can God be at work in pulling someone out of believing in a cruel God to atheism? Yes.
That's an interesting idea, and it must be taken seriously by those of us who believe that God is at work in all things [Romans 8:28], but presumably your atheists friends would dismiss it since they don't believe God is at work at all....
Of course, but also many Christians deny God's involvement where others see God at work - coincidences that guide or provide, for example. God often (normally!) works without fanfare of angles or trumpets, without recognition.
There's also the not-uncommon reference to the Universe as a gently occasionally helping/guiding force.
[ 28. January 2015, 15:03: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the moderate churches need to become far more engaging places in order to benefit from their tolerance and freedom. But I don't think many of them in the UK will be able to transform themselves in time; the age profile is just too skewed in many places (although in others, the traditional churches are doing OK). I'm concerned about the future.
I agree. Many "liberal" or "progressive" churches seem very traditional or even old-fashioned in their worship. They - rightly from their POV - eschew modern Evangelical worship songs, but fail to have an adequate substitute to connect with the younger audience. (And, yes, I do know that not all younger people like "modern" music).
And I do think- looking back on myself, for one reason- that the young can be terribly dogmatic and intolerant, perhaps because they have not yet acquired life experiences which might suggest that not everything is or can be clear-cut.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Many Christians deny God's involvement where others see God at work - coincidences that guide or provide, for example. God often (normally!) works without fanfare of angles or trumpets, without recognition.
There's also the not-uncommon reference to the Universe as a gently occasionally helping/guiding force.
This post made me reflect on the title of the thread. It's 'Freedom to belong', but it could have been 'Freedom NOT to belong', since some of the discussion here proposes that ceasing to identify with a particular faith community, or any faith community at all, may be a spiritually better choice for some people.
It's hard to see how Christianity will be able to maintain itself as a distinctive religious path if it becomes unable or unwilling to present a compelling theological case for itself. We already have many cults, but maybe Christianity will morph into a different religion, or several different religions.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's hard to see how Christianity will be able to maintain itself as a distinctive religious path if it becomes unable or unwilling to present a compelling theological case for itself.
Or is the question: "what is the compelling theological case for Christianity?"
The answer from the two biggest groups - RCC and conservative evangelicals - seems to be "escape hell." That's utterly uncompelling for anyone who doesn't believe in (or believes but refuses to declare the worth of) the kind of brutal god who would create involuntary eternal torment.
If the answer is more like "a more contented life" does that hold up in reality?
What answer is compelling, plus true, plus observable by those who don't yet believe?
(If liberals don't exactly believe in Hell, what is their compelling reason to baptize?)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I fear I may have done something a little foolish. What, or at least what of any actual meaning or value, could it mean for God to be present in a faithfree context?
Most of my atheist friends were reared in church-going households. They rejected the brutal God they were taught.
In that rejecting, I believe they show more spiritual wisdom than some of my Christian friends who are sure God values punishment (their definition of justice) more than love, and who believe the holy cannot tolerate the presence of sinners (was Jesus not holy?).
I have no problem with the idea of God rescuing people from a brutally wrong concept of God to not believing in any God. They become free to see what is good and true instead of blindly pursuing evil claiming it's good because their church says so.
My friends who approved of Bush's torturing captives were all from brutal-god churches - I think that dishonored God and mistaught what values to strive for; rejecting such a God allows a person to grow in love and respect for all humans - grow in Christ-likeness just by observing life themselves,even though Christ-likeness is not an intentional goal.
Can God be at work in pulling someone out of believing in a cruel God to atheism? Yes.
I think that may be true, although I have no way of showing it. I'm struggling to remember a Simone Weil quote along these lines, ah, 'Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification.' (no link).
There is also a kind of intermediate position, since I am not an atheist - that God pulled me out of Christianity, for the purification of my soul. Caramba!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's hard to see how Christianity will be able to maintain itself as a distinctive religious path if it becomes unable or unwilling to present a compelling theological case for itself.
Or is the question: "what is the compelling theological case for Christianity?"
The answer from the two biggest groups - RCC and conservative evangelicals - seems to be "escape hell." That's utterly uncompelling for anyone who doesn't believe in (or believes but refuses to declare the worth of) the kind of brutal god who would create involuntary eternal torment.
If the answer is more like "a more contented life" does that hold up in reality?
What answer is compelling, plus true, plus observable by those who don't yet believe?
(If liberals don't exactly believe in Hell, what is their compelling reason to baptize?)
Gordon Bennett, you are on fire! I was a liberal, and my compelling reason was that I liked it. I know this is rather milk-soppish, but I grew out of it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
"What is the compelling theological case for Christianity?"
The answer from the two biggest groups - RCC and conservative evangelicals - seems to be "escape hell." That's utterly uncompelling for anyone who doesn't believe in (or believes but refuses to declare the worth of) the kind of brutal god who would create involuntary eternal torment.
The obvious question is why these should be 'the two biggest groups' if their theology is so unappealing. Maybe there are lots of people out there who are genuinely afraid of 'eternal torment'. Or maybe the appeal derives from something else. As a sweeping generalisation, ISTM that both of them have a popular ability to generate feelings (be they good or bad), whereas other forms of Christianity mostly seem to generate lots of intellectualism (with a dose of reserved politeness). Some people prefer one thing or the other. Unfortunately, there's little opportunity to experience a mixture of both.
quote:
What answer is compelling, plus true, plus observable by those who don't yet believe?
Do you have an answer to this question? Probably not. I don't.
But my point was that a Christianity that says atheism is okay is going to end up undermining itself, especially if it can't offer any spectacular benefits by way of compensation for making an effort and becoming or remaining a believer. Or rather, the benefits seem a bit hit and miss; if you attend this church you'll be happy, but if you attend that church, you probably won't be, etc. etc.
I've spent practically all of my live in moderate, tolerant churches, and I don't know how they can make their way out of this quandary.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's hard to see how Christianity will be able to maintain itself as a distinctive religious path if it becomes unable or unwilling to present a compelling theological case for itself.
Or is the question: "what is the compelling theological case for Christianity?"
The answer from the two biggest groups - RCC and conservative evangelicals - seems to be "escape hell." That's utterly uncompelling for anyone who doesn't believe in (or believes but refuses to declare the worth of) the kind of brutal god who would create involuntary eternal torment.
If the answer is more like "a more contented life" does that hold up in reality?
What answer is compelling, plus true, plus observable by those who don't yet believe?
(If liberals don't exactly believe in Hell, what is their compelling reason to baptize?)
It's not about a contented life, far from it, nor is it about escape from hell, which might amount to the same thing.
What's compelling is Christ himself. We're compelled to follow Christ, because it's written on our hearts that the love of God and of our human family is what our lives are for, and this is at the core of his teaching and example.
If some people have been adversely affected by interpretations of scripture or practices of churches or of disappointment that church members are no better than they ought to be, then taking time out from those things to get them into perspective may be a necessary step. That surely doesn't mean stepping away from God, whether we see God as a supernatural being, the essence of all that is good, and/or 'the ground of all being' (which makes me shudder, but each to his own).
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What's compelling is Christ himself.
People will follow a compelling personality anywhere at any cost, and feel privileged to do so.
Does the way churches generally present Jesus come across to outsiders (or insiders) in ways that let them feel the compelling force of his personality?
I'd say no, or we wouldn't spend so much effort fighting over peripheral details (flags in worship? Baptize by sprinkle or immersion?) Did Lenin's followers argue over what toothpaste he used, or Robert E Lee's men get fussed about the exact color of his shirt buttons?
When the arguments are about details, the followers are no longer engaged with the compelling personality.
I suspect when Jesus walks in one no longer thinks about what the proper seasonal color is or whether stained glass windows contribute to a worship environment, much less whether women can teach or how long it took to create planet earth. Just not relevant.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What's compelling is Christ himself.
People will follow a compelling personality anywhere at any cost, and feel privileged to do so.
Does the way churches generally present Jesus come across to outsiders (or insiders) in ways that let them feel the compelling force of his personality?
I'd say no, or we wouldn't spend so much effort fighting over peripheral details (flags in worship? Baptize by sprinkle or immersion?) Did Lenin's followers argue over what toothpaste he used, or Robert E Lee's men get fussed about the exact color of his shirt buttons?
When the arguments are about details, the followers are no longer engaged with the compelling personality.
I suspect when Jesus walks in one no longer thinks about what the proper seasonal color is or whether stained glass windows contribute to a worship environment, much less whether women can teach or how long it took to create planet earth. Just not relevant.
I don't think it's that simple. All of these arguments you are talking about can be traced directly back to the question of what version of Christ is being presented.
We all have to start from accepting the bald fact that simple, untrammelled access to the personhood of Jesus Christ is not available. We have as our primary source a non-chronological collection of anecdotes, all of which could have happened easily within six weeks but are excerpts of a time spent in itinerant ministry which may have been approximately 3 years.
I'm not going to list now the well known list of elements of the Gospels which make them less than ideal as material for an uncomplicated biography giving psychological access to a personality, but I am going to insist that these exist, and they are one of the reasons why Christianity does not function in that way.
Secondly, you are describing a cult of personality, which is necessarily idolatrous since it attempts to put the individual in the proper place of God as the object of worship.
All of the liturgical questions you present as irrelevant have built up over the two thousand years of the church's history as part of its accumulated weight of custom and practice. Christianity, faith in God as presented in Jesus Christ, in its current form is a result both of the life of the person Jesus and that of the church which has attempted to follow the faith over two thousand years. Therefore, these discussions, while they may not merit the weight they are sometimes given, are nevertheless an authentic part of Christian life. The liturgical seasons are an attempt on the part of the body of the church as a whole to explore the different aspects of Christ's life and ministry, and the changing of liturgical colour marks a change in "mode" of that exploration. Human beings do things theatrically.
I can't put down in one posting everything which Belle's post evokes to me. What I can do is to suggest that demagoguery is not a useful or viable response to a perceived lack of energy and vigour in contemporary church life. I come back to the idea I tried to end my previous posting with: what is needed is the freedom to respond in a way that is congruent with the personhood one has been given, rather than being presented with an endless list of demands and being forced to fulfil them. God is invited to take root and flower in the human heart. The church is not God; the more it tries to elide the distinction, the closer it gets to being an agent for the other side.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
"what is the compelling theological case for Christianity?"
Because there's too much pain in the world
OK, does Christianity apart from church reduce pain? Does church involvement reduce pain?
My personal answers are yes to the first, and no to the second; but more important is, if anyone thinks *Christianity as presented by churches* reduces pain, is it obvious or do we have to rely on someone else (clergy) to tell us our pain has been reduced even though we don't ourselves feel any less pain? (Like we have to rely on someone else's telling us baptism or holy communion do something we cannot sense ourselves.)
If the pain reduction is obvious, why is it not attracting the pain-filled world?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If the pain reduction is obvious, why is it not attracting the pain-filled world?
This may be a tangent, and/or a thread in itself, but it's certainly an increasing preoccupation of mine.
It isn't working, because the church's characteristic mode of engagement mirrors the pain-filled world in its obsession with terms and conditions; in church terms, these are doctrines and/or scriptural instruction. The temptation which is fallen into is to describe the terms on which God offers a resolution, a transcendence of the pain, rather than incarnating that offer, that release from pain.
Doing anything else is very difficult, very precarious, very provisional, because it involves engaging one person at a time. It involves articulating and showing forth the offer of unconditional love God makes in Christ, repeatedly, infinitely. Being unconditional, it makes no difference what response is received, though the response of love to love is infinite in its variety. And yet, being offered individually to every person, it is infinitely mutable while being utterly unchangeable, because God's love is infinite and all-encompassing.
The example of this process I know best is actually given in the "Revelations of Divine love" to Julian of Norwich. Such an intimate and extensive set of visions is not received by everyone, but I do believe that it is a pattern of God's engagement with the world, experienced in and described by one particular person in one particular time.
[code edit]
[ 29. January 2015, 14:14: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233
|
Posted
A really helpful post. Especially these words :
'Being unconditional, it makes no difference what response is received, though the response of love to love is infinite in its variety. And yet, being offered individually to every person, it is infinitely mutable while being utterly unchangeable, because God's love is infinite and all-encompassing.'
Thank you.
--------------------
on the one hand - self doubt
on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes
Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
"what is the compelling theological case for Christianity?"
Because there's too much pain in the world
OK, does Christianity apart from church reduce pain? Does church involvement reduce pain?
My personal answers are yes to the first, and no to the second; but more important is, if anyone thinks *Christianity as presented by churches* reduces pain, is it obvious or do we have to rely on someone else (clergy) to tell us our pain has been reduced even though we don't ourselves feel any less pain? (Like we have to rely on someone else's telling us baptism or holy communion do something we cannot sense ourselves.)
If the pain reduction is obvious, why is it not attracting the pain-filled world?
It depends on the church and the way Christianity is practiced, I'd say. Most Sunday mornings I attend a UMC church, and a big part of why I attend is the effect that congregation has on the world. They are constantly broke, constantly loving, and constantly giving. And people tend to love them back enough that they haven't actually run out of money yet last I heard there were worries they wouldn't make payroll.* Still my point is that they make a huge difference. They feed the hungry, they teach children and keep them safe, they work for peace and nonviolence, and they persuade others to join with them. The church membership is up since they have began to do what they think right without counting the cost, and the budget is the same as ever.
*Though they will
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Can God be at work in pulling someone out of believing in a cruel God to atheism? Yes.
I would say it is very largely God's work and will to disabuse people of anything that isn't true. And the 'cruel God' stuff propagated by certain people is obviously a lie. At least, I should hope so, if God really is a God of love and truth. Though, whether he would wish them to turn from the lie of the 'cruel God' in order to believe in another lie that there is no god at all, is doubtful, and from even a merely human point of view illogical.
However, God moves in mysterious ways etc.
I have no doubt at all that there are many churches which God would be entirely happy not to have to visit himself, let alone would not wish on anyone else. But, as I've often said here before, I do believe one's personality, experiences and circumstances have so much to do with how one interacts with a particular faith community, I would be extremely reluctant to decide for God which churches those might be.
I know the ones I preferred to have nothing or little to do with. But even saying that, I would've still known many fine and lovely individuals from whom I could learn much, or at least whose experience of faith I could acknowledge as fruitful and as valid as anyone else's.
Like others here, I've always felt fine about belonging to the churches, or Christian communities I've been a member of. Even the ones where I've disagreed with particular views, or moved away from, theologically or in terms of churchmanship. Those groups ranged from evangelical/evangelistic non-denominational, Anglican open evo, through to liberal high, and more recently back to moderate-vague, with conservative undertones.
But, perhaps wrongly, I've usually tended to see congregations (as opposed to the institution of 'the Church') as groups of fairly random individuals brought together largely through geography and a desire to perpetuate certain customs, grow faith (maybe!) and be part of a defined yet somehow still rather fluid community of friends and acquaintances. All very human, really.
All those individuals expect different things, bring different things to the mix, and do so with a sometimes not very well articulated sense of Christian identity; but which nevertheless still manages to bind folks together for many decades in lasting and genuine regard. That's certainly, to my mind, one of the real miracles of church-going.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What's compelling is Christ himself.
People will follow a compelling personality anywhere at any cost, and feel privileged to do so.
Does the way churches generally present Jesus come across to outsiders (or insiders) in ways that let them feel the compelling force of his personality?..
I suspect when Jesus walks in one no longer thinks about what the proper seasonal color is or whether stained glass windows contribute to a worship environment, much less whether women can teach or how long it took to create planet earth. Just not relevant.
We all have to start from accepting the bald fact that simple, untrammelled access to the personhood of Jesus Christ is not available. We have as our primary source a non-chronological collection of anecdotes...excerpts of a time spent in itinerant ministry which may have been approximately 3 years.
No, we don't all start there. Many people start from an unexpected encounter with the living God, and read the Bible later. Of course, we get ridiculed by many on the Ship - but denying such a thing happens to anyone today doesn't make these encounters any less real! They just make any theology based on an assumption "all we have is historical record" as unreal and misleadng to us as our personality to personality encounters with God (or angels, for some) are "unreal" to some of you.
quote:
Secondly, you are describing a cult of personality, which is necessarily idolatrous since it attempts to put the individual in the proper place of God as the object of worship.
A cult of personality about Jesus is idolatrous? I suppose one can over-do Jesus to the seeming exclusion of the rest of the trinity, is that what you mean?
quote:
All of the liturgical questions you present as irrelevant have built up over the two thousand years of the church's history
like centuries of arguing who's right, Aristotle or Plato, when Paul dismissed them both with half a verse: the Greeks look for wisdom... but God gave us Christ crucified. In general church history is somewhere between unenlightening and appalling.
Do Christians like me have (in OP terms) freedom to fully belong in your church, or only if we keep out mouths shut about reality we experience?
[ 30. January 2015, 17:34: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Belle Ringer, being of a mystical persuasion, I think I might have given a misleading impression of myself.
However, I am both mystical and sacramental by persuasion, the latter giving a certain historical weight.
My point, I suppose, is that the kind of living encounter you relate, and which is also part of my experience, needs a mechanism for sharing and incorporating into the life of the church. Otherwise, the danger of cult of personality aggrandising those with a particular kind of experience is too great. You may say that this demonstrates an exaggerated fear of my own experience, and you may be right, but I think there is at least an element of useful insight in there.
My point about a cult of Jesus's personality is more about a misuse of scripture than anything else. It's not biographical; it's theological. It's pointing beyond Christ to God. To use it to construct a personality to worship is therefore a misuse. I believe the same is also true of the Christ of my personal encounters: he is pointing beyond himself to invite me into the mystery of God. Such encounters don't arise frequently, or lead to a life of constant ineffable bliss, but they do arise, and they are worthy of acceptance. But they have to be accepted as revealing God, not revealing a personality to be worshipped.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But they have to be accepted as revealing God, not revealing a personality to be worshipped.
Having mulled your last couple posts a day or two, I conclude you and I experience reality so differently or maybe just use words and concepts so different we cannot effectively communicate. We may even have very different concepts of what the word "worship" means. Which doesn't suggest error on either side. Maybe makes more obvious why varieties of churches must exist if everyone is to be learn to know and enjoy and admire and worship God.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I just noticed the point about 'untrammelled access to the personhood of Christ is impossible' (rough paraphrase). Really? I've known quite a lot of people in my life who claimed to have had that. Well, maybe they were mad or deluded, of course. But maybe we all are.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But they have to be accepted as revealing God, not revealing a personality to be worshipped.
Having mulled your last couple posts a day or two, I conclude you and I experience reality so differently or maybe just use words and concepts so different we cannot effectively communicate. We may even have very different concepts of what the word "worship" means. Which doesn't suggest error on either side. Maybe makes more obvious why varieties of churches must exist if everyone is to be learn to know and enjoy and admire and worship God.
I can see what you mean, but I hope we do continue to talk about this, because it is making me listen more carefully to my experience and less carefully to the conceptual framework I absorbed some time ago in which I am interpreting it.
I shall follow this up soon, but I hope the channels of communication can remain open. I shall say more once I have sat more with my own experience.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Many people start from an unexpected encounter with the living God, and read the Bible later.
This is true. And it's important to remember that Christ can be encountered in so many different ways. Heaven knows the institutional church makes such a hash of things sometimes, it really is a miracle it survives the way it does. Testament to the power of the Holy Spirit!
It's also true, however, many people start - and continue and deepen their walk with Christ - within the nurture of a christian fellowship of some kind. Some of these people will even have been baptized into their fellowships as infants and 'church', with everything it stands for, good and bad, will have become a natural part of their growing up and their daily living.
Some fall away and never return. Some fall away and return when they're adults or older adults. The reasons for both falling away, staying away, or returning are myriad. Some - many - don't fall away at all, of course.
I'd like to think that people who find their freedom to belong to Christ's body within the Body of Christ, in the form of the Church, can do so without being looked down upon by their fellow brothers and sisters-in-Christ. But increasingly it does look like ordinary churchgoers are fast becoming the second-class Christians in some people's hierarchy of spiritual worthiness.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But increasingly it does look like ordinary churchgoers are fast becoming the second-class Christians in some people's hierarchy of spiritual worthiness.
Startling comment! I've never heard anyone's Christianity questioned for going to institutional church. But oh boy have I been criticized, and sometimes barred from "open to all Christians" conferences and events, when I respond to the "what church do you go to" question with "an unnamed house church" (a bunch who have met for a dozen years to pray, share what God is doing in their lives, study, debate, encourage).
Where have you run into criticism from unchurched Christians for being church-goers?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Living within a culture hostile to organised religion for all kinds of reasons, the 'You don't have to go to church to be a Christian' line having been embedded into it for decades, I have found an arms' length ( or more) distance appears between me and others once it comes up in conversation that I'm a churchgoer.
Belief in God is more often than not kept to oneself, unless imprinted upon us through our church that we're supposed to try to convert everyone we meet - which turns others off and causes most to keep any faith to themselves.......
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
My point about a cult of Jesus's personality is more about a misuse of scripture than anything else. It's not biographical; it's theological. It's pointing beyond Christ to God... the Christ of my personal encounters: he is pointing beyond himself to invite me into the mystery of God. ...revealing God, not revealing a personality to be worshipped.
*If* I hear you right, I'm puzzled by the concept of a "person" (singing "God in three persons"), apart from that person's personality.
When I sleep I am me, but a stranger can know only "female, gray haired, a specific height" - temporary externals.
The "who are you?" of a person is not their bodily shell features but their personality.
God self-describes in personality terms like slow to anger, quick to forgive; God behaves in ways that indicate such personality quirks as wanting relationship with us stupid unfaithful humans.
We argue about what is God's personality - some say God is a self-centered tyrant who craves being worshiped and slaughters those who don't bow. Others see God as devoted parent/lover who asks us to worship him for the same reason he turns sunflowers to the sun, it's what provides the health we crave and need. The request, like everything God asks us to do, is solely for our benefit.
In that debate about why God tells us to worship him, we are arguing about personality. I suppose one could say we are arguing about roles when we ask "is this God a self-centered tyrant or a devoted patent/lover?" but those role terms are metaphors for personalities.
I agree that for any one person or all of the trinity, any description of personality (directly like "loving" or demonstrated through action like "overturning the tables") is way too narrow, a distorted cartoon, if one relies on only a few favorite verses or a couple of visions (yours or someone elses). Any concept we have of God is somewhat mistaken, distorted, at minimum incomplete, we must view it as a stepping stone, not let it become fixed in our minds or it becomes an "idol" blocking us from discovering more of God. But what we keep discovering of God is who God us, God's personality, which is so tied up with God's values and roles/functions/behaviors there really is no separation. A "living God" is a dynamically interacting personality, not a set of abstract descriptions apart from that personality.
Have I muddied the topic enough for one post?
(There's another topic here, about adulation by some for those who report "visions," and therefore reluctance to admit publicly to any such experiences. But I'm beginning to wonder if too much silence has created a common mis-perception that such things are extremely rare today, when maybe they are almost common? Even among mainliners? NOT universal, God deals with each person individually, NOT indicators of spiritual supremacy, more likely spiritual retardation since this is someone God couldn't get through to via the usual methods. But widespread silence doesn't help the next person who fears they have gone crazy just because an angel came.)
[ 03. February 2015, 20:13: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
