Ship of Fools: Sea of Faith - thoughts and experiences

Thread: Sea of Faith - thoughts and experiences Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030473

Posted by recklessrat (# 17243) on :

Hi all,

I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to the Sea of Faith movement (although I'm struggling with this deeply). I am currently a liberal Anglican. Has anyone been to their meetings? What happens there? Any experiences or comments welcome, whether positive or negative. I'm very hesitant about pursuing this further in RL.

Many thanks,
RR

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I think it's a dead end. My thoughts are here where a writer called White sees no future for Christian doctrine based on the movement started by Don Cupitt.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

My wife and I attended a local group for a time. What we discovered were three things.

One was that it was a refuge for those who had been "hurt" by churches in the past - not so much by abuse but by narrow-minded attitudes. This tended to turn it into a talking-shop for "how bad churches are". Nothing wrong in that, but it led to a tendency to generalise negatively about churches when in fact individuals' experiences had been quite limited.

Second, there was a cherishing of outdated (1960/70s) "liberal Christian" literature and a refusal to believe that anything good could ever come out of conservative Christianity or to engage with it. Spong was often cited with approval but I believe he is doing the same thing (and I have read/heard him). The "Jesus Seminar" was also mentioned occasionally and that is rather different.

Third, we found that the group was nothing like as "open-minded" as we thought. Like most groups, it had developed its consensus and its culture and most of the members didn't want to depart from that or have it challenged.

Of course this is one set of experiences in one group - YMMV. The folk themselves were mostly lovely.

(P.S. The review of Cupitt's book above says that "He completely ignored me – and that gives the flavour of this man who talks to his fans and ignores everyone else, writing them off as beneath his attention". That was precisely the experience I had with Spong when I heard him).

[ 30. April 2016, 15:24: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

It is very hard to reject orthodoxy without falling into becoming another sect.

I think the New Zealand Sea of Faith must be very different from that of the UK. I would say we’ve heard Cupitt and aren’t by any means his disciples. We love our own Lloyd Geering and treasure his scholarship, but not all have gone as far down the road as he has in deconstructing God.(I can’t imagine him ignoring anyone who wanted to talk to him and he would certainly respect their viewpoint, however different from his own.) A show of hands at one national conference showed that about 70% of those present were loyal church members, which rather surprised some of the other 30%.

There are several Ephesus groups which ‘explore new ways of understanding Christian faith in the increasingly secular world of New Zealand in the new millennium’. Among other things we use quite moving liturgies developed by members.

I find members of both organisations are deeply spiritual people who value finding a place where they can share an endless range of doubts, insights and understanding in a totally accepting environment.

Members of the Jesus Seminar are well known to most of us, and later writers. The Progressive Spirituality conference next weekend has Robin Meyers speaking on 'From Galilean Sage to Supernatural Saviour or how I became a heretic with help from Jesus'. Should be interesting – but will I swallow it whole? His 'Saving Jesus from the Church – ˙How to stop worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus', resonated with me when I read it.

Maybe among UK Sea of Faith groups there are some which have been more successful than others in retaining that openness that I think ours have achieved.

GG

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I haven't made it to a Sea of Faith meeting yet ( the timing is difficult), though they are regularly announced during our usual Sunday worship and meet in one of rooms church rooms.

The church I attend is Presbyterian - though at the liberal end of the spectrum so apart from disagreeing with some of the National Assembly's stance on some Dead Horse issues I haven't really felt the need to look further afield. Having said that I am going to the Conference GG mentioned.

Huia

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I haven't made it to a Sea of Faith meeting yet ( the timing is difficult), though they are regularly announced during our usual Sunday worship and meet in one of rooms church rooms.

The church I attend is Presbyterian - though at the liberal end of the spectrum so apart from disagreeing with some of the National Assembly's stance on some Dead Horse issues I haven't really felt the need to look further afield. Having said that I am going to the Conference GG mentioned.

Huia

Yeah, well,,, I regard Assembly as pretty well irrelevant, as long as I'm in a congregation where we get on with living the Gospel.

GG

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

"SOF" = Ship of Fools = Sea of Faith [Devil]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by recklessrat:
Hi all,

I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to the Sea of Faith movement (although I'm struggling with this deeply). I am currently a liberal Anglican. Has anyone been to their meetings? What happens there? Any experiences or comments welcome, whether positive or negative. I'm very hesitant about pursuing this further in RL.

Many thanks,
RR

I learned my adult faith in an institution of which Don Cupitt was dean. Alongside him sat a chapel which was catholic in its leanings, focussed on the sacraments but with an enquiring spirit in its approach to humanity and living.

My approach to God ended up, to this day I think, owing a lot to both sides. In particular, I was impressed by the extent to which both Cupitt's approach and the sacramentalism I learned in the college chapel took experience seriously as a way into the sacred, rather than as a distraction to be set aside.

If I were to give any advice, therefore, it would be to completely ignore people who dismiss Sea of Faith as a dead end simply because it happens to be unfashionable. I haven't experienced it as giving me "cooties" over the last 20 years or so. I would say go and experience it, and listen to your own response to it. Is it leading you towards or away from God? If towards, don't sacrifice it in order to keep a fellow-feeling with those you currently worship with. No two people's experience of God is the same, and those who try and tell one how to experience God seem to me to be those who must be most completely ignored. If it tries to lead you into a dry intellectualism which gets so caught up in the distant side of metaphor that its root in lived experience is lost, abandon it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert - well sort of

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I learned my adult faith in an institution of which Don Cupitt was dean. Alongside him sat a chapel which was catholic in its leanings, focussed on the sacraments but with an enquiring spirit in its approach to humanity and living.

My approach to God ended up, to this day I think, owing a lot to both sides. In particular, I was impressed by the extent to which both Cupitt's approach and the sacramentalism I learned in the college chapel took experience seriously as a way into the sacred, rather than as a distraction to be set aside. ...

Followers of this thread are welcome to dismiss this enquiry. I'm not fertile territory for Sea of Faith and haven't followed its meanderings. But it's something that has puzzled me for years.

How does a person link an agnosticism about the core beliefs of the faith with a catholic approach to the sacraments? The two packages seem about as incompatible as one can get?

To put it at its simplest, how does a person celebrate sacraments that re-present someone they've more or less abandoned belief in?

I can sort of see how one might have a non-theistic Quaker meeting, or even how Gretta Vosper might reconstruct a free form service with a bit of First Nations chanting, for unbelievers from a free church tradition. I can't see how a non-theistic sung Eucharist makes sense - nor for that matter why anyone would want to go to one.

Can anyone explain?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I have been aware of Sea of Faith since being invited to their meetings when I attended the lunchtime chaplaincy Eucharist at university (when I could get there, which wasn't often, I was on another campus). Someone who also attended the Eucharist was a member of the local Sea of Faith group.

Sea of Faith at that time was more like the description of Galloping Granny, a discussion about faith and what it really is, rather than a non-theistic group. Looking at their website now it's moved on significantly, but so has Don Cupitt. When I was looking Don Cupitt was still a regular communicant, he stopped attending in 2008 according to his website.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert - well sort of

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I learned my adult faith in an institution of which Don Cupitt was dean. Alongside him sat a chapel which was catholic in its leanings, focussed on the sacraments but with an enquiring spirit in its approach to humanity and living.

My approach to God ended up, to this day I think, owing a lot to both sides. In particular, I was impressed by the extent to which both Cupitt's approach and the sacramentalism I learned in the college chapel took experience seriously as a way into the sacred, rather than as a distraction to be set aside. ...
Followers of this thread are welcome to dismiss this enquiry. I'm not fertile territory for Sea of Faith and haven't followed its meanderings. But it's something that has puzzled me for years.

How does a person link an agnosticism about the core beliefs of the faith with a catholic approach to the sacraments? The two packages seem about as incompatible as one can get?

To put it at its simplest, how does a person celebrate sacraments that re-present someone they've more or less abandoned belief in?

I can sort of see how one might have a non-theistic Quaker meeting, or even how Gretta Vosper might reconstruct a free form service with a bit of First Nations chanting, for unbelievers from a free church tradition. I can't see how a non-theistic sung Eucharist makes sense - nor for that matter why anyone would want to go to one.

Can anyone explain?

I shall do my best, albeit from my particular experience. It is very difficult because it's a part of my experience that went very deep, and is hard to bring to consciousness.

On the one hand, the sacraments, particularly the eucharist, is/are obviously symbolic. We are on the table, we are broken open and offered to feed each other, and we are in turn sustained in this mutual self-offering by the indwelling reality of God's self-giving love. Christ in us goes through those same processes each time the eucharist is celebrated. I don't think I would have been as alive to that process of universal, ineluctable metaphor without Cupitt's input.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have been open to its rooted reality in my being without the catholic side. The catholic side also left me absolutely persistently rooted in the connection to God, to the divine as a living reality and not purely as a metaphor.

Of course, as with anyone, it also matters when it was, and therefore where Cupitt was at the time. It was in the early 1990s, before he stopped celebrating the eucharist, and during a final flowering of something like orthodox faith. He was writing the Last Philosophy at the time.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I met up with 2 friends from my university days last night. We are all anglo-catholics but questioning.

They have both gone to Sea of Faith meetings and found them to be the only place where people could express their doubts openly.

It seems that SOF is wider and more diverse than Don Cupitt.

[ 01. May 2016, 14:52: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I once did a 3 month Sabbatical at Cambridge and was free to attend some of Dom Cupitt's lectures. Much more influential was his book and I read it with great profit. His analysis of 20 Cent decline is, to my mind, spot on. His remedy is not so persuasive.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I shall do my best, albeit from my particular experience. It is very difficult because it's a part of my experience that went very deep, and is hard to bring to consciousness.

On the one hand, the sacraments, particularly the eucharist, is/are obviously symbolic. We are on the table, we are broken open and offered to feed each other, and we are in turn sustained in this mutual self-offering by the indwelling reality of God's self-giving love. Christ in us goes through those same processes each time the eucharist is celebrated. I don't think I would have been as alive to that process of universal, ineluctable metaphor without Cupitt's input.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have been open to its rooted reality in my being without the catholic side. The catholic side also left me absolutely persistently rooted in the connection to God, to the divine as a living reality and not purely as a metaphor.

Of course, as with anyone, it also matters when it was, and therefore where Cupitt was at the time. It was in the early 1990s, before he stopped celebrating the eucharist, and during a final flowering of something like orthodox faith. He was writing the Last Philosophy at the time.

Thank you for that. It's a take on the Eucharist that so different from the way I'd normally describe it that it's both challenging and helpful.

Would I be correct in interpreting this something on the lines that at the time Don Cupitt still felt and expressed this as reaching for a mystery, something greater, even though he was unsure whether the religious language fitted what he wasn't sure he could see through a glass darkly, whether there was something beyond or the glass was just dark?

The sacraments were symbolic of that. So a more catholic way of celebrating them enabled them still to symbolise an open question. A simpler, more conventionally CofE way of celebrating, would have imposed a much starker choice as to whether they re-presented what they are more generally understood to represent, or whether they no longer represented anything at all.

So in your case, this metaphor, as you describe it, has over time grown into ontological reality, but in his case, sadly, the reality has come to be that for him, there is nothing more.

Or am I completely off beam?

[ 01. May 2016, 17:53: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

So in your case, this metaphor, as you describe it, has over time grown into ontological reality, but in his case, sadly, the reality has come to be that for him, there is nothing more.

Or am I completely off beam?

Certainly your description is perfectly accurate as far as I'm concerned. There is evidence for what you have said about Cupitt, but your guess is fundamentally as good as mine.

Posted by recklessrat (# 17243) on :

Thanks all for your replies. I think I'd better just go along and see what the local meeting is like...

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I came across the Sea of Faith 23 years ago in the university town to which I was appointed. Two were chaplains at said university, one was a parish priest with a congregation of 6! and the other was a village vicar somewhere nearby. Oh, and another was a Congregational minister.

I found that they were all joyless, sneering, and downright deceitful.

They caused a hell of a lot of trouble in the town.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

That mirrors my experience of Sea of Faith: our parish has one couple who've been involved in it for years and they do nothing but foment trouble. Everything about the church is wrong: the time of the services, their format, the music, subjects covered at Sunday School, etc, etc, etc.

Latest nasty is to hassle the Archdeacon and Bishop saying the parish is anti-ecumenism! This based on the fact we "don't interact with other Christians" - a load of sh**e since the regular congregation includes people nominally RC, URC, and a few Quakers. Interacting with other denominations is hard to do when the nearest outpost of one is in a Big Town over 10 miles away and 2 out of 4 of those are on the brink of closing up.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I came across the Sea of Faith 23 years ago in the university town to which I was appointed. Two were chaplains at said university, one was a parish priest with a congregation of 6! and the other was a village vicar somewhere nearby. Oh, and another was a Congregational minister.

I found that they were all joyless, sneering, and downright deceitful.

They caused a hell of a lot of trouble in the town.

That's a shame. I hoped they'd been a change from the more mainstream church.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I came across the Sea of Faith 23 years ago in the university town to which I was appointed. Two were chaplains at said university, one was a parish priest with a congregation of 6! and the other was a village vicar somewhere nearby. Oh, and another was a Congregational minister.

I found that they were all joyless, sneering, and downright deceitful.

They caused a hell of a lot of trouble in the town.
That's a shame. I hoped they'd been a change from the more mainstream church.

A shame indeed.
I haven't encountered any who were 'joyless, sneering, and downright deceitful', but quite the opposite.
There are certainly people like Cupitt who have given up God, but many others who have thrown out doctrines like PSA but continue, in Robin Myers' words, to 'follow Jesus rather than worshiping Christ', in a non-dogmatic environment, and where each can relate to the God of their understanding..

GG

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Hmm. I suppose it could work for some people. TBF I don't consciously know any Sea of Faith people, but would you count someone like (+) Richard Holloway? Read his memoir Leaving Alexandria with high hopes, as it had been so widely praised, but the further I read into it, the more irritating I found it. Took me a bit of thinking to realise why: it all seemed to be me-me-me; almost a disillusionment with God because he had not managed to be precisely the God that the author would have liked him to be. Rather sad really.

[ 27. May 2016, 20:59: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
many others who have thrown out doctrines like PSA

Which isn't in the creeds and wasn't formulated before Calvin.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
many others who have thrown out doctrines like PSA
Which isn't in the creeds and wasn't formulated before Calvin.

It was formulated before Calvin, sorry. I have posted earlier Christian statements of it here.

Jengie

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I shall do my best, albeit from my particular experience. It is very difficult because it's a part of my experience that went very deep, and is hard to bring to consciousness.

On the one hand, the sacraments, particularly the eucharist, is/are obviously symbolic. We are on the table, we are broken open and offered to feed each other, and we are in turn sustained in this mutual self-offering by the indwelling reality of God's self-giving love. Christ in us goes through those same processes each time the eucharist is celebrated. I don't think I would have been as alive to that process of universal, ineluctable metaphor without Cupitt's input.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have been open to its rooted reality in my being without the catholic side. The catholic side also left me absolutely persistently rooted in the connection to God, to the divine as a living reality and not purely as a metaphor.

Of course, as with anyone, it also matters when it was, and therefore where Cupitt was at the time. It was in the early 1990s, before he stopped celebrating the eucharist, and during a final flowering of something like orthodox faith. He was writing the Last Philosophy at the time.
Thank you for that. It's a take on the Eucharist that so different from the way I'd normally describe it that it's both challenging and helpful.

Would I be correct in interpreting this something on the lines that at the time Don Cupitt still felt and expressed this as reaching for a mystery, something greater, even though he was unsure whether the religious language fitted what he wasn't sure he could see through a glass darkly, whether there was something beyond or the glass was just dark?

The sacraments were symbolic of that. So a more catholic way of celebrating them enabled them still to symbolise an open question. A simpler, more conventionally CofE way of celebrating, would have imposed a much starker choice as to whether they re-presented what they are more generally understood to represent, or whether they no longer represented anything at all.

So in your case, this metaphor, as you describe it, has over time grown into ontological reality, but in his case, sadly, the reality has come to be that for him, there is nothing more.

Or am I completely off beam?

May I pick up on the tangent?

In the 80s I knew an Anglican Priest who called himself a 'Feuerbachian Christian'. He had a non-supernatural idea of God, but maintained an Anglo-Catholic praxis. His views seemed to be that ritual was useful, I suppose because it conveyed useful myths (myths are not untruths, of course), even if the myths had no objective reality.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

...and, the uncharitable might suspect, this enabled him to claim his stipend and in due course pension, which were not only helpful but had a very definitely objective reality.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
many others who have thrown out doctrines like PSA
Which isn't in the creeds and wasn't formulated before Calvin.
It was formulated before Calvin, sorry. I have posted earlier Christian statements of it here.

Jengie

I'm sure you would know more of it than I. My point was that PSA is not universal Christian doctrine by any means.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

indeed not - more opf an abheration

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I think PSA is a Dead Horse tangent on this thread. Rather than pick on controversial doctrines (PSA, transubstantiation, Biblical inerrancy) let's just stick to the creeds as the benchmark of orthodoxy - in particular the Incarnation and Trinity.

And the Atonement, in so far as the forgiveness of sins is an item in the creeds, without any theory as to how it works.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

PSA to me means prostate specific antigen I assume it has another meaning also ?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
PSA to me means prostate specific antigen I assume it has another meaning also ?

Penal substitutionary atonement.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
There are certainly people like Cupitt who have given up God, but many others who have thrown out doctrines like PSA but continue, in Robin Myers' words, to 'follow Jesus rather than worshiping Christ', in a non-dogmatic environment, and where each can relate to the God of their understanding..

I’m sure there are lovely people like that, but I’m worried that there is a presumption that “following Jesus” is different from (and superior to) accepting the doctrines of Christian experience. The Jesus of the synoptic gospels is just as much a theological presentation of the nature of God revealed by Jesus as Jesus in John’s gospel and Paul’s letters.

If you are “following Jesus” presumably you “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” which is a bit tricky without dogma.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
PSA to me means prostate specific antigen I assume it has another meaning also ?
Penal substitutionary atonement.

They sound to this non-medic as if they could be the same thing.

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

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
There are certainly people like Cupitt who have given up God, but many others who have thrown out doctrines like PSA but continue, in Robin Myers' words, to 'follow Jesus rather than worshiping Christ', in a non-dogmatic environment, and where each can relate to the God of their understanding..
I’m sure there are lovely people like that, but I’m worried that there is a presumption that “following Jesus” is different from (and superior to) accepting the doctrines of Christian experience. The Jesus of the synoptic gospels is just as much a theological presentation of the nature of God revealed by Jesus as Jesus in John’s gospel and Paul’s letters.

If you are “following Jesus” presumably you “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” which is a bit tricky without dogma.

Can you lot get your story straight? If I talk about doubts about the doctrines, I'm told that in Biblical language "believe" isn't about assent to propositions, but is about trust in a person, and now you're telling me that trust in the person of Christ isn't much good and I have to assent to the propositions.

Look, just make your bloody minds up and come back to me when you've got a consistent story.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

My take on that is that 'following' Jesus is not only what it's about. Being a Christian is about belonging to a community, which theological thinkers have identified with Christ's Body. If we follow Jesus we will be led to identify with his community, his Church, his Body. You can do that without explicitly understanding the Creeds or any worked-out doctrines. But it's more than just being a Jesus-admirer or a member of his fan club.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I agree with Angloid.

I never said Christianity was trust in a person, but if it is it is trust in God as revealed in Jesus.

And this contrast between following Jesus and worshiping Christ is odd.

Following Jesus as told in the gospels involves serving God, praying and accepting God's acceptance of us.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you lot get your story straight? If I talk about doubts about the doctrines, I'm told that in Biblical language "believe" isn't about assent to propositions, but is about trust in a person, and now you're telling me that trust in the person of Christ isn't much good and I have to assent to the propositions.

Look, just make your bloody minds up and come back to me when you've got a consistent story.

For once, I don't think that's a fair accusation. Who is 'you lot' here? It may be a fair comment to say that some people on these boards are saying one thing and some another, but who said all shipmates were unanimous about everything? They aren't about anything else. It's an unreasonable expectation to expect them to be on this.

It's only a fair accusation if you can point to an individual shipmate and say he or she is inconsistent, and 'inconsistent' is not even the same thing as 'nuanced'.

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

So who's Christianity is the real one? The ones who say it's about following a person, or the ones who say it's about assenting to particular propositions? Try explaining it as if to someone who doesn't really get nuance, because lots of people don't, and I also thought it was for everyone.

I just feel like someone's got me at whichever way I turn.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Is this any help?

1. Assume the real quest is to find out who God is rather than what other people say about him.

2. Start with Col 1:15, "He (i.e. Jesus) is the image of the invisible God ...".

3. Read the gospels and get an impression of who you are meeting there, what he is like etc.

4. Ignore for this purpose any faffle about textuality, Q etc etc etc. For this purpose, that's a distraction (yes, I can hear the squeals of the clever, but don't listen to them).

5. Only after that, read Acts, the epistles etc to find out how the first generation or so interpreted everything.

6. Belong to a community of others on the journey, whether the RCC, the CofE, a Fresh Expression etc.

7. Despite that reach and live from your own faith. Don't worry too much if it seems everyone says something different. They're not usually as different as they sound, but it isn't them we're called to put our trust in anyway. Use what helps and ignore what hinders.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Despite that reach and live

... these sometimes seem to me to be the operative words

[ 31. May 2016, 05:22: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I haven’t knowingly had any first hand experience of Sea of Faithers. However yonks ago I did a course on Modern Theology with a nice feminist Quaker and we spent a week or two studying Cupitt.

What I remember vividly was his assertion, as I remember it, “Modern man (sic) demands autonomy”.

At the time I thought that whatever they demand, what men and women really want is to be loved and wanted.

The penny has just dropped that this was the era of Thatcherism and it fits in very neatly. Individual autonomy is the main criterion for action. The slogan of “choice” is a fig leaf for dismantling equably available social provision.

I demand my autonomy to buy my council flat and stuff those in housing need for whom the pool of social housing is irreversibly diminished.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
... What I remember vividly was his assertion, as I remember it, “Modern man (sic) demands autonomy”. ...

Isn't that also what Milton's Satan demanded?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

That's often the problem with liberal theologians (not all of them by any means). They might explain away traditional doctrine to almost nothing, but often cling to extremely conservative political views (and sometimes liturgical ones too). That's why I wish there was some alternative label for those of us who are often described as 'liberal catholic'.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but Bishop John Shelby Spong will be at Carrs Lane Church in Birmingham in late October, and at Maidenhead Methodist Church the following day. Some Shippies might be interested in attending these events, and a bit of feedback afterwards would be good.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

If he is attending, doing the preaching, or leading a service, I'd enjoy reading a mystery worship report. Hint hint. [Smile]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but Bishop John Shelby Spong will be at Carrs Lane Church in Birmingham in late October, and at Maidenhead Methodist Church the following day. Some Shippies might be interested in attending these events, and a bit of feedback afterwards would be good.

There seems to be an extra "http" in your link. Perhaps a kindly host might fix it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It seems the bishop is going to be giving lectures to promote his new book rather than leading worship as such.

Yes, the above link is causing me problems. If that's also true for you, you can just go to the Progressive Christianity Network and click on 'Events'. The bishop's appearances are given on page 2. You'll see that there's a new venue on his itinerary now - St Mattias' Church in Malvern.

[ 19. July 2016, 00:43: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It seems the bishop is going to be giving lectures to promote his new book rather than leading worship as such.

Really? I am surprised!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ah. What do you mean?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Well, I heard him speak some years ago in Colchester. To be fair, it was a book-promoting tour, but I felt that he was very good at promulgating himself and his ideas, while resistant to meaningful questions and debate. He also began by posing questions which he said he would answer, but didn't.

You will realise that I didn't warm to the man.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

If you want a very good analysis of why the Church has declined then Sea of Faith provides it.

I am not so sure of Cupitt's remedy. But if you get the wrong diagnosis the chances of finding a cure are few

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

AFAIUI, the Sea of Faith's general position is that most of Christendom takes the Bible too literally. But whether that's really the Church's basic problem is debatable.

If they're correct, though, the only remedy is to create post-literal churches. But I really don't think this would satisfy most people who want religion, nor enthuse people who (think they) don't.

Maybe there should be more post-literal options for those who want them, but IMO there should also be more diverse evangelical forms of being church.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

My problem with any non-literal view of the Bible is that there is therefore no foundation to the faith you profess - however much or little you have in said 'faith'.

The vicar to whom I referred in my post above was first 'outed' when he was interviewed about the resurrection on the television by Joan Bakewell. She asked him if he believed in the bodily resurrection and the empty tomb and he said no. That's OK I guess because it's a typical liberal interpretation.

But then she asked if Jesus had been crucified; to which he replied with words to the effect of, 'Yes I think so.'(!)

And to the further question about where Jesus' body went, he replied, in a common grave with the other criminals or probably eaten by dogs!!

Now, I have a massive problem with that because he's not denying the doctrine and content of the resurrection, he's also denying the value of the incarnation because what does eaten by dogs say about God becoming man?

Now as to the non-literal issue, Christianity is not a philosophy, not a set of ideals or ideas; it's not a way of life or a community identity: it's very much founded on the incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth. It's not merely if Christ is not raised we are most to be pitied, but also, if God was not incarnate we are still in our trespasses and sins. There simply can be no Christian faith without a literal, actual, historical, living/breathing/walking/talking man who was himself also truly and properly God.

You just can't do it - if you can, why not just stay Jewish?

I mentioned above in my former post that I believe the people of whom I spoke were deceitful.
I don't mean that as a judgment upon their character but upon their words and actions.

It was Easter Sunday when we heard the man's opinion that he didn't believe in the resurrection and was unsure about the historicity of the crucifixion. Those statements set the cat amongst the media and ecclesiastical pigeons and there were letters to the local rag every single week for months - maybe even 2 years. Another local vicar tried to take the heretic priest to an an ecclesiastical court for heresy but the liberal Bishop would have none of it. Anyway, the deceit was revealed when I was asked to debate this gentleman on a local radio station the following Christmas.

I swatted up on the resurrection and also on the virgin birth which he was also going to give an opinion on. It was during this radio interview that I was completely stunned and lost for words when he finally revealed, after all these months of controversy, that he didn't actually believe in God either.

No objective being, no God with personality and existence, anyway. For him, as a member of the Sea of Faith, God was merely the highest expression of the human spirit. In other words, 'God' is the best I can be, the best other people can be.

God in man's image I suppose.
That was his deceit - that he had let people believe all along that he, as a Christian, was simply expressing a belief within the orthodox Christian faith that he couldn't accept a literal bodily resurrection.

Had he said on that Easter Sunday that his belief was that there was no actual God apart from his own spiritual aspiration, then I don't believe he would have been given the platform to speak from subsequently within Churches Together. He kept it quiet - and that, I believe, was deception.

I don't mind that there is a liberal interpretation of some of Christ's words and actions, but to deny the incarnation, to deny any literal foundation to the Christian faith is actually to render it a non-Christian philosophy.

In fact, to deny that Jesus came in the flesh is in the spirit of the antichrist.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It seems as if the Sea of Faithers just have the other side of the coin to fundamentalists: they think of language as only literal. Thomas Aquinas certainly didn’t.

Makes me think of a congregation singing “The Lord’s my shepherd” or reciting Psalm 23, and Don Cuppitt comes in and tells them that they can’t sing that as God isn’t a bloke with a crook looking after sheep.

Or that because there wasn’t historically a man who went down to Jericho and fell among thieves, that means we don’t have to love even strangers as our neighbours.

I never thought I’d have every sympathy with Mudfrog.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

My experience tallies with Mudfrog's. I would add that - in the local group I knew - there was no recognition (and no desire to recognise) that Evangelicals could be anything other than narrow-minded over-literalistic Fundamentalists. There was also a great fondness for now-discredited (pr at least obsolete) 80-year old "modernist" theology with no realisation that things had moved on in Christian thought.

In other words they were often attacking straw men and tilting at windmills.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

venbede:

quote:
Makes me think of a congregation singing “The Lord’s my shepherd” or reciting Psalm 23, and Don Cuppitt comes in and tells them that they can’t sing that as God isn’t a bloke with a crook looking after sheep.

That or that modern urban/suburban people can't relate to first century agricultural metaphors. I guess we don't know what a sheep is (reading about them doesn't count) or can't understand what it's like caring for a dependent creature (caring for pets doesn't count).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In the local [Sea of Faith] group I knew - there was no recognition (and no desire to recognise) that Evangelicals could be anything other than narrow-minded over-literalistic Fundamentalists. There was also a great fondness for now-discredited (pr at least obsolete) 80-year old "modernist" theology with no realisation that things had moved on in Christian thought.

What kind of dialogue had you been expecting anyway? I can't imagine there'd be much theological unity there. Maybe joining forces to raise funds for charity might have been preferable to discussions between people who simply couldn't agree.

The Progessive Christianity Network makes reference to a discussion around the CofE's heritage as a broad church, and there's a suggestion that the way to deal with this in the coming decades s for the CofE to move towards a franchise model. This would mean re-envisioning the CofE as more of a cultural and administrative network than a theological one. The congregations could then develop their own distinctive theological, pastoral and worshipping identities (with advice and assistance). This might be a meaningful way forward.

The Baptists are already closer to a kind of franchise approach, but ISTM that they have less to gain from allowing a complete theological liberty to their congregations. The CofE benefits from its core historical brand rather than its theology, but the same doesn't appear to be true for the Baptists.

As for the British Methodists, I can't see them giving up the circuit system for love nor money, but stranger things have happened.

[ 20. July 2016, 16:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The Progessive Christianity Network makes reference to a discussion around the CofE's heritage as a broad church, and there's a suggestion that the way to deal with this in the coming decades s for the CofE to move towards a franchise model. This would mean re-envisioning the CofE as more of a cultural and administrative network than a theological one.

So the church would cease t be a church - a people of God, a holy nation, a royal priesthood - and would become a local municipal community centre.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Baptists are already closer to a kind of franchise approach, but ISTM that they have less to gain from allowing a complete theological liberty to their congregations. The CofE benefits from its core historical brand rather than its theology, but the same doesn't appear to be true for the Baptists.

Hmmm ... two comments.

One is to remember that the individual churches predate the denomination and are, by their very nature, independent and congregational. So it's not a matter of the denomination "franchising" congregations of different kinds, but of congregations deciding whether they wish to join the wider fellowship. This latter is already happening with many new and "ethnic" churches in the large conurbations. (Of course, many older churches that might wish to dissociate them from the denomination could face difficulties disentangling themselves from Trust commitments - but that's a legal, rather than a theological, point).

Second, the Baptist Union cannot "control" theology in any meaningful way. Indeed, it has been heavily criticised in some quarters recently for appealing to churches to follow a party line with respect to same-sex marriage. But one has to remember that it has no detailed Statement of Faith, only a very short "Declaration of Principle" which includes the significant line "each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to
interpret and administer His laws". In practice, most churches are fairly conservative - but they don't have to be and some are not.

[ 20. July 2016, 17:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... The Progessive Christianity Network makes reference to a discussion around the CofE's heritage as a broad church, and there's a suggestion that the way to deal with this in the coming decades s for the CofE to move towards a franchise model. This would mean re-envisioning the CofE as more of a cultural and administrative network than a theological one. The congregations could then develop their own distinctive theological, pastoral and worshipping identities (with advice and assistance). This might be a meaningful way forward.
...

Hardly "an exhilarating weekend"; more a really depressing report. The only cheering thing in the report is the information that there were only 30 people there.

"My own challenge has been to begin a theological underpinning for the above".

Not surprised. There's no sense whatsoever that the church is the Body of Christ, the assembly of the faithful, marching through time, something against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And to the further question about where Jesus' body went, he replied, in a common grave with the other criminals or probably eaten by dogs!!

Now, I have a massive problem with that because he's not denying the doctrine and content of the resurrection, he's also denying the value of the incarnation because what does eaten by dogs say about God becoming man?

While I'm broadly with Mudfrog for much of their post, this bit confuses me. Why would being eaten by dogs devalue the incarnation?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And to the further question about where Jesus' body went, he replied, in a common grave with the other criminals or probably eaten by dogs!!

Now, I have a massive problem with that because he's not denying the doctrine and content of the resurrection, he's also denying the value of the incarnation because what does eaten by dogs say about God becoming man?
While I'm broadly with Mudfrog for much of their post, this bit confuses me. Why would being eaten by dogs devalue the incarnation?

Basically the dignity and honour afforded to the dead. Note the difference between the eaten by dogs scenario and the beauty of the care given to the dead Christ by his mourners.

The incarnation, the resurrection and the ascension all honour the human flesh of Jesus as well as his divine identity. The concept of humanity being lifted into the Godhead at the ascension is very important it seems to me. He affirms our physical humanity.

For God to allow the body of Jesus to be lost in the jaws of a pack of dogs removes that affirmation of dignity.

[ 20. July 2016, 18:08: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
The Progessive Christianity Network makes reference to a discussion around the CofE's heritage as a broad church, and there's a suggestion that the way to deal with this in the coming decades s for the CofE to move towards a franchise model. This would mean re-envisioning the CofE as more of a cultural and administrative network than a theological one. The congregations could then develop their own distinctive theological, pastoral and worshipping identities (with advice and assistance). This might be a meaningful way forward.

Linda Woodhead has been punting this idea for years. All I would add is that to be meaningful, surely it has to be meaningful to a majority of people outside the PCN?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

@Mudfrog

But God's already abandoned him to (shameful) crucifixion... surely being 'despised and rejected' is a critical part of what's going on?

Isn't there some heresy that says 'of course Jesus didn't really suffer because that's beneath the dignity o's the Son of God'?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

The vicar to whom Mudfrog referred upthread may not havee believed in God, but I'm sure he believed in the Church. After all, that's what paid his stipend. [Disappointed]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
@Mudfrog

But God's already abandoned him to (shameful) crucifixion... surely being 'despised and rejected' is a critical part of what's going on?

Isn't there some heresy that says 'of course Jesus didn't really suffer because that's beneath the dignity o's the Son of God'?

My argument makes the exact opposite point to that. The Bible says that God did not abandon his body to decay.

And the heresy to which you refer says that his body did suffer but the divine aspect of his being didn't. Or that he only 'seemed' to suffer; that's what docetism means.
So we say that he really suffered BUT that after his suffering his whole body soul and spirit was raised - that is the affirmation of humanity within the resurrection and ascension.

Being eaten by dogs doesn't fit with that.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So the church would cease t be a church - a people of God, a holy nation, a royal priesthood - and would become a local municipal community centre.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The only cheering thing in the report is the information that there were only 30 people there.

"My own challenge has been to begin a theological underpinning for the above".

Not surprised. There's no sense whatsoever that the church is the Body of Christ, the assembly of the faithful, marching through time, something against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

The issue here is, what criteria does a church have to fulfil in order to prevail against 'the gates of hell', to be a 'people of God' or a 'royal priesthood'?

In the CofE it doesn't seem to be about shared theological beliefs, or of course, a shared understanding of how to engage in worship. Theology is something that CofE people openly disagree about. Their liturgies and creeds serve a range of purposes, but not necessarily one of uniting a people to a common religious vision. That being the case, should the CofE's leadership insist that they do, or should?

Compulsion from on high risks hindering local flexibility and effectiveness in any denomination. Yes, I know that nothing is cast in stone, that these things overlap, and that churches change constituency, but after congregational consultation some CofE clergy, for example, might have an effective ministry to gay people if they could perform SSMs. Evangelical clergy might achieve more if they were always free to work with evangelical congregations rather than upsetting traditions in MOTR churches. And Sea of Faith, post-theistic clergy might be more authentic people if they didn't have to keep their beliefs out of the pulpit and away from their congregations.

I suppose the truth is that much goes unspoken in church circles, Traditions are often beyond scrutiny, and to admit publicly that the doctrines and rules regarding worship are, say, advisory rather than binding might cause embarrassment. But that does seem to be close to the reality, and there might be something to be gained in recognising this more thoroughly on a practical, organisational level.

There must be plenty of CofE theologians who could give the franchise idea some serious thought. I assume that the broad church model as currently understood is supported by careful theological arguments.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0