|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What exactly Is "not being spiritually fed"?
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think the benefits of church membership, essentially the God-based community and encouragement to include God in our thinking, really have anything to do with believing Jesus is God. The gospel, the good news, as I understand it is that it a relationship with God can make life better. How that works, how we think about God, is a personal thing. The church should no more be presenting the Jesus is God theory as the be all and end all of a relationship with God than dictate what clothes we wear.
I think the problem I'm having with this debate is understanding exactly where, if at all, you DO place Jesus. Do you see him as part of the process you describe at all?
Spong
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think the benefits of church membership, essentially the God-based community and encouragement to include God in our thinking, really have anything to do with believing Jesus is God. The gospel, the good news, as I understand it is that it a relationship with God can make life better. How that works, how we think about God, is a personal thing. The church should no more be presenting the Jesus is God theory as the be all and end all of a relationship with God than dictate what clothes we wear.
I think the problem I'm having with this debate is understanding exactly where, if at all, you DO place Jesus. Do you see him as part of the process you describe at all?
I would be interested in hearing this too, but for purely selfish reasons. I identify with much of what Dave has been saying and, as someone who no longer sees Jesus as God, but who still follows Jesus and believes in God, it would be interesting to learn what his perspective is in this regard.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
You see, I think there are ways that the church can and should deal with those who don't 'believe that Jesus is the Son of God', but who still follow Jesus, not least by looking at the meaning of each of the words in the phrase. The Creeds to me are living texts, and we will interpret them afresh in each generation.
Dave's posts don't seem to put Jesus anywhere in the picture though. If that's right, then I don't think the church can be asked to engage in a self-transformational way with that except in the way that it would deal with another faith such as Judaism for example.
Spong
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
You see, I think there are ways that the church can and should deal with those who don't 'believe that Jesus is the Son of God', but who still follow Jesus, not least by looking at the meaning of each of the words in the phrase. The Creeds to me are living texts, and we will interpret them afresh in each generation.
I had a good look for such a church at one time. Alas, nothing. People instinctively seem to want conformity of one kind or another: either to creeds, traditions, tenets, service style. Most appear to have their foundation on the premise that Jesus was (or is) God. That's to be expected, given the doctrine of the creeds and the church fathers, etc. However, it means that people like me (probably few of us!) don't really have anywhere to go unless we opt to go along with the crowd, so to speak, while knowing we're actually not being honest. I tried that awhile, and gave up in the end, especially once I tried expressing my views. Hmmm! That didn't go down so well! So I opted out of church life altogether.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Officially allowing genuinely different beliefs about Jesus would of itself change nothing on the ground.
I work for a church that officially allows genuinely different beliefs about Jesus, and it in fact changes a lot of things. It affects every aspect of the services--liturgy, preaching, and hymns must all reflect a theology which does not assume that Jesus is God, which means that those members who do believe that Jesus is God never see this traditionally central Christian doctrine reflected in the Sunday morning service, or any other service, for that matter. It affects Sunday attendance: the number of official members has remained stable, but Sunday attendance is steadily falling off. I think this can be traced back to the theology, and the senior minister, who believes in this theological diversity and preaches that Jesus was in fact not God incarnate, agrees with me. People don't feel like they need to come to church just about every Sunday, which is fine, right? Because people should feel free to do their own thing, and I don't want the church to be coercive about Sunday attendance. But falling Sunday attendance eventually translates into less commitment to the community, and going to church once or twice a month turns into an activity like any other. This is not to condemn people who don't find that regular Sunday attendance feeds them spiritually. But when you've got a congregation whose members increasingly treat it like a club they belong to, things have changed in a very fundamental way.
[ 02. January 2006, 20:47: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
I think the problem I'm having with this debate is understanding exactly where, if at all, you DO place Jesus. Do you see him as part of the process you describe at all?
Jesus is the inspiration for the church. That, with the church's history and achievements, means he is always going to be part of human history. And while we have records, his insights and those he has inspired will remain available for us to learn from and keep alive in our stories and imaginations. Theologically though, I don't see how Jesus can have any other significance.
quote:
I think there are ways that the church can and should deal with those who don't 'believe that Jesus is the Son of God', but who still follow Jesus, not least by looking at the meaning of each of the words in the phrase. The Creeds to me are living texts, and we will interpret them afresh in each generation.
I'm in two minds about the work done to reinterpret traditional Christian ideas. On the one hand, it allows people with non-traditional beliefs to still say the creeds and function within the church as it is. I'd know I wouldn't mean what the creed writers meant so I'd feel a fraud doing it, but I can see why others do.
On the other hand, these radical reinterpretations I think encourage the view that thinking about God has to be an inevitable fudge. They seem to lock theology into a mindset that sees no real value in recognition of what is beyond our capacity to know, or distinguishing between theory and reality, because the church wants to avoid giving offence to those whose beliefs are without rational foundation.
quote:
Dave's posts don't seem to put Jesus anywhere in the picture though. If that's right, then I don't think the church can be asked to engage in a self-transformational way with that except in the way that it would deal with another faith such as Judaism for example.
For me Jesus can be as central in the church as it's possible to be without making him an object of worship. As I said before, he's the inspiration for the church. He deserves a place of honour. But it occurred to me when reading Geldof and thinking about other inspirational people in recent history, Jesus' followers saying he was God would have been the equivalent of us saying someone like Geldof, or Martin Luther King, or Gandhi, is God today. It's not something anyone would take seriously.
I don't see politically how the church can reject the Incarnation and Trinity as valid 'truths' of some kind, but I think it could let go of its certainty. If it can't, it will force new thinking to take root elsewhere. Maybe that's what has to happen. But I'd be sad to see all that is good in the church fade into some marginal religious backwater, simply because no-one with the authority to make a difference was willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of post-Christian theology.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I work for a church that officially allows genuinely different beliefs about Jesus, and it in fact changes a lot of things. It affects every aspect of the services--liturgy, preaching, and hymns must all reflect a theology which does not assume that Jesus is God, which means that those members who do believe that Jesus is God never see this traditionally central Christian doctrine reflected in the Sunday morning service, or any other service, for that matter.
It can't stop there though. Services with liturgy, preaching, and hymns - is that what being a God-based community has to be about? I think it's a brave move, but my guess would be you'll have to go further. To be honest, I'd love to be involved somewhere in that kind of process. There must be others doing the same kind of thing, but I doubt there's much been written yet about how far you might have to go.
[ 02. January 2006, 21:25: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
It doesn't stop there. It affects every aspect of the church. Overall, I don't think the effect is good, because in the end the community is not built up.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It doesn't stop there. It affects every aspect of the church. Overall, I don't think the effect is good, because in the end the community is not built up.
So what's the Sunday program look like? And if it's services, what would be a typical order of service?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It affects Sunday attendance: the number of official members has remained stable, but Sunday attendance is steadily falling off. I think this can be traced back to the theology, and the senior minister, who believes in this theological diversity and preaches that Jesus was in fact not God incarnate, agrees with me. People don't feel like they need to come to church just about every Sunday, which is fine, right? Because people should feel free to do their own thing, and I don't want the church to be coercive about Sunday attendance.
This is interesting. So in effect, doctrinal certainty is somehow tied in with discipline?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaveMarshall
I don't see politically how the church can reject the Incarnation and Trinity as valid 'truths' of some kind, but I think it could let go of its certainty. If it can't, it will force new thinking to take root elsewhere. Maybe that's what has to happen.
From my own point of view I find this very interesting because it forces me to confront my own 'thus far and no further' point. I think you've pushed just past it for me. I'm assuming you see no point to the death and resurrection narrative either, and I don't think I could accept as Christian a belief system which didn't require those as part of its necessary belief system, however non-realistically people might want to take them. It does seem to me that you are arguing for a form of unitarianism, and for me some form of engagement with the trinitarian nature of Christianity is fundamental to it. Good Lord, I'm a fundamentalist.... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
On the other hand, I distinctly remember the phase when I thought I was fairly liberal but thought a belief in a literal resurrection was still non-negotiable. I dunno.
Spong
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Spong, can a person get away with believing the death bit without the resurrection bit? Or is that really pushing the boundaries?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
However, it means that people like me (probably few of us!) don't really have anywhere to go unless we opt to go along with the crowd, so to speak, while knowing we're actually not being honest. I tried that awhile, and gave up in the end, especially once I tried expressing my views. Hmmm! That didn't go down so well! So I opted out of church life altogether.
It was a question of priorities for me. Being ignored or patronised, getting annoyed about it, seeing no way to contribute constructively.
Depressing to think back to it. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
I'm assuming you see no point to the death and resurrection narrative
I'd not want to say that, because although I don't find it helpful that doesn't mean someone else won't. I'd draw a line at saying that just because I don't find it helpful, it doesn't have to be wrong.
quote:
I don't think I could accept as Christian a belief system which didn't require those as part of its necessary belief system, however non-realistically people might want to take them.
If non-realistically valuing a belief system is OK, how do you reconcile that with seeing any particular belief system as necessary? Doesn't it come down to how useful a system is?
As far as I've got, a shared system's usefulness will depend on things like internal consistency, consistency with the natural universe, and recognition of what's knowable and what's not. Our personal extension of that would include consistency with personal experience, and attachments to stories that make sense of our shared theory. Which is where the traditional Christian narrative can remain for anyone who finds it helpful.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It affects Sunday attendance: the number of official members has remained stable, but Sunday attendance is steadily falling off. I think this can be traced back to the theology, and the senior minister, who believes in this theological diversity and preaches that Jesus was in fact not God incarnate, agrees with me. People don't feel like they need to come to church just about every Sunday, which is fine, right? Because people should feel free to do their own thing, and I don't want the church to be coercive about Sunday attendance.
This is interesting. So in effect, doctrinal certainty is somehow tied in with discipline?
Well, sort of. What my ECUSA parish and my parents' Baptist church--and we're talking about a rather liberal ECUSA parish and a rather conservative Baptist church--both have is central, uniting beliefs. Not everyone at my ECUSA parish buys everything the church puts forward, but the doctrines of the incarnation and resurrection are what lie behind the liturgy that is the one thing we all share. I'm sure there are people at my parents' church who struggle to buy everything put forward there, too, but the point in both cases is that there's something central to hang onto or to relate to. My boss at the ultra-liberal, Jesus-was-a-good-guy-who-got-himself-killed church and I both think that the ultra-liberal church doesn't have anything that makes people feel like they need to go to church every week. They don't have the "you gotta do the liturgy and take communion" notion that the ECUSA parish has, and they don't have the "you gotta get nourished in the Word" notion that the Baptist church has. Saying that people need to be in church on a regular basis really goes against the notion that everyone is on their own spiritual journey, which is what you get once you remove the central uniting beliefs.
Dave: I've PM'd you with the website for the church I work for. The thing I'd point out about removing the doctrinal certainty about the incarnation and resurrection in order to make the church open to people like you is that it makes the church impossible for people like me. I could not attend the church I work for. They're lovely people, they do a lot of good things, and I like working for them--but I could never be a member.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The thing I'd point out about removing the doctrinal certainty about the incarnation and resurrection in order to make the church open to people like you is that it makes the church impossible for people like me.
How so? Letting go of certainty about incarnation and resurrection isn't the same as saying there aren't truths about God that, to my mind anyway, are much more reassuring.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
There might be truths - there might even be reassurance... but there is no revelation.
I don't understand a church without revelation; what's it for? Not to encounter God... not to hear revelation... if it's just thinking about God, group activity, sense of something a bit numinous... well I can go to a jazz concert, or talk a walk, or read a book. Why go to church?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
I'd say a church encounter with God is very like a concert or walk or book can be. The church just happens to include encountering God in and through other people who also want to encounter God. It's the added value, over and above any aesthetic contribution, that allows a God-based community to form and grow.
Of course that's not always what we want. But I think knowing it's there is good.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
They don't have the "you gotta do the liturgy and take communion" notion that the ECUSA parish has, and they don't have the "you gotta get nourished in the Word" notion that the Baptist church has. Saying that people need to be in church on a regular basis really goes against the notion that everyone is on their own spiritual journey, which is what you get once you remove the central uniting beliefs.
Sorry to repeat myself (and totally lack creativity), but this is interesting too.
I appreciate the point you make. Without a uniting 'force' of some kind, there's no incentive. This surprises me, but I suppose it shouldn't. To me, church was always a place to meet with other people, get to know them, explore differences and share similarities, etc. Its purpose - to me, I mean - was never teaching or tradition. Perhaps this is a reflection of the dubious sermons I heard (which always seemed to be levelled more at the newcomer than the long term attendee), or that I've never been a fan of liturgy (ironic, given that most of my experience was in the Church of England!).
Given the differences in incentive between your church and your parents' church, is it actually a question of doctrinal certainty that is missing from your workplace church, or just something to unite the people in a cause?
(In no way are my comments intended to belittle either yours or your parents' church experiences, btw)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'd say a church encounter with God is very like a concert or walk or book can be.
I agree with this.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
A house can be a welcoming home, and it can be a set of walls that hides abuse from the eyes of others....what makes the difference is which spirit is invited in....
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Of course that's not always what we want. But I think knowing it's there is good.
I wonder if that's not the kind of thing that the dwindling membership of RuthW's employing church would be saying?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wonder if that's not the kind of thing that the dwindling membership of RuthW's employing church would be saying?
Possibly. Although I think Ruth said membership was not declining, only attendance at services. I think her concern was that community is not being built up.
Taking a long-term view I'd say that people not attending services out of habit or obligation is healthy. And it gives church more freedom to ask questions about what it's for. If it has nothing distinctive to say, or the services it offers do not meet people's needs, why should anyone come?
I think Littlelady has it right about community needing a common cause. What seems to have happened at RuthW's work church is they've focused on creating a welcoming environment, rejected the certainties I reject, but have nothing to build on in their place.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
....but have nothing to build on in their place.
That puts a finger on the problem of the church without revelation, IMHO.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
....but have nothing to build on in their place.
That puts a finger on the problem of the church without revelation, IMHO.
How so? 'Revelation' (in the sense I think you intend the word to be understood) is only one common cause. There are plenty of others, all the way "down" to a community project which, in itself, can involve plenty of revelation (in the sense I don't think you intend the word to be understood!).
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
