|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sea of Faith - thoughts and experiences
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
@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'?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
