Thread: Sure I can halt the process - can't I? 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=026026
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Something I've noticed with theologians, shipmates and people I've known in real life is that, once they have started down the road of becoming more liberal in their understanding of faith, the process often keeps right on going, without halting at any stage, so that they go right on through Christianity and out the other side, where they can end up with no faith at all.
I am sometimes rather concerned that I'm on the same journey myself, but certainly don't want to travel the whole distance. But, once you start, is it possible to stop? And if so, how and where?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Something I've noticed with theologians, shipmates and people I've known in real life is that, once they have started down the road of becoming more liberal in their understanding of faith, the process often keeps right on going, without halting at any stage, so that they go right on through Christianity and out the other side, where they can end up with no faith at all.
Doesn't this assume that liberty and Christianity are inherently antithetical?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
For me, it was the reverse. OK, this is anecdotology, but I came back to Christianity, as I could see how I could accept it from a liberal point of view. This seemed liberating to me, whereas before it had seemed imprisoning and stultifying. Well, some of it is!
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
I don't think you should assume that such an outcome is inevitable. Certainly I didn't used to be an especially liberal Christian. It was more a case of coming (rather suddenly) to the conclusion that it was all inherently implausible. The liberalism came after.
On the other hand don't feel constrained about joining us on the Dark Side if that is where liberalism is leading you ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
. It needn't stop you singing, although you may be more conscious of being taken for granted...
BTW the AdChoices to the right came up with "Atheist Lover Dating" when I downloaded this page. Is someone stalking me?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Chorister
A good question, but surely without any easy answers.
Some would say you're being unnecessarily bleak, since there are people for whom a greater liberalism grounds them in a deeper, not a shallower form of Christian spirituality. Meanwhile, the kind of fundamentalism that refuses to engage thoughtfully with people's honest questions or serious scholarship actually risks losing adherents, because it can end up feeling very superficial.
Nevertheless, it's clear that at some stage the process of theological liberalisation in the life of individuals, churches and whole denominations regularly entails a loss of spiritual vitality and sometimes the wholesale loss of faith. Finding the 'stage' at which this normally happens would be interesting, but I don't know if it would exactly be helpful.
Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on
:
When you come out the other side, look back and you may find the new perspective shows you a stronger, deeper, richer faith where the love of God with all your mind is as strong as the love of God with heart and soul and strength.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
OTOH, you may look back (as I have) and ask yourself, "Who were those masked men?"
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm not sure if I have become more liberal, I was never very orthodox to begin with. But if anything, I can say that it has made my faith stronger, not weaker.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
The problem is, read superficially the Bible can seem brutally reactionary - anti woman anti gay etc. Or it can seems brutally unrealistic - don't store up treasure for a couple decades of no income after you get old enough the job market kicks you out?
So it can seem terribly out of touch with reality, which leads to disinterest which leads to sliding out the door. Been there.
What changed me was some coaching in how to take the Bible seriously, even just about literally, in a way that portrays a loving laughing delightful God, not a harsh accusative impossible to please God who can't tolerate the presence of my gay friends.
I have not found a church that both takes the bible seriously and sees in it an inclusive God - usually it's one or the other - but it can be done, and without any intellectual distortions.
No I can't explain it in a post or two. Talk to God about it. Answers are often slow but deep, and require being willing to reject a lot of what you have been taught.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nevertheless, it's clear that at some stage the process of theological liberalisation in the life of individuals, churches and whole denominations regularly entails a loss of spiritual vitality and sometimes the wholesale loss of faith.
Unsubstantiated assertion -- care to back it up?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nevertheless, it's clear that at some stage the process of theological liberalisation in the life of individuals, churches and whole denominations regularly entails a loss of spiritual vitality and sometimes the wholesale loss of faith.
Unsubstantiated assertion -- care to back it up?
I'm not even sure how you'd assess something like "spiritual vitality" or know the state of someone else's faith. Statements like that are almost always code for "how much do they agree with my theology".
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Something I've noticed with theologians, shipmates and people I've known in real life is that, once they have started down the road of becoming more liberal in their understanding of faith, the process often keeps right on going, without halting at any stage, so that they go right on through Christianity and out the other side, where they can end up with no faith at all.
That certainly hasn't been the case in my life. If anything, my faith has deepened, based on my understanding of God as a God of infinite love.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Pre-Cambrian:
quote:
BTW the AdChoices to the right came up with "Atheist Lover Dating" when I downloaded this page. Is someone stalking me?
You must lead a more interesting life. The only ad I got was something boring about a pipeline.
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
I think I've traveled slightly differently. I would still call myself liberal, but more rooted and grounded in Christ.
I love Horseman Bree's strapline: It's Not That Simple.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nevertheless, it's clear that at some stage the process of theological liberalisation in the life of individuals, churches and whole denominations regularly entails a loss of spiritual vitality and sometimes the wholesale loss of faith.
Unsubstantiated assertion -- care to back it up?
Proof? An example from the RC: the spiwit of vatican too, man. Peace!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chorister
...once they have started down the road of becoming more liberal in their understanding of faith...
Would you mind defining what you mean by the word 'liberal' in this context?
The problem is that, like the term 'free thinker', the word 'liberal' has been coopted by a certain theological and philosophical persuasion, and that is, in itself, rather illiberal (just like 'free thinking' cannot possibly be truly 'free' if a certain conclusion about reality is presupposed as the goal of that methodology!).
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Something I've noticed with theologians, shipmates and people I've known in real life is that, once they have started down the road of becoming more liberal in their understanding of faith, the process often keeps right on going, without halting at any stage, so that they go right on through Christianity and out the other side, where they can end up with no faith at all.
I am sometimes rather concerned that I'm on the same journey myself, but certainly don't want to travel the whole distance. But, once you start, is it possible to stop? And if so, how and where?
Of course its possible to stop, you just need to choose where. Anything can be taken to extremes and liberalism, while excellent in many ways, if taken too far, IMO can lead to a sort of washed out pan-spirituality that has little to do with orthodox Christianity. The same as if you go too far down any road, it leads to either stagnation or entropy. Indeed too far the other way down the road of conservatism can lead to stagnation of God's spirit and a focus on the forms of religion rather than the living spirit of faith.
For me, I have come a long way since the YEC, insular church of my childhood. I am discovering my own Christian faith and where on the spectrum of conservative/liberal it lies. It is often shifting, but I try not to let it get too far one way or the other.
I find this constant attempt to find a middle-ground easier by judging what Christian input I expose myself to. SoF is generally more liberal than I would call myself, while my Church is slightly more conservative. Thus both serve to counter and inform the other in my faith.
A few years ago I considered leaving my Church to find a more liberal one, more in touch with where I thought my faith was, or was heading. Yet I was brought up short when, on looking into local churches and seeing one that seemed attractive in its embrace of women's ministry and liberal attitudes, I noticed that they were great fans of, and proponents of Spong. On reading a bit about him I quickly realised this way led away from Jesus rather than to Him and I chose to stay where I was. I considered it more important to be in a church that taught Christ crucified than in a church with women ministry, which I'd like but is only of secondary importance to my faith.
So yes, it is possible to stop the slide along the spectrum, but you have to create your own anchors, your own lines where you say, 'no further', so once you feel you're crossing them you know you need to correct yourself, either by changing church, or stopping reading SoF for a while ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. For me, the historical reality of Jesus is one of those fundamental lines in the sand. You need to decide what yours is.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I would not describe myself as a liberal, but I think, Chorister, you are onto something and this is a risk that comes with a journey all of us have to go through unless we come to faith rather late in life.
We tend to start off with the faith we are given. Over life, this has to mature into our own faith. Put another way, it is a journey from something outside that we commit ourselves to, and something that takes up residence within us. I hope this is part of what becoming more like Christ.
In one's teens and early adult years, we tend to go for something that is fairly straightforward, that seems to give us the answers. Possibly, an influence on this is that many of us at that stage feel fairly insecure inside.
Somewhere along the road, this ceases to work. Life doesn't quite fit the model. I suspect that for many men it is somewhere in one's late forties. It's harder for me to say when it's likely to happen if you are a woman, but may be related either to the menopause or one's children leaving the nest.
Among the possible responses are:-
1. Denying it's all happening and sticking resolutely to one's familiar life understanding, irrespective of experience.
2. Drifting gradually away from faith, rather as Chorister describes.
3. Working through it, and coming to a more mature faith, that unlike in option 2, is a more real faith than what preceded it, not a shadowy relic of it.
Unfortunately, it's quite difficult as one finds oneself forced to embark on this process, to be able to tell whether one is going down road 2 or 3.
I suspect it must be fairly ghastly reaching this stage if one is in public ministry. Clergy either haven't got the space to do this, and opt for option one, which in the long term is spiritually disastrous, or appear self indulgent airing their personal spiritual anxieties in the pulpit.
Looking at people older than me, I am a bit concerned that, if one lasts that long, there may be a similar threshold to cross in one's early seventies.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Discovering the works of Borg, Crossan and Spong was the best thing that ever happened to me. They were a critical breath of fresh air. I like the other side.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I find myself continually challenged by more conservative* Christians so i don't fall off the edge but think they might have a few things right and that, maybe, I'd overlooked some arguments.
* not fundamentalists nor evangelicals
[ 22. August 2013, 14:21: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Something I've noticed with theologians, shipmates and people I've known in real life is that, once they have started down the road of becoming more liberal in their understanding of faith, the process often keeps right on going, without halting at any stage, so that they go right on through Christianity and out the other side, where they can end up with no faith at all.
And an excellent place it is, I
assure you! I have faith in a million things, but not in religious beliefs, because all the other things I have faith in are provable and have, when traced back, a material source.
quote:
I am sometimes rather concerned that I'm on the same journey myself, but certainly don't want to travel the whole distance.
Is that because you think you will lose the support of something? In my opinion , all support we humans have is from other humans. You could perhaps bear in mind that it is entirely personal faith that enables you to imagine the God/god/s you believe in has an existence, but, as yu know, for me all such God/god/s are human creations. As soon as I took the step away from thinking the support actually existed, then I knew I was stronger and complete, and if you can name any form of spirituality that I, as an atheist, am incapable of knowing, feeling or experiencing (especially since I used to 'know' that God was), I would be interested to hear! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
But, once you start, is it possible to stop? And if so, how and where?
You can stop yourself thinking or believing something any time you like, especially when you find better explanations, and then, having seen and felt the freedom of non-belief, you can then return to your previous belief or not, but you won't know until you have a good look, I think.?
(I'm going to be offline from 28th for a month or more, so apollogies in advance when I drop out.)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
What Croesos picks up on, I think, is that Liberalism means something quite different in other countries, most notably as a political movement. To make it clear, I'm talking about Liberal Christianity / Liberal Theology as a personal approach to faith, not Politics.
While I'm travelling through, perhaps I could derive some hope from meeting people like quetzalcoatl travelling the other way? That would be quite reassuring.
And although Enoch would not describe himself as a Liberal, I can identify with much of what he's saying. I think we're on the same road bro.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What Croesos picks up on, I think, is that Liberalism means something quite different in other countries, most notably as a political movement. To make it clear, I'm talking about Liberal Christianity / Liberal Theology as a personal approach to faith, not Politics.
While I'm travelling through, perhaps I could derive some hope from meeting people like quetzalcoatl travelling the other way? That would be quite reassuring.
And although Enoch would not describe himself as a Liberal, I can identify with much of what he's saying. I think we're on the same road bro.
Well, somebody who influenced me quite a lot was a Catholic priest I was friendly with, who had a major personal and faith crisis, left the priesthood, got married, and renounced his faith.
Anyway, years later, he trained as a Jungian analyst, and lightbulb moment! realized he could come back to his faith in a different way, less conservatively, more symbolically, blah blah blah. So there he is trotting off to Mass every Sunday with his missus, new-minted, fresh-faced. Cor blimey, guv, wudju bleeve it. Well, yes.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
Count me as one who has become more orthodox as I've grown older. As a teenager, having had a childhood that was oddly divided between highish liberalish Anglicanism and Evangelicalism, I became very liberal religiously. Then I studied theology (not very seriously) with an ex-Jesuit, started attending an Anglo-Catholic church with a tradition of very serious orthodox preaching, read some of the Church Fathers, and was introduced to Radical Orthodoxy.
Now, I see theological liberalism and fundamentalism as sides of the same coin, essentially representing two ways in which the Church failed assert the integrity of its theology when faced with the Enlightenment.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
What a wonderful thread topic! I'm not sure the process can be stopped - and nor should it if we are trying to discern the truth of things. Searching for Truth involves accepting what facts there are as facts which in turn removes a certain element of choice as to where we will end up belief-wise. We are the servant of the facts rather than the other way round. I don't think as I have read and reflected over the years that I have chosen my beliefs. It's that I haven't been able to ignore new information and data and that some interpretations of incomplete evidence seem much more plausible than others.
For each of us, there is probably a line that if crossed, we can no longer feel we can call ourselves Christian, but for each of us, that line will vary. For some it might be a disbelief in Christ's deity, another in the bodily resurrection, and another in the Trinity. For what it's worth, I wouldn't say that Bishop Spong is a Christian - too many beliefs have been lost, but as I'm not a Christian either (having crossed my line some time ago), it's not a criticism, nor is it any of my business.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I think it probably depends on the definition of liberalism within Christianity. I would be regarded as 'liberal' on the Dead Horses concerning sexuality and gender, but am perfectly orthodox regarding the Apostle's Creed - I'm no supporter of Spong. I'm not approaching the Bible on a relevant-irrelevant axis though, which seems to be the typical view of those called liberal Christians. If you're what might be called neo-orthodox, what then?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Then its no loss. It's pruning. Purging. What would one have to lose to no longer be Christian?
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
I think you stay more easily able to call yourself "Christian" ("still Christian"?) if you go higher up the the candle.
Concentrate on whatever passes for high church in your denom or neck of the woods.
If you are concentrating on liturgy "in church" you can "think" or "believe" what you like "out of church". That should usually be the process anyway. And it means you are free to explore, develope and change as you read, mark and inwardly digest.
You will always find people who are like you wherever your search leads you.
Hmmmm...lots of "..."'s there but I think they are all necessary
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
This shows a rather low view of the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
This shows a rather low view of the agency of the Holy Spirit.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nevertheless, it's clear that at some stage the process of theological liberalisation in the life of individuals, churches and whole denominations regularly entails a loss of spiritual vitality and sometimes the wholesale loss of faith.
Unsubstantiated assertion -- care to back it up?
I'm not even sure how you'd assess something like "spiritual vitality" or know the state of someone else's faith. Statements like that are almost always code for "how much do they agree with my theology".
The reference to 'my theology' is interesting, since I don't know what my theology is, really. I'm fairly orthodox by the standards of this website, but having grown up in a mainstream church I've always been dimly aware of the influences of a liberalising theological outlook, and I grapple with the consequences of that for my own faith and for the church.
I've spent most of my life within British Methodism. Methodism here was once urgently evangelical, and now is much less so. It was once a growing denomination but has been in steady, then sharp decline for quite a long time. When I wanted to understand what was happening around me I started to read, and found that according to the sociologists and social historians Methodism represents a textbook example of how vigorous, growing church movements become denominations, then the spiritual culture subtly changes, and then gradually decline sets in.
'A loss of spiritual vitality' was my shorthand term for the problematic outcomes that seem to occur at some point following these subtle processes of liberalisation. Now, these processes may well have some good outcomes too; most Christians today have benefited from them. Nothing's straightforward.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
This shows a rather low view of the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Eh? In other words, what the hell you're on about? I've seen it happen. The result is atheism or somekind of new ageism.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
This metaphor is broken.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
This shows a rather low view of the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Eh? In other words, what the hell you're on about? I've seen it happen. The result is atheism or somekind of new ageism.
You've seen it happen EVERY TIME? You made a universal claim. Now you're backing off of it. Do you admit you overclaimed in the first place?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
When I wanted to understand what was happening around me I started to read, and found that according to the sociologists and social historians Methodism represents a textbook example of how vigorous, growing church movements become denominations, then the spiritual culture subtly changes, and then gradually decline sets in.
'A loss of spiritual vitality' was my shorthand term for the problematic outcomes that seem to occur at some point following these subtle processes of liberalisation. Now, these processes may well have some good outcomes too; most Christians today have benefited from them. Nothing's straightforward.
You still haven't provided any substantiation for your claim. What did you read? How are you measuring the vitality of faith? And how is it that "spiritual culture" setting in = increasing liberalism of faith?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I just love it when conservatives are saying people can become so liberal they eventually lose their faith. Yet, I can point to instances where people can become so conservative and rigid in their faith they lose it too. Reza Asian is a good example.
The deal of it is quite a few conservatives have problems with cognitive incongruities that they just cannot answer: science; sociological changes; even theological quandaries.
I have long been a liberal and am quite willing to discuss various issues from a liberal perspective. My son used to joke I am so liberal I make Karl Marx look like a tea party member.
Yes, my faith is challenged, but the opposite of faith is not doubt, but it is certitude. People can get so rigid in what they think is right that a small prick can devastate them. On the other hand, liberals seem to be able to more easily roll with the punches.
I would argue that PTSD is more likely experienced by people who have a rigid world view. There also seems to be more problems with alcohol abuse and depression among the conservatives I have meant.
BTW, I do like a spirit filled worship service. Great preaching also is very important to me. I love singing hymns of all types.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
This shows a rather low view of the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Eh? In other words, what the hell you're on about? I've seen it happen. The result is atheism or somekind of new ageism.
You've seen it happen EVERY TIME? You made a universal claim. Now you're backing off of it. Do you admit you overclaimed in the first place?
I never overstated anything, neither have I backed down. I said that there is a point of no return, that if you're there long enough it's inevitable, in other words, atheism or some sort of new ageism. The result is the same: apostasy.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
So you seem to be saying that if you stay on the tightrope until you fall off, then you'll fall off. Or are you saying there is a specific amount of time? Everybody who is on the tightrope for four years will definitely fall off? Have there never been any people who were on the tightrope for a time then came back to faith? What are you saying that's not a tautology? And is there some way we could test it to see if it's true or not, or is it completely unfalsifiable?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I have travelled along this sort of road, but I am still, avowedly, an evangelical. What I am not any more is a conservative evangelical, because that is the position I have moved away from, I am now what used to be called an open evo, but I prefer just evo.
Is it possible to go back or stop? Probably not. Would I want to? No, because I have seen, in WBC and others, what the ultimate expression of this is like, and have had to distance myself from that. I have just chosen the place that I wanted to move towards.
I am, however, now out of the church completely. That is no bad thing, and is part of my journey. I do not see me rejecting evo Christianity, because that is what is fundamental to me - the primacy of the bible, the building of my faith on biblical roots.
So can you halt the process of learning and growing in your faith? Yes, of course you can. There are many examples of congregations who have done just this. Would you want to?
Learning and growing is a difficult journey. In the end, much of what you have held as dear will be blown away. But something can remain.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
One route is the post-evangelical journey mapped out by the likes of Dave Tomlinson. Similar ground is covered by Brian D McLaren and Rob Bell. I think these people are serious about spirituality and the bible et al, but have a liberal outlook. They certainly challenge conservative Christianity and fundamentalist thinking.
I would say that spiritual life has similar signs to organic life that include growth, reproduction, respiring and movement. If we are not changing and going on a spiritual journey then we are dead. So Chorister you are probably more alive than a stick in the mud zealot who is not going anywhere.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I think the OP puts forward a kind of liberalism that's very different from the kind I know. I get called a liberal because I spend time smashing my idols with a hammer. (Till I get exhausted. Then I stop, enjoy the idols I still have for a while, then at some point find myself reaching for the hammer again.) I honestly think it's the duty of every able human being to do this.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What Croesos picks up on, I think, is that Liberalism means something quite different in other countries, most notably as a political movement. To make it clear, I'm talking about Liberal Christianity / Liberal Theology as a personal approach to faith, not Politics.
While I'm travelling through, perhaps I could derive some hope from meeting people like quetzalcoatl travelling the other way? That would be quite reassuring.
And although Enoch would not describe himself as a Liberal, I can identify with much of what he's saying. I think we're on the same road bro.
Well, somebody who influenced me quite a lot was a Catholic priest I was friendly with, who had a major personal and faith crisis, left the priesthood, got married, and renounced his faith.
Anyway, years later, he trained as a Jungian analyst, and lightbulb moment! realized he could come back to his faith in a different way, less conservatively, more symbolically, blah blah blah. So there he is trotting off to Mass every Sunday with his missus, new-minted, fresh-faced. Cor blimey, guv, wudju bleeve it. Well, yes.
So he returned to church on his own terms rather than the Church's? Hardly a recipe for a healthy spiritual life.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
This shows a rather low view of the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Indeed.
Chorister, if your experience is anything like my experience, the more you disentangle your sense of God's presense from the authority of men, the stronger your faith will become. God did not give us minds so we could refuse to use them. Clarity is a beautiful thing.
[ 23. August 2013, 11:04: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I agree this is a great topic.
<Blogpost alert>
I think that when my charismatic evangelical world fell apart dramatically nearly ten years ago, one of the underlying reasons was that unlike the movement I was part of, I saw myself as being on a spiritual journey rather than having definitively arrived.
The result of that explosion was very definitely a lot of theological deconstruction on my part. I've asked myself the same question as Chorister more than once. When I discover fake testimonies in the charismatic/evangelical world, one of my underlying worries is that I might end up coming to the conclusion that the founding testimonies of the faith might be all fabrication too (atheist Shipmates, please stop cackling!). Might I too end up going through faith and out the other side?
Then too, there's the sorry state of the Church and its institutions. As I once remarked to my jogging partner, sometimes I think the Church is nothing more than a huge misunderstanding on the part of christians in general.
And yet after deconstruction, for me (often in spite of myself) there has come reconstruction.
I don't approach the Bible in at all the same way as before, I don't have anything like the same piety, and (as discussed at length elsewhere) I look back at things like the Toronto Blessing with a mixture of nostalgia and perplexity. To my frequent annoyance, I also find myself leading a church - although it's far too evangelical in praxis for most liberals and far too liberal in praxis and belief for many evangelicals.
And yet I find my faith in the risen Christ is still there and if anything stronger than before, even if its expression is different. I find the Bible to be just as alive with the Word of God as I ever did if not more so. I also find myself being an occasional instrument of healing, and experiencing conjunctions of events that I simply cannot put down to chance.
</Blogpost alert>
Tl;dr version:
I've taken up a phrase I've borrowed and adapted from Roger Forster. Too often we seek the Church and hope Jesus will build the Kingdom. I'm now more committed than ever to seeking the Kingdom and letting Jesus get on with building the Church however he wants. And to repurpose a line from Sting: quote:
If I ever lose my faith in you
There'd be nothing left for me to do
[ 23. August 2013, 11:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you seem to be saying that if you stay on the tightrope until you fall off, then you'll fall off. Or are you saying there is a specific amount of time? Everybody who is on the tightrope for four years will definitely fall off? Have there never been any people who were on the tightrope for a time then came back to faith? What are you saying that's not a tautology? And is there some way we could test it to see if it's true or not, or is it completely unfalsifiable?
Please don't be silly. For different people it will be a different amount of time but if you're one the edge of apostasy long enough it's certainly inevitable. The reason for this is that liberal Christianity, or whatever you want to call it, is built on the wisdom of men, the spirit of the age etc. and thus like building a house on sand.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Surely all forms of Christianity are affected by the 'spirit of the age'. Are you saying for example that capitalism has not affected Christianity? What about usury, and the morality of big business and the primacy of share holders?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
It's strange, but ISTM your phrase that I've italicised applies much more clearly to people towards the other end of the Christian theological spectrum; people who, for example, hold together in their minds the two (IMO) contradictory beliefs that God both epitomises love and cannot invite us into his presence without someone else taking the punishment that ought to fall on us.
Not people like Chorister who are on a journey of faith that is leading them to re-examine their beliefs and reject some of them.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Christianity doesn't endorse one political or economic system above another, though it does and always has condemned unethical practices. As for capitalism and usury you can blame the Protestantism and the Enlightenment. Then you're left with two options: essentially forbidding Christians from making any financial transactions or employing some ekonomia.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
It's strange, but ISTM your phrase that I've italicised applies much more clearly to people towards the other end of the Christian theological spectrum; people who, for example, hold together in their minds the two (IMO) contradictory beliefs that God both epitomises love and cannot invite us into his presence without someone else taking the punishment that ought to fall on us.
Not people like Chorister who are on a journey of faith that is leading them to re-examine their beliefs and reject some of them.
PSA? I don't believe in that. I wouldn't consider it orthodox anyway.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christianity doesn't endorse one political or economic system above another, though it does and always has condemned unethical practices. As for capitalism and usury you can blame the Protestantism and the Enlightenment. Then you're left with two options: essentially forbidding Christians from making any financial transactions or employing some ekonomia.
Blame Protestantism and the Enlightenment! That's the trouble with human beings, they keep doing stuff that doesn't fit my picture of reality. Damn annoying really. Still, blaming is pretty enjoyable, I guess.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
PSA? I don't believe in that. I wouldn't consider it orthodox anyway.
It's certainly not Orthodox, is it? Anyway, my point was a general one about the 'disharmony between mind and heart' which seems to me to be a much more significant factor in conservative Christian theology than in liberal.
Perhaps a better example would have been evolution / creationism, where you have kids being taught that creationism true and scientifically justifiable but then as they go through the teenage years they discover the opposite view is held by pretty much everyone else.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
Indeed, an interesting topic.
Thank you especially Eutychus for your post, above.
From my reading about Newman and the Oxford Movement etc, I seem to remember that "liberalism" for him and for so many in his time was the nightmare, and he expressed exactly the fear Chorister speaks of, that when people start letting go of this belief and then that, they move inexorably away from orthodoxy, slide through various shades of belief, often stopping for a while in Unitarianism, but then ending up believing in nothing. The sort of path illustrated in William Hale White's autobiographical novel, The Autobiography of Mark Rutherford.
So it's a long-standing concern, of course.
In diametric opposition to that slippery slope is the decision that Newman and so many other converts to (Roman) Catholicism took (and still take): that the Catholic church is the one true apostolic church. And once you have accepted this, you don't need to quibble about this or that bit of belief or practice. Not that you check your brain in at the door, as we see in countless writers like Newman, Chesterton, and our own IngoB; but there seems to be a sort of relaxation and paradoxically a freedom in the relinquishing the struggle to believe, when you just accept the church is right. You go along with all that you can, and if you have trouble with one particular bit of doctrine or practice, you accept that the fault is in you, and pray that God will help you.
Converts often call this finding of a home, and the ability to accept the church as God's true church, as "safe haven, " "solid ground."
And maybe converts to the Orthodox Church feel the same.
As is obvious, I rather envy those who have been able to do this.
Instead, I have gone the (very common) route of departing gradually from the very devout Catholicism of my upbringing and away from any sort of certitude.
I feel God is so much a mystery we cannot pin him/her down as churches have so often done. All have a bit of the truth, none has the whole truth.
So I still self-identify as Christian, Anglican more or less, but I'm trying to sort out what it all means to me now...
it will not let me go, I am still so drawn to it all.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christianity doesn't endorse one political or economic system above another, though it does and always has condemned unethical practices. As for capitalism and usury you can blame the Protestantism and the Enlightenment....
A common view, but 90 years ago Tawney suggested that it wasn't as simple as that, and even as a representation of Weber it's a bit of a caricature.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
Some of us get rather tired of being told that we're not REALLY Christian, and that we are looking for that handbasket, when it turns out that we are just thinking things through until they make sense for us.
Simply yelling at us is not helping.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's more like blaming, isn't it? I do think that blaming is under-rated; it's both enjoyable and purgative. No wonder some Christians rate it! Now hang on, am I blaming here?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As for capitalism and usury you can blame the Protestantism and the Enlightenment.
So all those 14th and 15th century Italian ("Lombard") moneylenders (like the de Medici) were really Protestants, not Roman Catholics? There's a whole lot of art in northern Italy that they paid for that surely looks a lot like contemporary Roman Catholic piety. Or is it the equivalent of the "No true Scotsman" thing -- if they were moneylenders, they weren't really ROman Catholic.
John
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
it will not let me go, I am still so drawn to it all.
It's this, to hang on to, that gives me underlying hope. Meanwhile, I think I'm happy to continue the journey slowly. Where's the rush, anyway?
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
it will not let me go, I am still so drawn to it all.
It's this, to hang on to, that gives me underlying hope. Meanwhile, I think I'm happy to continue the journey slowly. Where's the rush, anyway?
God bless you on your journey, Chorister. Don't pay any attention to anyone judgementally pontificating about teetering "on the brink of apostasy". As was said above, the opposite of faith is not doubt -- the opposite of faith is ironclad certitude.
It is those locked in a hard brittle certitude that have a tendency to fracture. It can be a sort of hard spiritual constipation. I know, from personal experience.
In Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, the word "faith" has not the meaning of something dogmatic but more rather means simply "trust". And so "there are three things that last -- trust, hope and love -- and the greatest of these is love.
After all, the 2 greatest commandments (or 2 greatest Expectations that God has of us -- quoting Mousethief from the 1st Commandment thread), in both Judaism and Christianity, are
(1) that we love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and
(2) that we love each other as* we love ourselves.
*Note: "as" means that we are supposed to love ourselves too, not hate ourselves.
If, in your journey, you are moving to greater love of God, your fellow people, and yourself, that's what's most important -- or, so it seems to me, that's what Jesus was saying.
Joyful journeying, Chorister.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Please don't be silly.
It is as I thought. You cannot answer my questions.
quote:
For different people it will be a different amount of time but if you're one the edge of apostasy long enough it's certainly inevitable.
This is a mere tautology. "Long enough" means "long enough to fall off," so what you are saying is, "If you stay on the edge until you fall off, you will fall off." You are saying NOTHING. It is a fact that some people fall off and some people come back. All you are saying is that the people who don't come back fall off. Which is saying nothing nobody already didn't know.
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
it will not let me go, I am still so drawn to it all.
It's this, to hang on to, that gives me underlying hope. Meanwhile, I think I'm happy to continue the journey slowly. Where's the rush, anyway?
Feels more like a journey as you say than balancing on a tight rope about to fall off. I am about to read "Leaving Church" by Barbara Taylor Brown as her interview in the Church Times spoke to me (short quote from the interview, not the book, below) and reminded me that what I should be hanging on to was to the living water (God) not the Well (Church) - but still persisting with church.
quote:
"......'doing religion' makes a lot more sense to me than 'believing religion'. In my view, religion and spirituality are made for each other. Religion is the deep well that connects me to the wisdom of the ages. Spirituality is the daily experience of hauling up living water, and carrying it into a dry world. .............."
"....... But all of those rich resources dry out pretty quickly if they are not refreshed by some direct experience of the divine, which is what spirituality exists to recognise and assist.
In my view, religion gets in the way of God when the well becomes more interesting than the water - protecting the well, funding the well, analysing the history of the well, restricting access to the well, selling picture postcards of the well - all the things we do instead of celebrating and sharing the water.
If my metaphor holds, then God is the living water that rises up in all life-giving wells. Religion gets in God's way when we think we have God surrounded, when we think that our well is the only one with God in it."
Barbara Brown Taylor, Church Times 16 Aug 2013
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
Religion gets in God's way when we think we have God surrounded, when we think that our well is the only one with God in it."
Barbara Brown Taylor, Church Times 16 Aug 2013
[/QUOTE]What a great quote!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm not sure if liberalism is necessarily about letting go of beliefs. I believe things about God, although not necessarily the same things as orthodox Christians.
So, I don't have the idea that I'm close to any 'edge' (although the view is nice from here).
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I believe things about God, although not necessarily the same things as orthodox Christians.
I would not so easily hand the title orthodox to the conservatives. Liberal does not necessarily mean heretic.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Please don't be silly.
It is as I thought. You cannot answer my questions.
quote:
For different people it will be a different amount of time but if you're one the edge of apostasy long enough it's certainly inevitable.
This is a mere tautology. "Long enough" means "long enough to fall off," so what you are saying is, "If you stay on the edge until you fall off, you will fall off." You are saying NOTHING. It is a fact that some people fall off and some people come back. All you are saying is that the people who don't come back fall off. Which is saying nothing nobody already didn't know.
Eh? It's like, if you go without food and water for long enough you'll die not, if you go without food and water long enough you'll die which means you'll die. Are you being deliberately dense? It's quite simple.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I suppose if you are aware you're teetering on the edge, you might have time to attach a harness, or a bungee jump rope so that the fall might not be terminal?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Please don't be silly.
It is as I thought. You cannot answer my questions.
quote:
For different people it will be a different amount of time but if you're one the edge of apostasy long enough it's certainly inevitable.
This is a mere tautology. "Long enough" means "long enough to fall off," so what you are saying is, "If you stay on the edge until you fall off, you will fall off." You are saying NOTHING. It is a fact that some people fall off and some people come back. All you are saying is that the people who don't come back fall off. Which is saying nothing nobody already didn't know.
Eh? It's like, if you go without food and water for long enough you'll die not, if you go without food and water long enough you'll die which means you'll die. Are you being deliberately dense? It's quite simple.
It's the "long enough" that is the issue, and you have not given any non-tautological definition of it, despite my having asked twice now. Third time's a charm. If you still can't answer it, I will consider you incapable.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
How long is a piece of string?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
usually about an inch too short for what you want to do with it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I suppose if you are aware you're teetering on the edge, you might have time to attach a harness, or a bungee jump rope so that the fall might not be terminal?
Yes, or someone may offer you a hand.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ...
I think I'm with Hawk on this one. I think it is possible to tip so far over the edge to become apostate - and Spong and co. may well have done so.
That said, I find the kind of position that Ad Orientem appears to hold to be equally and oppositely problematic.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
So he returned to church on his own terms rather than the Church's? Hardly a recipe for a healthy spiritual life.
Well, a liberalised (or liberated?) soul freely returning to the fold will almost certainly be a thorn in the side of practitioners who lack the courage to critically analyse their own institutionally packaged beliefs. But whose faith is at issue - the individual's or the institution's? No religion has a divine (!) right to dictate anyone's spiritual path. Not even the One True Ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
...I've seen it happen. The result is atheism or somekind of new ageism.
Am I just being touchy or am I right to sense a veiled pejorative in 'some kind of new ageism' and a horrified implication of 'that way lies madness' in both of those 'results'? We've heard further upthread from a happy atheist. My own faith structure is sometimes described as New Age, though rarely by those who practise it, and despite being rooted in an older age than that of Christianity. Many of my comrades have travelled the route out of Abrahamic religions outlined in the OP, reached a Point of No Return and been perfectly happy about that. The PoNR has been a neutral platform from which to make earnest investigations elsewhere, and to rebuild healthier spiritual lives as a result. The only people to whom that poses a problem, it seems, are certain members of the various One True Religions that they have left behind, who can't get over the idea that a healthy spiritual life could involve a different set of tenets to their own.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
How long is a piece of string?
It is as I thought, then. You cannot argue your corner but must call people names. Game over. Don't play again.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
My near-decade-long apostasy was proceded by efforts to conform to a conservative evangelical form of Christianity, and my return was aided by the existence of a liberal form of Christianity wherein my faith has been nourished for more than 20 years, so I really don't buy the assumption that liberal Christianity is necessarily a way station on the road to complete loss of faith.
Spong is not an apostate; he is a heretic. So, in my opinion, are certain conservative Christians -- folks like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson .
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
Religion gets in God's way when we think we have God surrounded, when we think that our well is the only one with God in it."
Barbara Brown Taylor, Church Times 16 Aug 2013
What a great quote! [/QUOTE]
Yes, wonderful quote from Barbara Brown Taylor, indeed the whole passage is important and thought-provoking.
Chorister, as you say, it does indeed feel like a journey. And the fact we are still drawn to "it" --by which i meant Jesus, spirituality, the Christian story, religion-- yes, this gives me hope too.
RuthW, that is very interesting, that for you the more liberal form of Christianity brought you back and has continued to nourish your faith...definitely the opposite of the trajectory described in the OP. And shared by many, perhaps....
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
My near-decade-long apostasy was proceded by efforts to conform to a conservative evangelical form of Christianity, and my return was aided by the existence of a liberal form of Christianity wherein my faith has been nourished for more than 20 years, so I really don't buy the assumption that liberal Christianity is necessarily a way station on the road to complete loss of faith.
Spong is not an apostate; he is a heretic. So, in my opinion, are certain conservative Christians -- folks like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson .
Top post. Yes, I don't see that liberal Christianity is an exit sign! Like you, it helped me back to my home.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Something I've noticed with theologians, shipmates and people I've known in real life is that, once they have started down the road of becoming more liberal in their understanding of faith, the process often keeps right on going, without halting at any stage, so that they go right on through Christianity and out the other side, where they can end up with no faith at all.
I suppose it depends how narrow a definition of 'Christianity' we have. It is certainly possible to go through some definitions and out the other side. Alternatively, it is possible to broaden our understanding of how wide our faith can be, so that we can spend our whole life travelling, and never reach the end.
quote:
I am sometimes rather concerned that I'm on the same journey myself, but certainly don't want to travel the whole distance. But, once you start, is it possible to stop? And if so, how and where?
To me, the distance is not the issue. The companion on the journey is the issue. As long as the Lord walks beside me, I trust him not to let me fall over the edge.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When you're on the edge of apostasy for long enough, as if on a tightrope, you're bound to fall off sooner or later.
I am not sure there is any reason to believe this. It is possible to fall off any cliff, but it is also more than possible to stroll happily along the edge, admiring the view, and then stroll equally happily home to tea.
It is a very strange world view that suggests that every cliff must inevitably lead to people falling off 'sooner or later'.
quote:
It's just a matter of time, because you eventually become too tired to keep your balance. The disharmony between mind and heart becomes too hard to bear and you lose your feet.
Apocalyptic. How marvellous.
... or else you admire the view for a while, and then stroll home for tea.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Spong is not an apostate; he is a heretic. So, in my opinion, are certain conservative Christians -- folks like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson .
The status of 'heretic' is not determined by opinion.
There are very clear constraints on who can, and who cannot, be regarded as heretic. I very much doubt if any of the people you mention would qualify.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
I think you stay more easily able to call yourself "Christian" ("still Christian"?) if you go higher up the the candle.
Concentrate on whatever passes for high church in your denom or neck of the woods.
If you are concentrating on liturgy "in church" you can "think" or "believe" what you like "out of church".
Wot? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
That should usually be the process anyway. And it means you are free to explore, develope and change as you read, mark and inwardly digest.
I don't see how any of that follows from moving up the candle.
[ 24. August 2013, 09:04: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I suppose if you are aware you're teetering on the edge, you might have time to attach a harness, or a bungee jump rope so that the fall might not be terminal?
If a person is aware of teetering on some kind of edge in relation to faith, then there are all sorts of options open to them. They could pray, seek advice from a spiritual director, go on retreat, take a holiday, explore a more liberal or a more conservative expression of faith to see whether it resonates with them, or choose to step back from the edge. They could read the Dark Night of the Soul, or the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. They could pray a Novena, or go out for a pizza, or indeed do both.
Falling off is by no means inevitable.
[ 24. August 2013, 09:11: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's a bit of an odd discussion, in any case, as it seems to suggest that I am separate from the process. Is this the case?
I would be inclined to say that I am the process. If I am falling off the cliff of faith, or whatever metaphor is used, then indeed, I am falling off the cliff of faith.
I suppose we can detach ourselves from this maybe, and feel regret, panic, or even that we don't want to be involved in this process.
But in that case, the process has changed, and I am in the process of not wanting to fall off, or regretting ever having got here.
Can you stop being yourself?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I suppose if you are aware you're teetering on the edge, you might have time to attach a harness, or a bungee jump rope so that the fall might not be terminal?
Yes, or someone may offer you a hand.
Yes , like that which was offered Peter when he tried to walk on water and started to sink .
I suppose there is a problem when we come to feel our faith stands for absolutely nothing in terms of the established order where liberalism is concerned .
Thing is I'm not sure if me saying 'I don't give a flying fuck about what other people do or don't do' is necessarily the death knell for my faith . Believing that God Himself doesn't give a FF about what *I* do or don't do probably is .
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I am sometimes rather concerned that I'm on the same journey myself, but certainly don't want to travel the whole distance. But, once you start, is it possible to stop? And if so, how and where?
I would simply ask by what means you are travelling now. It is not the case that you can use these means to take you to some favourite spot and then let go of them. For if you knew what that favourite spot would have to be, then you could go to that spot right now - and why would you become more able to determine such an endpoint in future than you are now? You will always just choose your means, because they are what is concrete and they seem good. What will be the argument against using these means further then that would not apply to them now?
If you are worried about where you are travelling, then you are in truth worried about some of the means of travel that you are using. Take a good hard look at them. If they still seem OK, then there's nothing to worry about. If not, then change them, and travel to some other place in consequence.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Now that, after the third time of reading, is most wise.
How should one judge ones means? By their fruits? Or should they seem good in themselves some other way? And how does one measure their concreteness?
Open, not rhetorical questions.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a bit of an odd discussion, in any case, as it seems to suggest that I am separate from the process. Is this the case?
No, you are not separate from the process, but you are also not a puppet. You have choices, and those choices can determine what happens in your spiritual journey.
quote:
I would be inclined to say that I am the process. If I am falling off the cliff of faith, or whatever metaphor is used, then indeed, I am falling off the cliff of faith.
If you are falling, then you are indeed falling. But it may not be the cliff of faith that you are falling from; it may be the cliff of faith in an inadequate God, or of one particular expression of faith. Some cliffs don't lead anywhere at all, and the only choice we have is to scramble down them somehow, to find a better path.
quote:
I suppose we can detach ourselves from this maybe, and feel regret, panic, or even that we don't want to be involved in this process.
But in that case, the process has changed, and I am in the process of not wanting to fall off, or regretting ever having got here.
Can you stop being yourself?
In my case, yes, but that is another story.
All of us can only be who we are at this point. But we can make choices about where we would like to be, and how we are going to get there.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You still haven't provided any substantiation for your claim. What did you read? How are you measuring the vitality of faith? And how is it that "spiritual culture" setting in = increasing liberalism of faith?
quote:
My near-decade-long apostasy was preceded by efforts to conform to a conservative evangelical form of Christianity, and my return was aided by the existence of a liberal form of Christianity wherein my faith has been nourished for more than 20 years, so I really don’t buy the assumption that liberal Christianity is necessarily a way station on the road to complete loss
Re your second post, I agree that one of the remaining purposes of liberal-leaning churches is to receive people who’ve grown away from more conservative types of church. My ex-minister (Methodist) said practically the same thing. But despite having this role, liberal-leaning churches are more susceptible to decline than other types of church. This saddens me, because I believe in having a diversity of churches.
If you want substantiation and some stats for this then you’re basically asking about the various complex arguments within the sociology of religion, especially concerning secularisation. There are few definitive answers in sociology, but the stats alone send out a worrying message. I’m posting some links to relevant essays that I’ve found on line, (An off line list would take forever).
Laurence Iannaccone, ‘Why Strict Churches are Strong’, The American Journal of Sociology, 99:5, 1994:
http://majorsmatter.net/religion/Readings/RationalChoice.pdf
(For this essay ‘spiritual vitality’ might refer to members’ level of commitment to church life, willingness to adhere to values/ practices/ clothing/ lifestyles that may be in conflict with the wider culture, the degree of ‘free riding’ permitted, etc. It admits that there are benefits to a certain degree of liberalisation.)
Steve Bruce, ‘Secularization and Impotence of Individualized Religion’, The Hedgehog Review, Spring/Summer 2006: http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/archives/AfterSecularization/8.12EBruce.pdf
Mark Chaves, ‘Secularization as Declining Religious Authority’, Social Forces, 72:3, 1994.
http://majorsmatter.net/religion/Readings/Secularization.pdf
William Kay, ‘Effects of Modernity on Religion in Eighteenth and Ninteenth-Century Britain’. Paper contribution to the Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism in Britain Project, June 2008. http://www.eauk.org/_efb/downloads.html
Charles Edward White, ‘The Rise and Decline of the Class Meeting’, Methodist History, 40:4, 2002.
http://myweb.arbor.edu/cwhite/cm.pdf
There are many relevant books quoted in the bibliographies above. Callum Brown's, ‘The Death of Christian Britain’, 2002 is interesting on the impact of an increasingly lax religious approach for each generational cohort.
For a cautiously positive assessment there's this article: Harriet Harris, 'Podium: Does Liberal Christianity need Defending?' Modern Believing, 42:1, 2001.
One book I haven't read which looks good is: Eds. Martyn Percy and Ian Markham,'Why Liberal Churches are Growing' 2006.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It could be that you fall off the cliff, and the Son of the Emperor-over-the-Sea rushes to the cliff's edge and blows you to safety.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
Not my experience I have to say, nor I suspect of a good many others.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Martyn Percy is someone that gives me hope - of all the liberal authors I have read, he is the one who hasn't yet appeared to fall off the edge.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Chorister
The only thing of Martyn Percy's I've read is 'Clergy: The Origin of Species'. From that book he appears to be liberal in the usual moderate mainstream way, but he's not on the far reaches of liberalism, is he? He's critical of the charismatic movement on the one hand, yet he also seems to think that Methodists are too 'liberal-minded' as a group, and that they need to add some grit to the mix by being more theologically diverse, CofE style!
This book isn't a theological study, though. Maybe he comes across as much more liberal when he's focused on that kind of writing.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Anglo Catholic Relict
Thank you for your reply above, which I won't copy out.
You say, 'we have choices'. Yoiks, I have thought about this for about 20 years, and I still don't feel sure about this.
For example, I've never thought I had a choice about being attracted to Christianity. I've tried to fight against it, but as others have said, have been pulled back.
Oh well, I don't want to get into a free will debate, but I just don't know. Am I choosing not to know? I don't know.
There is something here about control as well, and as I've got older, that seems to disappear. Am I controlling anything, and is anything being controlled? Rather, at the best of times, there is just a fusion of self and other. Of course, this is marvelous.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Chorister, doesn't it depend on where you define the edge?
For me church is a huge barrier. The national church is doing so much for which I want to say "not in my name" and I don't have a great feeling of community in the local church (understatement) then that makes it even harder not to fall over the edge.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
How long is a piece of string?
It is as I thought, then. You cannot argue your corner but must call people names. Game over. Don't play again.
Look. If I've understood you correctly you're asking for a definite amount of time. Such is impossible to give as for some it will be longer and others shorter hence, how long is a piece of string?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Look. If I've understood you correctly you're asking for a definite amount of time. Such is impossible to give as for some it will be longer and others shorter hence, how long is a piece of string?
Which should be enough to clue you into the fact that you're not understanding me correctly.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anglo Catholic Relict
Thank you for your reply above, which I won't copy out.
You say, 'we have choices'. Yoiks, I have thought about this for about 20 years, and I still don't feel sure about this.
For example, I've never thought I had a choice about being attracted to Christianity. I've tried to fight against it, but as others have said, have been pulled back.
We may not have a choice about who or what we find attractive, but we certainly have a choice in how we respond to that attraction.
If we factor God into this, then he calls us and part of us finds that call irresistible. But another part may well resent it, doubt it or ourselves, or fight against it.
quote:
Oh well, I don't want to get into a free will debate, but I just don't know. Am I choosing not to know? I don't know.
Free will is a difficult one, I agree. But I think we have to at least act as if we believe we have free will. Otherwise we might become too fatalistic, and stop bothering to do anything. Or perhaps do too much, and decide nothing is our fault.
quote:
There is something here about control as well, and as I've got older, that seems to disappear. Am I controlling anything, and is anything being controlled? Rather, at the best of times, there is just a fusion of self and other. Of course, this is marvelous.
If the fusion of self and other involves an awareness of God as the other, then that is indeed marvellous. And if you are seeking his will rather than your own, then perhaps control is the wrong word.
I think I was only trying to reassure you that you could not fall off any cliff edge without consenting to that fall. I hope that is true; it seems to be true for me. I have spent many years on another kind of cliff edge, but it seems to call for a definite step over the edge from me. As long as I do not consent to that step, it seems I can stay on this edge pretty well indefinitely. Once in a while the edge moves away from me, but mostly it doesn't.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
My near-decade-long apostasy was proceded by efforts to conform to a conservative evangelical form of Christianity, and my return was aided by the existence of a liberal form of Christianity wherein my faith has been nourished for more than 20 years, so I really don't buy the assumption that liberal Christianity is necessarily a way station on the road to complete loss of faith.
This is what I hope that churches like my own are for people - it's very reassuring to hear that it worked in that way for you.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Anglo Catholic Relict
Interesting stuff, which again I won't copy out.
Your point about seeking God is of great interest to me. Something that happened to me as I got older, and perhaps because I did a lot of Zen meditation, is that the seeking element began to fade.
This is quite well known in long-term meditation, I mean a retreat lasting a week or two weeks, or months, that the notion of 'meditation' itself begins to become very fuzzy. There is no boundary between having my breakfast, going to the loo, and my meditation.
Similarly, 'seeking God' became like those melting clocks of Dali's. Who is seeking whom? Where is the edge (boundary)?
I suppose in more normal English, that I stopped seeking, and found God, except that even 'found' is a kind of misnomer. God is just here, and I had been working myself into a kind of lather thinking that there was something to seek or find. The seeking had been the obstacle. However, I'm not going to generalize upon that. It's not a recipe.
Eastern religions have developed a sophisticated way of discussing this stuff, and I suppose Christianity has also, but hides it away. I suppose Simone Weil is the modern version of it, but there is masses of it available, e.g. de Caussade, 'The Cloud of Unknowing', blah blah blah.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anglo Catholic Relict
Interesting stuff, which again I won't copy out.
Your point about seeking God is of great interest to me. Something that happened to me as I got older, and perhaps because I did a lot of Zen meditation, is that the seeking element began to fade.
This is quite well known in long-term meditation, I mean a retreat lasting a week or two weeks, or months, that the notion of 'meditation' itself begins to become very fuzzy. There is no boundary between having my breakfast, going to the loo, and my meditation.
Yes, I understand that. Imo in Christian terms it is summed up by St Benedict as 'Laborare est orare'; to work is to pray. In other words there is no divide; we do not pray and then stop and do something else. Prayer becomes part of us, and it never ceases.
We bring ourselves into God's presence, and we remain there, whatever else we do, and whoever else we encounter. Clearly this is an ideal; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But when it does, it is like being at home.
quote:
Similarly, 'seeking God' became like those melting clocks of Dali's. Who is seeking whom? Where is the edge (boundary)?
If we seek to know and follow the will of God, then we also seek to dissolve the boundaries of our own will, our own rebellious nature. We know full well that what we want would not be the same as what God wants, but we choose to follow his will. In that choosing, are we ourselves or are we part of God? Both, really.
quote:
I suppose in more normal English, that I stopped seeking, and found God, except that even 'found' is a kind of misnomer. God is just here, and I had been working myself into a kind of lather thinking that there was something to seek or find. The seeking had been the obstacle. However, I'm not going to generalize upon that. It's not a recipe.
I think I understand what you are saying. I remember talking to a Vicar years ago who was very keen on Iona, and on telling people to go there. I had a young daughter, an alcoholic husband, and was running my own company, and I was struggling to cope. The only suggestion he had for me was to tell me to go to Iona.
He might as well have told me to climb to the top of Mount Everest.
A more realistic A/C priest suggested that I might consider getting a divorce, which helped enormously. It took me several years, but it helped to know that it was an option.
Over the years I learned to find God here and now, and not postpone that finding until I was in the right place.
quote:
Eastern religions have developed a sophisticated way of discussing this stuff, and I suppose Christianity has also, but hides it away. I suppose Simone Weil is the modern version of it, but there is masses of it available, e.g. de Caussade, 'The Cloud of Unknowing', blah blah blah.
There is indeed. But it is like any language; until you understand what it means, it will be just so much noise.
You spoke of edges. Perhaps being on the edge is part of finding God; coming to the edge of resources of other kinds, whatever they may be, leads us to face God in a more personal way.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... The national church is doing so much for which I want to say "not in my name" ...
Now that, if you don't mind my saying, is an unusual charge. Most people that grumble are complaining that it isn't doing enough, though they disagree hugely as to what it is they say it should be doing.
One can hardly even accuse it of 'in my name' refusing to consecrate women as bishops when the majority of its prominent representatives voted for it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Anglo Catholic Relict
Great stuff.
I sometimes think about this stuff in relation to the 'hiddenness of God' topic, which seemed to be hot a while ago amongst some atheists. But you are the one who is hidden! I used to say to people, perhaps rather arrogantly. There are often good reasons why people should be hidden, after all.
One of my oldest friends is a Sufi, and he is now dying (going to meet the Beloved, in Sufi language), but he would always say that there is nowhere where God is not. I suppose you can find that in Christian mysticism; in fact, many Sufis have been heavily persecuted for saying it, even killed. Alas, that men and women so close to God would be persecuted, but then God must be hidden away from men's eyes!
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Now that, after the third time of reading, is most wise. How should one judge ones means? By their fruits? Or should they seem good in themselves some other way? And how does one measure their concreteness? Open, not rhetorical questions.
Yes, by their fruits one will know them. But what this means is that one takes most of the time typically devoted to worrying about the future, and instead devotes it to reflecting upon the past. It is not the future fruits that we are to worry about, it is the ripe fruits of the past that we are to judge now as sweet or rotten. For these we can know the means and the outcome, that is concrete. Whereas the future is nebulous and anybody's guess.
If we habitually reflect upon the past and judge the present, then we actually gain true freedom to explore and try something new. Because we know that the novel path we take now will also be judged in the future: soon enough we will stop, take a step back and evaluate if we are in fact going where we want to be going. And if that is not the case, then we will correct our course and if need be double back. Whereas if we always look toward the future fruits, speculate about what this or that may bring one day, then we are like the donkey running after a carrot dangling in front of its nose. That can take us to places good, bad or ugly, because we are running after a dream, and our dreams always outrun us.
The old instructions for Compline say that if Compline is the last prayer for the day before sleep, then one should replace the formal prayer of the Our Father contained therein by an examination of conscience of reasonable length. The length of a solemnly spoken Our Father gives an idea of what is "reasonable" there. That to me is full of practical wisdom. Stop, reflect, evaluate - not lengthily and obsessively but briefly and habitually - and then sleep in peace, for tomorrow is another day wide open for another try.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
No, you misunderstand me, I do not want to put my name to the opposition to same sex marriage ~ and the failure me women bishop vote last year.
[ 25. August 2013, 14:44: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anglo Catholic Relict
Great stuff.
I sometimes think about this stuff in relation to the 'hiddenness of God' topic, which seemed to be hot a while ago amongst some atheists. But you are the one who is hidden! I used to say to people, perhaps rather arrogantly. There are often good reasons why people should be hidden, after all.
Quite right. We hide ourselves in God, and wrap ourselves in his love.
quote:
One of my oldest friends is a Sufi, and he is now dying (going to meet the Beloved, in Sufi language), but he would always say that there is nowhere where God is not. I suppose you can find that in Christian mysticism; in fact, many Sufis have been heavily persecuted for saying it, even killed. Alas, that men and women so close to God would be persecuted, but then God must be hidden away from men's eyes!
In Christian terms, there is only one kind of place where God is not. God withdraws his presence from the presence of evil, because the two cannot exist in the same place together. God's holiness would destroy evil in a moment.
Where there is pure evil God is not present on purpose; to give time for repentance and amendment of life. We see evidence of this in the Old Testament; we are told that no man can look upon God and live, and even those who touch the Ark of the Covenant drop dead in an instant.
In Christ God is able for the first time to look sinful man in the eyes, and not destroy him. Us. And in return sinful man is able to see God's compassion looking back at him, again for the first time.
The more we withdraw our own will from what we do, the more of Christ will be visible when people look at us. Theosis is not imposed on anyone, but we can choose to co-operate with it, and God will always meet us more than half way when we do.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of my oldest friends is a Sufi, and he is now dying (going to meet the Beloved, in Sufi language), but he would always say that there is nowhere where God is not.
... I should have said, I am sorry about your friend. You are very fortunate to know him.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of my oldest friends is a Sufi, and he is now dying (going to meet the Beloved, in Sufi language), but he would always say that there is nowhere where God is not.
... I should have said, I am sorry about your friend. You are very fortunate to know him.
Thank you. Yes, he is incomparable. He will be a grievous loss, and I can't really face it yet.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Thank you IngoB. And you know I mean that.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
In Christian terms, there is only one kind of place where God is not. God withdraws his presence from the presence of evil, because the two cannot exist in the same place together. God's holiness would destroy evil in a moment.
Where there is pure evil God is not present on purpose; to give time for repentance and amendment of life. We see evidence of this in the Old Testament; we are told that no man can look upon God and live, and even those who touch the Ark of the Covenant drop dead in an instant.
In Christ God is able for the first time to look sinful man in the eyes, and not destroy him. Us. And in return sinful man is able to see God's compassion looking back at him, again for the first time.
If God's presence is totally removed from evil, then how can evil exist? God is the creator and sustainor of existence according to Classical Theism. To say that evil exists without God's presence implies that evil is in some sense an independent power and risks dualism.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
You spoke of edges. Perhaps being on the edge is part of finding God; coming to the edge of resources of other kinds, whatever they may be, leads us to face God in a more personal way.
Richard Holloway talks of people who are 'Dancing on the Edge' - that doesn't, to me, sound like the action of someone afraid they are going to fall off.
However, I have also heard of the view that, at the extremes of life, people often undergo a seismic paradigm shift - which for those formerly conventional Christians may mean a transformation to unbelief, but equally for non-Christians to be propelled into belief. Who knows how any of us will react under extreme conditions - until that faith (or lack of it) is severely tested?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you want substantiation and some stats for this ...
I was kind of hoping you'd make the argument yourself, which would be something I could read in a couple of minutes. I'm not going to spend hours reading essays!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you want substantiation and some stats for this ...
I was kind of hoping you'd make the argument yourself, which would be something I could read in a couple of minutes. I'm not going to spend hours reading essays!
Well, I did explain what the basic sociological position was, and what I meant by 'a loss of spiritual vitality'. I then posted some titles, as requested. But perhaps I overestimated your awareness of British church decline. Basically, demanding denominations became comfortable and upwardly mobile, and required less of their members. This made it easier to belong (which you and I will both appreciate), but it also made it easier to leave. Evangelism and the transmission of Christian teaching to one's own children have become less urgent. Expectations of serious commitment or theological conformity are fairly low in the mainstream churches, and when people, especially the young, drift away for want of any particular reason to stay, few are surprised. This is the low-key fall-out of a general liberalisation in atmosphere.
However, the OP was referring more specifically to church folk reading too much 'dangerous' theology that risked damaging their faith. The clergy used to worry about this. I once heard a liberation theologian admit to me that he advised ordinands not to share some of this stuff with their congregations, because they'd only do it badly and end up driving people away from Christianity! So the fear exists at quite high levels.
IMO the former problem is greater than the latter, because a changing atmosphere can affect far more people than a few churchy intellectuals reading or recommending 'dangerous' books. But theology does help to create a certain atmosphere, because intellectuals in a congregation or a denomination have influence. I've realised that what a clergyman doesn't say is almost as revealing as what he does say.
Sorry if I've misunderstood you again! It happens to us all sometimes.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Richard Holloway talks of people who are 'Dancing on the Edge' - that doesn't, to me, sound like the action of someone afraid they are going to fall off.
Richard Holloway is quite a good example of someone who moved through Christianity - gradually becoming more liberal until he could no longer call himself a Christian. He now defines himself as a 'Post Christian'. I remember buying his book 'Dancing on the Edge' while on holiday in Edinburgh about 5 years ago which was on the Liberal end of Christianity. That book was published in '97. Waiting for me at home from Amazon was his just published 'Looking in the Distance'. In between the two books, Holloway had written 'Godless Morality' and 'Doubts and Loves'. There is a very clear progression through the books from a liberal Christian perspective through to a Post Christian (sometimes he calls it Recovering Christian) perspective.
I'd agree - Holloway isn't afraid he's going to fall off, but "fallen off" he has - at least from a Christian point of view.
[ 26. August 2013, 09:09: Message edited by: Yonatan ]
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thank you. Yes, he is incomparable. He will be a grievous loss, and I can't really face it yet.
Istm, grief is the tax we pay on love; the greater the love, the higher the cost. I am really sorry.
I am glad you still have time together, and that is what matters.
[ 26. August 2013, 09:34: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
If God's presence is totally removed from evil, then how can evil exist? God is the creator and sustainor of existence according to Classical Theism. To say that evil exists without God's presence implies that evil is in some sense an independent power and risks dualism.
You are right, of course. I am not very good at explaining what I mean.
Not totally removed; withdrawn or perhaps veiled. Like Moses coming down from God's presence. Or like the sun hidden by thick cloud as an act of mercy, to prevent sunburn.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
You spoke of edges. Perhaps being on the edge is part of finding God; coming to the edge of resources of other kinds, whatever they may be, leads us to face God in a more personal way.
Richard Holloway talks of people who are 'Dancing on the Edge' - that doesn't, to me, sound like the action of someone afraid they are going to fall off.
Well, I am not familiar with Mr Holloway or what he has to say, but I would not risk dancing on any edges myself. That strikes me as somewhat dangerous.
quote:
However, I have also heard of the view that, at the extremes of life, people often undergo a seismic paradigm shift - which for those formerly conventional Christians may mean a transformation to unbelief, but equally for non-Christians to be propelled into belief. Who knows how any of us will react under extreme conditions - until that faith (or lack of it) is severely tested?
Indeed so.
It is possible to lose faith in an insufficient version of God or of Christianity, and to move towards a broader or more meaningful one. And no doubt the same applies in a life without much awareness of God; he may well make his presence known at some point.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
Richard Holloway is quite a good example of someone who moved through Christianity - gradually becoming more liberal until he could no longer call himself a Christian. He now defines himself as a 'Post Christian'.
...
I'd agree - Holloway isn't afraid he's going to fall off, but "fallen off" he has - at least from a Christian point of view.
Our eternity is not determined by how we define ourselves, nor indeed by how we are judged by our brothers and sisters.
I think we can all be grateful for both of these mercies.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
This thread has made me wonder about what happens with the same process in reverse - ie. with people who moved to a very conservative theological position.
It strikes me that there are convenient staging posts and stepping off points in both directions.
So, for instance, looking back at the trajectory I followed after my own evangelical conversion, there were points where I could have opted to stop short of the positions I eventually adopted - whether they were conservative evangelical or charismatic evangelical.
Conversely, now I've swung back from that particular direction it seems to me that there are choices and stepping off points that I can choose to take or to ignore - whether that be in a swing of the pendulum towards theological liberalism or towards a more sacramental/liturgical position or whatever else.
We are adults, and whilst we might not completely be the masters of our fate and captains of our souls, it seems to me that we are all mature enough here to ring the bell for the next stop at any point along the line.
I don't see it in deterministic terms in the sense of there being a particular inevitability in the trajectory that any of us take. Chorister strikes me as eminently sensible and more than capable of choosing which stop or station to alight at rather than being carried inexorably along in one direction or other.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Richard Holloway was one of the particular theologians I was thinking of when I wrote the OP. I, too, enjoyed his earlier books, but thought 'Oh no, not another one!' when he became post-Christian. Ditto with some of the feminist theologians (who also seem to have an unerring ability to travel in one direction, ultimately to way beyond the 'Christian' boundary).
Still, I take comfort from those who assure me that, like the Good Ship Lollipop (and SoF?), I might not fall off the edge but merely travel around in a (or many) great big circle(s). As a Moor walker, that appeals to me very much!
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sorry if I've misunderstood you again! It happens to us all sometimes.
No, not at all! A more substantive response later when I have more time, but for now let me say that I appreciate your efforts very much.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I can't help but think that churchmanship and liberal/conservative status is more about personality than piety. Liberals are not by default less religious than conservatives - the emphasis is just different.
Personally speaking, having got (from outside appearances) less conservative, I've actually always been at about the level I am now - I just didn't feel confident in my own faith as opposed to that of those teaching me. YMMV.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
I sometimes worry I'm turning into a conservative evangelical. But I think it's just that I'm mellowing with age...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
I sometimes worry I'm turning into a conservative evangelical. But I think it's just that I'm mellowing with age...
Cripes, pererin, if that's you mellowing with age, whatever were you like before??!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Returning to the OP - your car is more likely to crash if you're driving it than if it's sitting on the driveway. Nevertheless, it's a risk you have to take if you want to get anywhere.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I don't think that a liberal slippery slope is inevitable. I grew up in a very conservative, theollogically xenophobic religious milieu, so when I got to the university and found earnest Christians who had a critical/nuanced/contextual understanding of Scripture, a liberal social outlook and a more expansive understanding of the religious experience in general, it was very liberating for me.
But later in my life I found myself in church situations with progressive leadership that had pretty much fallen off the Christianity bus; people in positions of pastoral or teaching authority who were either cynically phoning it in or whose attitude had become, "Well, all of this Godstuff is really just a fairy tale that we've been telling ourselves for centuries; but it helps ease people's anxieties about their mortality, gives a chaotic world meaning for them and makes people more compassionate toward one another, so let's keep telling ourselves the fairy tale -- except that we won't actually explain to the simpler people that it's a fairy tale because that would upset them." Those sorts of experiences with clergypeople and teachers have moved me farther back to the center of the continuum, although I still fall on the liberal side of things...call me squishily optimistic that we're not just making up the idea of a God and the basic Christian narrative.
[ 28. August 2013, 22:20: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Returning to the OP - your car is more likely to crash if you're driving it than if it's sitting on the driveway. Nevertheless, it's a risk you have to take if you want to get anywhere.
This. But I do think that it is important to have a community of the faithful whom you trust and respect to help you think through your faith journey as you grow.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I am sometimes rather concerned that I'm on the same journey myself, but certainly don't want to travel the whole distance. But, once you start, is it possible to stop? And if so, how and where?
You can always stop journeying, decide you're too old to change any more and stick with where you are. Abandon the Quest for Truth & Maturity and tell God that you're just not capable of going any further.
What you can't do is go back to where you used to be and have things be the same as before. Because you'll have changed.
best wishes,
Russ
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Anglo Catholic Relict: God withdraws his presence from the presence of evil, because the two cannot exist in the same place together.
This is not what I believe. God is always present when evil is done. He is always right there with the victim.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I was sort of working my way towards that thought. God must be present where evil is present, since that is how evil is recognized.
OK, that's not true if you define evil as 'something that contradicts my view of virtue', or something like that, which is more pragmatic.
But in a religious sense, evil is defined by God, isn't it?
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But in a religious sense, evil is defined by God, isn't it?
I think the blessed Isaac can express this one far better than I can. I am aware that this steps away from mainstream Anglican thought somewhat, but nonetheless, Isaac describes the God I know.
http://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/st-isaac-the-syrian-love-and-the-punishment-of-evil/
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
http://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/st-isaac-the-syrian-preaching-the-astonishing-love-of-god/
http://undeception.com/st-isaac-the-syrian-on-the-wrath-of-god/
I think you get the general idea.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0