Thread: Leave your brains at the church door. 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=029939

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Recently, on facebook, there was a post from someone in my old church with a question that their children had asked (it was about how God was made). Their response was "This is a question for [The vicar]".

It was a difficult question, but one that I would have thought most Christians would be able to explore and discuss. But they weren't prepared to.

Why is it, so often in my experience, that Christians (some of whom are very intelligent and demonstrate this in their jobs) are stupid when it comes to their faith. I know that some of them would be furious if their staff were to take such a "we know nothing" attitude with questions around their work.

I am not suggesting that everyone needs formal study, but they need to be prepared to THINK. It is shown in extreme cases with the more radical fundamentalist groups, but it seems to be also, to a lesser degree, in ordinary churches.

Seriously, if you need the vicar to tell you what to think, you need to get a fucking life. Jesus didn't die to make you stupider than you are.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
My sense is that this is the inevitable outcome of the clergy/laity divide.

The unspoken assumption is that ministers are the specialists; after all, they're trained and then paid to know the answers to tricky theological questions. The rest of us are mere amateurs. We sit in the pews in silence while they speak.

Of course, these days any of us can go on a theology course or take to reading serious books about exegetics or whatever. But IME ordinary mainstream churches don't particularly encourage this. It's not necessarily required of a 'good Christian', although somebody might suggest it if they think you're clever.

Not all Christians, even in the CofE, are bookish, of course. There are churchgoers - and certainly non-churchgoing adult Christians - who don't particularly like to read. There's very little if anything available on the market (DVDs, booklets, posters, etc.) to help them to understand the Bible, or Christian ideas in general.

It's a two-tier religion.
 
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
God did not have to be made. All things flow from Him/Her. God was, is, and will be per omnia saecula saeculorum

That is a simple answer - and for a simple man, it took me 10 seconds to formulate and write.

Some people are too quick to shuffle simple questions off to someone else.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
SvitlanaV2: My sense is that this is the inevitable outcome of the clergy/laity divide.
Our church has found the easiest solution for this [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I like this.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Not all Christians, even in the CofE, are bookish, of course. There are churchgoers - and certainly non-churchgoing adult Christians - who don't particularly like to read. There's very little if anything available on the market (DVDs, booklets, posters, etc.) to help them to understand the Bible, or Christian ideas in general.

The thing is, the CofE in particular (although not by any means exclusively) is literate-focussed. It is very hard to be an active member without being literate, which is a barrier in itself.

So having excluded those who cannot or don't read, those who do seem not to. Or at least, only read things that tell them everything is OK.

There are ways of learning how to think without needing to read. That is all that is needed, and seems to be too much to ask.

The problem is not how academic, bookish, intelligent churchgoers are. I reject the intellectualism that is in some areas of the church. It is about using the minds you have, however astute or straightforward they are.

As Uncle Pete said, this was not a complex or difficult question. And yet nobody on facebook (except me, of course) was prepared to provide an answer.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My sense is that this is the inevitable outcome of the clergy/laity divide.

Bollocks. There's nothing inevitable about it. People choose not to think, not to investigate and not to question. In fact, unquestioning deferral to authority seems to be far more common in my experience among "non-denominational" types who reject any formal idea of clergy (not to mention formal theological training).
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
We often assume that things that are easy for us should be easy for other people, or that if we're confident about our knowledge then it's odd that other people might feel diffident about theirs. But we need to put ourselves in other people's shoes. Not everyone in church is as engaged with these things or as clued up as some of the denizens of the Ship....

The question is, what can be done about it? Which mainstream churches have the time, the resources, the manpower, the skills to address these issues?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I never answer religious or political posts on FB - far more trouble than it's worth!
 
Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
As Uncle Pete said, this was not a complex or difficult question. And yet nobody on facebook (except me, of course) was prepared to provide an answer.

I think you are doing your FB friends a disservice.

The question was from someone's children, and children are fiendishly good at seeing through platitudinous assertions like "All things come from God."

So, I'd guess some had experience of discussing it before and realised it is actually not such a simple question at all, and others maybe thought for a while and concluded, "You know what, this is all to do with the nature of an eternal god, why is there something rather than nothing and all that. They should talk to the vicar, s/he loves all that shit."

Edited because I didn't proof read

[ 30. January 2016, 16:38: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We often assume that things that are easy for us should be easy for other people, or that if we're confident about our knowledge then it's odd that other people might feel diffident about theirs. But we need to put ourselves in other people's shoes. Not everyone in church is as engaged with these things or as clued up as some of the denizens of the Ship....

I absolutely accept this, but I think it is the problem of the churches and their teachers who, so often, tell their congregations (in various ways) that they don't need to think about these things, that they are complicated and difficult.

Whereas the job of the church should be to teach people how to think through their faith, how to question and think. In some cases, it is people who know what they believe and can express it, but won't explore with people who might challenge. I just think that, if the church is unable to help intelligent, rational, sensible people discuss their faith, what the actual fuck is the point of it?

I am not saying it is easy or natural for people. I am saying that the church is failing by not helping these people think about their faith. What are they going to do if at work (say) someone asks them what they believe? "Sorry, I will have to ask my vicar."
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Recently, on facebook, there was a post from someone in my old church with a question that their children had asked (it was about how God was made). Their response was "This is a question for [The vicar]".

What an awesome question, inviting a lot of philosophical and theological conversation which I (and my kids when they were little) would enjoy the spots off of. But not everybody is of a theological or philosophical bent. It's a fairly subtle question, if handled right, and "nobody made God, he's always been there," while the "right" answer from a historical-theological perspective, is kind of a cop-out for a probing child's mind.

But I can hardly blame the parents for not knowing how to discuss it. Or even knowing how to look up a decent (and non-heretical) discussion of it.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Schroedinger's Cat

I totally agree that church leaders often aren't helping their members to think about these things.

One article I read (see esp. pp. 122-125) said that the necessary expansion of lay responsibility into the areas traditionally belonging to the (CinW) clergy had actually made some clergy more protective of those competencies that they still remained in charge of. I imagine theological competency is one of those areas which the clergy will continue to reserve for itself, because it helps to reinforce the sacredness of their calling in a way that their more profane jobs do not.

The article also makes clear that even though the laity might be blamed for being resistant to change and too reliant on priestly leadership (p. 124) the clergy would have to allow their own role and status to evolve if congregations became significantly more independent. It's not clear to me that this is what the clergy really want.

Anyway, to move the above closer to Hell, I think we're all in a big pooish puddle of confused motives and underprovision.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Mousethief - I suppose the problem is that they seemed unable to engage with the question at all. And also that the vicar will have "the answer".
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
One thing I would suggest is that it is quite likely that when they were their child's age they had similar questions and their parents gave similar answers.

My experience tend me to lean towards the idea that children are natural theologians. That is they engage with many profound questions about the nature of divinity but often have limited conceptual frameworks with which to work.

When they are told to ask the vicar or hushed as asking stupid questions by adults they learn to distrust their questions. This then leads them to repeat the pattern with their children.

However when children find their questions about divinity taken seriously and answered the opposite happens and they learn that they are able to do theology.

In other words there is nothing remarkable about St Thomas Aquinas in the fact that he asked the questions about God at the age of five; what is remarkable is the adults around him took those questions seriously.

Jengie
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Not all Christians, even in the CofE, are bookish, of course. There are churchgoers - and certainly non-churchgoing adult Christians - who don't particularly like to read. There's very little if anything available on the market (DVDs, booklets, posters, etc.) to help them to understand the Bible, or Christian ideas in general.

The thing is, the CofE in particular (although not by any means exclusively) is literate-focussed. It is very hard to be an active member without being literate, which is a barrier in itself.


Which is bonkers, really, because when you think about it, for at least the first 300 years after the separation from Rome (and before that too, of course) the assumption would have been that the majority or at any rate a large number of CofE worshippers would not have been literate to any great extent- hence the simple structure of the 1662 (and earlier) services, lots of repetition, lots of stuff that you learn by heart wittingly or unwittingly. I think that the emphasis on written stuff (including all those fiddly options for worship) is perhaps paradoxically a symptom of clericalisation- an assumption that everybody is going to be like the clergy in their intellects and habits and ways of being.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

My experience tend me to lean towards the idea that children are natural theologians. That is they engage with many profound questions about the nature of divinity but often have limited conceptual frameworks with which to work.


Jesus, don't we all?

In fact, that would be my answer right there." Wow, there are so, so many things about God that nobody knows. That's why people keep writing books about God, they are trying to figure God out. Where do you think God came from?" And then shut up and listen to the answer.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Mousethief - I suppose the problem is that they seemed unable to engage with the question at all. And also that the vicar will have "the answer".

That is, IMO, an indictment of the vicar/priest/monk/etc., the parent or both.

[ 30. January 2016, 22:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
At this point I could mention a Methodist circuit initiative in Birmingham called 'Heretics Anonymous'. It's a regular discussion group for Christians who want to talk about their unorthodox take on faith.

Something like this could presumably work well in a gathering of CofE parishes, or in a diocese. I don't think it would be realistic in a single congregation, because you wouldn't get enough interest to make it worth the leader's time. (In Heretics Anonymous there's always a theologically trained person, usually ordained, to manage the discussion and to state the orthodox view where necessary.) Anglicans find it easy to disagree with each other so perhaps you'd be assured of some lively meetings!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Whoa, whoa, whoa, I missed something:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
... this was not a complex or difficult question. And yet nobody on facebook (except me, of course) was prepared to provide an answer.

"Where did God come from?" Is not a complex or difficult question? Are you kidding me? What the hell sort of inside track do you have, because I am pretty Bible literate and reasonably theologically informed, and I sure as hell wouldn't know how to answer this question, other than the "holy fuck, kid, how should I know?" response I suggested above.

The poor parents probably gabbled out " that's one for the vicar" because their poor brains had exploded at the mere question, and what few brain cells hadn't leaked out of their ears could only produce that response. Why are we judging people for being flummoxed at flummoxing questions? Since when is SOF HQ located at the top of the Himalayas?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
A lot of people don't want to think.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
One possibility is that there's a certain kind of ... fear? humility? around the idea of understanding THEOLOGY (oh noes!), rather like the awe with which simple people like myself meet rocket scientists. [Big Grin] I think a lot of otherwise intelligent people just go wobbly in the knees when it comes to making definite statements about God, perhaps out of half-remembered superstitious fear of what might happen if they Get It Wrong.

If it IS that kind of humility, then that explains why SOF has so few of these people aboard. You'll never catch one of US refusing to give an opinion! [Devil]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
The thing is, though, we have no possiblity of getting this particular question right. God didn't include his birth certificate in any of the Holy Books we've got. So, in my mind, someone who is baffled by the question has an accurate grasp of the situation.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Schroedinger's Cat

I totally agree that church leaders often aren't helping their members to think about these things.

But thank you for adding the word "often"-- because, while church leaders not wanting to share knowledge (power) is a problem, it's not universal, and quite a number of pastors and priests are in the opposite position of trying to motivate an often disinterested congregation to move beyond simple, easy answers to a deeper, more reflective faith.

As was noted upthread, people vary greatly in their interest levels. It's hard for me to imagine someone not being particularly interested with theological discussion/debate, because I (perhaps clearly) love it. But the fact is, not everyone is.

And no one can be an expert at everything (although some like to pretend they are). You can't read up and know everything about theology, politicals, economics, science... so we pick and choose. Which is always going to leave some areas "unlearned" where we will rely on trusted others to "think for us" to some degree. I do this (perhaps foolishly) when I take my car to an auto mechanic. Most of us do this to some degree when we see a doctor. It would be arrogant to assume we know more than every professional in every field.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
This reminds me of going to a Sunday School picnic where my older brother, then aged about 10, was stung by a bee. "Why did God let a bee sting me at a Sunday School picnic?" he asked the Vicar, who rapidly found something to do over the other side of the paddock. [Big Grin]

Huia
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think y'all are being unfair. This is a very erudite board that is peopled with thinkers. Some people just aren't thinkers in this way. (Some of my closest family members in fact.) A question like this just doesn't engage their interest or arouse their curiosity. (I tried, believe me. Back when I was young and naïve.) This doesn't make us better people than they are. If they are not judging us for liking this kind of question, they may indeed be better people than we are.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
This reminds me of going to a Sunday School picnic where my older brother, then aged about 10, was stung by a bee. "Why did God let a bee sting me at a Sunday School picnic?" he asked the Vicar, who rapidly found something to do over the other side of the paddock. [Big Grin]

Huia

Yeah, thanks, God. Talk about negative reinforcement.
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
I was asked this question by an 11 year old girl once. I said that the problem was, that we live in time, in which everything has a beginning and an end. So we think that God must have a beginning as well. But God doesn't live in time - God lives in eternity, which has no beginning or end. So no one made God - God has just always been. But because we live in time, that is really hard for us to get our head round.

A few months later, her 9 year old brother asked me the same question. Before I could answer, his sister told him, "It's all to do with the difference between time and eternity. You'll understand when you're older." !!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Pretty much what Kelly and mt and others said, about don't know, can't know, different strokes, etc.

I hate it when people think they've got God pinned down on a butterfly board.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
While church leaders not wanting to share knowledge (power) is a problem, it's not universal, and quite a number of pastors and priests are in the opposite position of trying to motivate an often disinterested congregation to move beyond simple, easy answers to a deeper, more reflective faith.

As was noted upthread, people vary greatly in their interest levels. It's hard for me to imagine someone not being particularly interested with theological discussion/debate, because I (perhaps clearly) love it. But the fact is, not everyone is.

I often despair of getting folk to attend study groups etc. where they can think about their faith. Many seem to have the attitude that "I learned all I needed when I was a child; I don't need to learn any more, thank you!"

What triggers this? It may be laziness or a lack of intellectual curiosity. But I think it's more to do with security and fear. On the one hand, folk don't want to leave the safety of the simple and enter an uncertain world of questioning; indeed, they may see church as the one secure place within an ever-changing and confusing world.

Equally, they may be frightened that God will show them "new truths" which will challenge them to alter their accepted lifestyle or preconceptions- and they don't want that either, it's too uncomfortable!
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Well the classic book is What Prevents Christian Adults from Learning by John Hull. You almost certainly can pick it up quite cheaply second hand.

I would add to that two things:

These are both cultural. You are not going to change this with a couple of sermons. You are going to have to tackle it obliquely.

[eta]More importantly the dichotomy between Clergy and lay individuals needs to be dropped. We need to look at the reasons the collective body of the congregation may seek to avoid learning despite individuals and clergy both acknowledging that it is a good thing.

Jengie

[ 31. January 2016, 09:32: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Kelly - I do accept that there is a whole lot of depth that you can draw into this question.

The thing is, it it a perfectly reasonable sort of question that should be able to start a discussion. Not necessarily that deep - just as deep as the child needs. The actual question I have forgotten so it may have not been quite as deep.

The problem I have is that if they can't respond to these questions from their own children, how are they expecting to answer what might be more challenging questions from others, which is what (as an evangelical church) they should be being trained to do.

That is my point - not that everyone should be able to answer any question fired at them, but that church members should be enabled to think about their faith, and discuss it with others. The implication of this is that they have never asked these basic questions ( about who God is ). Not that they have had answers, but that they have asked the questions.
 
Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I was asked this question by an 11 year old girl once. I said that the problem was, that we live in time, in which everything has a beginning and an end. So we think that God must have a beginning as well. But God doesn't live in time - God lives in eternity, which has no beginning or end. So no one made God - God has just always been. But because we live in time, that is really hard for us to get our head round.

A few months later, her 9 year old brother asked me the same question. Before I could answer, his sister told him, "It's all to do with the difference between time and eternity. You'll understand when you're older." !!

I do hope the children in question eventually came to the understanding that they were fobbed if with a combination of special pleading and a hand wave.

As has been said, there is only one honest short answer, and that's, "I don't know." Any other short one is just a way of ending or postponing thought. Or in the terms of the OP, fucking stupid.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
To add to "I don't know", "I'll go away and find out" stood me in good stead when I was teaching. The child in question would also tend - if the question wasn't deliberately vexatious - to do likewise.

The banner behind the pulpit now reads "Trust and obey". One of the congregation, whose family was virtually wiped out in the Holocaust, has great difficulty with that. I'm not a great fan, either.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To add to "I don't know", "I'll go away and find out" stood me in good stead when I was teaching.

Yes.

I should point out that the area I live in and the church I was at is a high-performing area, with a degree being pretty standard. So as a whole, the congregation should be able to cope with some stretching of the grey cells.

And I was particularly disturbed that the response is "ask the vicar" rather than "How would others answer this?". This occasion is not the only one I have encountered, but it is the most recent one.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I often despair of getting folk to attend study groups etc. where they can think about their faith. Many seem to have the attitude that "I learned all I needed when I was a child; I don't need to learn any more, thank you!"

What triggers this? It may be laziness or a lack of intellectual curiosity. But I think it's more to do with security and fear. On the one hand, folk don't want to leave the safety of the simple and enter an uncertain world of questioning; indeed, they may see church as the one secure place within an ever-changing and confusing world.

Equally, they may be frightened that God will show them "new truths" which will challenge them to alter their accepted lifestyle or preconceptions- and they don't want that either, it's too uncomfortable!

The text I referred to above suggests if you did have such a questioning, challenging congregation, it would probably end up becoming quite uncomfortable and unsettling for you....

The constitution of the average (Western?) congregation is an interesting factor. What I've read and seen too is that many churches are likely to be dominated by 'passively active' personality types, people who'll fight to keep things the same, or who are in church primarily to be comforted. The more questioning, seeking minds are going to be outnumbered in most congregations. There are no doubt different ideas as to how this situation has developed.

What some individuals do if they're becoming frustrated is join a mainstream university congregation and enjoy a more cerebral, engaging environment there. Some people travel quite a way to attend such churches.

As for what to do to develop more typical congregations, one Baptist church I know decided to have its discussion groups on Sunday mornings, as part of the service (although not all year round). No getting away from the discussions, IOW! Introducing the idea was difficult, and some of the older people were very unhappy, but I understand that it works well now. One advantage this church has is that young people and converts have become a high proportion of attenders, and they were probably easier to convince. Older worshippers can't really argue against the importance of developing new believers, can they?

Maybe discussion groups need to be marketed differently. Selling them as places to 'learn' might be off-putting to older people, or the less academic. Why not promote them as places to share or explore or to get to know each other's journey in faith?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
That is my point - not that everyone should be able to answer any question fired at them, but that church members should be enabled to think about their faith, and discuss it with others.

How do you know the problem is that they haven't been enabled, rather than that they just aren't interested in that kind of subtlety? You're saying it's not enough for them to know Jesus loves them, and to try to love God and neighbor. They also must be junior theologians. Otherwise they're being oppressed or lazy or something.

quote:
The implication of this is that they have never asked these basic questions ( about who God is ). Not that they have had answers, but that they have asked the questions.
So what you and so many others here are saying is that in order to be a good little Christian someone has to be a philosopher. Someone who isn't interested in that kind of question is lacking in some crucial way. Only people with the kind of intellectual curiosity that would lead them to ponder and discuss such things are allowed in the Thinking Christians Club that is the Church.

This is really cutting close to gnosticism.

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I do hope the children in question eventually came to the understanding that they were fobbed if with a combination of special pleading and a hand wave.

Bullshit. That's as good an answer as you're going to fit into that few words. Most people here want every Christian to be a philosopher. You want every Christian to NOT be. Hard question? Just say "I don't know" and walk away. It's a cop-out. Those who can and want to wrestle with questions like this should be encouraged to.

If "We can't know" is the only possible answer, we should just shut down all the seminaries, and the Ship of Fools, and stop pretending there's any point in discussing theology at all.

Lot of Procrustean beds in this thread.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
You guys are so coy. Of course you have to leave (a large portion of) your brains at the door to be able to enjoy the sense of immersion in the church. To do otherwise is to erode the structure of the shared sense of connection of Comforting Truth™.

If you were there for the socializing, you might be better off finding a social group less associated with abuse.

If you were there to help others, you just as easily could volunteer at an organization with better safeguards against corruption and without dehumanizing agendas.

If you were there for the music, you could join or form a band that suited you.

If you were there for the architecture, you can show up any old time and avoid the brain-leaving requirements.

But no, most of you are going to assert "connection to something more" and aspirations regarding "beyond this earthly frame". So illusions of some kind of Comforting Truth™ it is! Because, why wouldn't and all-powerful entity need you to support a parasitic entity whose primary interest seems to be its own existence?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
You're probably right, RooK, but for now I'm gonna step over your nihilistic vomit and play along:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To add to "I don't know", "I'll go away and find out" stood me in good stead when I was teaching.

Yes.

I should point out that the area I live in and the church I was at is a high-performing area, with a degree being pretty standard. So as a whole, the congregation should be able to cope with some stretching of the grey cells.

And I was particularly disturbed that the response is "ask the vicar" rather than "How would others answer this?". This occasion is not the only one I have encountered, but it is the most recent one.

If one desired to be generous, one could interpret "ask the vicar" as another form of "I'll go away and find out." Is it wrong to ask someone with more education in the matter than you for help?

Like I said, the read I got of the response was 1. Someone who was conpletely thrown for a loop , and 2. Someone who was less interested in the question than chuffed that their kid was smart enough to ask it. More power to them for subtly bragging about their smart kid.
 
Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :
 
Mousethief
quote:
Bullshit. That's as good an answer as you're going to fit into that few words... Hard question? Just say "I don't know" and walk away. It's a cop-out. Those who can and want to wrestle with questions like this should be encouraged to.
I didn't say walk away. I said there is no honest short answer other than I don't know. Cottontail's short answer ended up killing an eleven year old's curiosity on the subject stone dead. If that was meant to encourage wrestling with the question it was not a conspicuous success. May as well have just said wibbly wobbly timey wimey and be done with it.
quote:
Most people here want every Christian to be a philosopher. You want every Christian to NOT be.
As this is hell, fuck off. You don't know that about me at all.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Bear in mind that I was a member of this church for a long time. And there are other cases similar from when I was there.

I expect Christians to use the brains they have to apply them to their faith. That is all. And yet it seems too much to ask.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Mousethief
As this is hell, fuck off. You don't know that about me at all.

I can infer from what you post that you are a nasty person. Also that you want to shut down discussion, and that you think an attempt at an answer is inferior to just throwing up our hands and saying, "Nobody knows."

If you want to dispel these notions of who you are, you sure picked a funny way.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I said there is no honest short answer other than I don't know. Cottontail's short answer ended up killing an eleven year old's curiosity on the subject stone dead.

And "I don't know" doesn't? "I don't know" must be followed up with something, or the underlying message "and I don't care" comes through loud and clear to a child.

There are of course many ways to play it. "I don't know, I haven't thought of that before, what do you think?" is one. "Here's what St. Augustine said, although it's not an official dogma. What do you think?" is another. A flat "I don't know" is the real conversation killer.

quote:
If that was meant to encourage wrestling with the question it was not a conspicuous success. May as well have just said wibbly wobbly timey wimey and be done with it.

It's a perfectly good answer and in keeping with over a thousand years of Christian theology. I fail to see what your problem is with it. And no, you haven't said what your problem was, only that you don't like it.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:


I should point out that the area I live in and the church I was at is a high-performing area, with a degree being pretty standard. So as a whole, the congregation should be able to cope with some stretching of the grey cells.


Were these people at the church in order to get their kids into a particular school? Or is it the sort of area that people move to because they want to experience the community life of 'olde England', and starting to attend church is part of that?

On a less cynical note, these could be people at the stage of belonging before believing. You haven't said if they're actually Christians, or how long they've been Christians.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I often despair of getting folk to attend study groups etc. where they can think about their faith. Many seem to have the attitude that "I learned all I needed when I was a child; I don't need to learn any more, thank you!"

What triggers this? It may be laziness or a lack of intellectual curiosity. But I think it's more to do with security and fear. On the one hand, folk don't want to leave the safety of the simple and enter an uncertain world of questioning; indeed, they may see church as the one secure place within an ever-changing and confusing world.

Equally, they may be frightened that God will show them "new truths" which will challenge them to alter their accepted lifestyle or preconceptions- and they don't want that either, it's too uncomfortable!

The text I referred to above suggests if you did have such a questioning, challenging congregation, it would probably end up becoming quite uncomfortable and unsettling for you....

I think you're unfairly jumping to a conclusion there.

Oh wait, I forgot, this is hell. Carry on. [Mad]

[ 31. January 2016, 22:10: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I suspect that it is hard to get people into study groups when they already have an occupation. The idea of wrangling kids all day, or spending the day in the office, then going out to do study in addition is not appealing. When you do a standard education course, it has a clearly defined goal and you know its going to end. Churches tend to offer bible study groups that risk becoming eternal.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
cliffdweller

I was hardly 'jumping' to anything - I said that a text to which I'd posted a link 'suggests' that something would 'probably' happen. A suggestion isn't an assertion. It's a possibility. I incline to think there's something in it, true, but I'm aware that other outcomes are possible. But I certainly wasn't picking on Baptist Trainfan as some kind of unfortunate anomaly.

Your church and a select number of others may be able to put these problems to bed without too much trouble. That's very fortunate for you, but the problem is what to do about the large numbers of churches (in the British context, anyway) that do face these almost stereotypical problems as a way of life. The clergy complain about their congregations, the congregations complain about their clergy, and each group has constituents who complain about each other.

If you have any solutions I'm sure they'd be gratefully received. I've suggested a few already, but I don't know if much that can be done for the average British church.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I never answer religious or political posts on FB - far more trouble than it's worth!

Perhaps the issue is the fear of getting into a lengthy debate.

I had an incident yesterday, not on Facebook, but in real life where I spoke out to disagree on a point of politics. My friend is a staunch anti-Tory and pro-union guy. Yet he said that Jeremy Corbyn was an idiot. That last bit was not a statement I agreed with and I said so. But this set him off on a rant of non-sequiteurs punctuated by "you know", "you know what I mean", "yeah, you're with me" that had no coherence at all. It's not an experience I particularly want to go through again, so I'll be thinking twice before speaking my mind to that person again.

When it comes to explaining things to children, there's a further complication that a pithy answer may be taken at face value at first, but only later do they come to think things through in greater depth.

I've seen this a lot amongst anti-evangelicals, who when given simple answers at a young age to complicated questions, later come to think that they're parents or pastors were being misleading or thick, when in fact they were just trying to be helpful and tailor an answer to their audience's level of understanding; and maybe getting it wrong.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Sipech: Perhaps the issue is the fear of getting into a lengthy debate.
I don't do Facebook, but I suspect that the issue is that a lot of people who post these things on Facebook don't know how to do a debate.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I said there is no honest short answer other than I don't know. Cottontail's short answer ended up killing an eleven year old's curiosity on the subject stone dead.

And "I don't know" doesn't? "I don't know" must be followed up with something, or the underlying message "and I don't care" comes through loud and clear to a child.

There are of course many ways to play it. "I don't know, I haven't thought of that before, what do you think?" is one. "Here's what St. Augustine said, although it's not an official dogma. What do you think?" is another. A flat "I don't know" is the real conversation killer.

quote:
If that was meant to encourage wrestling with the question it was not a conspicuous success. May as well have just said wibbly wobbly timey wimey and be done with it.

It's a perfectly good answer and in keeping with over a thousand years of Christian theology. I fail to see what your problem is with it. And no, you haven't said what your problem was, only that you don't like it.

I agree. I think it is a pretty good answer from the point of view of my belief system. And all of us, (except agnostics whose theology is, indeed, "I don't know") are taking a shot in the dark about all this God stuff anyway and hoping for the best. The only difference in what I would say would be "I believe that God lives in eternity and we don't so it's hard for us to picture in what way he lives his life."
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

When it comes to explaining things to children, there's a further complication that a pithy answer may be taken at face value at first, but only later do they come to think things through in greater depth.

I've seen this a lot amongst anti-evangelicals, who when given simple answers at a young age to complicated questions, later come to think that they're parents or pastors were being misleading or thick, when in fact they were just trying to be helpful and tailor an answer to their audience's level of understanding; and maybe getting it wrong. [/QB]

Yes, this! The Godly Play movement tries to address this very problem (I'm not an expert in Godly play but have read some of the books and like the underlying philosophy).

As somebody who works in children's ministry this thread is very interesting.

Some of the problem is the need for a quick answer, we want our doctrine/philosophy like fast food. Bite size, easy to digest and palatable but lacking nutrition.

If I was trying to answer a child's question about who made God I'd acknowledge it's a fantastic question and one that adults have been asking for a very long time and there are different ideas about that. I'd say that the bible is where we go to try to find the answers, that there are clues in the bible stories, so we need to look there. We will need to look at lots of stories so it's going to take some time. Then over days or weeks I'd look at the creation story, the "I am who I am" declarations to Abraham, maybe attempt John 1 and try to get the child to engage with them from the point of view of who is God.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Prime example of what a pastor (who I should specify is himself a neo-Pentie) of whom I am fond likes to refer to as “Pentecostal nonsense” AKA brain parked at the front door:

We need someone to do this job. No one wants to do it. Let’s pray about it and see who feels moved in their heart.

We have prayed about it. Still no one wants to do it. Let’s pray about it again and see who feels moved in their heart this time.

We have prayed about again. Still no one wants to do it. Let’s go home and pray and search our consciences to see if we are being like Jesus and serving others or only thinking of our own comfort.*


Alternatively we could honestly admit that it’s a bit inconvenient and no one wants to do it, but ask if anyone would be willing to make a sacrifice and volunteer to do it anyway because it really is necessary for x reasons and honestly it isn’t so bad really and we’d be highly grateful. Doesn’t tickle the same spiritual itch tho. [Roll Eyes]

*I should probably add that I wasn’t at the meeting where this happened, it was relayed to me later at another meeting which thankfully happened over dinner and where I was therefore sufficiently close to a bottle of red wine to keep me from saying something that would have offended someone. This is a good thing for all concerned. [Two face]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'm sorry, but in my now 11 years experience of Anglicanism, 'alf a mo' ... 16 years in four congos and a several more as a visitor, I have not encountered, yet, any clergy capable of engaging in 'the conversation'. The laity are more emotionally capable. But not intellectually. Except here. Some. And NO I'm no intellectual. I'm just the bloke on the bus. And I'm not frightened of intellectuals. I'm too stupid obviously. Or anyone else making esoteric claims.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I never answer religious or political posts on FB - far more trouble than it's worth!

Perhaps the issue is the fear of getting into a lengthy debate
Having seen many a lengthy debate on this, and other Christian websites I would say such a fear is well justified. Especially when debates all too easily break down into acrimony.

A long while back when I was recently converted, me an my partner were keen and regular churchgoers. On two occasions I was confronted by close family members, one said 'convince me' and the other, a long time lapsed Christian asked 'How does Christ take away our sins?' I had no real words of conviction to offer in either situation other than what I was doing, (re Christin practice), felt right for myself.

Vicars these days, IMO, are well advised to keep out of theological dissicussions with everyone, either inside or outside of the church. The pat phrase 'Let Christ do the anointing and the Church do the appointing' is a good one. Not that pat phrases are going to prevent traditional Church worship disappearing from these parts in the not too distant future.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I see the sense in clergy avoiding theology and just sticking to liturgy, ritual, homily when at the front. As long as they don't ram passive 'theology' down our throats in the form of charismatic nonsense. Brain washing by interminable hymn singing, the blizzard of chaff of 'words of knowledge', testimonies, claims, 'healing', 'prayer ministry', news of 'persecution', none of which can be challenged except in house groups or email direct to the vicar who will never reply.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Martin60,

If you're trying to challenge the worship style and whole ethos of a church on your own you're not going to get anywhere. It would be better to attend a traditional but more left of centre church where they don't have testimonials, prayer ministries, healing sessions, etc., if you don't approve of such things.

The problem, of course, is that traditional churches tend to be struggling financially, poorly attended, uninviting, and dominated by the elderly. A lot of Shippies seem reluctant to get involved with churches like these, for obvious reasons. But the advantage of them is that they may be more open to discussions around radical theology, etc. - especially in the urban churches.

However, it's probably best not to focus too much on the clergy. They're very busy with admin and pastoral work, etc., and also somewhat conflicted, I think. And these days theological information is available all over the place, so why pester the vicar?

Also, as I said above, I think the intellectual stuff works better across networks of churches. One congregation is unlikely to provide enough people who are interested. You're obviously well-known at several local churches, so you surely have a few contacts who might be interested in a serious, intellectual discussion group?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

When it comes to explaining things to children, there's a further complication that a pithy answer may be taken at face value at first, but only later do they come to think things through in greater depth.

I've seen this a lot amongst anti-evangelicals, who when given simple answers at a young age to complicated questions, later come to think that they're parents or pastors were being misleading or thick, when in fact they were just trying to be helpful and tailor an answer to their audience's level of understanding; and maybe getting it wrong.

Yes, this! The Godly Play movement tries to address this very problem (I'm not an expert in Godly play but have read some of the books and like the underlying philosophy).

As somebody who works in children's ministry this thread is very interesting. [/QB]

moving down that tangent...

I've worked with Godly Play for 6 years now, and would say it goes a wee bit too far in the other direction, by failing to recognize that critical thinking is developmental-- that children grow in their ability to wrestle with ambiguity and mystery, and need some foundation for that work. Pretty much every other children's curriculum does the opposite-- underestimates children's intellectual ability and offers pat answers/ interpretations-- often devoid of context.

Godly Play is the opposite-- overestimating children's cognitive development. It asks thoughtful "I wonder" questions (sometimes to the point of tedium) that are quite lovely, but never ever offers any "point" itself. Which does encourage thoughtful interaction, but can also lead to a sort of postmodern reader-centered approach that, ironically, also rips the narrative from context. And it's admirable attention to the entire biblical canon means that sometimes it is presenting a story that simply is not age-appropriate-- which, when coupled with the lack of any real "point" can be honestly terrifying (see the horrible parable of the fishes).

However, I've found it far easier to "tweak" Godly Play-- skipping over the really terrible stories until children are a bit older; adding my own thoughts re the point always after the kids have engaged the "I wonder" questions-- much easier fixes than trying to rewrite an entire lesson that dogmatically pushes a point that seems far removed from the overall context.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Prime example of what a pastor (who I should specify is himself a neo-Pentie) of whom I am fond likes to refer to as “Pentecostal nonsense” AKA brain parked at the front door:

We need someone to do this job. No one wants to do it. Let’s pray about it and see who feels moved in their heart.

We have prayed about it. Still no one wants to do it. Let’s pray about it again and see who feels moved in their heart this time.

We have prayed about again. Still no one wants to do it. Let’s go home and pray and search our consciences to see if we are being like Jesus and serving others or only thinking of our own comfort.*


Alternatively we could honestly admit that it’s a bit inconvenient and no one wants to do it, but ask if anyone would be willing to make a sacrifice and volunteer to do it anyway because it really is necessary for x reasons and honestly it isn’t so bad really and we’d be highly grateful. Doesn’t tickle the same spiritual itch tho. [Roll Eyes]

*I should probably add that I wasn’t at the meeting where this happened, it was relayed to me later at another meeting which thankfully happened over dinner and where I was therefore sufficiently close to a bottle of red wine to keep me from saying something that would have offended someone. This is a good thing for all concerned. [Two face]

Our parish had exactly this problem with the annual Pentecost chicken barbecue. It's a lot of preparation and planning, and the guy who had been doing it was tired of it. Nobody stepped up. End of annual Pentecost chicken barbecue. Kinda miss it. Life moves on.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
This seems a good thread to add my post church rant this morning. If I hear one more, one more sermon gently chiding the congregation about how we shouldn't go to God in prayer with a shopping list, I'll have a massive sense of humour failure*. I have a mentally ill child. There are weeks, and this has been one, where I wonder if she'll even see adulthood, never mind lead a happy life. Too fucking right I have a shopping list.

And we should just rest in God in prayer........mmmmmmmmmmmmm.........like a child on its Father's lap.

Oh get stuffed.

*Or, possibly just complain on a message board rather than actually contact the sermon-giver in question, because I'm a massive coward.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Jemima: I do think that it is right not to go to God with a shopping list of demands, because that is what some people do. It is important to listen to God as well.

But "just rest in God" is a cop out. That is a neo-Buddhist approach to engaging with God. As you intimate, it is about just being passive recipients of what God wants to say to us, which means He will simply confirm our views. And if you do this in an environment where someone is suggesting things, that is nearly hypnotic suggestion with divine support.

So yes, it is right to come to God with your desires, your wants, your needs. And your situation does seem like a fucking nightmare, so yes, come to God with your needs and keep doing it (like the importunate widow. You see, there is a bible support for doing anything you want, if you look hard enough and don't care about context). That is about using your brains and your heart, not forgetting one.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Cheers. Yes, the verse about the widow did come to mind this morning. I shall aspire to be the widow hammering on the judge's door. At the moment, I think I'm the stone in God's shoe.. [Big Grin]

I wonder about the shopping list - I mean, I know we make jokes about people praying for parking spaces, but does that sort of thing really go on any more? Another thing the sermoniser said was that we should not confine God to short stressy times, but try to pray for 10 minutes every day, and prioritise it. It's just all so infantilising - this was a sermon given to a church of people of all ages and experiences. People who've been Christians for decades, many people who I know (and the preacher will also know) take prayer seriously, people who have lost spouses, lost children, been made redundant, had spiritual experiences of the highest and lowest sort - it was as though the preacher had honestly not thought that any of us had ever considered this.

I felt patronised. It was a sermon I could have preached as a 17 year old convert.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I think the shopping list is almost unavoidable if you pray regularly for people, because the needs mount up rapidly--so I think it's wrong to blame anyone for this kind of prayer. I do it a lot. "Resting in God" is also a thing, but it's for a different purpose and situation. you can't just sub one for the other as the spiritually snooty imply.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Hmmmm--what is the Lord's prayer if not a grocery list?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:


I wonder about the shopping list - I mean, I know we make jokes about people praying for parking spaces, but does that sort of thing really go on any more?

I've prayed anxiously about being on time for the bus. Is that allowed?

The idea that some things are too trivial to pray about seems a bit problematic to me, because how are we to know what's too trivial for God? Nevertheless, I suppose some theologian somewhere has come up with a helpful list of 'first world problems' that we really shouldn't be praying about. It was probably that sort of list that your vicar had in mind....
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Of course it's allowed. It's mandatory! Especially knowing that God can do nothing about it. God wants us, LOVES us, on ANY terms. Just as we do our mewling, puking infants. Our crazed two year olds. Our it's not fair teenagers. It's not our fault that we are pathetically weak and ignorant. It's no ones. In all my Christian atheism, my complete denial of magic, I'm a total hypocrite when I'm desperate. And I'm always desperate. I tell God He won't do anything BUT He HAS to do something. Of course I do.

We have a lonnnnng way to go. Before we grow up as a species. At two hundred thousand years we're half way. Now in the postmodern era we're able to address the limits of language and faith in the strong, benevolent, expectant, silent, absent face of God. Present behind each others.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I suppose there is a difference between simply relying on prayers to get us to the bus on time, but doing nothing else to make it in time, and praying along with doing all we can to make it happen.

Yes I pray for trains to arrive and suchlike. But that is just my way of expressing my frustration and desire etc. I think the danger is when prayer replaces our thought processes.

I pray more seriously about real things that need prayer - people and problems. It is a different sort of prayer.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I'm sure that most people who pray for parking spaces (or to catch trains and buses, etc.) also pray more 'serious' prayers sometimes.

Regarding the Jemima the 9th's general complaint about the sermon, I'd agree that some sermons can seem very simplistic. It must be especially hard for the preacher who has a very wide range of people in front of him/her. How do you get the pitch right? Easier if you have a fairly homogeneous crowd, although that can be misleading because people aren't always what they seem.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Jemima the 9th [Votive] You tell Him girl.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Of course it's allowed. It's mandatory! Especially knowing that God can do nothing about it.

Now, I wish someone would preach a sermon about this, because it's hard to understand the point of petitionary prayers when God doesn't seem to be paying much attention.

[ 07. February 2016, 22:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
This seems a good thread to add my post church rant this morning. If I hear one more, one more sermon gently chiding the congregation about how we shouldn't go to God in prayer with a shopping list, I'll have a massive sense of humour failure*. I have a mentally ill child. There are weeks, and this has been one, where I wonder if she'll even see adulthood, never mind lead a happy life. Too fucking right I have a shopping list.

fwiw, there seems to be a whole lotta "shopping list" prayers in the Bible, including the Lord's prayer ("give us this day our daily bread..."). To suggest you branch out to include other sorts of prayers (if you're not already)-- e.g. listening prayer, sure, fine. But to suggest you not tell God the most aching desires of your heart is insane, and in come cases-- like yours-- cruel. You have my permission to kick the preacher in the bum.

Adding your child to my shopping list.

[Votive]

(*some cross-posting here- apologies. But perhaps helpful to know we're in agreement on this one...*)

[ 07. February 2016, 23:29: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
SvitlanaV2 God can't NOT pay full attention. We need to invoke that FACT. In His fullest care, concern, hope, most intimate, personal love. And HELPLESS provision. He's done ALL He possibly can. He has lifted us up in His Son who came down. Naked. That was, is His all.

Wither the Holy Spirit? I have no idea. Beyond that I believe in His complete presence in the vacuum of His utter absence, testifying to the universally reconciling Son.

If I'm right on Bloody Calvinists we have infinitely underestimated Him.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
SvitlanaV2 God can't NOT pay full attention. We need to invoke that FACT. In His fullest care, concern, hope, most intimate, personal love. And HELPLESS provision. He's done ALL He possibly can. He has lifted us up in His Son who came down. Naked. That was, is His all.

Wither the Holy Spirit? I have no idea. Beyond that I believe in His complete presence in the vacuum of His utter absence, testifying to the universally reconciling Son.

[Overused]

I try to think like this, but my brain tends to rebel and ask for either/or.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

When it comes to explaining things to children, there's a further complication that a pithy answer may be taken at face value at first, but only later do they come to think things through in greater depth.

I've seen this a lot amongst anti-evangelicals, who when given simple answers at a young age to complicated questions, later come to think that they're parents or pastors were being misleading or thick, when in fact they were just trying to be helpful and tailor an answer to their audience's level of understanding; and maybe getting it wrong.

Yes, this! The Godly Play movement tries to address this very problem (I'm not an expert in Godly play but have read some of the books and like the underlying philosophy).

As somebody who works in children's ministry this thread is very interesting.

moving down that tangent...

I've worked with Godly Play for 6 years now, and would say it goes a wee bit too far in the other direction, by failing to recognize that critical thinking is developmental-- that children grow in their ability to wrestle with ambiguity and mystery, and need some foundation for that work. Pretty much every other children's curriculum does the opposite-- underestimates children's intellectual ability and offers pat answers/ interpretations-- often devoid of context.

Godly Play is the opposite-- overestimating children's cognitive development. It asks thoughtful "I wonder" questions (sometimes to the point of tedium) that are quite lovely, but never ever offers any "point" itself. Which does encourage thoughtful interaction, but can also lead to a sort of postmodern reader-centered approach that, ironically, also rips the narrative from context. And it's admirable attention to the entire biblical canon means that sometimes it is presenting a story that simply is not age-appropriate-- which, when coupled with the lack of any real "point" can be honestly terrifying (see the horrible parable of the fishes).

However, I've found it far easier to "tweak" Godly Play-- skipping over the really terrible stories until children are a bit older; adding my own thoughts re the point always after the kids have engaged the "I wonder" questions-- much easier fixes than trying to rewrite an entire lesson that dogmatically pushes a point that seems far removed from the overall context. [/QB]

I agree with you. I've read some of Jerome Berryman's books and use some of his approaches in my lessons, so I'm not a real devotee.My relief at finding the Godly play approach is the materials I've found in my diocese push a very dogmatic point and a very simplistic one at that. I add my own thoughts too without teaching "THIS is what this story means."
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
That's what our linear story demanding brains do Boogie. We just have to make more effort to CORRECTLY re-enchant brutal material reality.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Thanks for your prayers & insights. cliffdweller & Lamb Chopped - the points about Biblical prayers are well made, and I shall be passing them on...
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
@OP
I'm reminded of being asked how it is that light is both a particle (photon) and a wave. And why does it come only in a specific amount (quantum).

I'm also reminded of being asked where the flame goes when you blow a candle out.

Both of these from a 10 year old.

I'm liking the good responses above, where people have suggested recognizing the question about God is a good one, that we don't know, and continuing to talk about it.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
When my children were small and asked a question I couldn't answer, I always replied, "That's a very good question, but I don't know the answer." If it was something that I could look up, I did. If I couldn't find an answer, I said so, and suggested that next time we went to the library we could look it up. Usually, the question had been forgotten by that time.

Neither of my daughters asked about the origin of God. If they had, after saying it was a good question and I didn't know the answer, I would have said I wasn't sure anyone knew the answer.

Moo
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0