Liberal fundamentalists

Rowland Croucher writes:

Frances McNabb probably never preaches, these days, without including what he's against, or without using terms like 'myth', which can be very confusing to layfolk. I call this aggressive anti-conservative approach 'liberal fundamentalism'.

I think "liberal fundamentalism" is unfair. In my experience, fundamentalists are those who seek to force their views on others. A classic example is tacitly or openly prolonging injustice against those they don't agree with in the hope the hardship will encourage them to change their minds. Denying people communion is another common tactic. I think the people Rowland mention's immediately following this quote are certainly strong advocates for a liberal perspective, and they do pursue this mainly through addressing the faults in the conservative perspective. I don't think this makes them fundamentalists.

On another note, it really is so much easier to describe what progressives don't believe rather than what they do believe. This is not because the beliefs are less well defined, it is because a core component of progressive belief is accepting that our current knowledge is limited. Thus any statement we make about God will certainly not capture the full nature of God and will be open to change as our knowledge of and relationship with God develops over time.

Thus, for example, we can confidently say God is not an old man inhabiting some physical place above the sky, but it is much more difficult to describe what God is.

What is a miracle?

For me, and I believe many others, in a religious context, miracle implies a "magical" or "supernatural" intervention in the world by God; a breaking of the laws of science. I think using the term "miracle" tends to confirm in the minds of people who don't see any value in Christianity their perspective that you have to believe in "magic" to be a Christian, thus driving them further away from a stronger connection with God.

It is, of course, OK to believe in miracles (i.e. magic, as per above). The problem is when people do not even know there is an alternative, equally valid perspective of God that doesn't require a belief in miracles. This flows on to problems in language and imagery; people talk and sing about things with no idea that some in their community find them nonsensical at best and offensive at worst.

It is my hope that, through education, people of faith will come to know and understand the alternatives, so they can make informed decisions about their faith.

What is the point of prayer?

My response to another question from the Coalface Network mailing list regarding the point of prayer and whether it is just a "cop out" allowing Christians to ask God to do something to change the world instead of getting out there and changing the world themselves...

The point of prayer is to "re-vision" the way we believe the world should be. It is a way of recognizing the problems with how things are and focusing on how things should be.

Of course how this "works" (i.e., actually leads to real change in the world) is largely a mystery. There is almost certainly an element of "prayer changing us", where the process of re-visioning instills hope and motivation for the community to actually physically work on the changes in the world. Our tradition and wisdom literature, however, suggests there is more to it than just this.

One thing I believe we know for sure is that it *doesn't* work through miraculous interference in the world by God at our request. I think the accusation of prayer being a "cop out" arises largely from a misunderstanding that God can and does perform miracles. Of course, for those who are looking at Christianity from an external view point, this misunderstanding is largely understandable as:

1) Many (most?) Christians, still hold a belief in a God who miraculously intervenes directly in the world. We urgently need a program of adult education within our churches to open people up to alternative ways of understanding God that don't require this belief.

2) The language and imagery we use in our liturgy, songs, prayers, and readings still talks about God in the way described above, even when people's beliefs have changed. While it is often suggested that the language is metaphorical and not meant to be taken literally, to the person looking in it is often not clear what is meant to be taken literally and what isn't. We desperately need new liturgy, songs, etc. that use imagery and language that capture alternative ways of
understanding God.

In talking to a person who is not part of the church, I think we need to be honest that we know a little about how it *doesn't* work and we have some ideas about how it *might* work. We *believe* it has immense value despite not understanding it completely. Then ask them to *experience* it as an adjunct (rather than an alternative) to getting out there and doing
something.

What is worship for?

A question was raised on the Coalface Network mailing list about "What is worship for? Is God insecure?". This is my response.

The purpose of worship is to re-connect with God as the Source of Life and Ground of our Being. It is about remembering who God is and what God's purpose for our lives is. It is about re-focusing: shifting our centre of attention back to what really matters. It is about screening
out the noises and voices in our society that ceaselessly demand our attention.

It is about doing this in *community*: learning from each other, supporting each other, knowing there a people who will journey with us to discover God.

It differs from bible study or mission/justice activities, although it is not separate from them. Worship is about the mystery: ritual, liturgy, prayer, meditation, singing, music, candles. Things that may not make sense ("why bother praying as we know God does not miraculously intervene in the world") nor directly bring about the realm of God ("how does lighting candles and incense help the poor and disadvantaged") but which we somehow know or feel through experience to be critically important in aligning ourselves with God.

I think to get it "right" you have to have:

* the head (a theology informed by the latest science and philosophy, expressed in relevant language and imagery)
* the heart (rituals and practices to re-connect us to God and "filter out" the noise)
* the hands (social justice and caring actions to change the world and bring about God's realm)

Unfortunately, it is hard to find all three together.