Posts
I see prayer as "re-visioning" the world. Through prayer we recognise
the problems with how things are and focus on how things should be.
Exactly how this works, i.e., leads to real, physical change in the
world, remains a mystery.
I think part of the answer is that "prayer changes us". By focussing
on how things should be, we develop motivation and inspiration to make
changes in the world towards realising the vision of how things should
be.
I think it certainly doesn't work by God magically or miraculously
intervening the world at our request.
Having made these two points, I am not bold enough to say prayer
only works by changing us in the way described above. People have
claim to pray for specific requests and later receive what they prayed
for. I am not comfortable with saying these instances are all
coincidences. However, I am comfortable in saying that if prayer does,
in some way, lead directly to changes in the world, that this
happens through a normal, physical/biological process - just one
beyond the current limits of our scientific knowledge.
(Extract from a post I sent to the insights-l mailing list).
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, September 17, 2009
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.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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.
Monday, March 9, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
What is a post-modern Christian?
I am occupied at the moment with trying to understand what it means to be a post-modern Christian. This is how I see things at present:
* "Modern" Christians are those who believe there is a truth and I/they/it know it. Modern Christians come in at least two flavours: liberals and conservatives/evangelicals. The former believe that science, logic, and reasoning lead to truth. Thus theology needs to be refined on the basis of these and anything that does not agree with these is to be discarded. Conservatives/evangelicals believe the bible contains the truth and so everything, including science, must be interpreted in the context of the bible.
* "Postmodern" Christians are those who believe there is no truth or, alternatively, that truth is relative. The experiences and history of an individual define what is true for that individual. What is true for one person may not be true for another.
The "postmodern" approach appears to be in the ascendancy at the moment. The modern approach is identified as the root cause of the current division in the church. Each "faction" has its own source of truth, leading to different conclusions, bitter debates, and struggle for dominance. The postmodern approach appears to solve these debates by refusing to accept the existence of truth. Each person can believe their own thing. Thus we can be united in our goal of following Christ, regardless of the fact we have different understandings about what "following Christ" means.
The problem for me is: I don't see how a group of post-modern Christians, with diverse perspectives, can ever make a communal decision? Individual decisions are OK. Each person can choose their own way. While others may not like the decision, because it doesn't affect them, they can let it go. However, once the decision becomes communal, that is, the decision will affect all people in the group, there will be different suggested courses of action, based on each person's perspective. The lack of any objective truth, then makes it impossible to choose between the options as each is equally valid.
I use the term "progressive" to describe my own approach to Christianity. I think the "liberal modern" approach is good because (philosophical discussions about the scientific method aside) science, logic, and reason give us a solid base. I think Christianity must be informed by these. However, since God is outside the realm of science, that is, God cannot be proved or disproved using the scientific method, there is clearly room for "mystery" or "unknown" in our faith. So individual experience, story, and myth must also be considered.
In decision making, this view allows decisions to be made, as subjective experiences can be "weighted" by human knowledge, to suggest the better course of action. The inclusion of different experiences prevents a blind acceptance of what we "know" and keeps us aware of the need to re-evaluate as knowledge grows and experience change.
At the end of this, I now wonder whether "progressives" are just postmodern liberals?
* "Modern" Christians are those who believe there is a truth and I/they/it know it. Modern Christians come in at least two flavours: liberals and conservatives/evangelicals. The former believe that science, logic, and reasoning lead to truth. Thus theology needs to be refined on the basis of these and anything that does not agree with these is to be discarded. Conservatives/evangelicals believe the bible contains the truth and so everything, including science, must be interpreted in the context of the bible.
* "Postmodern" Christians are those who believe there is no truth or, alternatively, that truth is relative. The experiences and history of an individual define what is true for that individual. What is true for one person may not be true for another.
The "postmodern" approach appears to be in the ascendancy at the moment. The modern approach is identified as the root cause of the current division in the church. Each "faction" has its own source of truth, leading to different conclusions, bitter debates, and struggle for dominance. The postmodern approach appears to solve these debates by refusing to accept the existence of truth. Each person can believe their own thing. Thus we can be united in our goal of following Christ, regardless of the fact we have different understandings about what "following Christ" means.
The problem for me is: I don't see how a group of post-modern Christians, with diverse perspectives, can ever make a communal decision? Individual decisions are OK. Each person can choose their own way. While others may not like the decision, because it doesn't affect them, they can let it go. However, once the decision becomes communal, that is, the decision will affect all people in the group, there will be different suggested courses of action, based on each person's perspective. The lack of any objective truth, then makes it impossible to choose between the options as each is equally valid.
I use the term "progressive" to describe my own approach to Christianity. I think the "liberal modern" approach is good because (philosophical discussions about the scientific method aside) science, logic, and reason give us a solid base. I think Christianity must be informed by these. However, since God is outside the realm of science, that is, God cannot be proved or disproved using the scientific method, there is clearly room for "mystery" or "unknown" in our faith. So individual experience, story, and myth must also be considered.
In decision making, this view allows decisions to be made, as subjective experiences can be "weighted" by human knowledge, to suggest the better course of action. The inclusion of different experiences prevents a blind acceptance of what we "know" and keeps us aware of the need to re-evaluate as knowledge grows and experience change.
At the end of this, I now wonder whether "progressives" are just postmodern liberals?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)