Peter Rollins and The God Question

Peter never looked that glum when I knew him!

Maybe it's the thought of leaving Norn Iron.

Hmmmmm...

Do I agree with Rollins?

I guess the answer must be 'Yes and No'.

Parr

You forgot the parable.

In general,
&to quote Will ...
"I came away thinking about the claim that God exists. The best theologians in the world acknowledge that that claim is outrageous -- which is not to say that it is untrue. By "outrageous", I mean that it is a disruptive claim -- in fact, it is a violently disruptive claim."

Does it follow that 'Ikon' lacks the conviction to be outrageous? That deconstruction is too bland and inoffensive?

GV

I'm not quite sure I understands. Is he a gnostic or not?

> Thinkers who are linked to communities often lack the freedom to think aloud when that community is listening in.

That's what struck me when I got home and was discussing the evening's events.

To encourage free thought, there's almost a dancing on pinheads to avoid pinning personal theological views to the donkey. Yet it is certainly a refreshing change from some believe-it-or-be-damned sermons in more traditional religious settings.

In answering —
Do you believe in God?

“Before answering such a question I would need to spend considerable time showing how the chain of signifers above (’Do you believe in God’) should be heard differently in a Christian setting (i.e. they ought to signify something different to a mere empirical assent).”

That gets a ’speech-token’ mixed up with a ’speech type’. John Searle pointed this out to Derrida some time ago. Yep, different sentences can be heard differently in different contexts. They can be used differently by different speakers. I could put the same sentence in a satirical sketch, or a prayer, or whatever, and achieve different effects. You don’t need to invoke other cultures. That’s overkill, and it obscures the issue. Speakers *use* words. We can use extra-linguistic inferences and basic beliefs to discern how the words are being used.
So does it follow that **Will’s** speech act in **that** context didn’t make Will’s question clear? Not really. Do we know how Will was using the words? Pretty much.

How much of a description do we need to pick out a referent? I might refer to H2O, my daughter might talk about a clear, refreshing drink. We both refer to water. Our descriptions might even be slightly mistaken and revisable. I learn more and more about my wife, Nicola. But I don’t fall in love with a different human every morning. That would mean that I’m cheating on my wife with my wife. I just find more and more reasons to love the same person.
I don’t refer to a different referent (love a different person) than Nicola’s mother and father and friends. Her former teachers, the local grocer, our worship leader don’t know very much about her at all. They may even have deep misconceptions. But her family, her friends, and I can all refer to the same person.

At least, I haven’t seen any argument to believe otherwise, beyond the *possibility* that my beliefs about language may be wrong. And that argument cuts both ways. (And an argument’s an ARGUMENT, even if you dress it up in a parable.)

So a Muhammad, Ramanuja, Mudvah, Moses and Paul all referred to the one reality. (or they missed their mark entirely). They differed in many of their beliefs about that referent. But so what? They knew enough, held just enough in common, to hit the same ‘target’ with their beliefs.

Graham Veale

I entitle that last piece - how I wasted a luch hour.

Yes/No/Parable.

Couldn't Brown and Cameron have used that technique against Andrew Marr?

Bernard

Is he a gnostic, or is he agnostic? The mystery deepens.

He's a very nice guy, I'm certain of that. Something wrong with a person who meets Peter and doesn't like him.

GV

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What "jargon" do you find "incomprehensible" marcus? just out of interest?

"apophatic"? "extra-linguistic"? Or is it, as I suspect, "reality"?

BI;

Those aren't words you run across every day in ordinary speech. Usually that's the tip of the iceberg.

Wonder what rules I broke that caused the moderators to change their mind first publishing my posting and then deleting it. Maybe they just didn't like the suggestion that religion is actually just another business.

How do I say it in a way which does not sound dismissive? Pete is the best bullshitter I've ever heard.

Couldn't be my reference to the Twilight Zone. All religion requires some travel to that region of the mind.

Sanity warning, most, if not all (yeh it's probably all) of this post is a waste of time, if I were you I wouldn't read it, come to think of it I don't know why I wrote it. Maybe there's a book in it though.


John, that wasn't dismissive at all, in fact, not half as dismissive as it needs to be, so let me do a bit of tramping about and trash as much as I can.

It's not just the Yukon malarky, mind, which confuses the life out of me (confuses isn't the right word, but who's worried about getting the right word on a thread like this?) it's the evanjelly sub-culture in it's entirety which is doing my head in. And let's get this straight, Ikon and the like, whatever anyone says, are evangelical... to the very core, the only difference is the emergent ones like to say they're not, but they are, so it's another case of one of those yes no answers, like 'Oh no we're not, Oh yes you are'. And there's a least one word too many in there already, but sure, why use 3 words when 129 will do?

BTW, Helio, if you happen upon this post ignore it, I know what you're going to say.
:-)


So where to start? William wanted to know if Ikon was a death of God movement, no it isn't, it's a church, only the members think they're not a church, but they are; think of it like this, they're not, not a church (which is, again, just a couple of words too many, and a bit of self delusion thrown in for good measure). Ikon, you see is just another part of the sub-culture I'm sooooooooo beginning (well not beginning actually, continuing really) to be fed up at. (Incidentally see how you have to keep restating things in the negative, or the positive, you know, replacing your yes for a no or your know for a yes, which if you think about it sounds a bit like something Jesus said, only it isn't, which I suppose is the point if you see what I mean; you don't, no I don't either, but that's the great thing, you don't have to) Anyway that was just more words.

But here's the thing, and I'd like to know if anyone else has noticed this too, Krypton isn't the only evangelical movement at this business of organising events and creating sub-cultural gatherings, everybody seems to be at it. I mean the list is endless, traditional, contemporary, purpose-driven, seeker-friendly, emergent, divergent, contagious, relevant, Nellie the elephant, and the whole thing is premised on turning up, fitting in, and participating in the programme, or being in the audience. This is what Christianity is it seems. And everybody has their own idiosyncrasies, their own paraphernalia, their own something to clamour through before we meet God, or don't meet God or whatever. I mean does nobody actually bother to just speak to one another anymore? Do we always have to huff and puff and hid in our little ghettos, with our preferred thingamajiggy of a Christian event.

Honestly, I'm loosing interest, and fast; but I believe in God, and I'm wondering if there is a way of being the church without going to church.

Please feel free to say, yes, and no.

Oh, and William, I'd have moved seats, it's not like he's an icon or anything. The two seater sofa is real cutting edge though, don't you think, sort of incarnational, a type of manger, you know, 'god with us'... yet unseen, a theological antithesis.

And maybe I should have written that without punctuation, or spaces between the words, it would have made as much sense.

pm;

"Sanity warning, most, if not all (yeh it's probably all) of this post is a waste of time, if I were you I wouldn't read it, come to think of it I don't know why I wrote it."

Yep, next signpost up ahead, The Twilight Zone.

I have attempted to arrive at one logical, sensible conclusion from the above piece and I think I have it - "William Crawley obviously doesnt have hemorrhoids."

Marcus, just spent two weeks in your beautiful country and it is no wonder you are so authoritative on The Twighlight Zone.

From the bad-mannered, rude and unhelpful gestapo greeting us at the airport to the "I'm a non touch person" woman who slapped away my hand when I was introduced to her at church. No public transport system because, as I was told, General Motors would find that, that would harm car sales. Advertising bombarding you from the moment you awake to the moment you pass out with a sore head due to.... the advertising. Here's a big fat double burger with extra lard... Here's tablets to stop you getting fat... Here's tablets for penile dysfunction... Here's other tablets to stop you getting a heart attack if you take the tablets for penile dysfunction... ch-ching!

Not even possible to even watch a film without adverts every ten minutes, then when the film is actually playing, pop up adverts at the bottom of the screen. Pubs and restaurants where you cant hear yourself think for loud, pointless and uninformed clap trap being peddled as opinion. Absolutely no information whatsoever on the News about anything outside America.

I now completely forgive you for all the rubbish you have written on these threads. It is clearly not your fault.

(There were some nice things though. I saw at least three people who were under 26 stone and whose butts weren't couch shaped and my flight home was on time.)

!Theological schizophrenia!

I don't know why they don't all just become Anglicans - we do constructive ambiguity so much better - 450+ years of practice! There is also the bonus that, if you choose your church carefully, you can be almost guaranteed never to encounter a guitar.

Good grief, Peter, what can I say? This is where postmodernism leads you; I think Pete R is a hoot - he's been on SunSeq before, and I enjoyed his take on the Virgin Birth. But I think you're starting to see behind all the fluff, and we can't have that - the Emergent Church exists to allow you to interact with fluff in 360 degrees, AND up and down. The answer to Will's question "do you believe in god" MUST involve proton beams and certain orifices; no other answer category will do. Use that mind-state. Feel the energy. You are starting to understand what it feels like to be Helio.

Do I believe in god?

Of course I do - after all, we invented him.

rjb;

Welcome to America. Glad you got the full experience. Come back real soon, ya hear....and don't leave home without it. (Your credit card of course.) Isn't it nice to be back on familiar turf where all you have to worry about is whether you will get shot or bombed? Oops, forgot that's all in the past now. All that's left to do is march. There's no place like home, ain't dat da truth :-)

Helio

It's late, I'll reply tomorrow.

See... less is more... like cups of cold water.

:-)

My goodness people are very rude on this forum! The most offensive post was thankfully removed (the one which stated that I was in it for the money and to steal from victims in America like a telly-evangelist: despite the fact that I live in the village on an amount that I have never had to pay tax). On this site I have encountered two of the most rude, and I might say uncivilized, pieces of writing ever written about me. And all because William interviewed me about faith? I guess this is just power for the course, but I expected more from people who engage with William's work. And I just came onto the site to see if there was any interesting dialogue about the issues!

I would like to address some of the issues that Peter raises, but they are stated with such vitriol that it doesn't seem appropriate.

Does that mean you won't be back? Oh and I was so looking so forward to the exchanges you would have had with our own Pastorphillip. He's been the the only "professional" we could turn to regularly for spiritual guidance here. BTW, you wouldn't know anything about the bible would you? He left just a few questions unanswered, at least to my satifaction. Do you know anything about Andy McIntosh or Wilder-Smith? Their names came up here more than a few times as well as Dawkins. You remember him, the guy who said that if you belive in god you're nuts? He was here too. Well in spirit anyway. He was interviewed by William Crawley and he and his ideas were discussed at length although he didn't post here.

We have a saying in my country. If you can't stand the heat....get out of the kitchen. No free passes given here. Not while sherrif MarcusAureliusII is around anyway. Ever heard of the Reverand Sun Myung Moon? We in the colonies sooner or later get 'em all, see 'em all. Nothing new under the sun.

John W. did pay you a compliment. It's always notable to be the best at something.

Pete,

Is it conventional for emergents to be so sensitive? I didn't mean to be rude. I am post-evangelical myself and certainly identify with your desire to engage in a meaningful discussion about these questions, but I must admit I don't typically understand a word you say. To my mind there could be a couple of reasons for this:

1) I'm not smart enough. I don't think I'm dumb but I may not be as sharp a tool as you either. Perhaps your answer to the question of whether or not there is a God (and your every other answer to every other question) is too revolutionary for me to understand.

2) Alternatively, what you say may be more of a collection of loosely-distributed, random, non-cohesive thoughts which involve a little bad philosophy, some postmodern angst, faux profundity, reading-into-things-what-isn't-there, and some quite intelligent ideas, and maybe I just get too annoyed by the redefining of things which perhaps may not need redefined (like 'logic') to hang around?

Either way, no big deal. We're just not made for each other! I do find you entertaining, and you should certainly not feel in any way unsettled or upset by my opinion. Maybe I'll buy your book and give you a chance to grow on me. :-)

All the best with your move to the U.S. - I did it myself 5 years ago and am still enjoying myself, as much as I miss the old sod at times. (Question: do you miss the old sod John? Answer: Yes and no. In a metaphysical sense I miss it. But what does it mean to miss something? What does sod mean? And how old is it? Let me tell you a parable.)

[See what I did there? I'll be here all week.]

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#21 Marcus--Americans never worry about being shot?

OK, let's give the lad a chance to explain himself and see if what appears at first glance to be pure gibberish actually is more than mere sophistry at best, incoherent ramblings at worst. Not judging if there is any merit to it yet, just whether or not there is any substance behind what seems smoke and mirrors. If it has substance, a critique is a way off yet for me. From his website's home page;

"We must avoid confusion between remaining silent and saying nothing. For while the former is passive the latter is active. By saying nothing we endeavour to speak of that which manifests in our world as a no-thing, as an absolute mystery which infuses our world with light and life."

In plain everyday common English, what the hell does that mean?????

"To undergo and then speak of that which is not a thing but which transforms our relationship with all things… this is a sacred and subversive vocation."

I can't make heads or tails of this one either. What is it trying to say? Is there something here or is this some lame attempt to be a later day Shakespeare?

"Here you will find my own fragile, failing attempts to be a mouthpiece for that transformative silence.""

"Failing attempts [to explain] is about the only words which carry meaning for me so far. He's right, I didn't get it.

I don't come from a nation of poets so metaphors that are deliberately ambiguous are lost on me and probably will be on most other Americans. We are a practical people who deal in specifics with tangeable examples. Oblique references to vague abstractions which don't connect to everyday experiences don't usually carry much weight here. Our culture doesn't identify with it. Even our most intricate and sophisticated abstractons must somewhere connect to the world we know. Poetry we identify with for example is "Casey at the Bat." Robert Frost is about as abstract as most of us can absorb. Don't expect to wow average Americans with this kind of talk. It may work in Ireland or the UK but it doesn't translate in a way we can understand. The beauty of language is lost on us unless clarity of meaning comes with it. Any attempts to snow us will be seen as condescending elitism and we don't take kindly to it. In our culture, that is one sin that is not given absolution.

If you are not bringing money of your own to support yourself or don't have a job lined up, you'd better check that your sponsor is not one of the hundreds of organizations affiliated with Acorn. In the coming months they may need every last dime they can muster to hire lawyers to keep themselves out of jail. There is a massive legal assault about to get underway against them. There could hardly be a worse time to come to America if you have to start financially from scratch. The economy is the worst it's been in 70 years since the great depression and competition in the "god biz" is as fierce as ever.

PeteRollins

I'd be more than happy to discuss some of the issues with you. I'm not being vitriolic, just taking the words I hear in the evangelical world and reusing them. It happens all the time you see, somehow, when a little edge is put on the words used there's a cool response. I genuinely interested in this, it isn't personal, but, it is I think a big issue for the Christian world in which I grew up, in which I am saturated and with which I have flirted.

As I said more than happy to engage, gotta run, talk later.

All the best.

Hrrrm,

I think PM *was* aiming at a ball. Two in fact.
1) Has the Emergent Church escaped the Evangelical subculture? Or is it a prisoner of what it fears?

2) What does all this word play (sorry Peter R) actually achieve? PeterM uses it in jest, PeterR uses it in earnest. Has one succeeded in saying more that the other?

GV

However, the idea that Pete Rollins would want to set up a mega-church is hilarious! Who on earth got that impression?

"We must avoid confusion between remaining silent and saying nothing."

Can I take the risk of bringing this into the concrete for a moment, and bringing in another thread (in fact, another couple of threads.)

The Queen, The Pope and the Tory Party Conference in Manchester.

The Conservatives open their Conference with what they hope will be a vote catching (gut-wrenching) attack on the poor. The answer to all our woes would appear to be to attack benefit cheats. No mention of the monstrous greed of our Bankers who have stolen billions from us. Not a peep about many MPs who, already on extremely high salaries, screwed every penny they could on expenses. Nothing about corporate businesses who continue to get away with using tax loopholes to line their already stuffed pockets.

The hypocrisy and sheer evil of what is going on is nauseating.

The Queen, defender of the Faith, will remain silent AND say nothing.
The Pope, allegedly successor of Peter, will remain silent AND say nothing. What is happening in this country is just a microcosm of what is happening across the globe and these two 'Christian' leaders are struck dumb.

Personally, I'm not really concerned about what type of silence their silence is.

If Peter Rolling's work helps us to consider/articulate/identify/inform/organise/change the present state of affairs then it is extremely important work.

If it merely serves to further confuse an already weary and long suffering society, a society which is possibly ready to hear some clear and undiluted reflections on the Gospel - especially with regard to the poor, then its a waste of time.

PeteR, yep - welcome! We do like a little kick-about here, but trust me - we have all been exposed to it, and have come to regard it as fun. I have to say I think you are engaged in a very worthwhile project - making Christians *think* is no mean feat, and you certainly do that. I'm from a rather hard-edged science background, which I think means I would have a different take on a lot of issues, but I think we probably end up in pretty much the same place. In particular, you have raised issues on your blog and elsewhere that I do think Christians need to get their heads around; if they did, a lot of the "culture wars" with atheists would be seen as irrelevant.

To me, as a Christian Atheist, I see Christianity as my Desktop Wallpaper - I use it as a motif to organise things and as a set of useful heuristics, but where the classical fails (such as over issues like "does God exist", or "was Jesus even remotely aware of the status that some people would assign to him" - both of which I would answer as "no"), we can still use it to organise our thoughts.

but, like a desktop wallpaper, we can't let it dictate our response in new territory, and we need to keep reinventing it. That's why I started the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist blog. OK, very very few posts, but it's a work in sort-of progress.

You're very welcome, and after a wee while, like some of the rest of us, you will come to enjoy the vitriol - it generally means that your opponents are nutcases, but you knew that anyway :-) Take PeterM, for instance - he has slagged the heck out of me on any number of occasions, but I happen to know from my secret sources that he's really a nice guy. Ditto for Graham. Please do stick around, and I hope all goes well with the move (pity we're losing you).

BW,
-H

Peter R

If you look through some of the threads you'll find ex-Orangemen, Orangemen, a liberal Catholic priest, a conservative Catholic, an evangelical minister, atheists, scientists, Christian athiests, creationists, a few well meaning loonies, and many more.

Admittedly, we all have our moments but generally, given our collective histories, I think its not a bad blog.

RJB - don't want to be greedy but can I claim both Orangeman and well-meaning loony?

Here are some more quotes attributed to Peter Rollins. Wonder if anyone can explain what these mean as they are equally mystifying to me as his blog's main page. If they are not his, my apologies;

1. ""Just as light in the room cannot be seen but rather allows us to see, so God is not directly experienced but rather is the name we give to a whole new way of experiencing. The thoughtful believer is not questioning or denying the value or importance of positive descriptions, but simply refusing to let those provisional, fractured descriptions take on the guise of absolute authority. For what gives birth to the believer stands before all descriptions and remains free from them.""

The source of light can be traced, discovered, measured. What about god? So does the second sentence simply state the obvious that the accuracy of a broken or incomplete description even if positive should be questioned? What insight does that give us? From what medical science has recently discovered, spiritual feelings that give birth to believers may be nothing more than chemical reactions in the human brain. Even without that, does this mean that nobody can explain why they believe? Believe in what, god? Chocolate sundaes with whipped cream? What does all this mean? Is it telling me to give up my old religion even if I like it for this new one whatever it is?

2. ""For in the Bible the face of a helpless, suffering child has a greater call on us than any institution or heavenly voice. It is the face of the suffering child or the flesh of a tortured man that the ethical demand of God is written. For this reason we can embrace Christianity as that which is lived wholly in the world, as that which finds God in the act of giving to those in need and receiving from others as we are in need. We can approach Christianity as a grounded faith, rooted firmly in the soil of the world. It is as we live fully in the world, taking total responsibility for our actions, that we demonstrate our faith.""

In the first sentence, is the helpless child a metaphor for the baby Jesus? If it is, isn't that identical to the heavenly voice on earth according to Christian theology? If it isn't, if it is the "cry of suffering humanity" then what is it saying, charity before religion? Save your money for alms for the poor, don't put it in the church's collection plate and trust them to spend it?

What is the rest telling me, from each according to his ability to each according to his need? A sort of Christian Socialism/Communism? Are we our brother's keeper? Anything new here? I'm getting the sense that all this is some sort of not so unique variant on justification for 1960s christian/socialist style communes and the kind of society those who participated in them advocated for the rest of us. This all seems very retro, very much an echo of the past. Some especially in Ireland might consider it fair to midling poetry though.

Parrhasios

Thats the trouble with you orangemen, you cant see green cheese... (lol.)

Hey John, I actually really liked your comment! No problems there at all. I love strong debate about the issues etc. I can even take a bit of abuse (such William's post has a few great digs which I love). There were just two posts, one removed, that genuinely shocked me. The worst one accused me of so many things I was shocked. You should have seen it!

I must say that, Peter, your post also was a lot to take. But I accept that you didn't mean to belittle me and that you are interested in the real issues rather than venting your anger. And indeed some of what you say is worth discussing. Not simply to solidify our own positions and state what we think but to gain more insight etc.

I know at least a few of my weaknesses and, being from NI, my friends take great pleasure in showing me others. But when it comes to public forums I hope we can, as William hints at, avoid Ad Hominem attacks.

And thanks for the welcomes from other people.

PeteR (and Helio, you'll find this fills in a few gaps for you!:-)

Hi.

I appear to have created a bit of a kerfuffle with my comments above, and I've even got some people being extremely nice and trying to explain my comments for me. First up though, if I caused you any offence, apologies, that really wasn't my intention and I'd like to try and clarify, where I'm coming from. In my defence I'll just say that my introduction to this blog was in response to the New Atheists and their 'religious people are nutters cause they believe in santa', approach to life... we've all moved on though :-) And it's not an excuse for lack of manners anyway.

A brief religious background.

Conservative Presbyterian, til my early 20's.
Member of a CFC church plant, which blew up in our faces, we were all to blame I suppose.
Disconnected from church for 3 or 4 years.
Drifted round a few churches for a year or so, and influenced by a Mennonite based fellowship.
Attended a 'seeker friendly' styled church for a while.
Read alot of Emergent stuff online.
Eventually went back to my roots.
Still have lots of questions.

The main question is one which I've tried to ask to hint at on Will and Testament a few times and to be honest I was a little taken aback that you thought it vitriolic. Honestly, it was an attempt to reflect back the language of the sub-culture, play with it, take it apart. That's what I thought Ikon did.

This is the thing which has really bothered me this last ten years. Sometime after the end of the church plant, a girl who was also part of it asked me, "Peter, what is left of Christianity when the trappings are removed?" It's a good question, and it's one I've been trying to answer ever since. She used the word 'trappings', I have come to us the word 'sub-culture', and by it I mean all those things we do, organise, label, sell, promote, speak of and use to identify ourselves with, which seem superfluous to the life of Jesus.

I have tried, over and over, to engage, provoke, communicate my concerns, yet I find that the general response is that the sub-culture of evangelicalism carries on regardless, in fact in many ways it finds questions, and I agree I can be pointed at times, threatening.

Yet what of my sub-culture, what of me, for I am only asking questions I have already asked myself? If I'm honest for most of my life I've been high on the sub-culture of church and low on substance. What is the measure of my Christianity when the trappings of church are removed? You see when I begin to think about loving enemies, or mercy, or patience, or kindness or incarnation or forgiving and forgiving and well, just forgiving, then I wonder what the point of organising the meeting or the event was. Sure I had a sub-culture that was safe and secure and comfortable and made me feel as if I belonged, but it was also good for hiding behind.

Peter, I understand your desire to deconstruct the theology of the evangelical world, I've done that too, but I am deeply suspicious of church meetings repackaged, and I'm sorry to have to say it but that's what Emergent looks like. What am I to do? And think about this, if you find it bad enough living in Belfast, trying getting a discussion going in the countryside!

Peter, some of us don't want any more meetings. Some of us just want the chance to drink a coffee, stumble along with other Christians (and hopefully non-Christians too) and find a little mercy together in the daily circumstances of life and run the risk of passing it on. If that's not possible, I'm no longer sure what the point is. I suppose it's a bit like what RJB said at the end of post 32.

Anyway, Pete, all the best, I hope America works out.

And Helio, who's your source, Secret Squirrel?

If I could interject, Peter and Pete, as ye two shall be known for the purposes of this thread.

I don't think Ikon consists primarily of evangelicals, actually. In that sense I think Peter has it wrong. Yes, many emergent groups seem to be merely repackaged evangelicalism, replacing a band with a DJ and singing with listening and sermons with sharing, and church bulidings with pubs. But Ikon represents that percentage of the emergent movement (not sure how big it is) which seems to consist primarily of people looking back at evangelicalism, from a position beyond it; people who have even essentially moved beyond theism in some ways but who aren't quite prepared to give it all up, are still interested in theology and care about the things Jesus cared about.

(Thus far, I'm with them. Where I part company is that I don't buy into the postmodernist approach in many ways. But that isn't an indictment of the group; I just don't share its belief that these are the best ways to get to the truth of a matter and thus characterize it as I did above!)

So, Peter, maybe Ikon is for you after all? Maybe all that you've read about the emergent movement describes the basis for Ikon but not Ikon itself? After all, it's not very 'evangelical' to struggle with the answer to the question of whether God exists. :-)

"Sunday 19th at 8pm is an Ikon SPEAKS, with Pete planning to talk around "Understanding transformance art: faith, fetish and religion without religion"."

"Religion without religion." I guess that says it all.

"We must avoid confusion between remaining silent and saying nothing."

I get it now. He doesn't remain silent but he says nothing.

Helio

"I think you're starting to see behind all the fluff"

Not so fast my friend! (say it like a Bond villain!)

First of all I take the view that it doesn't have to be post modern to be fluff. We all do fluff at some time or other. For example, I was at Communion in church on Sunday, and if I were to take the view that somehow I'd earned the right to be there, that would have been 'fluff'.

Here's a bible reference to help explain, and you know I don't do bible references much on here, James 1:22 "Do not merely listen to the word and so deceive yourselves."

Flip, that one gets me every time.

Does it matter whether the word is preached by a graduate of Westminster Seminary or mixed in Garage Band and flashed up on a screen in a pub if the result is me deceiving myself?

That's another way of explaining the core of my problem, there's been a lot of self delusion going on. It's easy to do in church. The very place which speaks of truth, which offers a welcome to the worst, without judgement, the hope of redemption and justice in the community, seems, I'll put it no more strongly, to allows us to hid behind words; the great irony being that in Christianity of all faiths, that words are the basis of life and renewal, words are supposed to effect change (and we're back to RJB again, that and cups of cold water)

It is my view that we need the story of incarnation, forgiveness, redemption, and, as I consider the 'story' to be true, it means I'm traditional and conservative, but, it is also my view that we have lost the story, can't see the story for the sub-culture if you like, and it seems to me that it makes no difference whether we are traditional, contemporary, emergent, or whatever else I put in the list in post 15, if we miss the practicalities, the reality of the story, we've missed it all. This explains why in previous conversations with you I've tried to emphasise the ordinariness of Christian faith and it explains why I am not an atheist.

Incidentally, why do I suppose these things, simply because they are true of me, I keep missing the point, even when I'm sitting in Presbyterian communion; but it seems I'm not allowed to say.

Oddly, you are one of the few who listen.

John

I see what you're saying, but if you're looking back at evangelicalism, it means you were there once!

That's one of the points I was trying to make when I said evangelical to the very core. Without evangelicalism there would be no deconstruction of it and it doesn't matter what we call ourselves now, the focus of so much of the Emergent world is a response to their evangelical past, that's how it seems anyway.

Of course I could be wrong, I've never been to an Ikon event but I have followed the website from it's pre Wiki days and what I read was primarily a critique of evangelicalism; indeed I'd go further and say that what I read there would have been best understood by having an evangelical past. Whatever any individual emergent group is now, it is largely, a product of the evangelical/charismatic world.

In a way Dave Tomlinson's book 'Post Evangelical' and Sheffield's NoS was the introduction to emergent for a lot of people, including me.

It's a big issue of course and there is a danger of generalising in light of personal experience, but my main point stands, it's another church sub-culture, and I still think we're all, if we say we're christians (of whatever flavour), in danger of creating for ourselves little groups, alien to, misunderstood or ridiculed by those who do not belong. And honestly surfing in Portstewart, even in October, is more appealing than that.

You see, I'm not looking for direct links like 'DJ or band', or 'sermons or sharing', that's not the point, rather, I think, it has something to do with what we are.

So, let me quote an Irish Presbyterian minister to finish, John M. Barkley, "It is what a man is, not what he professes, which is the important thing in life." And it seems to me that the word 'professes' can be applied in lots of ways, and that one gets me every time too.

Peter M

I've been away for a couple of weeks. Did a bit of thinking about Church/God etc..

I was surprised when I got back to see the tone of many of your posts. Normally one of the most stable guys on here, I've seen you frustrated, angry, almost soul searching. Maybe, 'rudderless' would be a good word.

I dont quote scripture much either but you might like to reflect on the parable of the sower and the seed, (being a Cackie, I dont have the chapter and verse numbers to hand.) Maybe a few spiritual pennies might drop for you, or new horizons come into view.

Haha, Peter Morrow, you are rudderless!

It is certainly the case that these people are mostly coming out of more traditionally evangelical places. Where would you like them to be coming from? Is it merely the existence of Christian groups that bothers you? FYI, I haven't been to church regularly in 5 years, and don't miss it.

Hi PeteM (too many Petes - Jesus would have a lot of rocks on which to build his church on this blog, eh?)

I sort of see what you mean; there is a great story there; I happen *not* to believe that is "true", but that doesn't change its power as a story, and that's one reason why I sometimes describe myself (as the regulars will know to their intense boredom) as an Atheistic Christian. But a lot of what you say is very sensible, very *anti*Christian, but very pro-Jesus. I have extolled the Good Samaritan (you could call it the "Good Homosexual", the "Good Atheist", etc if you like, and have ministers and pillars of the church etc passing by on the other side) before as the very model of Jesus's *deprecation* of religion; TBH I think the very LAST thing he wanted to do was make a *new* one.

But I don't think you are rudderless - if anything, you have discovered the Core, and are trying to reconcile that with the Fluff.

I'll be honest - I feel lucky to be an atheist. If I had been aware of folks like Chris Hudson when I was shedding my coccoon in Israel in 1993, I would likely have ended up a Unitarian. I went to All Souls in Belfast a few months back, and found it most congenial to an atheist like me; much as I am intrigued by PeteR's ikon, I don't think there's really room there for me to be atheistic in an open and frank way. Oddly the Non-Subscribing Presbyterians just strike me as more my thang.

But then maybe my Jordan-Israel bike ride in November (google Heliopolitan Nazareth bike ride, folks ;-) is me trying to reconnect with something too.

Crikey - reading that over, it sounds a bit rudderless too. Will, you should have PeteR on SunSeq a lot more, and Chris Hudson too. I genuinely think a lot of Christians are unaware that Freethought is an option.

And therein lies the very best of the emergent movement: freethought is an option. If such freethought had more diverse results (more atheists, more modernists, more right-wingers, etc.) and wasn't so geared toward people whose views are similar to Rollins', it may be the perfect post-evangelical movement. As it is, at least it's encouraging freedom of thought, and it is thus better than any other expression of church.

PeterM

Let me rephrase the 'rudderless' comment, if not for your benefit, for others. You have always struck me as someone who has a pretty deep grasp of the gospel.

Your description of your past (above) moving from church to church gives me the impression that you have always searched for something deeper than what has been on offer where ever you've been. You perceive what others dont.

I was extremely fortunate in that, as a leader of a community, I could actively take steps to create a Christian Community rooted in the Gospel. Not many people have that opportunity, I now realise.

You, my friend, are not rudderless in that sense, many churches are. What I was trying to say was, whatever it is you are searching for, I hope you find it.

John

This first answer is for you!

Rudderless? I don't even have a boat anymore!


RJB

Thankyou for your comments (I'm not being ironic this time)

Besides my comment to PeteR about coffee and mercy, Helio about merely listening and John about John Barkley, I'm not sure what else to say at this point, except this...

Maybe 'rudderless' would be a good word, I hadn't thought of that, but here's what I have been thinking all summer, "There's an awful lot of words in Christianity." and I'm wondering what good they do. And believe me if you'd grown up in a church where the 'word' was preached twice on a Sunday, every Sunday, and on a Wednesday night, you'd realise just how many words we can get through.

But I can't shake the idea that the words (of the gospel) are supposed to change me, and others, for the collective good. Maybe I've just come across too many people on the fringes of life, people who don't fit, people who need a friend, people who want to be a friend, people for whom getting through another day is tough.

And in the middle of all that, yes, protests against the Pope, superstar preachers flying in from Amerikay, arguments over who the new church pastor will be, conflict about the music we play and the songs we sing, do get me frustrated.

But tell me more about Matthew 13 and the sower, you knew I'd know the reference didn't you! (Here's another one John 5: 39 and 40, and that's enough bible for one day!) Just occurs to me that I should explain that, by that I'm referring to my expression of church, not your ref. to the sower parable. But I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, any pointers?

and RJB, I've just seen your post 48, there was no need to clarify, I'm more than happy to do a bit of self reflection, (we Presbyterians read it every time we take communion, I can hear the words... "In the same way after supper He took the cup.....A man ought to examine himself"), but thanks, I appreciate your sensitivity.


Helio

Tell me a bit more about this bike trip. Visiting any gardens on the way?

And bikes don't need rudders, but I do hope you have a pumpture kit!

John

Your other questions, quick answer for now. "Where would I like them to be coming from?" Doesn't matter where I'd want them to come from I was just making the point that the evangelical world is where they're from. Can the blog stand another frivolous comment about this? It's like asking, "When is an evangelical not an evangelical?"

And, "Is it the existence of Christian groups which bother me?" Well, I've been trying to answer that, but another quick response, no it's just that I think the church has a lot more potential than simply organizing another event. I mean, you want to hear some of the discussions I've sat through about how to make the church more 'relevant'.

It is a lonely furrow I plough plugging liberal Anglicanism on the blog but really Helio we have been doing free-thought for centuries. You could be atheistic in an open and frank way in many a CoI parish and nobody would bat an eyelid but then maybe nobody there would think you were really being all that radical either.

My own views have been described as post-modernist and I can very much see where Rollins is coming from in much of what he says. Language communicates at many levels beyond the rational and meaning reverberates beyond semantics. It is sometimes necessary to speak in these terms to convey to a particular audience both how one can in fact make some semblance of sense out of non sense, and what one might apprehend of that which lies beyond comprehension.

I consider such efforts an occasionally necessary evil when attempting to let people see what makes me tick but I agree whole-heartedly with RJB as to what constitutes the essence of Christian faith and practice. Jesus' message was simple in the extreme, we might even say painfully simple. If we look for our Lord where we are most likely to find him (in engagement with the poor, the disconsolate, and the marginalised) the inadequacy of language takes on a wholly different meaning.

Even Post-modernists do not agree all the time - I would have had no difficulty answering William's question asking if I believed in God. I would have said quite simply - "No, I do not. I have no aspiration ever to believe in God. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which I would believe in God". Of-course then I would suggest that any use of the idea of belief is quite likely to signal a category mistake...

PeterM

I had a sermon once that I was about to give after reading (sorry, "proclaiming" - is that what you mean about the b/s that creeps into Christianity?) - the gospel of the sower and the seed. I never gave that sermon. Instead I went off on a total tangent.

I actually started to visualise a parish which was rock. Well structured, financially secure, organised, stable etc.. But the parish lacked heart, it had little deep concern for the poor. The Word simply couldnt be heard in such a parish. The priorities of the parishioners were not the priorities of the gospel.

A parish full of thorns - People who were choking each other with gossip, criticism, undermining each other, back-stabbing each other etc.. (Remind you of anything?) Again, the Word couldnt be heard.

A parish on thin soil where the emphasis was on externals, appearances etc..

I gave other examples before coming to the seed which landed in the deep soil and began to reflect on what the deep soil actually is.

My point is, that since I've listened to you on this site, you've actually been doing that all along. You've been answering that question for yourself and for others.

I've heard the Word being bastardized on here consistently, used to smash like a boulder, to stab and wound like a thorn and used with utter shallowness. Tht's the real blasphemy.

I hope you continue to whisper it, to treat it like treasure, like the mustard seed, the pearl of great price. You are not falling on as many deaf ears as you might think.

PeterM

Just read John 5, 39-40.

Exactly!!

"Guys, can the conversation move....towards the ball at some point?"

Here it all is in a nutshell. It's even worse than I thought. By the time these people are through if they ever have their way, we'd all be sitting around singing Kumbaya, Kumbaya after we'd been lobotomized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

This is the first posting I've ever seen on Wikipedia with a warning and this warning is that the article contains weasel words which the warning itself explains.

Reminds me of the Star Trek episode where everyone found peace in "Landreau" who controlled their thoughts and turned out to be a computer. Lots of room for demagogues to move into this act along the way. Lots of isolated little splinter sects in communes using mind control to keep converts captives. We know where that kind of thing ultimately winds up. Jonestown, Branch Davidians, and countless others like it. I say hold on tightly to your money, lock your doors, and pray this devil doesn't pay you a visit. Very dangerous indeed. Forewarned is forearmed. Utterly subversive with shades of megalomania and world government as its ultimate goal IMO.

Wasn't this thread meant to be about Peter Rollins? Not Peter Morrow?

Now why is a relatively conservative evangelicals soul-searching more interesting than an Emergent's musings?

GV

RJB

Church hopping is part of the Evangelical sub-culture. I have been -in order - Baptist, Brethren, Baptist, Independent, Baptist, Presbyterian. Getting fed up with the inevitable sub-sub-cultures is just an occupational hazard.

Evangelicals lack a sustantial doctrine of the Church. We're very clear on the gospel. But without agreement on what the Church is for, or what it does, the Gospel can get obscured. Church can get reduced to meetings.

I think that the Reformed gambit to replace the Sacraments with Preaching has failed. I'm not sure of it's Biblical warrant in any case. To my mind the Plymouth Brethren were moving towards a deeper doctrine of the Church in their practice, by focusing on the Lord's Supper and Baptism. It answers the question - what is the Church for? What can you get at Church that you can't get by reading a good commentary, or chatting with a group of Christian friends? Communion.

However a Fundamentalism and a lack of structured leadership has been their undoing.

GV

Come across, Graham. We've all the Sacramentalism we can get our hands on.

:)

GV

Sacraments can get in the way of listening to/perceiving Christ, just as much as endless words, endless liturgy, endless meetings etc..

I would argue that in my church, people have gotten so used to being spoon fed the Sacraments that they've stopped actually seeking God. Go to Church, go to communion, go to confession and chuck yer whack in the plate. End of.

One of the most revelatory and powerful eras in Jewish history was the periods of exile when, effectively, they were removed from the Temple and all the trappings of their religion.

Suddenly, the Psalms were born.

Again, it comes down to a genuine seeking on the part of the person/community. When I look around at my church and I look over the 1500 comments on the WW thread, how many people are genuinely seeking God? Strikes me that too many people believe they've actually found him.
Its also why Christ could do nada with the Pharisees. How can you penetrate the heart of someone who is so sure that he or she knows the truth?

Peter Morrow strikes me as someone who is, and always has been, seeking truth. And isnt that the essence of what Peter Rollings is doing and therefore what this particular thread is actually all about, regardless of what language we use?

RJB

In a Brethren communion service there is no 'sacramentalism'. There is no moment when the bread's nature changes, Christ being present as long as two or three are gathered.
The service is open. Anyone can give a hymn or pray. Anyone with a recognised gift of teaching can bring a message. (In practice this means any man, unfortunately.)So listening is all important. As is prayer and worship - perceiving. Periods of quiet reflection are included. If you notice the importance of communion, it's actually a radical rethink of the "priesthood of all believers".

In theory I think this gets things right, and is a step forward. But the lack of structured leadership crippled the Brethren from the outset. Factions sprang up early. The "priesthood of all believers" became anyone can say whatever they like. Teaching became devalued.
There were also problems with Fundamentalism - actually they were the original Protestant Fundamentalists. JN Darby gave us 'Dispensationalism', with it's two-stage Second Coming, and it's tendency to Biblical literalism.
All this is a real shame, as it has meant that their ideas on the Church could be built on.

GV

RJB
Is Peter Rollins seeking truth - in the sense that he would like to find it? Wouldn't that make him what he calls a 'gnostic'?

He seems more interested in passion. But passion in what? Passionate why? We don't seem to be allowed to say, as that would make us 'gnostics' and rob us of the passion. Or so it seems.
Showing that belief in the truth of propositions is not sufficient for faith does not mean that belief in propositions is not necessary for faith.
It's hidden behind a lot of words about Hegel and signifiers. But that seems to be the underlying assumption. It's difficult to make sense of caricatures like 'Dr IM Smug' and accusations of 'gnosticism' without that assumption.

There was a view in ethics that 'good', 'duty', 'wrong' etc where not truth claims, but expressions of emotion. So "abortion is wrong" translates "Abortion, yuk!"

Now Peter Rollins seems to be saying "I believe in God" means "Jesus , Yipee" or "Jesus, wow!". This should be followed by action. But he also thinks that 'God' is a meaningful term. We can make truth claims about a "supreme being".

It is possible on this view to say "I believe, falsely, that...". That's up there with 'gyring and wambling'. There is so much equivocation on the word believe that it becomes useless.

There are ways you could make this coherent, but I don't see any reason why I should. I can't see why truth claims are immoral in religion. I also think that without some propositional content the whole thing becomes blind. How should we act?

Now theoretical belief in a supreme being is not faith. Theoretical belief may not even be necessary for faith. But belief in the same reality for different reasons is possible. You may believe more about the reality in question as you have different grounds and motivations for your belief.

Of course he can just say I'm misreading him. But he was very clear when he felt offended, and offered no parables on that occasion. So I'm not sure that he can dodge the accusation that he is bluffing. I don't think he is. But some posters do, and I think that they are within their rights to make the accusation.

You were asking some very probing questions about silence and politics, and what the effect of all this rhetoric is. Marcus (no longer in Troll mode) has asked probing questions about the politics. Do they advance beyond Hegel. Peter Morrow has asked -in a manner as clear as any parable- what is the use of this type of language? He has also asked if 'Ikon' isn't a prisoner of what it rejects.
John Wright was blunter than Peter Morrow (yet oddly, received kinder comments). Again he wants to know what the language on Peter's page (and Marcus has given a fair sample of that language) achieves.
Parrhasios is more open - but wants to know what all the fuss is about. He can say heretical things with greater clarity in his Church, and no-one minds. Heresy went mainstream at the end of the 19th Century. We've had the "Death of God Incarnate". So I'd like to know, isn't this all a little bit boring?

(BTW Parrhasios features quite a bit in my lessons. GCSE students are always asking - what do 'Liberal Christians' believe?)

Now there's a wide range of interesting, challenging questions. The ball has been played. In fact it was played from the start.

SO - can we have our ball back? Can we have some answers?

Graham Veale

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Marcus, I hardly ever hit the complaint button, but I did just now to stop everyone being accused of defamation. You came very close. By the beebs rather arbitrary definitions.

Anyhow, if I picked your post up right

1) D. A. Carson, has characterized the emerging church movement as primarily a movement of protest in which participants are reacting against their more conservative heritage. Carson has pointed out that emergent books and blogs are more preoccupied with this protest than they are with any genuinely constructive agenda" I see it as more of a political movement.

To someone who lived through and was forced to observe the 1960s for ten interminable years, this seems like an echo of the past. Like chain letters, pyramid schemes, and other relics of history, this seems to me to be at most a set of new variants on an old and badly discredited trend that all but died a long ago death. The fractured nature of the movement gives new opportunity for many because the decentralized nature of the thing with all its variants can give rise to lots of small heirarchies rather than a few large ones.

Then you warn us to watch out for ..."the drivers of human behavior, the lust for money, power, fame, and sex, the particular combination of each one..." and essentially not to take PEOPLE IN GENERAL on face value.
Because you're suspicious of everyone so far as I can tell.

Think that covers it, and keeps us out of trouble. Fight the inner troll man. Life's sticky enough on the blog at the mo,

Graham

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What do you know, they left it up!

So it's not defamatory --- but PM's is. Right. It all makes perfect sense to me now. I can see exactly where the problems are.

GV

63 mentioned a name --- that's not defamatory either.

All of a sudden I've an urge to watch the film 'Clueless'...

Marcus

Fight the Troll, man, fight it! YOU-DON'T-HAVE-TO -LISTEN-TO-IT!

Good call, Mr Moderator! Now Marcus will push the envelope as far as he can. My odds of getting answers just went into minus numbers.

Jerry Jones plays for the Dallas Cowboys. Jim Jones went into the Jungle.
If you're going to screw the discussion up with bizarre references to cults you might *read* something about them first.
Just being alive in the 1960's doesn't count.

GV

For your information

The second deleted post made vague references to the FBI, Jim Jones, David Koresh, bluetooth, the jungle, 9/11 and a large amount of money.

Oliver Stone could have made a very good film out of all that.

My church is the restaurant, the ultralounge, the bar, the mall. I think this is what you mean, Peter M, by not having "just another event." When I talk to people about life and ask them to reflect on a thought or a concept - about life, philosophy, theology - and they do, it's the kind of 'church' I want. What I'm doing here, of course, is redefining the word 'church' to mean something else. This is what Rollins does, which has the benefit of making people think while the pitfall of being completely abstract and not talking about the same thing at all.

But the result of my refusing to sit in a room and listen to a guy tell me what to believe every Sunday is that I now explore these ideas myself in social places which have become my church (as I always did anyway of course even while I was going). After I stopped going, for the first few weeks, a good friend and I met at Roast coffee shop every Sunday morning for coffee, bagels with cream cheese and a healthy dose of banter and reflection. It became my church, and I haven't looked back.

(By the way I have a whole host of views on why religions evolve the way they do, and the 'need' to meet on a Sunday is one reason Christianity survived and thrived; the social aspect was vital, and the fittest survives. So there's a reason we have church on Sunday and the belief that Sunday church meetings are important. But it does no harm to disagree.)

I find a couple of things weird in regard to this particular thread. One, that having observed, and to one degree or another participated in, the deconstruction process proposed by the Emergent community and, two, having followed the re-imagining of christian theology with a particular emphasis on the need to move beyond the old paradigms of traditional churches (and that stated with some vigour), that my questioning should be met with such displeasure.

It is odd, is it not, that the very communites which have actively encouraged Christians to betray, to shatter their old certainties should want us not to speak of further heresy? Is this somehow a new orthodoxy, a new context for 'belief' to which we must all show fidelity? Are we permitted to question the questioners?

Understand too, that while I found myself unable to give myself whole heartedly to what has been called third millennium Christianity, I have been close enough to understand the main thrust of the movement. I have read at least some of the books, the musings of the online communities, the parables, the blogs, and the interesting, perhaps the 'horrific' thing is that in recognizing the limits of my own faith, my own ability to 'believe' I have been driven back to the certainty of an historic story of incarnation, redemption and the 'fidelity of God'. This is a story which has been told for centuries in all Christian communities, the story of love, mercy, forgiveness, hope, redemption. Doubt demands nothing of us.

Doubt, in the end diffuses the field of our vision, it shrouds us in a peaceful haze, it allows us to avoid the sting of love, the sting of selflessness.

Do I 'believe' in God? We ask the question as if our ability to believe was a virtue, it isn't, I am certain of that. It is like asking the question a lawyer asked Jesus; in the end, our endless questions betray our motives, and like the lawyer we keep on asking, desiring to justify ourselves. "Who is my neighbour?" "What is belief?" they are the same question, and I am certain we cannot justify ourselves.

The most penetrating statement of all on this thread was written by William, "If God exists, that claim changes everything." Indeed it does. If Christianity is true, it changes everything, the same way Jesus changed the lawyer's question. In the end it is no longer, "Who is my neighbour?" rather it is "To whom must I become a neighbour?" In the end the Samaritan was the neighbour, not the wounded man.

Christianity, teaches us that Jesus became our neighbour, to 'believe in him' is to understand that we need his neighborliness, his fidelity towards us. In the story Jesus is the Samaritan, we are the wounded ones, it is only when we understand this that we find it possible to believe, possible to love others.

Anyway, that's my answer, and it is, I believe(!), the forever told story of the Christian church; it is the story of God. And perhaps in view of the idea of rewriting parables I'll add my own.

Father in Heaven

Shallow is my name
My kingdom is done.
My will has run
It's course on earth.
I have this day
More than my fair share of daily bread.
Can You forgive me?
For I have failed to forgive others,
And succumbed to many a temptation.
Deliver me from the evil one
(Again)
And may I see Your kingdom
Your power and Your glory

Forgiver and Forgiver

Amen.

Cripes, guys! How long to wallow in the fluff, eh? We all have our journeys; as I mentioned above, *we* invent god. It's bottom-up, not top-down.

Peter, since you asked, the bike ride is from Amman to Jerash to the Dead Sea, up the Jordan Valley to Lake Tiberias (eastern shore), cross by boat, then Tiberias up to Nazareth EMMS Hospital. It's to raise money to establish a bursary fund to help train nurses from disadvantaged backgrounds (mainly Arab Muslim, Christian, Bedouin, Druze) in the Galilee area, and thereby help lift them and their families out of poverty, and foster self-confidence and break down barriers in the region. A good thing, I think you will agree.

I mean, look at us - here we are tearing strips off each other, but we would have no hesitation in buying each other a pint. Let's share the wuv.

Since it is clear this thread is to be a platform for propaganda rather than a two sided discussion or debate, it is pointless to try to present an opposing view. I now see why the Catholics wanted independence from BBC and its owner the British Government.

Graham - an extraordinarily succinct summary of my thoughts. I am sure you are well aware, of-course, that I do not consider my position heretical! :-)

Markie, did a British Post-Modernist Emergent Church member run over your cat or something? That's a pretty hefty chip on your shoulder there.

Look, let me put this in context - there are 2 principal ways of looking at things - top-down and bottom-up. Top-down: god creates everything. Bottom-up: we create god. You don't need to *believe* things - indeed, that's a positive disadvantage; that way leads to Error. We start from where we are and work outwards. Maybe PoMo floats some people's boats - I'm a scientist, so I can't really relate to it. But if we can promote freethinking, and a rejection of the automatic assumption of theism, that is a start.

H

"here we are tearing strips off each other"

I hope not.


"but we would have no hesitation in buying each other a pint."

Quite true, maybe we should some time.

And the bike ride, yea, a good thing indeed, very good in fact. Will you be able to 'twitter' your progress, I'd like to follow it if you could.

I can't come up with a parable but here's a little story, it's even a true story. RJB and PeterM's exchange put me in mind of it.

I once went to the funeral of a Roman Catholic friend. It was on Low Saturday and the church was stripped of decoration. The Blessed Host had been removed to the sacristy, the Tabernacle door was open, and the Sanctuary Lamp extinguished.

The chapel was deep in the country and I noticed most of the congregation still genuflected before taking a seat in the pews. Wondering if it was done consciously and for the same reason an Anglo-Catholic might give, I asked the friend who accompanied me "Are they reverencing the Holy Cross?" - she looked at me blankly. I repeated the question. She said "No, you know we bow to Christ in the Sacrament". I didn't point out that the Tabernacle was bare.

The story illustrates, rather nicely, how you can take God, in this case quite literally, out of Church and the congregation won't even notice. We could take God out of most of our churches and nobody would notice. I would go further and say that you could take God out of most of our churches and it wouldn't really matter.

Church is not about God, it is certainly not for God. Church is for people and for fellowship. It enables those who think about God to support one another and to bounce ideas off one another. When, for example, has anyone last heard a public prayer purely and exclusively addressed to God? Public prayer is largely and commonly just a means to facilitate one Christian's addressing of his fellows indirectly.

We encounter the reality of God not in a building or in a group but when we align our deeds with His nature. The Word of God is written in the faces of the poor. Real prayer is a transformative dissection of the self in the love of God. Authentic worship is the service of the needy. True communion is empathy with the suffering. We proclaim the Gospel of Christ only when we live His life in the world.

Graham Crackers;

Jerry Jones plays for the Dallas Cowboys. Jim Jones went into the Jungle.

Was Jim Jones a personal friend of yours? I see you were familiar on a first name basis.

"If you're going to screw the discussion up with bizarre references to cults you might *read* something about them first."

I did. That's how I became interested in Northern Ireland.

"Just being alive in the 1960's doesn't count."

Between the war in Vietnam and the draft, the race riots, the inner city crime waves, the drug culture, the bizarre religious sects, and the rest of the lunacy of that era, just surviving the 1960s in one piece does.

While the seperation of Church and State in the US is a fact of American law, the marriage of Church and money in the US is a fact of American culture. Anyone who does not know that religion is big business in America doesn't know the first thing about the US. I suspect it's no secret anywhere.

Re 60

I think we're not getting our ball back.

Marcus

Everyone else in America is fixated by money, is it really any wonder that the churches are the same? I got the feeling that if a priest or minister were to stand up and preach against the love of money (and live it as well) he would be treated like some sort of oddball.

Parrhasios

Your parable actually touches on quite an important point for the catholic church at the moment.

Vatican II tried to give a more prominent place to the Scriptures in our churches (something learned from our Protestant brothers and sisters.) The Lectern was given a more prominent place on the sanctuary, while the Tabernacle was moved to a side altar, often to a side chapel.

When I made that move in my own parish, people still genuflected out of habit even although the Blessed Sacrament was no longer there. Over a period of months I gently 'reminded' people of this. People could also see with their own eyes that, after the distribution of communion, the remaining hosts were taken to the tabernacle in the side chapel. They still genuflected.

I went to some lengths to try and explain the move. I spoke about how up until the era of Pope John the XXIII, receiving the Eucharist was at most, a weekly if not monthly, event, which had to be preceded by Confession and a long period of fasting (normally from Saturday evening right through til Sunday.)

John wanted to change all that. He wanted people to receive the Eucharist as often as possible. He encouraged people to receive it, not just on a weekly basis, but on a daily basis. You no longer 'had to' go to Confession and fasting was reduced to one hour.

We thus arrived at a situation where far more people were going to communion far more often - yet we still retained things like Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction. (The latter didnt actually make sense any more because people actually had the Blessed Sacrament inside them.)

Again, I tried to explain. Would any of you ever dream of behaving disrespectfully in front of the tabernacle? Would any of you ever dare to sin in its presence? No.

So why then would any of us curse at, swear at, gossip about, hurt or offend our neighbour, who has effectively become a living, breathing, walking tabernacle, loved by God and containing the Eucharist within them?

Most people got it and it made them totally rethink the way we treat each other. (I do remember one parishioner who didnt get it, complaining bitterly to others about me after Mass one Sunday, "My God, he's replaced the Tabernacle with a yukka plant!!")

To me, it didnt really matter that the folk were still instinctively genuflecting to the front, something done out of force of habit. What thrilled me to my core was that they were now, effectively, genuflecting to each other, treating each other with respect, dignity, compassion, understanding and forgiveness. Treating each other as tabernacles.

This new awareness was actively encouraged by our Bishops. Priests were backed up by the hierarchy when they brought about these changes. (It also had huge implications for relations with our Protestant brothers and sisters.)

The utter tragedy for the Catholic Church is that over the last ten years, there has been a backlash. Priests, most of whom did their 'training' in Rome, have gradually infiltrated our parishes, shifted the Lectern back to the side of the sanctuary and stuck the tabernacle emphatically back to centre stage. The statement they are making is all too obvious. They have powerful friends in Rome and any local Bishop who opposes them will soon find himself 'pressurised' by Rome. (At the moment they have managed to get the Tridentine Mass re-established in parishes, backed fully by Benedict, and are attacking any Bishop who refuses to co-operate with them.)

People, having been brought to a new understanding of the Eucharist, have now had that vision demolished. They have simply walked away. The galling thing is that these extremely arrogant, right wing clergy are standing up in their pulpits and, in the few sentences they utter which arent in Latin, blaming those who tried to practise Vatican II for emptying our churches and leading the faithful "into error." (Error is such a favourite word of theirs.)

The real reason our churches are emptying is that, having been lead to a new understanding of Church/Christ/Christianity, having been freed from quite an oppressive religiosity from the past, they are not prepared to be led back to that past again.

So, Parrhasios, your little parable actually was an extremely relevant one for understanding where Catholicism is at the moment.

My apologies to all those Christians on here who arent at all interested in any of this and to atheists on here who will simply be bemused by it. I just wanted to reply to Parrhasios.

Parrhasios, that's an interesting post, because as you probably observe, god doesn't actually have to *exist* for that to be the case. Hence Christian Atheism, of course.

RJB, the deleted comments related to the fact that if someone travels to a foreign country not as a tourist, or to retire, or to study but to offer a product or service, they'd better know the local market expectations, business practices, and what the competition offers. If they don't, if they just bring their wares convinced they have a superior product, a better mousetrap and that the world will beat a path to their door, they are likely to get clobbered and quickly. This is as true in religion as in any other line of business. Perhaps some in NI feel offended that I compared religion to other businesses and those who practice it as at least in part to businessmen but the truth, cynical as it sounds is that is how it is in the US. Perhaps that explains why so many people switch religions on a fairly regular basis. As they become disillusioned with one product, the competiton comes along with one that looks newer and shinier. We buy and trade cars, houses, marriages, everything else the same way. That is what e-bay is about, the internet version of a garage sale, flea market, swap meet, storefront. "The business of America is business." I think President Coolidge said that and it's always been true.

Marcus

I certainly got the drift of what you are saying when I was over there. The business of America isnt business, though, its Capitalism. I think there's a difference. It is an ideology, a religion if you like. I also think it is lived out by most Americans, unreflected.

Business, where you bring your product to the market place, people buy or dont, freely, doesnt have 'victims.' Capitalism does have victims, and many of them.

I actively 'observed' on this visit, largely due to you (and JW's) defence of American culture, for want of a better word. I began, I think, to understand what makes America tick. There is something far more brutal, far more ugly, than 'business' underpinning your country.
Put simply, the dollar is given a higher priority and is treated with more respect, than the person.

Your country must be a fantastic place to be if you have money. Not pleasant at all though, if you dont.

RJB;

"Your country must be a fantastic place to be if you have money. Not pleasant at all though, if you dont."

If you expect to sit around and have life handed to you on a silver platter the way European nanny states do you are right. But countless tens of millions of people without a dime to their name including my grandparents came to America having fled genocidal Europe and made prosperous lives for themselves that were as full and rich as any anywhere, certainly far better than they could have dreamt of in Europe. America is not a land of guarantees, it is a land of opportunity. You really didn't learn much on your vist at all. You view America through the typically distorted European prism of ingnorance and jealousy. That is why you came to the conclusion you did.

"The business of America isnt business, though, its Capitalism. I think there's a difference."

Having lived an entire life bombarded by the most effective advertising in the world, I am on to your sophistry, your word games and I see right through them as clearly as I see through a window pane. I won't play that game.

Marcus

Funny this conversation comes up as we approach Columbus day. Ask the native population what they think of the land of opportunity. (Thats if you can find any.)

There were victims then and there are now.

RJB;

As poetry day is upon us, ask the native population of NI what they think of the land of ad-verse. There are about 1.8 millin NIers, and about 1 million Native Americans. On most days I can't find any of either.

As for NIers, there were victims then, there are victims now. March, march, march.

"I must say that, Peter, your post also was a lot to take. But I accept that you didn't mean to belittle me and that you are interested in the real issues rather than venting your anger."


What are the real issues? Why was Peter's post so hard to take? In comparison to being called a bullsh88ter?

I must say that I'm confused. I thought that we wanted a substantial discussion.

RJB

You're feeding a 'troll'.

Google the term if you're unfamiliar.

GV

I was actually aware of Marcus' tactics long ago and exactly what he does. However, I didnt realise that there was a term for the condition.

Having done some psychology, I was also aware of what to do when you are confronted by extremely toxic people - disengage!

RJB;

In the four hundred years that Catholics and Protestants were at war with each other on your accursed island, how many people do you think got killed? I'd say it was numbers beyond counting. Before America became an independent nation, the people killing native Americans were for the most part...British subjects. When America became independent, the civil war in Ireland had been going on for nearly two hundred years. It's a sobering thought...if there is such a thing in some places.

Veale Chops;

You have demonstrated clearly through your actions how your religion like most or even all others deals with people who say things they don't like. They eliminate them. Today in the western world you can only legally eliminate the printed or posted words to a limited degree but in earlier centuries and in other places such as in the Moslem world, they eliminated the people. You are no better IMO than the Taleban. You have exactly the same mentality they do.

RJB - your post # 80 was a fascinating read and a real insight into the spirit of an exciting period when liturgy and symbol came vividly to life. Thank you for sharing it. I share your concern at more recent reversals.

Helio - your short comment (# 81) requires a long answer - when I'm less tired!

Aww, nobody will play with the widdle troll...

So Veal Chops, going down fighting to the last. Seems you still want to play. Since I know you'll read this if it gets published, I want to point out that Peter Rollins may have been incensed at my insinuations, my suggestion of possibilities of his motives, but he never denied them. Could it be that I hit more than a raw nerve, that I hit the nail squarely on the head? Methinks the preacher doth protest too much.

:) You're priceless. Why all this talk of a-fussin and a-fightin?

:):)

Marcus

When, as you have shared, you had an elderly woman staying in your house, I now realise why the authorities felt it necessary to visit every two weeks to check on her health.

Bernard's Infight;

Since when was an Irishman not delighted by a good brawl or not found it irresistable to join in?

RomanJellyForABean;

That "woman" was my dear aunt and it is normal for the State of New Jersey to assure itself that people who are helpless and in need of help are receiving it. America may not be the nanny state most European countries are yet but the government is hardly indifferent to what happens to people. Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper or you hear on BBC about America. More often than not, they get it wrong.

Marcus

I know that woman was your "dear" aunt. You told us that before. And all those people you so heartlessly criticise and wish ill of, they have dear, sweet, wee aunties too.

Loads of dear sweet wee aunties were fried in Japan by your country (and elsewhere) and you fully support it.

Once you begin to show an ounce of concern for non-American sweet wee aunties, I'll try my best to feel sorry for yours. Lol!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Marcus

You're enough to drive the Irish not to drink.

GV

Has anyone else noticed the lack of discussion? The substance of worldviews unseen? The shape of ideas unheard?

Am I missing something?

GV