Diane Winston talks about the Aunt Susan Effect in a column here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ly-nee_b_749581.html
She presents it as a sort of feel-good approach to religious toleration, but I see it as an expose of people who pretend to accept the tenets of their professed faith but really don't.

An excerpt:

quote:

But sociologists say the trend overall, and especially among the young, is to live and let live. In "American Grace: How Religion Unites and Divides Us," authors Robert Putnam and David Campbell call that the "Aunt Susan effect." Aunt Susan may be a lesbian, Sufi or atheist, but her innate goodness makes it hard to believe she'll spend an eternity in hell.

"You know that your faith says ... she's not going to heaven, but I mean come on," Putnam recently told NPR. "[It's] Aunt Susan, you know, and if anybody's going to heaven it's Aunt Susan. So every American is sort of caught in this dilemma, that their theology tells them one things, but their personal experience tells them to be more tolerant."

The authors say increased tolerance may explain why so many Americans claim no religious affiliation. According to Putnam and Campbell, a growing number of young people are opting out of church, enacting a "quiet backlash" against the increasing identification between conservative religion and the Republican Party. The number of "nones," as the unaffiliated are called, used to hover around 5 percent of the population. Now between 35 and 40 percent of younger Americans say belong to this group.

"American Grace" looks to be a treasure trove for coverage on religion and American life. Among its findings are that young people are more opposed to abortion than their families but more accepting of gay marriage; that Jews are the most broadly popular religious group in America today; and that personal interfaith ties are growing. All these developments sound much more promising for intelligent reporting than the river of recent laments about religious illiteracy.

Now, if your professed religion says that Aunt Susan is going to Hell, but you KNOW that Aunt Susan won't go to Hell because she's a good person, then you really aren't a practicing Catholic or Muslim or whatever. You don't accept one of the main beliefs of your religion. You may accept other beliefs, but it's not correct to claim you're devout in your own religion. You pick and choose what you believe and what you don't. You have your own religion; it's likely to be different from that of your neighbor or spouse if you really discussed the details of what you believe and what you don't. Same idea goes for so many other examples, like a Catholic who uses a condom or a birth control pill.

But you don't make waves. You go along. You don't talk about such things.

And so you're a hypocrite.

Jeff

Jeff

You are still on the atheism subject, even with Aunt Susan.

The young have been dropping out because they cannot see the future, and don't believe the various encapsulations and their interpretations, especially about making money after education.
One index is the problem of drug use.

I think the Jewish infatuation with law has a lot to do with the popularity of law. It is a tangible record that can be modified through discussion, or adopted in its various forms.
Christian teachings take the form of stories and generalities and changing music, although in my church the old format of worship is still very popular with creeds, hymns, and the Lord's Prayer.

Just my two bits.

Donald

Sorry, Donald, but I don't understand any of the points you're making.

My topic here isn't atheism--it's how the faithful are not faithful to their actual faith, but to their personal interpretation of it, even if that interpretation is actually contradictory to their professed faith.

I don't understand your comment about young people, especially how you relate it to drug use. And I don't understand what "Jewish infatuation with the law" has to do with the topic either.

Jeff

quote:

Aunt Susan may be a lesbian, Sufi or atheist, but her innate goodness makes it hard to believe she'll spend an eternity in hell. "You know that your faith says ... she's not going to heaven, but I mean come on," Putnam recently told NPR. "[It's] Aunt Susan, you know, and if anybody's going to heaven it's Aunt Susan. So every American is sort of caught in this dilemma, that their theology tells them one things, but their personal experience tells them to be more tolerant."

I think the reporter is a little confused here. Whether one believes that Aunt Susan is going to hell or not, that has nothing to do with one's being tolerant. Even if one believes she's going to hell, that doesn't mean one must channel it to her before she dies, by getting angry or attacking her or whatnot. Indeed I'd assert that that kind of behavior puts one's own self in danger of hell. (cf. Matthew 5:22) Tolerance doesn't (or shouldn't) mean being untrue to what one believes; it just means accepting that some things are not in your control, and leaving them up to God. IMO.
--
Stephen

Of course people should be tolerant of those with other beliefs. But the point here is not that. It's that people are realizing that the dogmatic teachings of their faith cannot be true. Aunt Susan is a good person, and even though doctrine says she'll be condemned to eternal torture in Hell for what she believes or for how she acts/sins, people are not buying that. They can't conceive of Aunt Susan being tortured forever, so they wind up NOT BELIEVING what they're told is part of their faith to believe. That weakens THEIR OWN faith, regardless of what happens to Aunt Susan.

Jeff

Jeff,

I don't like your argument and have gone over and over in my mind ways to counter it....alas, I really cannot.

But by the same token, I'm suspicious of people who set their feet firmly on the ground and use "faith" as an excuse for not thinking, never questioning, be it religion, politics, The Book of Genesis, the US Constitution, FOX News, even President Obama and much of what is written in The Book of Revelation which I consider largely a product of mind altering substances.

I belong to a Christian religion that wouldn't condemn Aunt Susan to hell. A Church which in a recent sermon, questioned the existence of hell itself. I love my church...mostly for stuff like that, for what it questions as much as what it teaches, the lovely liturgy, the goodness of the message which is basically love and sharing with our fellow man. I think I might have made a good Jew but I wasn't born into that faith. I knew nothing about it really (except Jewish kids didn't have Santa which I thought was horrible)...until I was a mature adult with children of my own.

Once a woman whose husband was a prominent member of the clergy said to me of my Jewish friends "Why can't they accept the beautiful message of Christ and salvation?" I was stunned that an educated woman in her position would consider such a notion much less voice it.

We are the products of our upbringing and our geography. There are children all over this world who are raised in other faiths and we can't condemn them to hell because they aren't Christian. I believe there is a church paper on this but I can't remember what it is.

I was thinking of a close relative who as the Episcopal Bishop of a conservative state, voted for the consecration of Gene Robinson -- openly living as a gay -- as Bishop of New Hampshire. Horrors! His subsequent consecration caused the Church and the larger world-wide Church to rupture. I asked him why he voted as he did. I personally did not think the Church was ready for it. Robinson a practicing homosexual and he was divorced....back when I was going to Sunday school, that was as big a no no as any other.

You might appreciate his reply. He told me the church had many practicing homosexual priests (the position at that time I believe was that homosexuals might be ordained to the clergy but must remain celibate )....and he said to not vote for Robinson because of his sex life would be a hypocrisy because there are more than a few practicing homosexuals in the clergy. He said he believed such hypocrisy was the larger error and he was tired of it. He is a very likable fellow and as such was able to go home and sell this to his flock....without being excommunicated.

My feeling is that although a Bishop may require more wisdom and leadership skills than a mere priest that it is wrong, once a man or woman has been ordained, to disqualify them for that office on the basis of their being less pious.

I am a hypocrite BTW. I love my Church but I do not accept all of its teachings. I look for deeper meanings in its theology and it has always encouraged that. Over my now long life...It has changed as have I....Even the Book of Common Prayer and the Holy Bible are "living documents." Even now, the larger church body is conflicted on this issues. Why shouldn't I be?

If you plop your feet in the mud you will either sink or it will dry up around you and you won't be able to move.

Peachy

I like this Kurt Gödel quote:

"Religions are, for the most part, bad but religion is not."

Peachy, you say

quote:

I love my Church but I do not accept all of its teachings.

If you have the right to choose what part of your Church's teachings you accept or reject, then is it really YOUR Church?

You say you're a Christian. Do you believe that salvation is made possible by the death of Christ on the cross. Apart from Christ and what he did, there is no salvation. (Acts 4:12, John 14:6; Lk 10:22)

Seems to me that's the basic part of being a Christian. And that condemns a lot of Aunt Susans to Hell (or at least keeps them from Heaven).

If you don't believe that tenet, are you really a Christian?

Just asking. I believe many people label themselves with a particular faith, but they do not believe the basic tenets of their faith. That's part of my point here. Their faith, for them, is something social or habit or something that's good for their children. But it's not something that truly guides their life or their actions from day to day.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:
Do you believe that salvation is made possible by the death of Christ on the cross. Apart from Christ and what he did, there is no salvation. (Acts 4:12, John 14:6; Lk 10:22)

Seems to me that's the basic part of being a Christian. And that condemns a lot of Aunt Susans to Hell (or at least keeps them from Heaven).

If you don't believe that tenet, are you really a Christian?

Well the Paleochristian church I like best views the Bible as 30% correct and 70% distorted over time so you can't just look at Bible quotes. Even the Catholic Catechism says the sin of atheism can be significantly diminished via intentions and circumstances and goes on to mention lousy education from believers as a possible cause of atheism.

I know gaps in that education helped lead me to check out other sources. Course I had some unusual inspiration within the Catholic Church too like the deacon who mentioned Adam and Eve possibly arriving via UFO and the Jungian/Enneagram interests of the Jesuits.

quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:
Peachy, you say

quote:

I love my Church but I do not accept all of its teachings.

If you have the right to choose what part of your Church's teachings you accept or reject, then is it really YOUR Church?

You say you're a Christian. Do you believe that salvation is made possible by the death of Christ on the cross. Apart from Christ and what he did, there is no salvation. (Acts 4:12, John 14:6; Lk 10:22)

Seems to me that's the basic part of being a Christian. And that condemns a lot of Aunt Susans to Hell (or at least keeps them from Heaven).

If you don't believe that tenet, are you really a Christian?

Just asking. I believe many people label themselves with a particular faith, but they do not believe the basic tenets of their faith. That's part of my point here. Their faith, for them, is something social or habit or something that's good for their children. But it's not something that truly guides their life or their actions from day to day.

Jeff

Oh my.

All I can tell you Jeff, is that my faith (and my religion) is, like my politics, more nuanced than that.

Peachy

Jeff...

I should clarify my last answer to you. I wasn't trying to be SA or evasive. I meant it. Your questions are not as simple as they seem.

For starters, I am not comfortable talking about my faith or my relationship with God or whatever you want to call it because it is personal and I don't have answers for you or for anyone, much less myself. Nor can I imagine it interesting anyone...no doubt banal juxtaposed to much of what passes for theology on this board.

Once I did have a great deal of faith and all the answers, . Then life happened and I became far too involved in basic survival. But I can't sit by and not defend a fine church, so here goeth I.

I was brought up in the Episcopal Church...loved it...I believed in divine redemption. I confessed my sins every Sunday (such as they were.) In Sunday school we were taught Bible stories and then asked to try to discover the allegories....guidance being the point, rather than who begat whom.

My problem with the Church came when I was still young and terribly idealistic, in the sixties. It was a time when blacks were being refused admittance to white churches in Christian churches everywhere. Granted, my church was more liberal than most but not liberal enough for me and they didn't take as strong a stand as I thought they should. Over time, I picked at every hypocrisy until by the end of the seventies, I just stopped going. I had my children baptized but after that I didn't send them. Some of it was a rebellion against some members of my family as well...although others have lived exemplary Christian lives and that means a great deal...and some of it was idealism dying hard...and disappointment in myself as well.

You asked me what I believe.

I do believe in God as the creator of the universe...But certainly not in seven days. I believe that science and Genesis can be explained in tandem....but not by me and not by you. I believe it's a mystery...and the natural world holds the key....and that is a fascinating proposition, far beyond my scope. I wish it were not.

I don't envision God as an entity up in heaven barking out orders and seeking vengeance and assigning people into heaven or hell. I believe nature and man are flawed and one's faith in a good and just God can sustain them...well some of them it seems...through difficult times.

I think of the Bible as a record of human events and must be read in historical and cultural context....and those humans over 2,000 years ago may have encountered a divine Christ. I believe the stories illustrate how to live ethically in relation to the creator and perhaps Christ's death and resurrection if not a physical manifestation -- that through the ideal, one can no longer be a slave to the power of death.

You spoke of the passages of death.....the scriptures most often quoted in my Church are of the resurrection and that's my greatest challenge with my Church...I suppose as a child it was a comfort to me to think that I was saved from death but now I'm more interested in how I have lived my life.....no doubt as a hypocrite and not as good as I thought I was or wanted to be.

And now I'm searching. Not sure why. I am angry with a lot of Christians. But I do love the Church, be I a cultist or a Christian, I'm going to do my part not to let it be destroyed by zealots. I feel a need to evaluate and find a more spiritual direction for my life. Of course the Church of my choice offers more trivial items that you mentioned but it also offers the place to explore.

Some personal things have happened in my life in recent months that have caused me to want to confront these issues and also the questions you asked. I've lost people, including my dear Bishop. I also met another Bishop, the Presiding Bishop of the United States, Katharine Jefforts Schori, who officiated at my relative's funeral. She is a global figure, on a level with the Archbishop of Canterbury, we just don't call the office that here in the US.

I felt so privileged that I did some preparation prior to that event and discovered the most intriguing figure who spoke to me. I keep up with her now and I read her blogs. I've discussed her with a few friends, some of whom are conservative. They love her. She's a Stanford scientist. She's dynamic, they don't call her "Hurricane Katherine" for nothing. She has truly stirred things up.

She has answers to your questions if you are truly interested in them.

quote:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, TIME Magazine interview, July 10, 2006
TIME: Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?
Katherine Jefferts Schori: We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.

quote:

I would never speculate how God saves those who don't profess to be Christians. I look at the fruits of the life of someone like Mahatma Ghandi and the Dalai Lama and I see Christ-like features...."
http://www.anglican-mainstream...-in-her-own-words-2/

quote:

"Those creeds are not about checking off a bunch of propositions. They are about giving our heart to a sense that Jesus shows us what it looks like to be a divine human being."
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori, Parabola, Spring 2007

quote:

"You don't all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith," she added. "What's important is to worship together."Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori, San Diego Union-Tribune, April 5, 2008

quote:

“In its narrow construction [the idea that Jesus is the only way to the Father], it tends to
eliminate other possibilities. In its broader construction, yes, human beings come to
relationship with God largely through their experience of holiness in other human beings.
Through seeing God at work in other people’s lives. In that sense, yes, I will affirm that
statement. But not in the narrow sense, that people can only come to relationship with God
through consciously believing in Jesus.”

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori
in an interview with
The Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 2007

And others...

quote:

“I don’t think God cares if we are Christian, Jewish, Muslim Buddhist and so forth. What
matters is a deepening relationship with God.”
Dr. Marcus Borg, Co-director
Center for Spiritual Development,
Trinity Episcopal Cathedral,
Portland
St. Petersburg Times
February 9, 2005

The TEC General Convention discharged (declined to consider) Resolution C069,
“Affirming the uniqueness of Christ in a multi-faith society,” which would have called the
Episcopal House of Bishops Committee on Theology to follow the lead of the February
2009 report of the Bishops of the Church of England “offering examples of good practice
in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and
none.”
General Convention July, 2009

“To be expected to repeat these sentiments (The Nicene Creed), (V.Gene)
Robinson decided, was an offense against conscience. He took his protest to one of
the school’s chaplains, who listened to him and told him that he saw no problem at
all. If joining in the Creed distressed him, why not just speak only those portions of
it that didn’t offend?
New Yorker Magazine,
April 17, 2006

This should cover it.

Peachy

Peachy

Thanks for putting this together and introducing us to the residing lady bishop who I guess gets credit for ordaining homosexuals and splitting the church.

This seems to be in keeping with women running for President and Governors of the States, including New Mexico. At least for Sela it can be said that society is placing men and women on a better level of competition that just sitting around watching TV and hating each other.

I happen to care about the special place of Christ Jesus in society, and I believe there is some solidarity in all faiths professing monotheism that require the depts of scientific inquiry into how God puts things together. How did Abraham sire two men at his advanced age? And why? Etc.

The world is one, and the pot is boiling.

May God light the way to peace, including personal peace.
Thanks be to Jesus.
Donald

quote:

Thanks for putting this together and introducing us to the residing lady bishop who I guess gets credit for ordaining homosexuals and splitting the church.

Donald,

Perhaps you missed my earlier posts on the subject. The Episcopal Church has been ordaining gays and lesbians for decades, well-aware of their sexual orientation. The policy however, has been that they must remain celibate. Bishop Robinson lived openly as a gay....and was the first openly gay clergy elected Bishop. He was not "appointed" but elected by a decisive majority of lay people and clergy at the General Convention of 2003. The "Lady Bishop" was selected in 2006 and did not preside at a general convention until 2009.

The convention of 2009 voted overwhelmingly to open all offices in the church to openly gay and lesbian clergy and again, it was a democratic process that included Bishops, clergy and lay delegates. The "Lady Bishop" is neither gay nor a gay activist. Her personal view is that all the offices of the Church should be open to all Christians. I have read that she discouraged the consecration of the assistant Bishop of Los Angeles (a lesbian) but would not (and could not) go against the wishes of the good people of the Diocese of LA.

The Episcopal Church is indeed in a struggle but The "Lady Bishop" did not create it.

quote:

At least for Sela it can be said that society is placing men and women on a better level of competition that just sitting around watching TV and hating each other.

I might call it "opportunity" rather than competition....but that's just me.

quote:

I happen to care about the special place of Christ Jesus in society, and I believe there is some solidarity in all faiths professing monotheism that require the depts of scientific inquiry into how God puts things together. How did Abraham sire two men at his advanced age? And why? Etc.

Hmmmm. Sometimes I think we are killing him with our caring. It's a human condition, affecting many things we love and pursue. I'm not particularly curious about Abraham and that's not what I meant by my enthusiasm for science and religion (more specifically creation)...but you have your priorities and I'll keep mine. We each have that right.

quote:

The world is one, and the pot is boiling.

I agree.

quote:

May God light the way to peace, including personal peace.
Thanks be to Jesus.
Donald

Thank you Donald.

Peace

Peachy

quote:

To be expected to repeat these sentiments (The Nicene Creed), (V.Gene) Robinson decided, was an offense against conscience.

What in particular did he object to?
--
Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:

quote:

To be expected to repeat these sentiments (The Nicene Creed), (V.Gene) Robinson decided, was an offense against conscience.

What in particular did he object to?
--
Stephen

Stephen:

I do not know...but as you probably are aware, there are some strong belief statements in that creed.

I included the quote because it seemed to me to be a grand example for Jeff, not only of my own ambivalence but the Church's as well.

Some background: Gene Robinson was a student at the University of the South, in Sewanee, Tennessee. Sewanee, as you probably know, is a University and also an Episcopal Seminary. It has or had a strict religious program with "Chapel" (Morning Prayer) on a regular basis for all students Episcopal or otherwise. Robinson was not an Episcopalian at that time, but a member of the Disciples of Christ.

quote:

He therefore objected to some tenets of the Nicene creed which To be expected to repeat these sentiments, Robinson decided, was an offense against conscience. He took his protest to one of the school’s chaplains, who listened to him and told him that he saw no problem at all. If joining in the Creed distressed him, why not just speak only those portions of it that didn’t offend? The chaplain’s counsel disarmed Robinson, but it also revealed to him that although the Anglican faith had cherished creeds, it had no absolute doctrine, a paradox rooted in its beginnings as the Church of England.

Oh how true...Another deadly sin might be described as dogmatism.

I remember elsewhere a discussion of the transformation of the wafer and the wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Roman Catholic Church and so many Catholics were unaware. Well I remember being taught the same during the Eucharist. In fact, a little red light went on above the altar to let you know that the wafer had been officially changed in case you missed it in the prayers. I went to check it out, because I was certain it was part of the Anglican liturgy as well. Alas.....that was changed in 1979....in "most" Churches. I guess I was absent that day.

They changed the 1928 Book of Common Prayer after I was required to memorized it as a child and THAT was a LOT of work. Most of Morning Prayer, all of Communion, the entire catechism and the Articles of Faith. I was a bit peeved about that but to be peeved was to not be progressive....another sin.

So the issue here is what the Church stands for, not Gene Robinson.

And despite truly huge changes that continue to occur....the liturgy not only remains the same but is mired in tradition and history. I'm a lot like that. I live a very conventional life with an appreciation of tradition but am drawn to more progressive ideas....

The article (in the New Yorker) continues:

quote:

Anglicanism’s founding event was a sixteenth-century political fix, engineered by Elizabeth I as a means of avoiding the Reformation-era wars tearing at Europe. Elizabeth’s father, Henry VIII, for reasons of dynastic and connubial ambition, had broken with the Medici Pope Clement VII and declared himself the “Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England.” Elizabeth’s half sister and predecessor, Bloody Mary, imposed a Roman Catholic restoration upon the kingdom, in the process dispatching some three hundred Protestants to the stake. When Elizabeth ascended to the throne as a Protestant, the realm faced a third religious about-face in a dozen years, and the prospect of civil war was real. Elizabeth’s elegant solution allowed her subjects to believe whatever they wished but insisted upon a uniform worship service.

The vehicle for this “middle way,” as Anglicanism came to be known, was the Book of Common Prayer, which gracefully blended Roman Catholic liturgy with Protestant principles. The prayer book allowed for the coexistence within one institution of distinctly different interpretations of Christianity, with the unofficial designations of High Church (those parishes inclined toward a more Roman Catholic orientation), Low Church (evangelicals), and Broad Church (those Anglicans tolerant of wide doctrinal interpretations). The Anglican way proved remarkably resilient, absorbing the shocks of the English civil war and the Enlightenment, and ultimately planting itself worldwide in the footsteps of the British Empire. In the United States, the Church of England became the Episcopal Church.


The big-tent tradition of Anglicanism—what its churchmen call “comprehensiveness”—made the faith especially hospitable to the theological innovations that moved through the Western Christian churches with particular force in the last half of the twentieth century. This new thinking tended to deëmphasize sin and salvation, favoring a progressive theology of social justice and the affirmation of the individual self. That an Episcopal university chaplain in the mid-nineteen-sixties would advise a conflicted student to disregard those parts of the liturgy that made him uncomfortable reflected not only the times but, in a way, the very nature of the Church

The rain is gone.

Peachy



Source:A Church Asunder: For Episcopalians, faith in the power of compromise was almost doctrinal-until a diocese elected a gay bishop.

Peachy, I truly appreciate the thoughtfulness of your replies and your genuine search. Most people could not express their beliefs and strivings one-tenth as well.

But when I read through what you wrote, I see you confirming my main points. As I see it, there are two main problems for those of faith:

1) They do not accept every tenet of their faith, including the most basic tenets
and
2) Their Church (or Mosque or Synagogue or whatever) does not practice what it preaches.

So that bottom line is what they SAY is their faith is really not. Often it's not even a close approximation.

And I'm bothered by the generalizations and massive statements too. You dismiss the Bible as the actual words of God, as I do of course. You recognize the books of the Bible as human writings guided by the existing times and culture. You certainly know that whatever you call the Bible is a result of centuries of tinkering and retranslations and omissions and additions. Yet you still say "I believe the stories illustrate how to live ethically in relation to the creator."

Some of the stories may do that. And some express the most awful views you can think of for living ethically, whether there's a creator or not.

You still have to pick and choose what to accept. The creator who tortured Job and Abraham or drowned the world or killed the first born in Egypt isn't one I can accept as a guide to ethical conduct. The acceptance of women and slaves as property, the stonings to death of gays and adulterers... We both could go on and on about the many problems or accepting the Bible as a guide to anything.

Which brings me to my basic point. Everybody creates his/her own faith. We take bits and pieces from different places. Many don't examine themselves or their beliefs enough to even know what they truly believe. And week after week, we sit in various houses of worship pretending to believe what we hear and what we sing and what we're told, while knowing we believe only a part and often disbelieve. And, as I keep saying, knowing that the person sitting next to us likely doesn't share all of our beliefs and possibly shares few or none of them.

You say you're a Christian, but your views certainly don't mesh with any of the views of the major Christian sects, in my opinion.
You're not sure that Christ is "divine"--and you are not sure that his death and resurrection were physical. Plus, with your concept of God, how could you really also accept a living, breathing human Son of God?

Jeff

quote:

In fact, a little red light went on above the altar to let you know that the wafer had been officially changed in case you missed it in the prayers.

Catholics, as I recall, chime a bell at that point for the same purpose. Eastern Orthodox have a particular hymn going on at that time and do a deep bow; and at least traditionally on non-Sundays and non-feast days they do a "prostration" (head to the ground on hands and knees) instead of a bow--which would be kinda hard to miss even for the inattentive.
--
Stephen

from http://paleochristianity.org/2...-be-a-paleochristian

Even if we go back to the Resurrection (according to Mack, a fiction) or the Passion of the Christ (also a fiction), the Last Supper (again a fiction), or even to the formation of the congregation of Israel at Mount Sinai (more fiction), we find the roots of Christianity disappearing on closer inspection like a mirage. These hypothetical “roots” of Christianity turn out to be not even wrong, because the presuppositions themselves are mistaken. The only possible roots are therefore Jesus’s teachings, and – perhaps – his Ascension.

But the term “PaleoChristianity” could be made to bear another meaning: Paleolithic Christianity. It’s probably fair to say that Stone Age spirituality found its highest expression in Shamanism, and it might not be too much of a stretch to suggest that Jesus was shamanic in the way he did things. It’s hard to be sure, but the Ascension might bear this out: if Jesus was able to move between densities of existence (and even, to a limited extent, through time) then for sure it might be difficult to (a) pin him down, and (b) really understand completely what he had to say. Indeed, he could speak about a lot of things that were pretty familiar to him, and not really be understood even by his nearest and dearest followers. Hence the fervent and excited discussion of his ideas after his final “Ascension” (if that is indeed the right word to use). A PaleoChristian, then, might be described as a follower of Jesus who is alive to Christianity’s pagan, shamanic and Stone Age roots, and willing to explore this in defiance of the vectoring of thought set up by the Church.

Oh my. How interesting.

What I want you and Jeff to understand is that I am not feeling that "vectoring" of thought in defiance of my Church. On the contrary. If you read the quotes I offered from current leaders, you would see that.

They speak to me...moreso than in years.

Unfortunately such ideals have caused more than a little schism in the Anglican Communion which is another reason I want to support The Episcopal Church at this time. This is a great deal more than a question of accepting homosexuality BTW. That's just one outward and highly visible controversy significant of a deeper breech.

It's the same thing we see happening in religions worldwide and like politics, I believe it has more to do with power than ideology.

Peachy

John,

Thanks for the link to the PaleoChristianity website. From what little I've read so far, I'm VERY impressed!

quote:

Both Church and State are thinly disguised narcissistic families. Sometimes that narcissistic quality is overt, as when Church and State forces crushed the Cathars, and sometimes it’s more subtle and covert, as when Church and State ignore the real needs of people, and vector the public’s discussion of religion and politics into the sands as a form of damage control. For both Church and State, the objective is to make sure that people are as infantilised as possible, and fearful of losing the protection offered by the State (for the safety of the body) and by the Church (for the safety of the soul after death). It’s also important in this model for people to have few realistic options ahead of them. People long for a community or polity which guarantees them some level of security. This is a prime reason for someone today to become a Christian: it puts you in with the in-crowd.

And once you’re locked into that mindset, it’s next to impossible to get out of it. Rejection of the Church’s teachings leaves you with nothing – no sense of security, and no sense of superiority over the unbelievers. In a narcissistic family, one’s daily experience might be stone-cold miserable, or characterised by disorienting highs and lows – but as a child you wouldn’t have knowledge of the context needed to evaluate how bad the parent system was. You would experience the dead-end misery of it all, but wouldn’t actually know how bad it was. The reason for this apparent discrepancy between experience and knowledge is lack of context: as a child you can’t step outside the magic circle of your family and look at it from the outside. The only escape from this man-trap is an expansion of context, and an honest examination of the facts – something which Mack is able to provide.

My emphasis, of course. As luck would have it, I already own the Burton Mack book referenced in the article, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. It's been a long time since I read it, though. I think it might be time for me to re-read it.

This is a great discussion, BTW. I wish I'd gotten involved in it sooner, but I'll do my best to play catch-up.

--Linda

Oh my! Now that is cynical.......but Bishop Katharine has been called a heretic (some even want the House of Bishops to charge her with heresy but others claim the Bishops are too much under the influence of liberal seminaries).....BECAUSE they say she has called the quest for personal salvation narcissistic...and in a sense, she may have.

Hypocrite...could be, I hope not but if I am Bishop Katharine is as well. I cannot tell you what it means to me to open a book or a lecture or a clip and hear this woman give voice and form to my heretofore conflicting spiritual instincts. It's just wonderful.

And then finding a good rector close to Frogville who supports the same...this, in one of he most conservative enclaves in America...a growing church. Three years ago there were 3 children. Not enough for Sunday school, just "Godly play." Now there are 28, because so many young people have joined.

More later....Too late to look it all up tonight.

quote:

You pick and choose what you believe and what you don't. You have your own religion; it's likely to be different from that of your neighbor or spouse if you really discussed the details of what you believe and what you don't. Same idea goes for so many other examples, like a Catholic who uses a condom or a birth control pill.

But you don't make waves. You go along. You don't talk about such things.

And so you're a hypocrite.

Jeff,

I don't think a person is automatically a hypocrite because they don't want to make waves. The truth is that the vast majority of churchgoing Christians "pick and choose" what they personally believe, which could very well deviate from the official teachings of their church. By "churchgoing Christians" I mean adherents of the mainstream denominations. This time I am NOT talking about Bible-banger born-again fundies, whose actual theological knowledge approaches zero and whose historical knowledge is minus-zero.

Peachy's Episcopal Church is a good example of what I mean by a mainstream denomination. Episcopalians are all over the map both religiously and politically. There are ultraliberal Episcopal priests and churches and ultraconservative ones--the late Alan Watts being a good example of an ultraliberal priest. Then there are the ultraconservative ones who secretly or not-so-secretly long for reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.

But even in super-authoritarian top-down structures like the RCC, change still happens from the bottom up, from the grassroots. It always starts with the laity. It doesn't matter how much the bishops or even the pope denounce and deplore these tendencies. They still can't stop them. You can't say that 80% of all Roman Catholics are hypocrites because they practice what the Church still quaintly refers to as "artificial birth control." If you asked these people, they would probably tell you they don't agree with the official papal pronouncements on birth control. They might also say: "The Pope isn't paying to feed my kids," or keep a roof over their heads or pay their college tuition or whatever. They might not volunteer that information--in fact, they probably wouldn't. Not everyone is as confrontational by nature as I am, after all. But if asked point-blank about some particular belief, most parishioners would probably tell you the truth.

My concept of a religious hypocrite is a person who loudly and aggressively professes a belief in some article of faith he does NOT in fact actually believe. Or worse yet, a person who demands adherence to some particular standard of behavior (for OTHER people, of course) while secretly indulging in that same behavior--like the notorious Ted Haggard with his denunciations of homosexuality. It's usually the big money and power players like the megachurch pastors who are the biggest hypocrites. Unfortunately, that also includes the RCC, which has been a big money and power player for close to 2000 years now.

--Linda

quote:

My concept of a religious hypocrite is a person who loudly and aggressively professes a belief in some article of faith he does NOT in fact actually believe.

Those who quietly listen without believing AND without protesting, week after week, are also hypocrites in my view. Granted, the faithful gatherings meet many needs for companionship and socializing. But if you're not sharing the faith that's being expressed and that defines your particular faith, aren't you hypocritical? I'm not being harsh--I'm using the word as it is meant to be used. One definition: "Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold." You need not be loud and aggressive to be a hypocrite--you only need to pretend you believe what you do not.

Long ago, I was at a NASCAR race which started off by a priest reciting a prayer. I was told to stand, bow my head, and say "Amen" to an invocation to Jesus as Savior. I went along--and I was ashamed then and now that I had acted hypocritically just to go along. I resented that in a public event like a race I was subjected to this intrusion and forced to make a decision about how to respond. I'm not saying that being a hypocrite is always evil and shameful--but it's something to avoid.

Jeff

quote:

Peachy's Episcopal Church is a good example of what I mean by a mainstream denomination. Episcopalians are all over the map both religiously and politically. There are ultraliberal priests and churches and ultraconservative ones--the late Alan Watts being a good example of an ultraliberal one. Then there are the ultraconservative ones who secretly or not-so-secretly long for reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.

Linda...

The Episcopal Church (in the US) is for the most part quite liberal. I'd still call it mainstream 'cept maybe for the charismatics who are a strange hybrid I do not understand. Those who have left because of homosexual issues are actually a very small percentage and the same people who leave with every "change" in worship. It is the larger, world church that is applying the pressure. The Mother Church being England and Archbishop Rowan Williams the head of that and the world-wide Anglican Communion of which the US Church is part.

What has happened is the increasing participation of the African Church -- more recently converted primarily from Islam to Christianity and as such they tend to hold close some of the cultural values of Islam....sexism, homophobia, etc. It is now a huge congregation, larger than in the United States and they very rightly have a seat at the table. They are very conservative and they not only expect their voice to be heeded but are recruiting the conservative American Episcopalians in hopes of effecting sort of a coup d'état that will replace the traditional Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion with the newer, smaller American conservative one. As their numbers increase so do their demands and Bishop Rowan Williams acquiesces as the British church is conservative as well....We here in America are the heathens and the heretics....as usual.

There should be room for everyone.....but noooooo. Not the way things are done these days. The American Anglicans, The African Anglicans and AB Rowan do not seek compromise.....why that would be hypocritical!

Long story short.



Peachy

quote:

Those who quietly listen without believing AND without protesting, week after week, are also hypocrites in my view. Granted, the faithful gatherings meet many needs for companionship and socializing. But if you're not sharing the faith that's being expressed and that defines your particular faith, aren't you hypocritical? I'm not being harsh--I'm using the word as it is meant to be used. --Compguy

Compguy, hypocrisy is a necessity of life, enforced by the real circumstances of relationships. There are times that you simply do not tell your wife that she is not looking her best, and you are always proud of your kids. These are indisputable facts no matter what the truth may be. This is a type of deceit but the word hypocrisy is not applied, because it is too harsh. It should not surprise that since humanity everywhere you go has hypocrisy built-in, so does the word 'Hypocrisy'. It simply does not apply evenly to all deceits. Without deceit society probably could not function. We could not get along if we were nakedly honest with each other, because honesty is ugly and ugly people are rejected by society. But I guess your infinite esteem for the innate goodness of humanity does not allow you to see that. I seem to remember you saying "Shame on you!" when I told you a similar opinion about this in the religion section. You are the one that is being hypocritical about humanity, and you tend to attribute humanity's defects to religion.