paradox3
With or Without God: Discussion Point Problems with Church
Posted on: 08/13/2008 06:43
In With or Without God, Gretta Vosper outlines two sets of problems:
1. The bible is not TAWOGFAT (or, the problems with orthodoxy)
Witty and provocative, With or Without God argues convincingly that the bible is not The Authoritative Word of God For All Time. It encourages us to explore the context in which the bible was written, the motivation of its authors, and its intended audience.
Gretta rejects interpretations of the bible which have led to tribalism and religion's destructive aspects. This aspect of WWG may have strong appeal for those who have never felt free to question or wrestle with scripture. For United Church readers, this will likely be the least controversial theme of WWG.
The emphasis is on the bible as a human construction. Because it is not a divine product, everything it contains is "up for grabs". And Gretta Vosper does mean everything. We can question it all, even the assumption that God exists, which "permeates the whole book."
Is there a reality, external to human beings, which we can call God or Spirit? Must Jesus remain central to our faith as Christians? Rev Vosper seems to be saying no on both counts.
Gretta recognizes that her views are unorthodox, and tells us that WWG is extended as a confrontation. While she articulates respect for traditional expressions of faith that lead to compassionate and ethical living, non-theism is advocated for the church of the future.
The arguments for non-theism are based on rejection of classic supernaturalism, or an intervening "old-man-in-the-sky" kind of God. I would say that no serious consideration is given to alternative theistic models: deism, pantheism or panentheism.
Some folks here on the café detected a mocking tone to her biblical discussions, while others felt she was writing somewhat "tongue in cheek". Gretta compares the bible to the works of Shakespeare, and she doesn't consider it to be pivotal for Christian faith. We are told that the bible is not reliable as a source of moral guidance, and Jesus is described as "a first century peasant with a good posthumous marketing team".
2. The "disconnect" (or, the problems with the liberal church)
Gretta refers to herself as "a woman who has moved from the centre of liberal Christian thought to the bleeding edge of Christianity, struck by the complacency with which she had accepted the liberal framework and shamed by it as well". She feels that the liberal church has been complicit with fundamentalism, by supporting the right of faith groups to hold any belief they choose.
WWG opens with the premise that the Christian church, as we have known and built it, has outlived its viability. Due to the availability of modern scholarship and a more educated laity, critical thought has crept in, and chaos has erupted.
Modern scholarship was the subject of much contention on wondercafe. How do we define the modern period? Does modern mean contemporary? What qualifies as scholarship? Is it modern scholarship from all streams, or only selected ones?
Gretta asserts that many folks are experiencing a "disconnect" between what they are reading (and maybe even discussing in study groups) and what they are hearing during worship at church - - in hymns, prayers, liturgies and sermons.
Many liberal Christians have left behind notions of atonement theology, Christian imperialism, and interventionist understandings of God. Why then, she asks, do we still sing hymns that suggest we believe in these things? This resonated deeply for some folks in the wondercafe readers' group, while others emphatically disagreed.
In WWG, Gretta specifically rejects the ideas of Marcus Borg, who is striving to "assign new meanings to outdated language and concepts". Some of us argued that Marcus Borg was allowing us to explore the Christian tradition more deeply, and that we appreciated his emphasis on metaphor. The Heart of Christianity, one of his most popular books, was described as a beautiful and meaningful book by some posters.
Comments
paradox3
Posted on: 08/13/2008 06:51
Do you agree with Gretta's contention that chaos has erupted in the mainline church?
Do you agree with her assessment of the liberal church?
RussP
Posted on: 08/13/2008 09:15
Yes, and yes.
I think the readings, finery, hymns are like mother's cooking. It's comfortable. It is something we want to hang onto while reeling from yet another Borg inspired study session.
I think the church is desparately trying to find how it fits into the 21st century and this is just one more in a line of trial and error works.
We are standing at the edge of the pier but are afraid to dive into the water, because we don't know what is in there? If we abandon the hymns, readings, Bible, God, etc. where do we go? What do we do?
The thought of there not being anything else out there, that there really may be nothing after we toss off this mortal coil, is a very frightening thought for many, myself included.
And yet, as you say, we are not the ignorant peasants we were when the Bible was written. It is very hard to try and believe with part of the brain, while the other part is thinking balderdash. As another post asked, should I stay or leave. That is sort of where I am at. Nice people, great chat, always food, but if all it is is a social club, hmmmm, I'd rather sleep in Sunday morning.
God Bless
Russ
spiritbear
Posted on: 08/13/2008 09:31
There's a great deal to comment on here, so forgive me if I don't answer your question directly. (And I confess that I haven't read Greta's book, so I'm basing my comments on the points you have made).
Your comment about hymns got me thinking, I believe that it's impossible to write the words for any hymn (let alone find music) that everyone can agree on. This is a brick wall that I hit when writing words of my own and being informed by my minister at that time (I've since left that congregation - no surprise) that I couldn't use words like "light" and "dark" or "shadow" as they are part of the oppression of people of colour. What this underscores is that people will always take metaphor in different ways. That is a strength and a weakness. They are a weakness if you are a literalist (and I regard fundamentalists and atheists or humanists as literalists), and can't realize that all metaphors (since they describe a truth but are not the truth themselves) have intrinsic limitations. I use a lot of analogies in the lectures I give, but I always remind my students that when the analogy doesn't exactly fit the truth, you don't change the truth, you find a different analogy. Yet metaphors (and stories) can have strength because they can be applied to situations that the originator would never have dreamed of. That gives them a certain timelessness and richness. Twenty years from now, the hymns that Greta would use will be regarded by some as hopelessly archaic. Yet the words we sing or read aren't some kind of ritual formula for salvation that we have to agree with word for word. (do you agree with or understand every word of the national anthem?) Like the bible, they are part of our faith heritage. And one of the challenges of dealing with your heritage is to realize where our forebears in faith went wrong as well as where they were right. When we leave out the parts that we disagree with, we simply open ourselves to unknowingly make the same error in the future. Think of the very common sentiment that if something "bad" happens to me, I must have done something "wrong". Christ criticized the error of this kind of thinking when he dealt with the blind or lepers. But leaving the concept out of the bible wouldn't stop people from thinking this way. Better to have our demons front and centre where we can address them. So I don't mind singing hymns with "heritage" language, which describe where we have come from. Our challenge is to supplement (not replace) them with songs (and music, please!) that describe where we are now, just as some day the future will look as our words as part of their heritage, but not necessarily a word by word reflection of their belief.
Arminius
Posted on: 08/13/2008 12:13
Hi paradox3: Can't get WWG out of your mind, eh? :-)
To me, and to most liberal and progressive Christians, the Bible is not The Authoritative Word Of God For All Time, but simply the accounts of mystics, religious writers and historians, and on par with similar scriptures of other faiths. Although there may well be some historical and literal truth to some biblical accounts, liberal and progressive Christians take the Bible metaphorically rather than literally.
We can regard the natural as supernatural, the material as spiritual, the universe as self-creative, and still be spiritual. The reality we call "God" or "Spirit" need not be external only but can be internal as well: the "kingdom within."
To me, the definition of "spiritual" is to feel and/or believe in a spiritual dimension to our being. To say that spirtuality is a human pojection or a human construct which has no bearing on reality is to leave the realm of the spiritual altoghether, and enter the realm of the secular.
Of course, Christian traditionalism and orthdoxy have outlived their validity, but "Emerging Spirtuality" is all about creating new forms of spirituality. And adhering to some traditions does not equate traditionalism--not all traditions need to be discarded! Some of our sacred traditions might and should be carried over into the new forms.
The lyrics of some of our older hymns reflect the thinking of old. But one can regard them, together with the Bible, as metaphorical.
I don't reject Marcus Borg; he is one of my favourite authors. I don't think chaos has erupted in the mainline Chucrh. I think the mainline Church is dying with a whimper rather than a bang :-)
Actually, I wish chaos would erupt. It would be more fruitful than the apathy and resignation we see in many congregations. New forms of spirituality will arise from chaos, but not "Vosperianism," which is no spirituality at all.
Yes, the liberal Church is being dragged down by the appeasement of its tradionalist and fundamenlist wings.
Bruce Sanguin's "Spiral Dymanics" can help us to recognise and value past spiritual forms as necessary stages of spiritual development, which we have outlived and outgrown, and now encapsulize and carry forward into higher forms. Being contemptuos of earlier stages and trying to discard them is not evolutionary progression. In evolution, past forms do not get left behind but are internalized and carried forward into new and higher forms.
To judge purely from my feeling, I feel that Gretta Vosper's book is an attempt by a "wounded female" to lash out against the misogynist, male-dominated and patriarchal Church that has wounded her and insulted her feminity and her female intelligence. The cause for her anger is justified, and needs to be--and is being--addressed.
paradox3
Posted on: 08/14/2008 06:34
Arminius,
You wrote, "Hi paradox3: Can't get WWG out of your mind, eh? :- "
Not quite, it seems :)
I am just finishing up an article about WWG for my church newsletter. The opening post on this thread will be part of it. The last thing I want to do is take another look at Gretta's ideas for the church of the future - - her radically ethical and radically inclusive model.
See you on the Emerging Church thread soon!