http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=490325


I found this intresting...

That's an interesting article. As an ex-Christian I am trying to imagine some of the ceremonies I attended in those days, without the symbolism. It doesn't work!

I do appreciate that rather than claim that the stories in Christianity are just random garbage, she points out what they actually are: metaphors. But I do not agree with her idea that you can have a church of Christ without Christ's stories intertwined. Norwood, as a druid, can you imagine all the beautiful symbolism behind your rituals simply being thrown out the window? What do you think those rituals would be like? Even the parts that are so very real to those of us who attend the rituals contain symbolism (that's not to say, however, that ALL of it is merely symbolic).

Symbolism is basically just a human's way of trying to comprehend the divine. Some symbols just don't work for some people. That's why there are so many religions, and that's why there will never be a day when everyone believes exactly the same thing.

She should find another religion to become a minister for rather than subvert Christianity and take Christ out of the equation. But there are those in all religions seeking to form one global religion and eradicate the core beliefs of each of them for this to happen. This will become more commonplace and has been around for a while evidenced by the Ecumenical councils in the past, the rise of interfaith services, and religious pluralism. I myself am perfectly confident as Christian that we can remain totally within the confines of our faith to Christ and the Word and still honor and respect others for their beliefs. So on the one hand I see her and others as agents of subversion but also see it as part of a continuing trend.

As I have stated before that historically Christianity has focused on three messages, that of hellfire, that of the cross, or that of love. She appears to be part of the latter group in her form of ministering. I would prefer a pure balance but also to focus on the Spirit. Basically the Ascension of Christ in that we all can ascend through the Spirit.

that's good.

The beliefs she's describing are in a LOT of ways, are Liberal Quaker and in some cases Universal Unitarian beliefs. But mostly Quaker. It's nothing new, nor a new way of looking at things. The concepts she puts forth have been around and practiced by some groups for more than 300 years, if not longer.

It's probably best to say a few words from the good book: "I am the way."

/thread?

agreed !

Norwood....
That is what I was trying to say in one of the prev blogs.....

Im not so much Catholic...But follower of Christ and his ways of love. Who needs to put a label on what to call someone....

Thank you!

Actually beliefs such as this go back to the early Gnostics. Much much older. The difference between them and say Quakers is that they do as they do but do not consider themselves active agents of change in an attempt to change the whole of Christianity. Well for a time Gnosticism was considered a threat to Catholicism so was stamped out through Crusade, Inquisition, and other efforts. It does appear that this sort of belief poses a threat again to not just Catholicism but all of Christianity. Not much that can be done in efforts to stamp it out and it mainly appears a war of information.

Gretta Vosper's views are also very strongly reminiscent of those of Don Cupitt and the Sea of Faith movement.

It's an interesting, and in my view worthy, reassessment of religious belief in the light of developing human knowledge. A Christianity which stands or falls on a number of increasingly testable claims is a brittle and vulnerable edifice. These people are saying that these in many ways quite outlandish and difficult claims are not the crux (haha) of the matter for them; it's not about who did what and when, and it's not about hanging onto pieces of Bronze Age mythology or favourite miraculous legends from Classical Antiquity - it's about humanity and culture, subjective truths rather than objective lies.

Postmodern religious exploration: it's not for everyone, me included, but it's arguably Christianity2.0

That IS true... Quakers aren't and don't actively try to change religion or Christianity... their ambitions are much more important and loftier than trying to change something as insignificant as religion; in my opinion (but that would be my opinion wouldn't it? lol)

Excellent view MMW. I have always identified at least with the early Quakers and Shakers in that they had strong spiritual experiences even talked in tongues, at least Shakers did. Is there any left who still do or has that portion of the religion, a strong spiritual experience included, been discarded? From what you have posted I am assuming the tongue parts has but what about a strong spiritual experience?

Also what do you consider as important and lofty enough to change? The individual?

There are only handful of Shakers left in the world (estimates seem to range from 4 to 15). Shakers are celibate and do not pro-create. Their numbers were larger until the very early 1900's when laws were passed that they could no longer adopt orphaned children--which was often how they gained new followers. Shakers practiced a spiritual family of sorts; they're communal living. However, the only time men and women came into contact with one another was during worship; they even had separate doors and separate living quarters in their communal homes. They did speak in tongues, and "shook" as they were "filled with the holy spirit". Today, The Shaker heritage and history is by in large maintained by some dedicated Quakers and some historians. Shakers were a rather bizarre off-shoot of Friends.

Quakers have never spoke in tongues (or at least none that I know) because they are silent worshippers, no sermons, no songs, nothing of the sort, generally.

There are much bigger things that this world needs to see change in; peace for all, health for all, equality for all, and education for all are big ones. I pretty much don't care what religion you are as long as you're working toward those secular goals with honest intentions.

Quite an informative post as usual but the quote above made me laugh. Then it made me feel sort of sad in the way some languages have only 4 to 15 speakers left and in danger of becoming extinct. Seems like such a loss of culture but when celibacy is involved I can see the reason for dwindling numbers. I have read about Utopian and communal experiments on farms where celibacy was also practiced.

There were other social reasons for the sect to die out... but that's a primary reason. It was by in large a "rural" religion. When people started moving into bigger towns and cities, that impacted their numbers as well. And let's face it, it is tough to keep a faith going where celibacy is a chief practice, where men and women don't even mingle socially. They did give a lot of homeless children a safe and peaceful play to grow up in a time before social services. Shakers never expected their adoptive members to become Shakers though. That was a choice left up to the individual. Which is what Friends practice as well. Friends don't become members because they were born/raised in a Quaker family, it is impressed on them that is it merely a path they may choose if called to it.

The Friends are quite interested in keeping Shaker history alive, the legacy of their remarkable craftsmanship, and some of their gentle, peaceful, and spiritual ways. It's important. But, by in large, Friends are keen on history and education and preservation of all things that impact society in a peaceful and simple way.

Oh, and I say between 4 and 15 because there seems to be a slightly fluxuating small number of people that join and leave on a fairly regular basis.

You will on occasion see modern pictures of Shaker Meetings where the meeting house is full of people, many more than 15... the spares are often Friends or even Mennonites on rare occasions who've come to worship with their remaining Shaker brothers and sisters.

In a way if her congregation really accepts her views, and is not being politely tolerant, and if her overall church structure is so non heirachical that a church can basically preach any doctrine it wants, then i guess there is not a lot of harm done.

However I think we, and she, should look at why she chooses to preach from within an established church, I am skeptical about her stated reasons. I believe she would make little progress, and feel relatively powerless if she had to find her own pulpit and congregation to preach from/to rather than preaching from one provided to her.

It would perhaps be more spiritually/ethically honest to admit that her doctrine is really substantially different to that of the church she professes membership of.

She's using language that's very Friends-ish, in this article, but she's not using it as carefully as Friends do.

What she's really saying is that she's not fond of Statements of Faith, which almost all churchs have (I only know of one that doesn't really). In that Statement of Faith, there's typically information about the doctrine used in the practice of the faith. If there is no Statement of Faith, no doctrine is defined.

She goes on to say that the Bible is not any higher than any other doctrine, which is also a very Friends-ish kind of thing to say. She's saying that, for example, the Bible is no more or less God inspired than say, the US Bill of Rights or Constitution (I'm sorry, I know you're Australian). Or no more or less God inspired than other faith-based texts.

I get where she's going with her church and her ministry. It's not a bad place to be, but it is one that requires a great deal of care and personal and social responsibility. Not an easy path to follow, but it can be done.

I think they seem pretty cool. 99% of what it means to be "Christian" today, has nothing to do with Christ.

Infact, from what I read in the article, it would be more aptly named "Christ without the Christianity"

If she's saying that there are many equally god inspired texts that reflect on the nature and purpose of god, then i agree with her, but it sounded more that she does not really accept any of them and see the church more as a social ministry something like the "revoultionary " christianity which gained popularity in the 70's.

With out acknowledgement of god, and ethics beyond human, you have just another secular based ethical system (nothing wrong with those either if we could just get people to accept them, the way so many accept spiritually based ethical systems)

If shes not fond of statements of faith, then the intellectually/ spiritually honest thing to do is join, or start, an organisation which reflects those beliefs; rather than piggy back on a church too kind or disorganised to kick her out, and preach her own belief system from within the shelter/advantage that existing congregation and church structure offers. Otherwise its a bit like claiming to be an american, but not accepting the validity of the constituion and actively working to change it, while still enjoying all the benefits (including the freedom of speech and political expression which it offers)

I guess there are plenty of people who do that too (some might see fundamentalist christians as such a group)

But in the end that's between her conscience and the church's theocracy, just as the american state, and the american people, need to come to terms with people who actively, but democratically, attempt to change it.

So it would be Ianity then?

Brother Jesus did not come to promote himself, He came to promote Father's loveand will among his(Father's) children.
If one loves he is a folower oF the father , also a Folower Of Bro Jesus, who is one with the Father's Love.

No doctrin or labels nesesary to be in God's grace.

Love Omnaka