People choose to be captivated by 'deeper magic,' right? I mean, you have to want to have your disbelief suspended.
Is suspension of disbelief an apt descriptor? It means that you know what you’re seeing or reading isn’t true, but you make a conscious choice to ignore your knowledge that it isn’t true for the sake of engaging with the story.
Whether one believes in Christian ideas of atonement/reconciliation or not, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest that those who do believe know the story isn’t true but have chosen to suspend that knowledge for the sake of engaging with the story. Rather, I think you have to start with an assumption that they believe the story to be true and, as @Dafyd suggested, are trying to describe with words and metaphors that make sense to them what they believe to be true.
I do happen to think that's as realistic a prospect for a Christian than anything else. "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief." Do you know Christians who reject any of Jesus' miracles? I do. They know that Jesus didn't turn water into wine because that's not how chemistry works. They know that Jesus didn't walk on water because that's not how physics works. The list goes on. Christians don't believe those things, yet they persist in their Christianity. Virgin birth? Entirely optional, said by folks here on these hallowed boards. Those Christians are willfully suspending their disbelief about Jesus to engage with the larger story about Jesus.
Except by your own description, the people you describe are not suspending their disbelief. They’re out and out rejecting those things that would require, for them, suspension of disbelief—miracles, virgin birth, the list, as you say, goes on. But they are still finding something worth engaging in despite not believing those stories, at least not as literal fact.
Perhaps they ignore those parts of the story that they can’t accept, at least not as literal fact, altogether. Perhaps they view those parts of the story as allegory, or through a mythological lens, or as metaphor. But none of those options involves suspension of disbelief; they don’t involve saying “I’ll pretend this could happen even though I don’t believe it could, or know it couldn’t.”
They’re more like accommodations of disbelief, a way of saying either “looking at it in this non-factual, symbolic way is the only way it makes sense to me,” or “I just ignore those parts, and focus on the part I think is worth focusing on.”
For me, I grew up in a church that was quite literal in its teaching. If the Bible said Jesus turned the water into wine, he turned the water into wine. But I really was missing a lot from the story Historical critical scholorship sees the story not as a report of a literal miracle, but as a well-crafted theological sign-story unique to John, expressing who Jesus is—the bringer of eschatological abundance, new covenant joy, and divine revelation. It is symbolic narrative, not historical memory.
For me, I grew up in a church that was quite literal in its teaching. If the Bible said Jesus turned the water into wine, he turned the water into wine. But I really was missing a lot from the story Historical critical scholorship sees the story not as a report of a literal miracle, but as a well-crafted theological sign-story unique to John, expressing who Jesus is—the bringer of eschatological abundance, new covenant joy, and divine revelation. It is symbolic narrative, not historical memory.
Where I depart from that sort of scholarship is that it seems to start from "well there can't possibly have been a miracle" and then backfill from that assumption.
One difficulty is that a lot of people seem to think it's a binary "either / or" choice--either it was a real historical event, or ELSE it has symbolic meaning which we can learn from. But if Jesus is who he says he is, then it can and should be both. I mean, we'd expect that, wouldn't we? Especially when he tells us he's here in this world for a purpose. Under those circumstances, it's natural to read the real-life events of his life for extra meaning beyond simply "Well, that's what happened." Yes, it happened--and it had a meaning, too.
I'd also suggest there's a spectrum between a kind of woodenly fundamentalist approach, which can become quote brittle, and an approach that says it's all metaphorical or symbolic or mythological in the Homeric or Ovid sense.
I don't see why it's such a big deal that there are a range of views on these things. @The_Riv appears to see that as grounds for undermining the whole thing. 'These Christians can't even agree among themselves...'
There's a broad consensus on a whole range of issues. That doesn't mean I don’t find some of the disagreements across the Christian spectrum frustrating as I'm sure many could be resolved if we all got round a table with love and mutual respect.
I think it's possible to hold many of these things in tension, both the literary/critical insights of modern biblical scholarship and, for want of a better term, a more 'traditional approach.'
We don't have to straitjacket ourselves into an overly literal approach nor reduce the whole thing to a set of urban myths about a 1st central rabbi that were exaggerated in the telling.
I’m sorry to have been gone for a bit. I’ve been snowed under with work and a sick son, and promised myself I’d be back when I got my rough draft done.
To The_Riv—thank you for your kind reply. I do think it is possible to know the truth—about Christ and what he teaches. Jesus told us, “ “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” (John 7:16-17). Hey, it works for me—and I was not always a Christian.
I can’t explain why God chose to do things the way he did. He hasn’t told us, and I don’t expect him to explain himself to me! But no, I don’t expect anyone to just accept that “it’s a mystery, so stop thinking,” either. Jesus invites people to dig into what he says and does, and I’m glad, because that suits the kind of person I am—someone who doesn’t trust very easily at all.
You mention “suspended disbelief.” That’s not what it feels like to me at all, and I’m an English lit student. I know suspension of disbelief when I feel it!
What it feels like, is primary belief. That is, the same kind of belief that I have for the events of my own life, or for things my husband tells me—and I’ve known him more than 40 years. I’m not suspending my disbelief because I’m captivated by the story. Rather, I believe the story to be true, as Nick says; and I believe it because I know Jesus Christ, and I find him utterly trustworthy.
That’s a personality thing, really. I didn’t always know him, and it took me a long time to trust him, and I still don’t trust him as he deserves. But I’ve never found him to ring false. When he says something, and I can test it, it comes out true. As a result, when he says something I can’t test, I trust him on it.
I’m sure you’ve got people in your own life that you trust like that—people who, if they told you something you’d normally disbelieve, you’d take another look—and a third, and a fourth—because of the person you know who’s vouching for it.
Really, the whole thing stands or falls on the person of Jesus Christ. If he is the person I’ve come to know, well, then, I can believe any number of miracles. And I will also agree to do any number of things that I’d normally not do, not being a glutton for punishment—such as the refugee work we’re involved in. Or forgiving and working with someone who did a pretty good job of messing up my life 25 years ago.
I’m mentioning these because you have the right to know if I’m actually putting my eggs in Jesus’ basket, if you see what I mean. Do I really trust him? Enough to do this, at least. And it’s not magic, or suspension of disbelief, or not understanding science, or anything else. It’s because of the person he is.
OK - this is my big problem. I've banged on about this before, but the one time - the only time - when I thought God was telling me something, it turned out to be wrong and not true at all.
So whether I can trust God when he says something is completely useless if I cannot actually know whether God really said that thing or not.
The idea of a church, at some level, is to assist with that kind of discernment - rather than have an individual determine that alone.
Of course, a successful discernment here would have told me "nah, that's your imagination". But that's fine - I'd have got quicker to where I am now - having never had any genuine experience of God saying anything to me - but it does also mean I have nothing to trust or not trust.
FWIW I have little trust in Churches to do this discernment. Back some decades ago, in the church I attended at the time I had my not-calling, we had rather tragic event as the young son of one of our congregation died after a long illness. I am told that there were plenty of pictures/prophecies/Words etc to the effect that God was going to heal him.
The word "myth" is so abused as to be almost meaningless. It doesn't mean "meaningless twaddle". It means "non-literal story articulating a truth which is not embodied in reality". The power doesn't rely on literal truth; it relies on the power of the story in illuminating the true subject: in this case, God, and the relationship between God and creation.
OK - this is my big problem. I've banged on about this before, but the one time - the only time - when I thought God was telling me something, it turned out to be wrong and not true at all.
So whether I can trust God when he says something is completely useless if I cannot actually know whether God really said that thing or not.
Discernment is something that, in my own personal experience, gets better with practice.
I get what you mean when you say you thought God was telling you something. The first time I thought God was talking to me, I made the same error, and found out quite painfully that it wasn't the case. I didn't let that discourage me. I kept the channel open, and I practiced, and kept detailed notes until I could trust my own instrument (my body).
I think it's great that your receiver was temporarily cranked to eleven - or far enough to let something through. Unfortunately the closest and loudest signals often originate from sources that are closest to this material reality's standard frequencies, and those are not, in my own experience, stictly speaking "god". Chances are, if you think it's God, it probably isn't. There are many ways to deliver a message, and without discipline or discernment, one might veer into DSM-V territory or worse.
FWIW, God doesn't talk to me directly, never has. I doubt my instrument would be capable of tuning to that complex and rarified a frequency without blowing to smithereens like a wineglass at resonant frequency.
Which is why I view askance the idea that I should accept all "inspired scripture" as inerrant Word, because I just don't think the human body is so clear of dissonances as to be able to accurately and consistently receive transmitted information directly from the One. The only human I ever could trust with that kind of clarity consistency and resonance is Jesus.
As a way of protecting myself, there are intermediaries whom I recognize and trust, and I have asked them to only let information through that I absolutely need to know. Otherwise, I'm "offline". It works for me.
I guess this is just a little Public Service Announcement. Discernment is key.
The idea of a church, at some level, is to assist with that kind of discernment - rather than have an individual determine that alone.
Of course, a successful discernment here would have told me "nah, that's your imagination". But that's fine - I'd have got quicker to where I am now - having never had any genuine experience of God saying anything to me - but it does also mean I have nothing to trust or not trust.
FWIW I have little trust in Churches to do this discernment. Back some decades ago, in the church I attended at the time I had my not-calling, we had rather tragic event as the young son of one of our congregation died after a long illness. I am told that there were plenty of pictures/prophecies/Words etc to the effect that God was going to heal him.
Sure. I've come across that sort of thing too and I can understand the 'once-bitten, twice-shy' effect this can have.
These days I tend to think more in terms of broad principles rather than granular detail in terms of 'God speaking.'
I can't speak for all Christian or religious traditions but while I wouldn't say my own can't or won't make mistakes, it does have more checks and balances than what I experienced in my full-on charismatic evangelical days.
I'm not a Quaker of course but they certainly seem to have robust procedures which they've honed and developed over the years.
When it comes to 'illuminism' and apparent directions from God, it seems to be some of the 'newer' outfits and traditions that go wonky on that. Having said that, I've come across RCs who seem to take apparent visions of Christ or the Virgin Mary as 'authoritative' in some way, almost as if they are holy writ.
I'm sure there are Orthodox people who go over the top on this sort of thing too.
We seem to be drifting though from substitutionary atonement into a discussion about the extent to which we can trust various sources of authority.
When I was referring to Jesus speaking, I was speaking of what he's recorded as saying in the Gospels. That's what I've always found fully trustworthy whenever I've been able to test it.
That said, let me go down this tangent...
I too have some personal experience of what I can only call "hearing from" the Lord--but that is a far more dicey proposition, precisely because of the fact that we can be wrong. I too have one major mis-hearing in my college years that brought a lot of pain to me. I don't blame Jesus for that, I'm sure now that I mistook an internal psychological problem for his voice; and that's no surprise, given my own immaturity and the mess of a childhood I came out of. If I had been able to put it to the church for discernment--but I wasn't. The church I was attending didn't offer that opportunity, though the Scripture tells us God gives some people the gift of discernment precisely to prevent problems like this.
I'm an ordinary Lutheran, and so while we believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, we don't tend to emphasize the more "out there" gifts--things like teaching, administration and pastoral ministry get a much greater hearing among us! And so my experience with prophecy and discernment is extremely limited. But one thing the Scripture makes clear is that we shouldn't be trying to exercise prophecy without a corresponding emphasis on discernment--and that by gifted people, not just "hey, it sounds good to me." And I don't think I've run across a modern congregation that puts that same strong emphasis on discernment, which bothers me. If we did emphasize discernment and gave it its proper place among the Spirit's gifts, perhaps we wouldn't have so many experiences like mine and Karl's.
Whoops ... I've never said to a mountain 'be removed.'
I'm not sure how we 'test' these things. I pray for people who are ill. If they get better have my prayers been answered? If they don't then are Christ's words unreliable?
Okay, let's see if I have enough brain to write something coherent.
When I spoke of putting to the test things that Jesus said, I was thinking more of what you'd probably consider "wisdom" remarks. For example, the "fruit test"--
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn-bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20)
or as he puts it in Luke 6:
43 “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorn-bushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."
I've always wondered why more people don't use this as a way of evaluating the groups, politicians, or factions they support. I've never had it steer me wrong when it comes to knowing who to trust. Look at their past deeds, and ignore campaign promises.
Similarly, this, from the same chapter of Luke:
38 "Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
We've leaned on this to guide everything from the amount of our offerings to how much we tip at a restaurant, and well... There are several episodes in our family history we shouldn't have survived, financially. I mean, I look back at 2013 in particular, and I can't believe we didn't lose the house. And looking back, I can't explain how we DID survive, though we certainly did. It's not like anybody we gave to turned up in our hour of need and helped us back. And yet, here we are, and we're not in debt (no student loans, no cards, no car loans, only a mostly paid off house). And we are teaching our son to live generously.
Or this, from Luke 9:
23 And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. 25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?"
... which had a direct impact on what we chose to do with our lives, and the very different direction we took to quite a few of our relatives, who ended up chasing money and prestige. Now that we're all of us in or heading into old age, the difference in happiness and overall sense of fulfillment is very noticeable.
So as I said, I tested what Jesus said to the extent I was able; and I've never found him wrong. Even the statements that appeared at first glance to be foolhardy turned out to be absolutely correct. And so on things I cannot test (such as his statements about his own divinity, about his death and resurrection and their purpose, about his relationship to God ("I and the Father are one," and esp. "No one comes to the Father but by me", which is so much disliked by so many people)--as I said, these things I can NOT test, I trust him on, because I've found him trustworthy on everything else. And I'm at about 50 years in his service now.
I was broadening things out to include the miracles @Lamb Chopped.
I wasn't saying you necessarily had them in mind but there are some pretty hyperbolic things that Christ is recorded as saying that would certainly stretch us. 'Greater things shall ye do ...' for instance.
I'd tend to take the 'wisdom' remarks as axiomatic. No need to 'test' those out as it were.
I'm always wary of the 'give and it shall be given to you,' stuff as it reminds me too much of prosperity-gospel excesses, but I don't doubt what you are saying about your own experiences from 2013 nor the necessity of living generously.
On the "greater" works--I was looking at this passage for other reasons this week, and I wonder if he wasn't talking scope as opposed to magnitude (that is, more impressive miracles, which is one way people read it). Truthfully, I have a hard time imagining how anybody could be said to do greater miracles--I mean, how do you beat raising people from the dead? But if he meant scope, this would possibly refer to the evangelization of the rest of the world, as opposed to Jesus' own focus on Israel during his ministry.
People choose to be captivated by 'deeper magic,' right? I mean, you have to want to have your disbelief suspended.
Is suspension of disbelief an apt descriptor? It means that you know what you’re seeing or reading isn’t true, but you make a conscious choice to ignore your knowledge that it isn’t true for the sake of engaging with the story.
Whether one believes in Christian ideas of atonement/reconciliation or not, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest that those who do believe know the story isn’t true but have chosen to suspend that knowledge for the sake of engaging with the story. Rather, I think you have to start with an assumption that they believe the story to be true and, as @Dafyd suggested, are trying to describe with words and metaphors that make sense to them what they believe to be true.
I do happen to think that's as realistic a prospect for a Christian than anything else. "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief." Do you know Christians who reject any of Jesus' miracles? I do. They know that Jesus didn't turn water into wine because that's not how chemistry works. They know that Jesus didn't walk on water because that's not how physics works. The list goes on. Christians don't believe those things, yet they persist in their Christianity. Virgin birth? Entirely optional, said by folks here on these hallowed boards. Those Christians are willfully suspending their disbelief about Jesus to engage with the larger story about Jesus.
Except by your own description, the people you describe are not suspending their disbelief. They’re out and out rejecting those things that would require, for them, suspension of disbelief—miracles, virgin birth, the list, as you say, goes on. But they are still finding something worth engaging in despite not believing those stories, at least not as literal fact.
Perhaps they ignore those parts of the story that they can’t accept, at least not as literal fact, altogether. Perhaps they view those parts of the story as allegory, or through a mythological lens, or as metaphor. But none of those options involves suspension of disbelief; they don’t involve saying “I’ll pretend this could happen even though I don’t believe it could, or know it couldn’t.”
They’re more like accommodations of disbelief, a way of saying either “looking at it in this non-factual, symbolic way is the only way it makes sense to me,” or “I just ignore those parts, and focus on the part I think is worth focusing on.”
Maybe it'd be best if I withdrew my comment about suspending disbelief. I've couched it poorly enough to render it unhelpful. And in general, I really need to move on from thinking aloud in this vein in here.
What I'm trying to do in my life, at this point, is get past the very active, ISTM, Inside Baseball aspect(s) of Christianity. A fool's errand, perhaps, but there it is, Gnosticism not withstanding. @Gamma Gamaliel's post is a good case in point for this to me.
I'd also suggest there's a spectrum between a kind of woodenly fundamentalist approach, which can become quote brittle, and an approach that says it's all metaphorical or symbolic or mythological in the Homeric or Ovid sense.
I don't see why it's such a big deal that there are a range of views on these things. @The_Riv appears to see that as grounds for undermining the whole thing. 'These Christians can't even agree among themselves...'
@The_Riv sees that as a not small possibility for actual error in belief.
There's a broad consensus on a whole range of issues. That doesn't mean I don’t find some of the disagreements across the Christian spectrum frustrating as I'm sure many could be resolved if we all got round a table with love and mutual respect.
My suspicion these days is that there may be a broad consensus on a few core tenets, but you don't get tens of thousands of distinct sects via broad consensus on a whole range of issues. Hell, if I wanted to, I still couldn't even take communion in the parish I've served for eleven years and counting. RCs have a line in the sand there. Is that a right, good and joyful thing? Are they getting that correct? Or, is the open table at my local UMC getting that correct? Or, will you suggest that both are correct, or both incorrect, or that both have both correct and incorrect aspects, and that it's not really essential after all? Inside Baseball.
I think it's possible to hold many of these things in tension, both the literary/critical insights of modern biblical scholarship and, for want of a better term, a more 'traditional approach.'
We don't have to straitjacket ourselves into an overly literal approach nor reduce the whole thing to a set of urban myths about a 1st central rabbi that were exaggerated in the telling.
This always sounds so magnanimous, but isn't it also a pretty big exercise in avoidance at the same time?
Trouble is, @The_Riv, whatever I say is going to sound like 'avoidance'.
If I said it's not up to me to determine the communion policies of this, that or the other church you'd accuse me of 'avoidance.'
I'd agree that the divisions within Christianity are scandalous and reprehensible and I'm sure most could be resolved with more charity and humility on both sides of whatever issue is a bone of contention.
What I'm not doing is saying that this, that or the other church doesn't consist of 'real' Christians just because they might differ from me on some issues.
Yes, I 'draw a line' around certain core beliefs but I'm not pontificating on the fate or 'final destiny' of anyone outside those boundaries, nor within them come to that.
There's a reason why medieval 'Hell's Mouth' frescoes showed bishops, priests, monks and nuns on both sides of the divide.
If my position sounds untenable to you, fine. I'm not saying you have to hold it.
Hell, if I wanted to, I still couldn't even take communion in the parish I've served for eleven years and counting. RCs have a line in the sand there. Is that a right, good and joyful thing? Are they getting that correct? Or, is the open table at my local UMC getting that correct?
I will go on record saying I think the United Methodists are correct. While I understand the Catholic position, and while I respect it if I am attending a Mass (even when I’ve been asked to present the gifts at the offertory), I think it is wrong. It’s one reason I’m not Catholic.
But then, I generally work from the assumption that we’ve all got it wrong somewhere. No Christian tradition, including the limb of the Christian tree on which I perch, has got in completely right. Hence the need for semper reformanda—always being reformed.
As long as we’re all trying to follow Jesus as best we can, I can live with the inconsistencies and imperfections.
And just to illustrate the point further, I myself tend to think that the wholly "open table" is unwise and not what Christ intended, because I take Paul -- well, what my fellow Christians would doubtless call "far too literally" when it comes to the warnings in 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. Though I'm not so wedded to my viewpoint that I would judge my brethren of other backgrounds, or start fights with them. And in practice, we do our darndest to treat everyone who comes to us with as much kindness and love as we possibly can, and we look for reasons to admit people to communion rather than reasons to keep them away. Which is how we've come to have a huge variety of people at the table in the past and present--we're not enforcing a "let me see your Lutheran ID card" kind of policy. It generally comes down to a quick whispered conversation in a discreet corner, just checking to see that they are in fact believers and baptized, that sort of thing.
(Yes, if they are not and wish to change either of those statuses, we'll handle it on the spot. This is not a closed door policy.)
And just to illustrate the point further, I myself tend to think that the wholly "open table" is unwise and not what Christ intended, because I take Paul -- well, what my fellow Christians would doubtless call "far too literally" when it comes to the warnings in 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. . . . .It generally comes down to a quick whispered conversation in a discreet corner, just checking to see that they are in fact believers and baptized, that sort of thing.
Perhaps I should clarify where I was coming from, and in the processs probably add to the “just how many options are there?” concerns. Ah well.
I understand “open table” to generally mean all baptized persons are invited to take Communion, regardless of whether they belong to the denomination in question, or another denomination in communion or fellowship with the denomination in question, or whether a particular belief about the presence of Christ in the sacrament is held. That’s the position where I fall.
I don’t generally understand “open table” to mean anyone, baptized or not, is invited to commune—what some call “wide-open communion.”
And yes, there is also what could be called “open table+.” That would be where the expectation is all communicants are baptized and come in faith and repentance, but an unbaptized person who comes forward to receive will not be turned away. That person may, however, be talked to after the service about baptism.
Like @Lamb Chopped, I do get why different churches come to different conclusions, and I do respect their perspectives and their decisions. While I’m perhaps not surprisingly most comfortable with where my denomination comes down on this, I don’t judge those who see it differently.
People choose to be captivated by 'deeper magic,' right? I mean, you have to want to have your disbelief suspended.
Can’t resist it. Having a nice cup of coffee in Andalsnes Norway, the sky is blue, the sun is shining, the fjords are beautiful and snow-capped.
Thing is, I did suspend my belief. In Bertrand Russell’s view that all human endeavour and understanding was of no permanent significance in the face of “the vast heat death of the universe”.
It’s a journey from that suspension of disbelief to the Christian faith, with its moral challenges and awareness of a supernatural dimension to life and living. After 51 years on that journey it makes a good deal more sense to me than Russell’s pessimism.
"...that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins - all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand."
Russell is, of course, correct. We know that eventually, our home star will expand to either consume the earth, or render it nothing more than a cinder. I'm not sure why you label that as pessimistic. It's just honest, not unlike Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot."
Your "awareness of supernatural dimension to life and living" is a merely a claim. If there actually were such things, surely they'd be natural, and all of us would recognize and accept them.
And just to illustrate the point further, I myself tend to think that the wholly "open table" is unwise and not what Christ intended, because I take Paul -- well, what my fellow Christians would doubtless call "far too literally" when it comes to the warnings in 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. Though I'm not so wedded to my viewpoint that I would judge my brethren of other backgrounds, or start fights with them. And in practice, we do our darndest to treat everyone who comes to us with as much kindness and love as we possibly can, and we look for reasons to admit people to communion rather than reasons to keep them away. Which is how we've come to have a huge variety of people at the table in the past and present--we're not enforcing a "let me see your Lutheran ID card" kind of policy. It generally comes down to a quick whispered conversation in a discreet corner, just checking to see that they are in fact believers and baptized, that sort of thing.
(Yes, if they are not and wish to change either of those statuses, we'll handle it on the spot. This is not a closed door policy.)
My parents remained LCMS as long as they were married. Mom continued after Dad died. When my Grandmother, who was Methodist, came to live with them, she was able to commune with them at the LCMS altar, as @Lamb Chopped said.
@Lamb Chopped and I have our differences with 1 Cor 11: 23-34. While her Synod argues the verses imply Christians must agree in all things before communing, My Synod argues Paul is criticizing those Christians who would exclude other Christians from the table. I am very much in line with @Nick Tamen on this one.
I wouldn't say "all things"--just try finding two human beings who agree in all things! My general experience of the Synod is they look for baptism and a belief in the real presence--and if you do no more than parrot "This is my body, this is my blood" back at them, they'll admit you. I mean, it's not an interrogation.
The thing that's apt to get someone quietly skipped over (blessed but not communed) is saying something like "Well, everybody else is doing it, so..." as your reason for going forward. I've seen that exactly once, with my grandparents (before they returned to faith). And nobody made a spectacle of it.
Of course it’s a claim. So was Russell’s. I’m not sure ultimate despair is well founded. It’s an extrapolation at best. I see it as a destructive deception rather than an embracing of reality.
But you’re welcome to it if it gives you peace of mind. If you are right of course, there will never be an eternity to demonstrate otherwise. Either to you or me. But I expect you to be wrong.
Religion is based on the intuition that the supernatural is natural to human beings. That, to me, is the insight which is at the heart of the incarnation, and therefore of Christianity. If that holds no water with you, then there we are. If it captures you, as it does me, everything else follows from there. It's one of the reasons why I'm not an evangelist - I'm not sure there is anything to be done to encourage this intuition - it's there or it isn't.
Religion is based on the intuition that the supernatural is natural to human beings. That, to me, is the insight which is at the heart of the incarnation, and therefore of Christianity. If that holds no water with you, then there we are. If it captures you, as it does me, everything else follows from there. It's one of the reasons why I'm not an evangelist - I'm not sure there is anything to be done to encourage this intuition - it's there or it isn't.
I strongly agree the supernatural is natural to humans - we've populated the world with seen and unseen ghosts, cryptids, elves, huldrafolk, unicorns, sylphs, kappas, titans, gods and djinn since forever.
But what when you peer behind the curtain and aren't sure there's anything there?
Of course it’s a claim. So was Russell’s. I’m not sure ultimate despair is well founded. It’s an extrapolation at best. I see it as a destructive deception rather than an embracing of reality.
But you’re welcome to it if it gives you peace of mind. If you are right of course, there will never be an eternity to demonstrate otherwise. Either to you or me. But I expect you to be wrong.
But they are not equal claims, or claims of the same kind. Which aspect of Russell’s statement are you talking about?
Religion is based on the intuition that the supernatural is natural to human beings. That, to me, is the insight which is at the heart of the incarnation, and therefore of Christianity. If that holds no water with you, then there we are. If it captures you, as it does me, everything else follows from there. It's one of the reasons why I'm not an evangelist - I'm not sure there is anything to be done to encourage this intuition - it's there or it isn't.
I strongly agree the supernatural is natural to humans - we've populated the world with seen and unseen ghosts, cryptids, elves, huldrafolk, unicorns, sylphs, kappas, titans, gods and djinn since forever.
But what when you peer behind the curtain and aren't sure there's anything there?
It strikes me that our ability to peer and wonder is itself part of the supernatural rather than the natural. That seems more believable to me than that we're nothing more than a collection of molecules.
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.
Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.
(Bold mine)
From the essay “A Free Man’s Worship” written in 1903. Russell counsels unyielding despair (not pessimism) as the only safe place for the soul’s habitation.
What is “safe” about that?
I’m more inclined to see it as intellectual hyperbole than a serious conclusion. An overstatement to make a point?
At any rate, I’m more hopeful than that. Perhaps I should say I choose to be more hopeful than that.
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.
Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.
(Bold mine)
From the essay “A Free Man’s Worship” written in 1903. Russell counsels unyielding despair (not pessimism) as the only safe place for the soul’s habitation.
What is “safe” about that?
I’m more inclined to see it as intellectual hyperbole than a serious conclusion. An overstatement to make a point?
At any rate, I’m more hopeful than that. Perhaps I should say I choose to be more hopeful than that.
Russell is supported quite well by the first three chapters of Ecclesiastes. Maybe give those a review. All is vanity, indeed. Russell's safe place isn't merely "on the firm foundation of unyielding despair," but also "only within the scaffolding of these truths." We have to find a way to come to terms with the knowledge that we actually have (our inevitable heat death for one thing) -- not the faith we create. That despair is acknowledgement that our ultimate fate is unchangeable. It may be after a nearly unimaginably long period of time, but it's certain. His "safety" is an understanding free from myth and wish thinking. It's a realization, uncomfortable at first, but ultimately assuring.
Russell also said: “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man's place in the world. Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own.”
― Bertrand Russell (2004). “What I Believe”, p.22, Routledge
To his last point, Hitchens adds: “If you will devote a little time to studying the staggering photographs taken by the Hubble telescope, you will be scrutinizing things that are far more awesome and mysterious and beautiful—and more chaotic and overwhelming and forbidding—than any creation or “end of days” story. If you read Hawking on the “event horizon,” that theoretical lip of the “black hole” over which one could in theory plunge and see the past and the future (except that one would, regrettably and by definition, not have enough “time”), I shall be surprised if you can still go on gaping at Moses and his unimpressive “burning bush.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
I digress. Anyway, I don't read Russell as being hopeless. Rather, and like most deconstructionists I know, I'd say he actually has an enhanced appreciation for the intrinsic value of human life and experience compared to the religious.
Comments
Perhaps they ignore those parts of the story that they can’t accept, at least not as literal fact, altogether. Perhaps they view those parts of the story as allegory, or through a mythological lens, or as metaphor. But none of those options involves suspension of disbelief; they don’t involve saying “I’ll pretend this could happen even though I don’t believe it could, or know it couldn’t.”
They’re more like accommodations of disbelief, a way of saying either “looking at it in this non-factual, symbolic way is the only way it makes sense to me,” or “I just ignore those parts, and focus on the part I think is worth focusing on.”
Where I depart from that sort of scholarship is that it seems to start from "well there can't possibly have been a miracle" and then backfill from that assumption.
Not 'either/or' but 'both/and' ... ?
I'd also suggest there's a spectrum between a kind of woodenly fundamentalist approach, which can become quote brittle, and an approach that says it's all metaphorical or symbolic or mythological in the Homeric or Ovid sense.
I don't see why it's such a big deal that there are a range of views on these things. @The_Riv appears to see that as grounds for undermining the whole thing. 'These Christians can't even agree among themselves...'
There's a broad consensus on a whole range of issues. That doesn't mean I don’t find some of the disagreements across the Christian spectrum frustrating as I'm sure many could be resolved if we all got round a table with love and mutual respect.
I think it's possible to hold many of these things in tension, both the literary/critical insights of modern biblical scholarship and, for want of a better term, a more 'traditional approach.'
We don't have to straitjacket ourselves into an overly literal approach nor reduce the whole thing to a set of urban myths about a 1st central rabbi that were exaggerated in the telling.
OK - this is my big problem. I've banged on about this before, but the one time - the only time - when I thought God was telling me something, it turned out to be wrong and not true at all.
So whether I can trust God when he says something is completely useless if I cannot actually know whether God really said that thing or not.
Of course, a successful discernment here would have told me "nah, that's your imagination". But that's fine - I'd have got quicker to where I am now - having never had any genuine experience of God saying anything to me - but it does also mean I have nothing to trust or not trust.
FWIW I have little trust in Churches to do this discernment. Back some decades ago, in the church I attended at the time I had my not-calling, we had rather tragic event as the young son of one of our congregation died after a long illness. I am told that there were plenty of pictures/prophecies/Words etc to the effect that God was going to heal him.
Discernment is something that, in my own personal experience, gets better with practice.
I get what you mean when you say you thought God was telling you something. The first time I thought God was talking to me, I made the same error, and found out quite painfully that it wasn't the case. I didn't let that discourage me. I kept the channel open, and I practiced, and kept detailed notes until I could trust my own instrument (my body).
I think it's great that your receiver was temporarily cranked to eleven - or far enough to let something through. Unfortunately the closest and loudest signals often originate from sources that are closest to this material reality's standard frequencies, and those are not, in my own experience, stictly speaking "god". Chances are, if you think it's God, it probably isn't. There are many ways to deliver a message, and without discipline or discernment, one might veer into DSM-V territory or worse.
FWIW, God doesn't talk to me directly, never has. I doubt my instrument would be capable of tuning to that complex and rarified a frequency without blowing to smithereens like a wineglass at resonant frequency.
Which is why I view askance the idea that I should accept all "inspired scripture" as inerrant Word, because I just don't think the human body is so clear of dissonances as to be able to accurately and consistently receive transmitted information directly from the One. The only human I ever could trust with that kind of clarity consistency and resonance is Jesus.
As a way of protecting myself, there are intermediaries whom I recognize and trust, and I have asked them to only let information through that I absolutely need to know. Otherwise, I'm "offline". It works for me.
I guess this is just a little Public Service Announcement. Discernment is key.
AFF
Sure. I've come across that sort of thing too and I can understand the 'once-bitten, twice-shy' effect this can have.
These days I tend to think more in terms of broad principles rather than granular detail in terms of 'God speaking.'
I can't speak for all Christian or religious traditions but while I wouldn't say my own can't or won't make mistakes, it does have more checks and balances than what I experienced in my full-on charismatic evangelical days.
I'm not a Quaker of course but they certainly seem to have robust procedures which they've honed and developed over the years.
When it comes to 'illuminism' and apparent directions from God, it seems to be some of the 'newer' outfits and traditions that go wonky on that. Having said that, I've come across RCs who seem to take apparent visions of Christ or the Virgin Mary as 'authoritative' in some way, almost as if they are holy writ.
I'm sure there are Orthodox people who go over the top on this sort of thing too.
We seem to be drifting though from substitutionary atonement into a discussion about the extent to which we can trust various sources of authority.
That said, let me go down this tangent...
I too have some personal experience of what I can only call "hearing from" the Lord--but that is a far more dicey proposition, precisely because of the fact that we can be wrong. I too have one major mis-hearing in my college years that brought a lot of pain to me. I don't blame Jesus for that, I'm sure now that I mistook an internal psychological problem for his voice; and that's no surprise, given my own immaturity and the mess of a childhood I came out of. If I had been able to put it to the church for discernment--but I wasn't. The church I was attending didn't offer that opportunity, though the Scripture tells us God gives some people the gift of discernment precisely to prevent problems like this.
I'm an ordinary Lutheran, and so while we believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, we don't tend to emphasize the more "out there" gifts--things like teaching, administration and pastoral ministry get a much greater hearing among us! And so my experience with prophecy and discernment is extremely limited. But one thing the Scripture makes clear is that we shouldn't be trying to exercise prophecy without a corresponding emphasis on discernment--and that by gifted people, not just "hey, it sounds good to me." And I don't think I've run across a modern congregation that puts that same strong emphasis on discernment, which bothers me. If we did emphasize discernment and gave it its proper place among the Spirit's gifts, perhaps we wouldn't have so many experiences like mine and Karl's.
Meanwhile, I'm asking myself whether I have 'tested' the 'words of our Lord in red' as it were, the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels.
I'm thinking aloud here. Thinking allowed.
It depends on how literally we take these things. I've said to a mountain, 'Be removed ...' for instance.
I trust his words but I'm not sure I test them. A priest suggested to me fairly recently that I 'put out a fleece.'
I was reluctant to do so. I'm nervous about that sort of thing. Perhaps he was encouraging me to be a bit more bold.
I dunno.
It's not the way I tend to approach things now.
But that's another issue.
I'm not sure how we 'test' these things. I pray for people who are ill. If they get better have my prayers been answered? If they don't then are Christ's words unreliable?
I don't tend to analyse things in that way.
I'm just about to go walking, and I'll try to get back to this later.
When I spoke of putting to the test things that Jesus said, I was thinking more of what you'd probably consider "wisdom" remarks. For example, the "fruit test"--
or as he puts it in Luke 6:
I've always wondered why more people don't use this as a way of evaluating the groups, politicians, or factions they support. I've never had it steer me wrong when it comes to knowing who to trust. Look at their past deeds, and ignore campaign promises.
Similarly, this, from the same chapter of Luke:
We've leaned on this to guide everything from the amount of our offerings to how much we tip at a restaurant, and well... There are several episodes in our family history we shouldn't have survived, financially. I mean, I look back at 2013 in particular, and I can't believe we didn't lose the house. And looking back, I can't explain how we DID survive, though we certainly did. It's not like anybody we gave to turned up in our hour of need and helped us back. And yet, here we are, and we're not in debt (no student loans, no cards, no car loans, only a mostly paid off house). And we are teaching our son to live generously.
Or this, from Luke 9:
... which had a direct impact on what we chose to do with our lives, and the very different direction we took to quite a few of our relatives, who ended up chasing money and prestige. Now that we're all of us in or heading into old age, the difference in happiness and overall sense of fulfillment is very noticeable.
So as I said, I tested what Jesus said to the extent I was able; and I've never found him wrong. Even the statements that appeared at first glance to be foolhardy turned out to be absolutely correct. And so on things I cannot test (such as his statements about his own divinity, about his death and resurrection and their purpose, about his relationship to God ("I and the Father are one," and esp. "No one comes to the Father but by me", which is so much disliked by so many people)--as I said, these things I can NOT test, I trust him on, because I've found him trustworthy on everything else. And I'm at about 50 years in his service now.
I wasn't saying you necessarily had them in mind but there are some pretty hyperbolic things that Christ is recorded as saying that would certainly stretch us. 'Greater things shall ye do ...' for instance.
I'd tend to take the 'wisdom' remarks as axiomatic. No need to 'test' those out as it were.
I'm always wary of the 'give and it shall be given to you,' stuff as it reminds me too much of prosperity-gospel excesses, but I don't doubt what you are saying about your own experiences from 2013 nor the necessity of living generously.
Scope rather than magnitude.
I'll start a new thread on 'guidance and discernment' now in a minute (as they say in my native South Wales).
Maybe it'd be best if I withdrew my comment about suspending disbelief. I've couched it poorly enough to render it unhelpful. And in general, I really need to move on from thinking aloud in this vein in here.
What I'm trying to do in my life, at this point, is get past the very active, ISTM, Inside Baseball aspect(s) of Christianity. A fool's errand, perhaps, but there it is, Gnosticism not withstanding. @Gamma Gamaliel's post is a good case in point for this to me.
You usually, do, @Gamma Gamaliel!
@The_Riv sees that as a not small possibility for actual error in belief.
My suspicion these days is that there may be a broad consensus on a few core tenets, but you don't get tens of thousands of distinct sects via broad consensus on a whole range of issues. Hell, if I wanted to, I still couldn't even take communion in the parish I've served for eleven years and counting. RCs have a line in the sand there. Is that a right, good and joyful thing? Are they getting that correct? Or, is the open table at my local UMC getting that correct? Or, will you suggest that both are correct, or both incorrect, or that both have both correct and incorrect aspects, and that it's not really essential after all? Inside Baseball.
This always sounds so magnanimous, but isn't it also a pretty big exercise in avoidance at the same time?
If I said it's not up to me to determine the communion policies of this, that or the other church you'd accuse me of 'avoidance.'
I'd agree that the divisions within Christianity are scandalous and reprehensible and I'm sure most could be resolved with more charity and humility on both sides of whatever issue is a bone of contention.
What I'm not doing is saying that this, that or the other church doesn't consist of 'real' Christians just because they might differ from me on some issues.
Yes, I 'draw a line' around certain core beliefs but I'm not pontificating on the fate or 'final destiny' of anyone outside those boundaries, nor within them come to that.
There's a reason why medieval 'Hell's Mouth' frescoes showed bishops, priests, monks and nuns on both sides of the divide.
If my position sounds untenable to you, fine. I'm not saying you have to hold it.
But then, I generally work from the assumption that we’ve all got it wrong somewhere. No Christian tradition, including the limb of the Christian tree on which I perch, has got in completely right. Hence the need for semper reformanda—always being reformed.
As long as we’re all trying to follow Jesus as best we can, I can live with the inconsistencies and imperfections.
(Yes, if they are not and wish to change either of those statuses, we'll handle it on the spot. This is not a closed door policy.)
I understand “open table” to generally mean all baptized persons are invited to take Communion, regardless of whether they belong to the denomination in question, or another denomination in communion or fellowship with the denomination in question, or whether a particular belief about the presence of Christ in the sacrament is held. That’s the position where I fall.
I don’t generally understand “open table” to mean anyone, baptized or not, is invited to commune—what some call “wide-open communion.”
And yes, there is also what could be called “open table+.” That would be where the expectation is all communicants are baptized and come in faith and repentance, but an unbaptized person who comes forward to receive will not be turned away. That person may, however, be talked to after the service about baptism.
Like @Lamb Chopped, I do get why different churches come to different conclusions, and I do respect their perspectives and their decisions. While I’m perhaps not surprisingly most comfortable with where my denomination comes down on this, I don’t judge those who see it differently.
Can’t resist it. Having a nice cup of coffee in Andalsnes Norway, the sky is blue, the sun is shining, the fjords are beautiful and snow-capped.
Thing is, I did suspend my belief. In Bertrand Russell’s view that all human endeavour and understanding was of no permanent significance in the face of “the vast heat death of the universe”.
It’s a journey from that suspension of disbelief to the Christian faith, with its moral challenges and awareness of a supernatural dimension to life and living. After 51 years on that journey it makes a good deal more sense to me than Russell’s pessimism.
Russell is, of course, correct. We know that eventually, our home star will expand to either consume the earth, or render it nothing more than a cinder. I'm not sure why you label that as pessimistic. It's just honest, not unlike Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot."
Your "awareness of supernatural dimension to life and living" is a merely a claim. If there actually were such things, surely they'd be natural, and all of us would recognize and accept them.
My parents remained LCMS as long as they were married. Mom continued after Dad died. When my Grandmother, who was Methodist, came to live with them, she was able to commune with them at the LCMS altar, as @Lamb Chopped said.
@Lamb Chopped and I have our differences with 1 Cor 11: 23-34. While her Synod argues the verses imply Christians must agree in all things before communing, My Synod argues Paul is criticizing those Christians who would exclude other Christians from the table. I am very much in line with @Nick Tamen on this one.
The thing that's apt to get someone quietly skipped over (blessed but not communed) is saying something like "Well, everybody else is doing it, so..." as your reason for going forward. I've seen that exactly once, with my grandparents (before they returned to faith). And nobody made a spectacle of it.
Of course it’s a claim. So was Russell’s. I’m not sure ultimate despair is well founded. It’s an extrapolation at best. I see it as a destructive deception rather than an embracing of reality.
But you’re welcome to it if it gives you peace of mind. If you are right of course, there will never be an eternity to demonstrate otherwise. Either to you or me. But I expect you to be wrong.
Uh-oh ... I'm going all 'both/and' again...
I strongly agree the supernatural is natural to humans - we've populated the world with seen and unseen ghosts, cryptids, elves, huldrafolk, unicorns, sylphs, kappas, titans, gods and djinn since forever.
But what when you peer behind the curtain and aren't sure there's anything there?
But they are not equal claims, or claims of the same kind. Which aspect of Russell’s statement are you talking about?
You say it’s a mystery.
(Bold mine)
From the essay “A Free Man’s Worship” written in 1903. Russell counsels unyielding despair (not pessimism) as the only safe place for the soul’s habitation.
What is “safe” about that?
I’m more inclined to see it as intellectual hyperbole than a serious conclusion. An overstatement to make a point?
At any rate, I’m more hopeful than that. Perhaps I should say I choose to be more hopeful than that.
Russell is supported quite well by the first three chapters of Ecclesiastes. Maybe give those a review. All is vanity, indeed. Russell's safe place isn't merely "on the firm foundation of unyielding despair," but also "only within the scaffolding of these truths." We have to find a way to come to terms with the knowledge that we actually have (our inevitable heat death for one thing) -- not the faith we create. That despair is acknowledgement that our ultimate fate is unchangeable. It may be after a nearly unimaginably long period of time, but it's certain. His "safety" is an understanding free from myth and wish thinking. It's a realization, uncomfortable at first, but ultimately assuring.
Russell also said: “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man's place in the world. Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own.”
― Bertrand Russell (2004). “What I Believe”, p.22, Routledge
To his last point, Hitchens adds: “If you will devote a little time to studying the staggering photographs taken by the Hubble telescope, you will be scrutinizing things that are far more awesome and mysterious and beautiful—and more chaotic and overwhelming and forbidding—than any creation or “end of days” story. If you read Hawking on the “event horizon,” that theoretical lip of the “black hole” over which one could in theory plunge and see the past and the future (except that one would, regrettably and by definition, not have enough “time”), I shall be surprised if you can still go on gaping at Moses and his unimpressive “burning bush.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
I digress. Anyway, I don't read Russell as being hopeless. Rather, and like most deconstructionists I know, I'd say he actually has an enhanced appreciation for the intrinsic value of human life and experience compared to the religious.