Doubts and Loves

I recently finished reading a book by Richard Holloway called "Doubts and Loves: What is Left of Christianity". I have blogged on Richard Holloway before. I like his stuff. I think he has a lot to offer...

Richard Holloway used to be the Bishop of Edinburgh with the Scottish Episcopal Church, but resigned in 2000 after attending a Bishop's conference where he was appalled by the overall attitude of the conference to people who identify as gay and lesbian. Now, he calls himself an atheist or agnostic, but still attends and even preaches in a church. He's not sure about God, but he still loves Christianity and the church, and believes that it all still has something to offer. So, he is an 'outsider' of sorts. An outsider who has been on the inside and now likes to have a foot in each camp. I don't know if he would be pleased with that assessment of his current position, but it gives you some idea of where he is at... I hope...

Throughout "Doubts and Loves", Holloway outlines his current theological positions. He's not completely sure, but he doesn't believe there is a God;  he thinks religions are extremely insightful conversations humans have been having with themselves; there are and were no miracles (EG - no virgin birth, no water into wine, no healings and no resurrection etc ); there is no heaven and hell etc etc... you get the idea. His belief is that the gospels were heavily edited later on to include all the God claims and miracles of Jesus. But even without these, he still wants to be a part of "what is left of Christianity". He thinks that if people followed the way of Jesus, in terms of how he lived and what he taught , that even without all the spiritual and miraculous stuff, the world could be transformed, the Kingdom would come, and heaven would come to earth.

I was really challenged by that. Christianity is a faith that has spent a lot of time and effort getting it's beliefs right ("orthodoxy"). But what Holloway is suggesting, is that Christianity should be defined by it's "orthopraxy", that is, it's right practice and ethical living. So, here is a man whose theology is completey "not right" by orthodox standards. He doesn't subscribe to any of the orthodox creedal positions on God, Jesus, the Bible etc, and yet he believes that if we literally follow and imitate Jesus, we'll change the world and make Jesus' vision of the world a reality.

That's all I really wanted to say about that (how very Forrest Gump of me)... I just thought it was a great 'outsider" observation that we could get something from. Francis Schaeffer once asked the question (in the title of his well known book), "How should we then live?". Maybe rather than "What should we believe?", this is most important question of all?

Shalom

Steve

Challenging the Chaplains

I remember going to the cricket one day with a group of friends, and one of them asked me how work was going (I work in the training department of SU Qld, the largest employing authority for state school chaplains in Queensland). I got about one or two sentences into my reply when he said, "You know, I really wish you guys didn't do what you do. I mean I like you and all, but I don't like the idea that there are chaplains in schools." Quite an interesting conversation took place after that. It is not the last one I have had, nor am I the only person who has been having these conversations. There has been a bit going on about it in the media over the last few years. 

The first 'outsider' view I wanted to share as part of my blogging 'come back' is about chaplaincy - a subject that is close to my heart. Not only do I work for SU Qld, but I have also worked as a chaplain in a high school. Compass, the ABC program that looks at issues of spirituality and religion in Australia, recently did a program called "Challenging the Chaplains." It looks at both sides of the "Chaplaincy debate" and challenges the place and value of  School-based Chaplaincy. 

I haven't got any comments I want to make about the program particularly. Maybe just to encourage you to watch the video, read some of the comments that people have made afterwards and reflect on it yourself.

To go to the Compass website and watch the program, "Challenging the Chaplains", click here ...

Shalom

Steve

Morality in the 21st Century

One of the podcasts I listen to and admire a lot is “Philosophy Bites”. David Edmunds and Nigel Warburton interview philosophers on various topics and put together very interesting 15 minute segments. In this episode entitled “Morality in the 21st Century”, Susan Neiman, the head of the Einstein Forum in Berlin, talks about the progress humanity has made in relation to morality and the Enlightenment as a good source for a moral code for our time.

Neiman suggests that the Enlightenment is often misunderstood and caricatured in ways that aren’t helpful. Contrary to these views, she proposes that the Enlightenment was essentially about 4 things:

(1) Happiness: Neiman is not talking about that warm, fuzzy feeling we get inside here, but happiness in terms of personal and societal wellbeing. She thinks that the Enlightenment thinkers believed that people should be free from worry about their basic survival, and free to pursue a life with meaning and purpose.

(2) Reason: Neiman says that this has been an absurdly caricatured aspect of the Enlightenment and criticises the “new atheists” for getting on board with this. Reason is not the polar opposite of faith. The Enlightenment thinkers were not coldly rational and saw the very clear limits of reason. They still strongly emphasised passion, intuition, and the transcendent.

(3) Reverence: This is the big surprise for many people. The Enlightenment thinkers were not against spirituality, but they were opposed to organised religion and the way it had been used to oppress and control people. There was recognition that the Judeo-Christian religious traditions and positions were strongly reasoned ones. The scientific methods grew out of a desire to know the Creator better through understanding creation better. Neiman suggested that the core of this element was essentially a sense of gratitude about the world and an appreciation that we didn’t make it. A notion that could unite secular and religious people.

(4) Hope: This is very different from optimism. Neiman says that the Enlightenment didn’t necessarily see humanity is good, marching forward to this positive future based on their goodness. There was a lot of attention given to the problem of evil in the lives of people and in the world. However, they did believe that these ideals they were thinking through could actually improve the world and make it a better place should people commit them and act upon them.

It’s very interesting stuff and there is a lot more than what I have previewed here. It’s less than 15 minutes long, so it won’t take long to have a listen and to see what you think...

Shalom...