tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post2324828303477162759..comments2023-12-15T21:49:46.651+01:00Comments on Pluralist Speaks: Agenda for Faith: Try HonestyPluralist (Adrian Worsfold)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-28695262505390309162011-04-26T18:44:38.462+02:002011-04-26T18:44:38.462+02:00There was an interesting moment on Start the Week ...There was an interesting moment on Start the Week (a BBC4 program I listen to as a podcast here in Vermont) when famous atheist Sam Harris said this:<br /><br />"I don't dispute for a moment that we need ritual, or at least highly value ritual, we need sacred language, we need things to say when people die or get married that are not ordinary ... there's profundity in life that has to be marked by special occasions and this is a problem that the only language we have for this at the moment is language that is redolent with untruths about the universe and we have to pretend either not to notice what these rituals actually mean or we have to endorse things that I think we can't honestly endorse." He acknowledged that "the only language we have" for dealing with these significant human events is religious language, though as I recall he held out the possibility of developing some new language in the future.<br /><br />Anyhow, maybe he's right. But that would leave people who feel called to (and gifted to) address moments of significance right here and right now to either try to develop a new language or try to use the existing one, since even Sam Harris acknowledges it's the only game in town.<br /><br />I'm still comfortable with the language -- it rarely asks me to endorse things I can't honestly endorse, and I can find alternatives where necessary. But if my opinions changed, I could imagine continuing to use the language because it's the only way to engage people at a level that people really do need to be engaged. There might, in the end, be more important considerations than doctrine.mwphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04133736448740478605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-41667803188346764342011-04-26T14:59:14.241+02:002011-04-26T14:59:14.241+02:00I hope you are right. The assessment is what is ha...I hope you are right. The assessment is what is happening to the institution and indeed the Covenant will be an important point - and it just may be that the wheels are coming off its wagon.<br /><br />In the end any Church is entitled, through its hierarchy, to set up and guard its boundaries. The Covenant is about boundaries - mainly those against social inclusion - and inevitably there are those over the edge and those far away over the edge.<br /><br />Yes if one of the strategies had worked, then that would have been a great achievement, but they didn't. Now Stephen is suggesting a Martineauesque approach, not in the book itself. There is a history of Anglicans and others saying Christ and Jesus often enough and people nodding their heads. It happened when Pusey visited Germany. There is a falseness to it.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-32326012232030741422011-04-26T11:38:13.686+02:002011-04-26T11:38:13.686+02:00I like many have been burnt and felt pushed out by...I like many have been burnt and felt pushed out by the church furthermore the ‘Anglican Covenant’ does not fill me with confidence that change of any sort will be easily achievable in the future.<br /><br />Therefore I would suggest that Stephen Mitchell’s ‘Agenda For Faith’ is more relevant today than when first published, why? Because the strategies suggested within are more about opening up a dialogue whereas simply hiding under the duvet and ignoring a tidal wave of fundamentalism sweeping over the CofE is cowardly at best and irresponsible at worse.<br /><br />Whilst I agree in part with your blog in regards to your comments questioning why someone would wish to stay in any particular institution I do feel that this all too easily dismisses the pain, stress and dislocation felt when having to leave a church – there is something to be said surly for being a cultural Anglican or even a high church agnostic.<br /><br />I must be honest and say I’m no longer part of the Anglican church and decided to work with and through a smaller independent church where my SOF philosophy and leanings can sit comfortably with a re-contexulisation of creeds without fear of dismissal; I’m not sure this re-contexualisation of creeds, for Anglican priests or even laity, under the new covenant, would be achievable with any degree of sagacity; so Stephen’s strategies (pick one) are important in thought at least. <br /><br />Ecumenically ‘Agenda For Faith’ should further be welcomed as in my opinion it creates a more level playing field thus allowing for more inter-denominational cooperation and possible agreement with liberal and/or radical ‘fringe’ and independent churches. Given the tight purse strings of many organisations in local authority at present, chaplaincy positions that were once the monopoly of the state church are now becoming more widely available to the independent churches where clergy have always been self-supporting.<br /><br />Therefore I welcome once again Stephen Mitchell’s attempt at bringing about a conversation at least and comfort to some through his bravery in continuing to swim against the tide.<br /><br />Best<br />Simon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com