Mandy123 wrote:And then you have the Hindu world view that, in direct contrast to Christianity, postulates the idea that religion is an intensely personal matter between you and whatever form of God you choose to worship. There is no single sacred book that compels a Hindu to obey its rules or face divine wrath or eternal damnation. The sheer freedom of being a Hindu and the variety of options that Hindu worshippers have is enviable. As a millennial myself, I find myself drifting towards the Hindu idea of religion and spirituality.

Hi Mandy, have you lived in India? I have never been there but find Indian culture fascinating. Their ancient social traditions and rituals are intimately entwined with Hindu faith, with far more depth than in Western countries.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Mandy123 wrote:And then you have the Hindu world view that, in direct contrast to Christianity, postulates the idea that religion is an intensely personal matter between you and whatever form of God you choose to worship. There is no single sacred book that compels a Hindu to obey its rules or face divine wrath or eternal damnation. The sheer freedom of being a Hindu and the variety of options that Hindu worshippers have is enviable. As a millennial myself, I find myself drifting towards the Hindu idea of religion and spirituality.

Hi Mandy, have you lived in India? I have never been there but find Indian culture fascinating. Their ancient social traditions and rituals are intimately entwined with Hindu faith, with far more depth than in Western countries.

I've never been there either but India's been on my bucket list for as long as I can remember. I'm particularly fascinated by their concepts of dharma, karma and moksha and have been exploring these for some time now. Hindu philosophy is wayyyy deeper than most people realize.

LanDroid wrote:I gather you're suggesting that once the foundation and rot are washed away by drastically declining attendance, perhaps something better can be rebuilt.

I prefer to see things in a more positive light than this sequential dependence on collapse of the old implies. The new can be built regardless of what old institutions may do. It is more that the Gospels actually do provide an underlying coherent framework for the salvation of the world, without any need for supernatural mythology, and that the positive task is to uncover this hidden coherence.

For example, ideas such as that God is Love can be grounded in a physical perception of the cosmos as filled with grace, in a way that gives precedence to the laws of physics over theological imagination. Cosmic natural order has provided the amazing ability for our fragile planet to generate the astounding complexity of modern humanity, and this should be read as the implicit meaning of the Gospel miracles, read entirely as parables.

Yes there is a need to dwell on the negative, explaining history in terms of a fall from grace and promise of redemption. The rise of Christianity as a delusional system reflects this overall claim that human existence has become alienated from reality, the key idea of the fall into corruption. Yet even this story of a vision of transformation has a profoundly positive content, even while condemning Christendom as overwhelmingly corrupt and deluded.

History changes by constructing a new vision in the midst of a decaying old order. Saint Paul explained this in his ecological theology in Romans 8:18ff

the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved.

Paul says the world is pregnant with a New Age, even while the Old Age dominates with its perverse bondage to decay. I interpret this against the precession framework to apply both to the transition from the imagined Age of Aries to the Age of Pisces in Paul’s day and to the current emerging transition from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius. The moral challenge is to construct a coherent New Age vision tha builds on the evolutionary precedents of the past. That means combining the positive vision of how the Gospel story provides purpose and meaning within a modern scientific framework together with a negative critique of how the Gospel was twisted by the politics and psychology of Christendom to produce a hopelessly deluded outlook with no prospect of enduring against the withering onslaught of modern knowledge.

I agree with the article that young people today rightly see the church as having failed its moral duty of trust, with religion under a cloud of suspicion in terms of its ability at moral instruction. Taking the analysis further, the sense of betrayal is irrevocable and unforgivable for the current doctrines of the church. Forgiveness requires repentance, and for the church, repentance means accepting that all its past doctrines have included a sick admixture of political corruption that has to be systematically analysed and removed before the institution can be rebuilt.

Robert Tulip wrote:Hi Harry! Merry Christmas! Nice to see your comments.

Hi Robert. Nice to be around again, for at least a few days during vacation. I am now a teacher in the U.S. and my experience in international schools was not a good preparation for working with ordinary students. So I am generally immersed in work in an effort to adapt my methods. Next school year I hope to regain a life.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas, Jolly New Year, and general Happy Holidays to everyone here.

Robert Tulip wrote: Here is my response to DWill.

As usual, I will feel free to jump in to this interesting conversation.

Robert Tulip wrote: The chaos of Gnostic thought is well illustrated in the New Age movement, which is mostly grounded in emotional folk traditions rather than logic and evidence.

I am fascinated by the process of seeking symbolic versions of people's emotional priorities, and the amazing inventiveness of teachers and leaders in matching doctrines to desires. It's all mediated by a fundamental motivation to have our doctrines be true for everyone, and not just fit our own emotional priorities.

For a very long time now, culture has had to negotiate difficult issues of group norms (our group does not eat shellfish, our group does not allow marrying first cousins) in tension with individual autonomy (people seek their own priorities against those of the group, people marry outside the group, immigration and emigration reflect outside events, etc.) The ways this gets sorted out seem to have major sociological implications.

As modern life has shifted toward explicit rationality as a way to adjudicate these competing claims, requirements of emotional harmony have correspondingly been demoted. (Essentially, rationalism is giving the same "Get over it" message to emotions that dominant mores have long given to alternative mores.) So it isn't too surprising to find people who simultaneously reject the dominant cultural traditions of the past and embrace "irrational" elements cadged from marginalized and displaced traditions of the past. I enjoyed a recent talk with a student considering following Wicca, but nervous about rejection from her parents if she does so.

Robert Tulip wrote:An example of the confusion is around the standard view that Gnostics hate the world. There are undoubtedly many who interpret things in that way, both on the allegedly Gnostic and the literalist sides, but the confusion arises with completely differing ideas about what we mean by ‘the world’. Some mean the natural universe, while others just mean the constructed society of human culture.
The danger in jumping from condemnation of the evil of the world to the false assumption that nature is evil illustrates how spiritual tendencies can easily be unhealthy. We see this unhealthy tendency in the assumption that hedonistic lifestyles are justified by an apocalyptic theology.

We all have competing impulses within our sexuality. Rationality urges us to sort these out, and have established patterns for negotiating them. Other -isms have taken other approaches in prioritizing particular aspects (family commitment, male dominance, individual self-expression, etc.) Much of the tension with "the world" comes from rejection of dominance systems and the privileged role granted to masculine aggression within those frameworks. Since masculine aggression is easily associated with "human nature," we get an easy equivalence between nature itself and the evil in dominance systems. Or at least that's how I read the gnostic confusion of world with nature.

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote: You [i.e. Robert] seemed to suggest that the triumph of the Jesus-story-as-history view was all due to corrupt priests seeking to cement their influence. But the predominance of followers naturally wanting a solid, no-nonsense, literal version created a wealth of opportunity for such priests.

Yes, and I think that opportunity illustrates my point about the priority of emotional security over rational coherence within religious faith. In the absence of simple coherence, people will go with a system that delivers security.

I tend to sort out this early literal/metaphorical tension in terms of the great motivators of the early church. On one hand there was a Pauline trajectory of seeking to spread the message of God-worship (monotheism, in some sense) to the entire world and it's internal motivation in terms of Messianic eschatology. On the other hand there was a Jamesian, Palestine-based trajectory of emphasizing commonality and koinonia, seeking to restructure a radical social shake-up based on the prophesied Peaceable Kingdom in which all could draw directly on the spiritual blessings of mutual care.

The two trajectories are not in contradiction in any sense. Both pushed people toward a spiritual, rather than a formalistic, understanding of the forces at work. I suspect the mythology that grew up around Jesus' death and the Resurrection event were literalized in a very natural process, not requiring any suppression of metaphorical readings. The metaphors told people a lot about what the fundamental trajectories were seeking and how the Great Spirit was helping to bring these about. The metaphors were thickly integrated into the fabric of the early church, whether in the Eucharistic ritual, or in the Kingdom parables, or in the judgement stories, or in the evolving interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' martyrdom.

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote:The literal parts of belief that seem so strange and silly to us were the separators between groups, and those groups who tended to be more lax would have a harder time keeping their identities.

Yes exactly, Gnostic mystery teachings held by a secret elite do not generate the group cohesion that is delivered by simple belief in shared creeds with strong focus on personal morality.

Yes, but I find it hard to justify a sort of "any belief would do" approach to understanding these fragmentations. Probably the "strict and clear" vs. "metaphorical and tolerant" approach did a lot of sorting out, but it would not have taken any deeply penetrating insight to recognize that over-zealousness about particular beliefs (iconoclastic statue-breaking, condemnation of eating meat from the pagan temples, where it had been presented to idols, etc.) could undermine the very spirituality and peacefulness that were the sources of much of Christianity's appeal.

Our church is going through a relational campaign, with surprising interest and depth. People seem to be craving the chance to share on a personal level about their own sources of inspiration, difficulties with authoritarian interpretation, and struggles with the tension between ideals and practicalities.

This is a branch of the progressive church that holds great promise. On one level it matches the accountability groups and house-based small group Bible studies of the Evangelical movement, but it seems to be able to approach the same issues of community with a much richer toolbox of connecting to faith. If we can learn to "do community" effectively, I can actually see the Millennials wanting to return. We shall see.

The level of commitment that millennials (actually including Gen Y and Gen X) are willing to demonstrate may determine whether the churches go forward. Put crassly, how much money will they be willing to pledge to a church? Will they want to make church a budget item, or will they think the benefits, although nice, are available from other lifestyle choices?

There are two important responses to your questions, DWill.

The first is that millennials clearly will not be giving as much. Churches have seen the handwriting on the wall, so to speak, and are re-thinking the basis for supporting churches. The main appeal of mainline churches was always a clergy leader who could provide pastoral care to people in crisis, and who combined this with authoritative ability to interpret scripture, i.e. training in Biblical understanding. The latter is shifting more and more to "relevance" these days, rather than knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, as the whole structure of Biblical understanding changes.

Among evangelicals, much of the appeal of going to church and supporting it is the goal of "reaching the lost". Though more and more are shifting in the direction of supporting marriages and families with accountability groups and skill formation.

Catholics are supposed to go to keep down their time in Purgatory, but these days they also seem to be shifting toward more emphasis on the traditional works of charity and some community and skill building.

Now all of those bring value, and I would contend that the traditional idea that you go to church because you are supposed to, and the big guy upstairs will whack you if you don't, is pretty close to untenable these days. Any church I have attended that took such a line struck me as morose and even repulsive, as one would expect. Which brings us to my second point.

A proper understanding of church doesn't treat it as a consumption item. If you understand why you are there, then you understand that the point is to put into the goals and mission, not to get something from them. Not that the latter is useless or irrelevant, it just gets wrapped up in helping the member be a better influencer. One might compare it to going to the gym, except the result is not supposed to be a longer life and better physical condition, but rather is to make more contribution to the lives around you.

Viewed from that perspective the point is not to "get value for your money". But there is still a question whether supporting a building and professional staff is contributing meaningfully to these goals of helping people be better contributors to the lives around them. I think the vague consensus is that the traditional "spiritual leadership" role needs to work for more people at a time, not as in a mega-church but as in more congregants even if fewer show up on a particular Sunday. The pastoral care role then gets distributed among some lay leaders, some "paraprofessionals" and some mutuality, since one head pastor cannot visit all of the sick and all of the membership (to maintain relationship) all alone.

Only time will tell whether the traditional goal of raising children well will continue to sustain this kind of organization. I am betting that it will, but not with a lot of evidence on my side.

Harry Marks wrote:Churches have seen the handwriting on the wall, so to speak, and are re-thinking the basis for supporting churches.

I recently started a new part time job managing the chaplaincy at the Australian National University here in Canberra. The chapel is a very good meeting area right in the middle of the campus. As an extremely secular institution, the ANU has an ambiguous stance toward faith. My approach is to seek to build community, with respect for the diversity of opinion. We have a multi-faith approach, and I am eager to promote dialogue on the legitimacy of faith.

I am also keen to promote discussion of indigenous spirituality. My church recently held a fiftieth anniversary celebration since its founding, and invited a local indigenous knowledge holder to provide a welcome to country at the main service, where the preacher was the National President of the Uniting Church. The indigenous speaker invoked the blessing of his ancestors as his main theme. One of our conservative parishioners later told me he objected to the church giving a platform to a non Christian voice. My attitude is that such a platform is exactly what the church needs to provide in order to actually be Christian, in the sense of seeing Christ among the least of the world.

I wonder Harry how many readers understood your reference to mene mene tekel upharsin.

Robert Tulip wrote:I recently started a new part time job managing the chaplaincy at the Australian National University here in Canberra. The chapel is a very good meeting area right in the middle of the campus. As an extremely secular institution, the ANU has an ambiguous stance toward faith. My approach is to seek to build community, with respect for the diversity of opinion. We have a multi-faith approach, and I am eager to promote dialogue on the legitimacy of faith.

You should be able to find Christian theologians who can explain the many ways that faith itself has morphed into a more "legitimate" process. The synthesis that emerged 60 years ago may leave a lot of traditionalists cold, but it has become a much stronger foundation for building a modern, educated, energized church. I wish you well in your endeavor, and I hope a lot of creative dialogue comes of it. Campus ministry can be amazingly inspiring, I know from experience.

Robert Tulip wrote:I am also keen to promote discussion of indigenous spirituality. My church recently held a fiftieth anniversary celebration since its founding, and invited a local indigenous knowledge holder to provide a welcome to country at the main service, where the preacher was the National President of the Uniting Church. The indigenous speaker invoked the blessing of his ancestors as his main theme.

I think that's an excellent idea. I am no great fan of indigenous traditions, but they will always have much to offer if we don't insist on endorsing them per se, in entirety. I am sure that you have an interest in the richness of integration with nature, and that is one of the best reasons for listening carefully.

Another is that all of the ways the church has overcome silencing of people have ended up liberating the church itself from repressions that should not have been there in the first place. The wave of feminist theology that gathered momentum in the 70s has given us a direct, head-on confrontation with authoritarian dictatorial approaches within the church, and woken up the people in the pews to how un-Christian that all was. The acceptance of gay and lesbian sexuality has not only eased up some of the repression over sexuality in general, but more importantly has brought the people in the pews to actively question how scripture should be used and what kind of gift to us it is. I can tell you from my experience that understanding has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 30 years.

Obviously indigenous people have a lot to teach us about harmony with nature and bringing the wildness of nature into our spirituality. I gather you are more interested in the regularities and dependabilities of nature, and that's valid, but I suspect that if that's all we find worthy of worship in nature that we will continue to think in terms of dominion over nature, and that will not only make exploitation too easy but will also blind us to the ultimate poverty of a materialist worldview. False dichotomies, such as between practicality and mutuality, will grow like Spanish moss over every branch of spiritual thought.

Robert Tulip wrote: One of our conservative parishioners later told me he objected to the church giving a platform to a non Christian voice. My attitude is that such a platform is exactly what the church needs to provide in order to actually be Christian, in the sense of seeing Christ among the least of the world.

Well, Jesus is reputed to have said something like "that's not who I was sent to" when asked about "outsider" spirituality, but I agree that a healthy sense of mission also implies the humility to listen to what people from other traditions have to say for themselves. Every tradition has elements of grace and forgiveness, and I suspect every tradition has elements of finding meaning in goodness. Thus there will be sources of mutual enrichment.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:Churches have seen the handwriting on the wall, so to speak, and are re-thinking the basis for supporting churches.

I wonder Harry how many readers understood your reference to mene mene tekel upharsin.

Good question. I run into the phrase now and then, so it hasn't died out of culture, but the roots in Daniel and its contempt for empire may be unfamiliar. "Numbered, numbered, weighed and divided" is how the internet renders the literal words, but that sounds close enough to Daniel's "You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting" or something like that. And of course that is the situation of all of civilization these days. We are so proud, so full of our accomplishments, and yet we cannot manage the effort to stave off ultimate disaster.

Of course that is not how I was using the reference, but you could make a case that the church strove too long to be an instrument of control over the masses rather than striving to turn hearts to the good, and Millennials are providing some comeuppance to that arrogance.

Harry Marks wrote:There are two important responses to your questions, DWill.

Harry Marks wrote: A proper understanding of church doesn't treat it as a consumption item. If you understand why you are there, then you understand that the point is to put into the goals and mission, not to get something from them. Not that the latter is useless or irrelevant, it just gets wrapped up in helping the member be a better influencer. One might compare it to going to the gym, except the result is not supposed to be a longer life and better physical condition, but rather is to make more contribution to the lives around you.

Viewed from that perspective the point is not to "get value for your money". But there is still a question whether supporting a building and professional staff is contributing meaningfully to these goals of helping people be better contributors to the lives around them. I think the vague consensus is that the traditional "spiritual leadership" role needs to work for more people at a time, not as in a mega-church but as in more congregants even if fewer show up on a particular Sunday. The pastoral care role then gets distributed among some lay leaders, some "paraprofessionals" and some mutuality, since one head pastor cannot visit all of the sick and all of the membership (to maintain relationship) all alone.

Only time will tell whether the traditional goal of raising children well will continue to sustain this kind of organization. I am betting that it will, but not with a lot of evidence on my side.

Even while the more conservative churches insist officially on following the Bible, they move further toward serving practical needs and forming networks of caring, really de-stressing doctrine. They seem to retain a few politically charged issues, though, such as abortion and "religious freedom."

I was thinking of money matters because our UU group is trying to get back to financial stability after falling short on pledges last year. It's a small congregation (61 members) with a budget of about 70K, more than half of that going for the half-time minister who drives 75 miles from DC. A few of the other board members were contemplating him retiring or going to quarter-time. I was concerned about that, because I'm still seeing that role as essential to any church, and I like this minister a lot. What you say, Harry, has me thinking that there could be another way forward that doesn't have a minister as the hub of a wheel. Such a new structure would call upon members to do more, which could be beneficial for us all. There probably are resources available from the central office in Boston to help congregations with weathering changes that will shrink budgets.