See No Faith

On Tuesday 10th June '08 Don Cupitt came over to Ireland, for pehaps his last visit, to give a lecture entitled "The Religion Of Post-Christian Ireland". To an audience of around 70-80 people he opined on the death of God and the need for a new expression of 'faith' to arise. He was essentially disassembling the notion of Classical Thesim ("honey, that's SO 18 months ago!") and suggesting that Secular Humanism is the right way forward in the 21st Century. 

To my little mind, and it is very little, he wasn't stating anything particularly new - he was just stating it very well. "Modern people", he said, "aren't looking for salvation from their sins. They want to understand what has happened to us, and how we are to live in the new situation." (for a thought provoking outlook on this topic read Richard Holloway's book) 

And to a degree he's right. The idea of a Fall from Perfection/Paradise and the need for Redemption comes from a pre-Modern, pre-Darwinian worldview. Now Cupitt ditches any sort of God, and I believe he's right to kick the Traditional Theistic God into touch. But I feel he goes too far. Might I suggest, as William Crawley did in the Q&A after the lecture, that Process Theology could well plough a middle ground?! It removes the logical and theological problems of Classical Theism while at the same time allowing for a personal god for those who like me don't want to send God to Coventry altogether (Process Theologians differ in their views on God, especially as to whether God can be personal or not. Opinion is divided).

I, for one, don't share Cupitt's vision of a post-Christian Ireland. But simultaneously I've no desire to see pre-Modern Christianity promoted as the only 'God' option on this island. And therefore I will continue, in my own little way, to search for a faith that relies neither on blind obedience, nor cold rationality for its expression. And to that end, may God (if She exists) have mercy on my soul.     

It's all Jacobean to me!

Verily I say unto ye that it hath come to mine attention that manys a man hast sorely refused to spake in the tongue of God Himself. Forsooth, if such a tongue as espoused by the Court of King James was good enough for ye olde days, then gadzooks, why dost not ye modern curs employ it thus?!

My apologies for the poor attempt at normal conversation in the English of the early Stuarts, but then again why should I apologise?! It's not my language!  I think you get the point lol

Get Realism!

Recently I've been discussing theological things with other people, and having theology discussed concerning me. A lot of these discussions centre around the notion that whatever is in the Bible is right, by virtue of it being in there: "God said it, and I believe it" seems the bottom line in these things. There's no place for higher criticism nor any tolerance for anyone who espouses such. The incidents of genocide, for example, is one that causes some problems especially when it comes to an understanding of the goodness and love of God. The black and white really is black and white.

As I see it, the difficulties arise because of 2 different viewpoints: nominalism vs. realism. Nominalism says that good=whatever God does, therefore if God sanctioned the slaughter in Canaan then it was, by definition, a just and good action. Realism, on the other hand, says that we humans have an innate understanding of what is good and what is evil and so we are able to discern whether an act which is attributed to God is true or not.

The conservative/progressive divide splits roughly down in this fashion. Brace yourselves! I would take the progressive line that Realism, rather than Nominalism, is the only way to go, otherwise we are left with the "do as I say, not as I do" option which grates against me. I cannot worship a God whom I don't respect ethically.      

If 'Meat is Murder', is Quorn wasting Police time?

For the last 8 months now I have returned to a vegetarian, or as it's known today, a 'meat free' diet. I was veggie for 3 years and have decided to return to it.

I do it, not for reasons of health (you just need to look at me for confirmation of that!) but for ethical reasons. Or more honestly, because I myself wouldn't have it in me to kill an animal so I've decided not to ask anyone to do it on my behalf.

I've no problem with people eating meat and would cook it if I had to - I'm not 'evangelical' about my vegetarianism. I just don't want to do it.

I suppose part of it comes from my appreciation of animals as sentient beings (to a greater or lesser degree) and the realisation that most animals, ourselves included, aren't that keen on ending up as a meal for something else. Lesser animals don't have much of a choice - you can't really expect a lion to go vegan. But we humans do have a choice. We don't have to eat meat. We can if we want to, but we're not obliged to do so, and for that reason I do not do so.

Process Theology (good old PT, my new best friend) talks about the relatedness of all live, from the ameba to the human being, and how our actions have both positive and negative consequences for those around us. Now of course, we want to minimise suffering as best we can, and we know that Nature's progression is dependent on death, but that does not mean that I myself need to contribute to it.

So to that end, I make myself the bane of any dinner party and encourage the ire of those who feel the need to cook only one meal. It's a heavy price to pay but one I'll willing to endure.   

I'm back!

After a long hiatus, and after a recent bout of gout from which I was woken early, I decided to fire up the old computer and send El Tel an email under the pseudonym Seamus Meagain. At 7:49am young Wogan read out an edited version of my slightly defamatory, and slightly crappy, gag about Hilary Clinton and Barak O'Bama. The thrill of hearing your pseudonym being read out on the wireless took me back to January 2003 when it first happened. I almost forgot about the gout. Almost! 

Bluebottles, and not the good, Peter Sellers one!

As a vegetarian I am against the killing of animals, on a purely moral (and Process) basis. However..................................

I do make an exception with regards to bluebottles. In fact, I actively encourage their slaughter. All ages should hunt them down and torture them slowly.

Why do I hate them so! I'm ashamed to say it's because they buzz randomly. They don't even try to make it to the open window I've gone to the trouble to open for them to escape through. Instead they make a dash for my ear, much to my extreme annoyance, and then zig-zag around the room in a victory roll, feeling good that they've managed to momentarily justify their pathetic existences. Which they haven't!

I recall spending a good half hour in an hermetically sealed kitchen with tea towel and a red mist in front of my eyes. The eventual slaughter was slow and deliberate. I wanted to look it straight in its 800 eyes as I crushed it beneath a sheet of kitchen roll.

Anyway. In summary, eating animals is bad, but killing bluebottles is perfectly acceptable.  

The General Disassembly of the Presbyterian Church

As I type the opening night of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland's General Assembly has been and gone, and I didn't. No change there then! One of these days I may make it along but not while I can still get out of an armchair under my own steam.

Years ago, the General Assembly was big news, taking up manys a column inch in the local papers. The Tuesday Communion would take place in May Street Church and then the Assembly members would process up to Church House, stopping traffic as they made their holy pilgrimage. The Assembly itself would be packed to the gills and each Congregation would expect their Minister to represent them during the weeks business.

But those days are well and truly gone. These days, the General Assembly is a grey affair and is usually half filled at best. It rarely makes the papers unless it debates something controversial - for 'controversial' please read 'something that normal society dealt with and got over 30 years ago'.

The sad truth is that the Presbyterian Church (as are other denominations and traditions) is becoming less and less relevant. I know that's a trite, cliched phrase, but it's true, and has been true for a number of years. 

So what's the solution? No easy answers I'm afraid. The only answer I can see is through faith, providing we understand faith as being traveling forward rather than clinging on to old ways of understanding. But that's a painful road to follow because there's comfort and security in maintaining what was, even if it's in terminal decline. I love the Woody Allen line, "We've come to  a crossroads in life. One direction leads to hopeless despair, the other to annihilation. We can only pray for God's guidance" (or something like that). 

It's not going to be easy but we, as a denomination, may need to go in altogether new and exciting ways if we're to survive. Otherwise it'll be like being the owner of a sick goldfish - all you can do is watch helplessly and wait for the inevitable.