Dear Sam,
You wrote 26/3 12:51 -0000:
'As far as I'm aware Anglicanism is the only branch of Christianity which
makes Reason into an equivalent authority with scripture and tradition
(church).'
Maybe you should study the Protestant branch of Christianity a bit more. I
am no theologian (I should ask my father, who is) and I don't know if they
officially state 'Reason' as a source of authority. Among the more liberal
Protestants the original Protestant position that scripture is the only
source of authority is very much softened by re-interpretations of the Bible
in the light of modern values and scientific insights however.
My branch of Quakers trusts primarily in direct revelation that reaches us
from beyond human effort and comprehension, so also from beyond reason.
Scripture and tradition are seen as indirect sources of revealed value
('Truth'): usefull to test and practise discerning revealed value, but a
primary source of authority themselves.
'Radical' has for me this same meaning of 'returning to the roots' as it has
for you. I used to vote on the 'Political Party of Radicals', until it fused
with the 'Evangelical Peoples Party', the 'Pacifist Socialist Party' and the
'Communist Party of the Netherlands' into 'Green Left'. This was a split off
from what was as the time the biggest Christian party in the Netherlands,
the 'Catholic Peoples Party', which has meanwhile fused with 2 other
Christian parties into the 'Christian Democratic Appeal'. The P.P.R. wanted
to return to the prophetic roots of Christianity, its criticism of the
status quo which Mt 13.12 describes.
'Radical new ideas' may seem an odd combination of words, but it is not in
this context.
For me it being 'prejudiced in favor of any reasonable alternative' that
makes me choose to use 'radical' in its original sense. Funny that you do
the same with your conservative bias...
I'm fine with your interpretation of 'doctrine' ... if you agree that that
was its meaning until 800 years ago and is not its usual meaning nowadays.
I agree that historically churches may have been justified in giving
preserving social quality priority over developing intellectual quality and
allowing society to degenerate. Do you agree that preserving society is no
task of religion any more in our (Western) society and that its priorities
therefore should again be prophetical criticism of the status quo?
I do think a church can exist that doesn't say 'this is the truth' but
merely 'this is the path to Truth/Meaning, this is what we have found and
this is how our lives testify to that. Experience its value for yourself.'
Quakers do qualify (imperfectly of course, we are only human). To warn
ourselves against stating absolute truths, we often preface our texts that
could be misunderstood as such with the quotation from an 1656 epistle from
a meeting of elders to Quakers in the north of Britain: 'these things we do
not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by, but that all, with the
measure of light which is pure and holy, may be guided; and so in the light
walking and abiding, these may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not from the
letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.'
You asked me to 'unpack' my: 'science might be better understood as
explaining experience and describing a ... "reality" behind it than as
merely describing it'.
Science intends to describe 'reality', not experience. A postulated
'reality' is supposed to explain experience. Of course science also
describes experience (e.g. results of scientific experiments) in order to be
able to test the 'fit' of the 'reality' it postulates with this description
of experience. This 'fit' of 'reality' with experience is experienced as
being of higher quality if the description of 'reality' is relatively simple
compared to the diversity of experimental or spontaneous experience that can
be 'explained' with it. This experience of 'fit' is what we call 'truth'.
In other words: Describing experience in science is only a means. Its end is
convincing people of the 'truth' of the 'reality' science describes.
I'm alright with describing religious belief as something abstracted from
trust/faith in 'some pattern at a higher level than intellect'. It is then
an intellectual way of grasping something that is beyond intellect (closer
to DQ). As long as it is understood as only a 'pointer to the moon' that is
fundamentally unable to show us the moon itself, that is alright with me.
Religious belief may not be a matter of personal opinion, but it IS a matter
of personal experience of DQ/Meaning/Truth. The correspondence of religious
belief to DQ-'reality' can't be tested by intellect. A church trying to lay
down 'the moon' in doctrines, even if it calls them provisional, is doing
something immoral according to my MoQ.
I defined religion as pursuit of re-experiencing DQ. You said 'liberals
might describe it as about an authentic life' you 'would say that it is
about becoming who you are'.
What about describing religion as going back to your roots, to DQ, as being
'radical' in that original sense, as loosening up static patterns of values
(recognizing our need for them) to create more room for DQ?
It seems to me such definitions can all be quite easily integrated.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:09 BST