Hi Wim,
Hope you had a good holiday, good to "see" you back.
Back to the religion thread (your comments preceded by >>).
>>We even may have comparable problems with making Reason into a moral
authority. Whether Anglicanism is original in doing so or not doesn't seem
a
very worthwhile type of dispute to me.
This isn't the forum to pursue it, but to me it seems almost the MOST
worthwhile type of dispute. (It's the subject of the book I'm taking a year
out from work in order to write!). Briefly, if reason was made into a moral
authority by the Anglican church (Hooker) then it made it conceivable in a
secular context (Locke) and therefore (condensing rapidly) you allow for
Enlightenment thinking and Modernism etc etc.
>>You agree that preserving society is no task of religion any more in our
(Western) society, but hesitate about making prophetical criticism of the
status quo its priority. What is for you the difference between prophetic
critique being the fruit of religious development and it being religion's
raison d'être? One knows a tree from its fruits, not? What else would be
religion's raison d'être? Are you sure your raison d'être for religion
can't be 'quite easily integrated' with mine just like our definitions of
religion...?
The language of 'religion' is itself suspect, and of comparatively recent
development (17-18th C). I would say that the centre of a faithful life is
worship and communion with God - all else flows from that. (which is why in
the NT we are enjoined to love God before we are enjoined to love our
neighbour - and indeed the OT prophets have a similar outlook, as you might
expect.) To my mind, if your heart is turned towards the love of God then
that itself *enables* you to see the world aright, which gives rise to the
prophetic critique. To make the prophetic critique the raison d'etre is to
elevate a part into the whole. (Which, in a sense, was what Marx did).
>>If preserving (our) society is no task of religion any more....
I know I said something to that effect, but I now have more doubts!
>> ....wouldn't a
logical conclusion be that religion's social relevance then must be to
change society (to the better, of course)?
I would agree that "religion's social relevance" is to "change society" -
but I do not believe that this exhausts the nature of religion.
Actually, while I write this, let us abandon the word religion and simply
use the word Christianity. So I would say that "Christianity's social
relevance is to change society", or, to be more specific I would say that
it
is the role of the institutional church to be the 'leaven in the bread' and
to progressively incarnate the Kingdom of God in the world, thereby
bringing
humanity to salvation. :-) (not often I get to come out with traditional
language in this forum!!)
>>Would you also agree with the following statements:
- The static aspects of religion are less relevant today then its Dynamic
aspects.
I disagree with this statement. What counts as a static or dynamic aspect
of
Christianity depends entirely upon the spiritual development of the person
making the judgement. A static aspect might be radically dynamic to someone
who hasn't gone as far along the Way.
>> - The static aspects of religion refer to its self-preservation (if it
has
no task in preserving society any more), its Dynamic aspects refer to the
Dynamic of its own development and (to the extent that it is still
relevant in modern society) to its role in social progress.
I don't agree with this either. I think it is too society focussed; there
are static aspects of religion that are not germane to the question of
societal development or otherwise. Christianity is dynamic in so far as it
brings people closer to God; those static parts of its structure, accreted
from previous dynamism, are more or less healthy by the same criteria.
>> - To be relevant to social progress religion must rely on its Dynamic,
i.e. prophetic, roots.
I disagree with the equation between dynamic and prophetic. Jesus drew on a
prophetic tradition, from Elijah and Elisha all the way through to John the
Baptist - and those were 'static' forms. Those static forms - still
available to us - are still relevant to social progress today. Eg Hosea 4,
one of my perennial favourites.
>> - To be more relevant to social progress, religion must limit its static
aspects to the minimum needed for survival, maximizing thereby its
potential role as a medium for DQ.
Not sure I would agree that relevance to social progress should be the
over-riding aim of Christianity. I think there is a confusion embedded here
between DQ and quality itself, in that you seem to be equating the two,
whereas I would very much want to argue that there is quality in both the
static and dynamic aspects. And it is quality that we seek, not simply
dynamic quality (think of the quality of latching).
>> You wrote 24/11 12:03 -0000 that according to you there are static and
Dynamic aspects in both 'priest' and 'prophet'. Could you give examples of
the Dynamic aspects of priesthood and of the static aspects of prophecy?
I think I've covered the latter above, but with regard to the former, two
examples immediately spring to mind, which are (inevitably) associated with
"word" and "sacrament" - teaching the faith, so that whereas previously
there was darkness, now there is light; and the eucharist, which for
centuries was the primary means of communion with God (and still for most
Christians outside the secular west). Both these things can facilitate a
dynamic breakthrough in a participant - but both are very much
'established'
and 'static' functions of the priest.
>> I wouldn't say that 'the advance of Quakerism is to have embedded at the
heart of it "we could be wrong"'. Rather that "we have found a path that
leads beyond right/wrong, see the results in our way of life and if these
speak to your condition try it for yourself".
At what age is this said to people? Do you teach two year olds that 'we
have
found a path that leads beyond right/wrong'?
>>What do you think of these quotes from William Penn (Quaker and founder of
Pennsylvania):
'It is not opinion, or speculation, or notions of what is true, or assent
to or the subscription of articles or propositions, though never so soundly
worded, that ... makes a man a true believer or a true Christian. But it
is a conformity of mind and practice to the will of God, in all holiness of
conversation, according to the dictates of this Divine principle of Light
and Life in the soul which denotes a person truly a child of God.' (1692)
One hundred per cent agreement with that. I'd want to include the word
'love' in there somewhere though...
>> and
'The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere
of one religion; and when death has taken off the mask, they will know one
another, though the divers liveries they wear here makes them strangers.'
(1693)
Lots of sympathy with that too. I sometimes say to people when asked about
Jesus' saying 'I am the way the truth etc' (and what about other faiths?)
that I do believe everyone comes to God through Jesus, it's just that they
might not all call him by that name.
>> With friendly greetings,
And to you.
Sam
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 - 16:02:15 BST