Safety for Stages of Faith?
Something I’m finding frustrating about the church right now is that it doesn’t allow for change… neither institutional or personal. But that is always the problem with change. For instance: the church might talk about change, but doesn’t admit the impossibility of doing it. I might talk about personal change, but won’t recognize the impossibility of doing it.
That’s the problem with change: who is the changer, and who is the changed? When I say to myself: I’m going to change myself! I have to recognize how impossible a statement that is. Who is the “self” that I say I’m going to change? And who is the “I” that says he is going to change the self? They are, indeed, one and the same. Which leads me to conclude that in the end what we are masters at is modification, not true change or transformation.
I have lots of friends who’ve left the church because when change has come upon them, they feel they no longer fit. Even though the church preaches change, it really doesn’t allow for it. Because the first step to change is death, death to the self. Which means doubts and questions. And the church, as we all know, is extremely uncomfortable with doubts and questions. So vamoose! They’re gone. If only they’d renovated themselves, for the church loves modification because the person most often modifies to compromise to expectations and values of the church.
Even though we might not agree completely with James W. Fowler’s Stages of Faith, let’s take a look at one of his attempts to describe Stage 5 level of faith:
Stage 5 accepts as axiomatic that truth is more multidimensional and organically interdependent that most theories or accounts of truth can grasp. Religiously, it knows that the symbols, stories, doctrines and liturgies offered by its own traditions are inevitably partial, limited to a particular people’s experience of God and incomplete. Stage 5 also sees, however, that the relativity of religious traditions that matters is not their relativity to each other, but their relativity– their relate-ivity– to the reality to which they mediate relation. Conjunctive faith, therefore, is ready for significant encounters with others traditions than its own, expecting that truth has disclosed itself in those traditions in ways that may complement or correct its own.
How can someone, say, develop from Stage 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, or 4 to 5, in an evangelical, conservative, or fundamentalist church? It is nearly impossible! I have lots of friends who have come to some kind of a perception of the previous quote, and the church is unable or unwilling to provide a safe place for such people. They feel like they no longer belong and must move on. Some even understand themselves as backsliders and they have no choice but to live out their own curse with integrity. That’s been my observation anyway.
If you liked this post, or would like to use it, please buy me a beer!
I think that change of self is possible, and perhaps that means leaving something behind!
My change from Agnostic, nearly atheist to Christian, meant leaving a whole aspect of my ’self’ behind, laying it aside and accepting the ’self’ that God wills me to have.
Selfishness was one single aspect of that self, that went in the bin, the change in outlook that this brings, when actually thinking and believing in and loving others, more than yourself becomes key.
The change in relationships was evident to others, much more than to myself, it was remarked on and allowed me to articulate to them and to myself how the change had come about and what it meant for my life and everything else.
A lifetimes work vocation also went out the window, and I am now following a pretty strong call to do more. I am sure it will need more change in self but knowing and accepting that appears to me to be the solution.
It is wonderful to wake each day, expecting and doing something new and different. I have learned so much and grown so much. I suppose I am still on the high, and the down might come? But while I feel Gods love around me and working in me, what other choice do I have but to live the joy of change.
I never went through those stages at all. I always was at stage 5. I think that was probably the case for quite a few of the people I studied Religious Studies with at Lancaster. That’s why I’ve never fitted in. I’m t hinking I’m at stage 6 now though.
From Jan Hus to the Reformation to the Methodist movement to the Jesus People…the Church is always changing. We don’t always recognize it happening…sometimes we see after the fact: “Hey! This changed!”
Just like I don’t see my kids growing, but my parents see the growth because they see them so rarely.
We’ll have people visit our church that haven’t stepped into a church in years–and the change shocks them. We also have incremental change that is hard for me to notice–but people tell me about it.
And then there are people in the church–some changing all the time, but they’re still there.
To say that the church doesn’t “allow for” change smacks of blindness to me…
You’re 100% right. The changes the church allows aren’t the type of changes you have been talking about. And the church discourages the practices that will bring about the change. How many ministers speak out against meditation? It leaves an opening for the devil, they say. When people go into the questioning stage, they are often given inadequate answers…when they begin to enter a realization of the unity of all things, they are told to stop the new age crap. Even the pentacostal/charismatic people are taught from a theological/mental viewpoint. There is no room for the mystical experience which transcends theology. Ministers in general, are not taught to go beyond the written word…God is not an experience but an intellectual pursuit. The only way to know God is to experience God and no matter how inspired scripture is, you can’t have a relationship with a book. When people reach this stage, of course they feel they’re backslidden because their perspective is changed radically and what is happening doesn’t fit anything they’ve been taught. David, this is why you are so vital to those who are out on a limb…you aren’t going to look at them as if they had a diamond shaped hole in the middle of their forehead…you’re going to say welcome fellow pilgrim…lets pursue the kingdom together in our own unique style.
While not agreeing 100% with Fowler, I think his description of the process of faith development is quite helpful. Where I have found it particularly helpful as a pastor is when someone has wandered into stage 4 and has no idea what is happening to them. The relief that they feel when they are given permission to ask questions and redefine beliefs and practices is amazing to watch. They thought they were alone in the journey but found that many before have experienced the same things.
I’m not familiar with Fowler’s stages, but think the idea of transformation is potentially a Western myth. We think we have to get somewhere, become something, perfect ourselves, etc.
The main goal of the a spiritual master is simply to point out the insanity and illusions people live by. But it’s not necessarily about changing people, right? Just the opposite, really. They don’t tell us we need to do anything – just that we have the ability to “see” differently. And the only way to do that is through love and acceptance. Not that wanting things to change is bad. It’s just that we can’t change anything until we genuinely accept things as they are.
It’s like the Zen saying:
Before I grasped Zen, the mountains were nothing but mountains and the rivers nothing but rivers. When I got into Zen, the mountains were no longer mountains and the rivers no longer rivers. But when I understood Zen, the mountains were only mountains and the river only rivers.
A few years back if someone had called me a universalist or a “Zen/New Age Christian” I would have been highly offended, but today I find myself hovering somewhere between stages five and six most of the time. Never, ever, ever would I have predicted that the me I am now is the me I would become. And I’m sure that twenty years from now, if I am still here, I will be even more amazed at the transformative powers of the Spirit (in myself, in those around me, in the collective church, etc.)
preacherlady, I think everything you’ve said is a generalization.
“Some even understand themselves as backsliders and they have no choice but to live out their own curse with integrity.”
Ouch, that’s tough!
[...] Does the church allow for change? [...]
This is one of your best posts!
Let me get this, David.
YOU: For instance: the church might talk about change, but doesn’t admit the impossibility of doing it.
——…impossibility of doing it [change]. But you stated::::Something I’m finding frustrating about the church right now is that it doesn’t allow for change
————I am sooooo confused. It seems as if you are saying that you are frustrated with the church not allowing for change—–and yet say it is impossible to do it [change].
If that is what you are saying, then no wonder….
If that is NOT what you are saying, I apologize for reading it incorrectly and making the statement: “then no wonder.”
fishon
Everything on this blog is a generalization. We could call this blog nakedgeneralization.com.
Everything on this blog is a generalization. We could call this blog nakedgeneralization.com.
I’d say that’s a good thing! Generalists tend to have a much better view of “the big picture” than those who specialize.
Now that’s just silly enough to win some sort of Halfwit Award.
But I think you should stick to your guns, arulba. The next generation will make the same silly generalizations about you that you make about your predecessors.
Then we shall all laugh.
The problem with generalizations is that they label and limit. They don’t allow for change…
…wait, isn’t that where we started?
I’m not joking dissidens.
Specialization is all well and good, but we still need generalists. We’re having issues in the medical industry because there are too many specialists and not enough general practitioners. Christianity is falling apart because churches have become overly specialized and geared for people of a specific mindset. We’ve allowed ourselves to become human economicus and no longer really know what it means to be human beings because our interests have become overly specialized. Deductive reasoning has taken precedence over inductive reasoning – but one relies firmly upon the other…
Just curious – what silly generalizations do I make about my predecessors? And is this assumption based upon inductive or deductive reasoning?
We’re all just looking in mirrors. You point the finger at me and you might as well be pointing it at yourself. That’s how it goes.
ARULBA SAID: Christianity is falling apart because churches have become overly specialized and geared for people of a specific mindset.
——–Falling apart. arulba, that is a wayyyyyy generalization that is just not true. Some churches may be falling apart, but Christianity, NOT. Christianity is stronger than it has been in centuries. And the “gates of hell will not prevail” against it. Someone who was quite specific {If you love me, you WILL….} and specialized {He came to seek and save that….} said that.
fishon
OK fishon –
Please forgive me. I mispoke.
By falling apart – I meant that denominations within Christianity are in complete cahoots. Liberal denominations have become more liberal and the conservative denominations have become more conservative. Rarely do you find congregations where both reside in peace together.
Generalize –
transitive verb
1 : to give a general form to
2 a : to derive or induce (a general conception or principle) from particulars b : to draw a general conclusion from
3 : to give general applicability to ; also : to make indefinite
We have a tendency to want to make things definite because we want to be like like the gods. But we humans are human. We aren’t gods. We are subject to the indefinite, not matter how definite we want things to be.
That’s just how it goes.
I’m one of those people who reluctantly moved along from the church I was in. I so enjoyed the little discussion group, but realized how uncomfortable and unacceptable it seemed to be to disagree with their doctrine. I really liked the people, but although they were “nice” I knew they saw me as someone really messed up in their thinking. It hurt because I saw us on equal ground and felt disrespected. It was just assumed I was in the wrong. It was a sad thing for me. But I have come to respect myself much more than I used to, so I moved along.
It’s funny how church is supposed to be so welcoming to one and all, but it’s really actually about clinging to their doctrine. You are accepted if you go with their doctrine. If not, you are unaccepted and prayed for, I guess.
Well expressed Lynn, that’s the problem I’m having. That feeling of being condescended to when you don’t agree with the party line. Just knowing that people are praying for you with a view of you as misled by Satan or whatever. I haven’t been going to one of my church groups recently because I’ve not felt like being with people, following a particular loss. I had a very kind email that happened to suggest, in the nicest possible way, that Satan was keeping me away. I don’t even believe in Satan, to be honest, but if I come out and say that it’s going to get me into a theological argument with people who aren’t very theologically minded. Also, I just might blow my top. I just can’t live in this world of theirs where I’m expected to believe six impossible things before breakfast. For example, one of my church leaders insisted that early Christian preachers had their heads cut off and still carried on preaching. And no arguments on here about the existence of Satan, please – I’m still getting over a migraine.
Oh, I like what you said about change in general also. I’ve tried for years to change basic things about my personality plus the usual stuff like becoming self-disciplined to be a better housekeeper or exercise regularly or stay on my diet. It’s been a long series of failures.
I think you do have to begin with accepting who you are naturally and thinking you are okay in that state although you would like to do a little differently in some areas. Then at that point, you are working with yourself as a friend who likes yourself rather than feeling frustrated and disgusted because you are as you are. A very different position.
Tiggy,
Yes, yes, yes! My same feeling. Staying in a church like that is possible only if you never reveal your true thoughts. You just keep going, sitting there nodding your head and being polite. You know if you said what you really think, people wouldn’t like you, would see you as a troublemaker or someone against God. It does hurt.
I’ve had enough of being around people who I can’t be myself with. If I have to accept them as they are, why can’t they accept me as I am? Maybe, just maybe, THEY could be wrong about some things.
How would they feel if I said “Well, I’ll pray for you to get your thinking right about this.” How insulting! I’d never say that to anyone because I’m too polite.
And I think that stage 5 of faith would be considered apostacy by many, not an acceptable thing. Sorry to go on a rant. I enjoy your site.
And one more thing to be upfront. I was always a Christian but am now agnostic.
I enjoy your comments Lynn. Thanks!
i wonder how this relates to our conceptions of bonhoeffer’s “religionless christianity”?
Re. “Well, I’ll pray for you to get your thinking right about this.”
Yes, I have to say, anyone who comes out with that line is a c**t in my estimation
Where are you from Lynn?
david, another thought provoking post…thanks!
is it possible that we’ve been taught that we don’t have the ability to change when it’s less about ability than it is about desire? we make choices to stay in a place of perceived comfort even when those choices are not in our best interest – individually and collectively. i think the human drive for comfort is strong enough to cancel itself out. it encourages us to make decisions that actually, in the long-run, limit our comfort. it’s what keeps us from trying new things, from exploring different ideas, from reaching beyond what we know to what might be better. the church institutional is just reflecting that drive, in my opinion. having a book that tells us “this is all you need to know” is very comforting for some. i remember a book my father wrote that started out with that as a premise. his words were something like, “A gracious God tells us exactly what he expects.” referring to the bible. that’s all you need to know so stop looking elsewhere. to me, that makes God rather small.
I completely agree with Ernest’s comment, which I could have written myself word-for-word.
Lynn said: It’s funny how church is supposed to be so welcoming to one and all, but it’s really actually about clinging to their doctrine. You are accepted if you go with their doctrine. If not, you are unaccepted and prayed for, I guess.
Another generalization–based on your experience I suppose. My church is part of a denomination that has some pretty specific doctrinal statements. I doubt the average person in our church even knows that set of statements exists. That’s probably true of many churches…
Well you’re generalising as well. It’s not really anything to do with written statements of doctrine, but with conformity. My experiences in many churches has been the same as Lynn’s. If you don’t use the right language or go along with the theology that’s taught there, then you are considered dubious. It’s the same with most groups, but with the added problem that with a church, they get to demonise you in a rather more literal way and it’s the whole of your being that’s called into question because it’s seen to relate to your relationship with God.
Fred,
You’re right that I shouldn’t act like I know how all churches behave. I haven’t experienced all churches. But I think Tiggy makes a good point. I think alot of church-goers don’t pay much attention to doctrinal statements. They attend because their relatives go there or they fit in well with the people, whatever. It’s socially comfortable.
I can actually understand why churches wouldn’t want those around speaking against their doctrine-which they hold as the absolute truth of God. It still hurts a little to know that you’re not really valued as a person. Doctrine tops that. Doctrine is more important than the relationship with you. Like I said, I understand it, but it hurts.
I might be somewhat comfortable at a more liberal church if I liked the people and they seemed to like me. Maybe in that setting I could more easily just enjoy the fellowship with others and not have strict doctrine so emphasized. I don’t know.
Tiggy, by the way, I’m originally from North Carolina.
I guess the really offensive part is the two divisions of people they see in their mind. You are either Christian (of the elect if your Calvinist) or you are part of the damned-and rightly so. It’s depressing!
I guess if one goes to church and just ignores the theology, then that’s okay, but if you have someone suggesting that Satan is influencing your life in some way, and you want to stand up and say, ‘I don’t actually believe in this being you think is influencing my life, then you are immediately considered a heretic or an unbeliever or even socially unacceptable in a not so subtle, yet unarticulated way. Yep, had that happen.
Yes, a nd there are proper Christians and improper Christians, proper churches and improper ones. A lady at my church went to Malta and informed us that there were only two proper churches there because the rest were Catholic. That isn’t the view of my church as far as I know, but there’s a certain elitism goes on. If you don’t do things the way we do, then you’re not really in a relationship with God like we are – you’re just going t hrough the motions. We’re where it’s at spiritually.
Tiggy,
Yeah, I can just imagine how well that would go over if you announced you don’t believe in the devil. You would no longer be one of the group, that’s for sure. That’s why I keep imagining a group somewhere where people don’t get all defensvie and offended if your beliefs are different. Maybe no such group exists. It sounds nice though. Actually maybe nakedpastor tries to be accepting and open much more so than most churches. It sounds nice. At least it would be real. People could go and say this is who I am and this is what I openly believe. You wouldn’t have to be a hypocrite to be accepted.
If people could just be there for each other and not worry so much who’s right and who’s wrong, etc.
This is such an interesting discussion. I’m re-entering the Christian community, after a long sabbatical. I’m a little hesitant to say much about this because I’ve only been going back to church for a little over a month after being away from it for 10 years. I have no idea what stage I’d be at. But I can relate to all of them. (I just looked them up so only have a shallow overview).
After we left Christianity, we went the UU route which didn’t really work for us because it felt too much like a liberal slant on exactly what we were having issues with from the conservative side. We had already been dabbling in Buddhism and ACIM for quite some time which deepened our Christian understanding more than anything. I left the church simply because I needed to step away from doctrinal belief systems for a while. I was too attached to them to remain in the church and gain an objective perspective – which I was desperately seeking back then.
These days, for me, belief in God is far less important than the experience of God. And I could care less what people call it. God, not God. I don’t think Christianity even really demands the actuality of Jesus. So why am I returning to the Christian community? I don’t have a good answer. I’m just strangely drawn to it, but from a non-dual perspective this go-round.
What’s really weird is that I am experiencing it completely differently now than how I experienced it before I left. I think maybe I’ve forgiven it, and so I likewise experience that forgiveness? I don’t know. Once upon a time, I would have been horribly offended at the thought of a group of people praying for me to be led back on the “correct path”, but now it seems kind of like a warm fuzzy. I can’t exactly describe what it is I feel. It’s still quite new to me. But I don’t get offended anymore. It’s a completely different feeling than offense.
But I suppose it’s probably impossible to not feel offended when we’re transitioning between stages because we are being pulled from both directions. I suppose you have to lose the attachment to the ideas held within the previous stages before you can let what those think within it not bother you anymore. That took me forever – years and years and years. And I’m still discovering stuff that needs to be let go.
I used to crave that transformative moment when everything made sense. But now I don’t really need things to make sense so everything feels more like a process and unfolding than a transformation.
Tiggy said, on November 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I guess if one goes to church and just ignores the theology, then that’s okay, but if you have someone suggesting that Satan is influencing your life in some way, and you want to stand up and say, ‘I don’t actually believe in this being you think is influencing my life, then you are immediately considered a heretic or an unbeliever or even socially unacceptable in a not so subtle, yet unarticulated way. Yep, had that happen.
—————-tiggy, I won’t consider you a heretic or an unbeliever, or even socially unacceptable————-I would just tell you you were wrong. So, tell me, can you handle someone telling you you are wrong, but still treats you with respect?
fishon
David,
Aren’t you going to answer my very legitamate question?
fishon
fishon: i’ve said this before, but i’ll say it again… i seriously question whether change is incremental… that we slowly over time adjust ourselves and perform any real change or transformation. i have come to conclude that true change is akin to death and resurrection… we die to self, completely, utterly. that is where real change occurs. transformation. behold!-new-creature kind of change!
and that is why it is impossible! but it must be done! it is urgent.
Just lost my whole post!
I guess I might say back that you’re wrong, Fishy, but maybe not because it doesn’t bother me that much. It would be interesting to trace the development of the idea of Satan, Lucifer, The Devil. I did that with the idea of Hell and found that what we think of when the word ‘Hell’ is used (and was adopted by the church to scare people into obedience) was taken from a vision by someone in the 4th century.
I’m confused, who’s saying ‘that is why it is impossible! but it must be done! it is urgent.’? Is that David or Fishon speaking? ‘It’s impossible, but it must be done’. Well that’s enough to screw people up!
Ernest – I liked your post very much.
Tiggy said, on November 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I’m confused, who’s saying ‘that is why it is impossible! but it must be done! it is urgent.’? Is that David or Fishon speaking? ‘It’s impossible, but it must be done’. Well that’s enough to screw people up!
—————That would be David, Tiggy.
————–Hey, Tiggy, I can handle you telling me I am wrong—and it wouldn’t be a problem if you were a part of the congregation I pastor. I get told that at least once a month–and more than that by my wife.
————- I would be interested in knowing what you studied to come to the conclusion about hell.
I have never read a book on hell, for or against, just the Bible, and from the Bible is where I draw my conclusions.
fishon
The Bible and Writings from the Early Church – also looked at church imagery and the influence of Dante on people’s image of Hell. I’m talking about this idea of Hell as a fiery pit where you get buggered by demons or prodded into ovens with a toasting fork, all of which the church encouraged people to believe.
Tiggy said, on November 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
The Bible and Writings from the Early Church – also looked at church imagery and the influence of Dante on people’s image of Hell. I’m talking about this idea of Hell as a fiery pit where you get buggered by demons or prodded into ovens with a toasting fork, all of which the church encouraged people to believe.
————Tiggy, I wonder if the church really depicts hell like that, or is it more about what the art world has depicted hell as? Admittedly, my exposure to what the church teaches about hell is limited, that is, I have only attended a few churches in my life, and I have never heard hell depicted as the arts have shown it to be.
I got to tell you, I have never, never heard a teaching or sermon where the demons were depicted as using toasting forks. Now I have seen cartoons, and saw a lot of art doing that, but like I said, no church teaching.
fishon
In an age of illiteracy, most of history for the majority of people, church teaching was through preaching and pictures in churches. Peopple didn’t have the Bible to read for themselves. Pictures in churches depicted Hell this way and sermons described it in similar, if slightly less graphic, ways. I’m not simply talking about what the church teaches in the 21st century, but what it has taught throughout history. As far as I know, the Anglican church has tried to distance itself from that sort of imagery and concept in recent doctrinal statements. I don’t know about other churches.
Here’s an interesting article I came across about “Heaven” and “Hell,” and how some interpret them.
http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html
Thanks TTM, some new stuff in there. From what I’ve read, the Anglican church’s recent statements are similar to those of the Orthodox Church.
Will read it more closely tomorrow as going to bed now – sore eyes from too much proofreading.
Night all x
David, I completely misinterpreted your meaning. I was reading your post like a Zen Koan.
You are challenging the idea that change is incremental. I get that. But your assumption is that we do indeed “change”? If we die and are resurrected, we are changed? Transformed?
We die to self – completely, utterly. OK. But then we are transformed into what? A different being?
I feel like I’ve had transformational moments in my life – one in particular where I felt all of the fetters had been released. In a sense I died to myself. There’s absolutely no way I could go back to my old perceptions. Backsliding wasn’t even an option. My perception had unequivocally changed. But alas, I had not. I was still me with the same old pesky patterns.
Maybe some people are eternally saved by one transformational moment. I don’t know. Occasionally you here of transformational stories: Eckhart Tolle, Byron Katie, etc. But they don’t express it as change or transformation. They express it as awareness.
The only positive changes I’ve experienced have been through feeling and being and knowing I was accepted. That has been a healing change. Apart from that sort of change, I don’t think I need to change much. I think I’m supposed to not quite fit in in the world in order to challenge it.
Tiggy – “Well you’re generalising as well. It’s not really anything to do with written statements of doctrine, but with conformity. My experiences in many churches has been the same as Lynn’s. If you don’t use the right language or go along with the theology that’s taught there, then you are considered dubious. It’s the same with most groups, but with the added problem that with a church, they get to demonise you in a rather more literal way and it’s the whole of your being that’s called into question because it’s seen to relate to your relationship with God.”
Nope. My present experience is the opposite of that. Sorry that I don’t conform to your generalization. Hope you don’t demonize me for it.
Fred,
I’m truly glad you are having a positive experience in your church. Do you think it’s because of the denomination or the people?
If you said “I’m not sure I believe any of this stuff anymore” would you be asked to explain further and get some true respect and empathy or interest? OR would you be politely reminded (with a smile) about church discipline, finding a place more in line with your beliefs, told to pray that the Holy Spirit would help you understand the Bible, and given an apologetics book to read? Would you be told (with a smile) that if you stop coming to church that the devil will have you?
The above happened to me. I have no hard feelings against the people, and I do know they wish me well and probably miss me at least a tiny bit. But they also probably think “the devil has me.” That makes me feel lousy.
Any thoughts?
Fred, I never assumed that your experience did conform to my generalisation. We are all generalising. I am talking about churches I’ve experienced and you are talking about churches or a church that you’ve experienced. There’s not really any other way to do it.
What do you mean by ‘the opposite of that’?
Lynn,
There is a lot wrong with churches. It is by no means perfect. It is, however, where someone feels safe to come after being told that she was no longer welcome in her previous church having become pregnant out of wedlock. I also know that there are quite a few coming that don’t hold to “orthodox Christian beliefs.” I know there are a great many that would disagree with many of our beliefs.
We have only rarely seen the exercise of “church discipline” and I believe that in none of those cases was it about what “people believed.”
Is it the denomination or the people? It’s absolutely the people. I think we’re really not the norm in the denomination. The denomination is a good place for us to be right now, but we don’t exactly “toe the line.” I’m quite confident too that most people in our church aren’t aware of our denomination’s “Statement of Fundamental Truths” or whatever, and that doesn’t really bother me.
Tiggy,
What do I mean by “the opposite of that”? I mean that in my church people are not demonized because they believe differently. We’ve had a few attending fairly regularly who question a lot of what “they grew up believing.” We have people from agnostic or atheist backgrounds who come regularly to enjoy the service but don’t conform to “what we believe.” Sometimes I wonder why they come, but they’re certainly welcome.
Fred,
Your church sounds very nice. There should be more like it.
Mm, do you not think your church is unusual though? I find some higher Anglican churches here are like t hat, but I’ve grown up in ‘low’ Anglican churches that became increasingly Evangelical in their theology as time went on and there wasn’t the same freedom to think and question and explore. For me, it mirrored the culture of the time, as it went from ’70s emphasis on community and freedomto explore, to ’80s emphasis on power and certainty – akin to the ‘conviction’ politics of Thatcher. Also increased individualism.
Well, our church is quite “evangelical” but I think a couple of things characterize our church:
1) An awareness that we can’t “make someone else believe something.”
2) An unhappiness for many with previous church experience–people with a fair amount of pain and baggage, and with that an understanding that acceptance is more important than conformity.
Certainly in the leadership of the church there is some pretty orthodox agreement, but attendance, involvement, and even belonging are not predicated on affirming certain beliefs–not even belief in the existence of God.
Cool. Maybe it’s starting to become more common, but I still think it’s unusual among Evangelical churches.
I get nervous at my church because it’s a one of a kind sort of place, not part of a denomination, though it does have working links with some other churches. I don’t know if I’m going to get squashed or not and it may depend on the individual I’m talking to. I haven’t been for a few weeks because I’ve had some stress and I didn’t feel I could cope with any conflict there might be between what I believe and what people there believe – though I’m sure that isn’t homogenous – and didn’t want to feel any subsequent alienation. I went to my ‘Discipleship Group’ for the first time in weeks and managed to get into an argument about Israel and Palestine, which I was far too stressed to articulate. There’s a lot I really love about my church, but I’m still fearful of being perceived negatively; probably because of past experiences.
Very interesting discussion. I’ve concluded the more conservative churches are big on correct doctrine. The more liberal churches focus more on people and their problems and a loving God. You can certainly come up with both approaches by using the Bible. Just avoid those parts of the Bible that don’t mesh with your approach.
I actually asked in my very small caregroup-”Has the church ever taken a survey of what people actually believe?” He said (and he is an elder) that he wouldn’t really need to know that. That said to me “We have no interest in what you in particular believe. We are interested in our official beliefs and think they are the truth.” Well, I guess that was fine, but it left me wondering why in the heck I would keep coming when it wasn’t about me in any way. It was about people towing the line doctrinally and keeping their opinions to themselves.
Since I was going mainly to connect with people and discuss it all, that didn’t work for me. Sure I grew up in it and was very familiar with it all, yet it wasn’t working for me, and no one showed the slightest interest in getting inside my head and respecting my thoughts. That hurt.
I’m not saying they did anything wrong, just that it was a hurtful experience for me and showed me where they were coming from. It all comes back to-you are “in” if you believe what they believe. If you don’t believe what they believe, they don’t want to hear about it.
[...] Stages of Faith Naked Pastor has a great post on the concept of “Faith Stages.” [...]
That’s interesting, Lynn. I am interested in what people believe, and I’m under no illusion that they would/should believe exactly what I believe. Sometimes I avoid asking because I tend to be argumentative, but my argument isn’t necessarily to change someone else’s point of view; sometimes I argue just for the sake of arguing, but others wouldn’t recognize that.
‘my argument isn’t necessarily to change someone else’s point of view; sometimes I argue just for the sake of arguing’
LOL, Fred, you make it sound like that’s more noble!
“Arguing for the sake of arguing” is how I process stuff. There are people I argue with regularly because we would both enjoy the interaction and we might both learn something.
And there are people I won’t argue with because it won’t benefit anyone.
I think that’s more noble than arguing for the sole purpose of changing someone else’s point of view.
Fred,
I understand what you’re saying. Some people are safe-you can just be yourself and have a back and forth. Others are not safe-you know not to mess with them cause you’ll only feel hurt if you do.
Lynn,
Not quite. If I mess with others, there’s a better chance that I’ll hurt them than that they’ll hurt me (at least, when it comes to arguing).
Fred,
Oh, okay. Got it.
[...] Safety for Stages of Faith? [...]