28 – The Strange Dance of Religion and Sexuality

Author: David Boulton. Published March 1997 in issue 28 of Sofia.

Download full issue PDF

Contents

Articles
Reviews
Regulars and Occasionals

Editorial

SHORTLY AFTER THIS LITTLE journal thuds through your letterbox (unless events overtake our editorial process) there will be a General Election which may or may not produce a change of Government, may or may not mark a sea change in the public mood, may or may not place the affairs of society in the hands of those who believe there is such a thing as society.

The long run-up to this blessed day of choice (still blessed, even if the choice is more limited than many of us would wish) has been marked by a serious outbreak of public moralising. Preying on our gullibility, politicians solemnly assure us that they pray. Fixedly-smiling spouses are paraded before photographers to demonstrate a deep commitment to family values.

Ministers whose policies have exacerbated the divisions which lead to violence and lawlessness, and whose relentless arms sales have done far more to destabilise the world than the petty muggers they demonise, seriously blame the rise in violent crime on Tom and Jerry and TV trivia. “God” is back in the political vocabulary, pronounced alike by Old Tory and New Labour with the pious inflexions borrowed from pontiffs and bible-thumpers.

But politicians don’t embrace morality unless they see votes in it, and if they see votes in it that is because they know, as we know, that there is a widespread sense of moral drift, a growing unease about “standards” and “values”, a rumbling revolt against “I” and “me” as against “we” and “us”. Quaint old-fashioned words like “community” and “co-operation” are being “But how do they know?” fetched from the attics where they were dumped in the seventies with Beatles LPs and Mary Quant skirts. The times they are a-changing again, and our prospective legislators don’t want to miss the bandwagon.

It’s the Big Theme of the nineties: How do we construct a moral code which is broadly acceptable to a highly diversified and pluralist society which has ceased to look to preachers and priests for guidance and instruction? On what do we base our ideas of right and wrong, our moral valwes, if not on sacred books and a superhuman lawgiver? Where do we start? What do we tell the children? What do we tell ourselves? They are, of course, the oldest questions in the world; but society rather lost interest in them in the unlovely seven- “God is back in the political vocab- . ulary, pronounced alike by Old Tory and New Labour with the pious inflexions borrowed from pontiffs and bible-thumpers.” ties and eighties, and is having to ask them all over again, with a new urgency.

Such questions lie at the heart of Sea of Faith’s enterprise. “Creating human values” was the theme of last year’s Network conference and, in a different form, will shape our deliberations when we meet again in July. But many other groups, organisations and networks are tackling the same themes, and some are clearly outpacing us, particularly when it comes to practical work rather than Sofist gab-festing. tiative taken last year by Nick Tate, chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

The Authority organised a National Forum for Values in Education and _ the Community which brought together 150 members of the public, representing different viewpoints and disciplines, including the teaching profession, religious groups, teacher training, the media, law, parents, governors, researchers, youth workers and others. Some 62 companies and schools were also consulted.

The 150 were set the task of putting together a statement of spiritual and Piste noteworthy was the ini- moral values “shared by society as a whole”: a “new ten commandments” which would reflect and identify “the prevailing consensus on these matters”. One fundamental rule of the enterprise was that the Forum would focus on “overarching statements of what we stand for”, not on metaphysical argument over whether the sources and authority for such statements and the values they expressed’ were religious or cultural, God-given or created by humanity out of its own experience.

Astonishingly, given the huge diversity of religious, philosophical, political and cultural approaches represented, “a new ten commandments” did emerge from the exercise with only five dissenters in the 150. (These, as one would guess, were all religious conservatives who insisted that the code endorse marriage as the only moral basis for sexual relationships and family life. Inevitably, Education Secretary Gillian Shephard refused to publish it —- though much of it leaked to the press — until the Forum placed “more emphasis on marriage”).

What the Forum demonstrated is that cultural diversity need not prevent 97 per cent of us from reaching at least temporary agreement on rights and wrongs.

Moreover, we don't have to go “back to basics” or retreat to Victorian values to reach a consensus. Nor does the consensus have to be bland and _all-things-to-allwomen. (One commentator dismissed it as “Be nice to yourself, be nice to other people, be nice to trees”.) As the four-part “statement of shared values” [see right] demonstrates, a lot of value can be packed into a code short enough to be engraved on the reverse side of one of Moses’ stone tablets.

Of course, considered judgment of the Forum’s efforts‘must await publication of the full text (Mrs Shephard or her successor permitting). And even if it does get a general thumbs-up, no-one must imagine that the job is done once and for all. Dr Tate would like children to learn by heart the four statements we have boxed, but I would like to add a fifth: We value our right to refuse to recite any declarations of belief without asking questions. And a sixth: We value our right to re-write our statement of values — and we intend to exercise it!

These reservations apart, the Forum has usefully demonstrated that a broad ’ cross-section of humanity — or at least of current British society —- can create human values without relying on the dead letters EDITORIAL “It’s the Big Theme of the nineties:

How do we construct a moral code which is broadly acceptable to a highly diversified and pluralist society which has ceased to look to preachers and priests for guidance and instruction?” of holy scripture and divine authority. We make it up ourselves. We know that’s really how it is, and we’ve probably always known it! And we know that, because what we make up will always reflect and cannot transcend our culture, it will change from time to time and place to place. Creating human values is an ongoing, evolutionary process. Priests and politicians may peddle their ancient and supposedly timeless prescriptions but they no longer convince. Our man-made and woman-made values will not be “absolute” in any metaphysical sense, but they will reflect our deepest convictions, honed by human experience, human imagination, human reason. That’s why for all their uncertainty, all their messiness, they will have a greater authority than anything supposedly imposed on us from Above = “We value...” The Forum proposes that school children learn by heart the following “statement of shared values” in the four areas of self, relationships, society and the environment:

SELF We value each person as a unique being of intrinsic worth, with potential for spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical development and change.

RELATIONSHIPS We value others for themselves, not for what they have or what they can do for us, and we value these relationships as fundamental to our development and the good of the community.

SOCIETY We value truth, human rights, the law, justice and collective endeavour for the common good of society. In particular we value families as sources of love and support for all their members as the basis of a society where people care for others.

Sea of Faith Hobsons Farm Dent Cumbria LA10 5RF POSTBAG My story, my hope I arrived at my second Sea of Faith conference buoyant with enthusiasm and came home deflated. It has taken me a long time to get back on to the waves. Why?

For the first 40 years of my life I was happily settled in Christian church circles, but always a questioner regarding doctrine. John Robinson’s books made me take a step back from church and review the situation. Eventually I withdrew from membership. It was very, very painful but I could not continue with integrity. The complexities, complications and consequences were enormous.

There followed 22 years in a spiritual wilderness unable to find anyone even remotely on my wavelength. Although still in touch with church-going friends.

Limited attendance at church services when I felt strong enough to perform the mental gymnastics we talk about in SoF.

But held by that “love that would not let me go”. Searching, reading, thinking, praying about the future of the church I loved.

A lonely path. Constantly aware of new ideas, I grab information about the book God In Us and read it the day it is published.

At last! Many of the points Anthony Freeman made I have been struggling with for years. I joined the Sea of Faith network.

A network of mainly church people who want to get together to begin to reinterpret the core of Christian belief. Or so I imagined. But at conference and in local groups I do not: find this is an option. Members seem to enjoy the debate and are on their personal pilgrimages. Am I wrong? I hope so. Do we really want to witness the “melancholy, long withdrawing roar” of our beloved churches which have been emptying out in my lifetime? Or are we going to start redefining and renewing.

I very much want to work with others to produce an acceptable faith for the future but (and this is a big but) I honestly cannot see a hope of even liberal radical Christians considering ideas from a non-realist standpoint. Thinking based on non-realism is not a faith and because we do not understand and have not sufficient language to describe our feelings of the spiritual, it does not follow that Transcendent Truth does not exist.

So what have I got to offer? Iam a practical and I hope sensible 65 year old grandmother with a limited education and I offer the useful fact the I am an average person.

I am also someone who has served a long apprenticeship and now feels able to say:

The Christian Church is beautiful - it is our heritage. It is worthwhile and perfectly capable of being the yeast in a troubled society.

Sadly however, it strives with old-fashioned word-tools and scriptures that although loved and revered, are very, very ancient books indeed.

I understand that Jews have two types of synagogue, the traditional/orthodox and the liberal/progressive/reformed.

Could not our mainstream churches work towards this, continuing to hold traditional services but a few beginning to use experimental and radical versions?

It has been suggested that I might collate a small book containing ideas and examples of alternative worship, and yes, I think I would like to make an attempt with help. I have a feeling that there is plenty of imaginative creativity bobbing about on the waves and, if there are members of the Network or readers of Sea of Faith who _would be interested in contributing, please do contact me.

— Doreen Calver, Woodford Green, Essex

Doreen Calver 28 Gwynne Park Ave, Woodford Green, Essex IG8 8AB Spinoza’s god of nature Religious faith need not include a creator god. Spinoza’s god is nature, meaning everything in the universe from the lofty to the banal, from the spiritual to the most unaesthetically material. All that we think to be bad and all that we think to be good is a necessary part of the fabric of nature.

However, sometimes we are mistaken about how things are, and we feel rage and fear instead of calm acceptance. The more we understand about others’ motives and about the necessary processes of nature, the closer we are to truth and the more we can dispense with unhappy emotions.

Being human, we can and do make voluntary choices since choosing is simply something that people do — and which some other animals do. We can also aspire to goods such as equality for/all people, to justice and to mercy. They are all human qualities. God or Nature does not require to be worshipped. Petitionary prayers are effective only in so far as they are self-expressive, but no magical being will answer them.

There is no reward or punishment in an afterlife, since rewards and punishments are human activities. There is no loving heavenly Father, since love is also human.

Neither is there a punishing vengeful Father in heaven.

I would like to ask Sea of Faithers if Christian symbols such as the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth or certain parables can help the human condition in an age of scientific materialism. Any answers?

— Eileen Cameron, Edinburgh

Eileen Cameron 48 Bannton Park Ave, Edinburgh EH4 6HE Learning through life I am the child of a Lutheran vicarage in the fourth generation, and proud of it.

When I came to England in 1939, I left behind a terrible and brutal modern version of ideological authoritarianism. Here, I became aware of Protestant variations within Christianity and their estrangements which, however, began to be put right with the setting up of the World Council of Churches in 1948.

From the late fifties onwards, I have learned to accept the universal nature of religious and cultural pluralism. Lately, 1 have begun to grapple with the insights and contributions which the scientific mind and imagination are bringing to bear on the creation of human values.

I am learning to see myself as a psychophysical organism among countless sentient and human organisms, living in the biosphere and as part of the ecosystem of this beautiful planet Earth, with the potential for psycho-mystical awareness in my relationships with nature, the universe and my fellow human beings.

My children and grandchildren will find it easier to live in their brains and get to know how it works than I can, since I have been used to living with my immortal soul and attending to it, thanks to the centuriesold teaching of the church and of Plato and Aristotle. 1 cannot and do not want to deny that their teaching and its influence on the European psyche, imagination and intellect has produced wonderful and remarkable constructs and imaginative flights of fancy in philosophy, religion and the arts, particularly music. They have enriched and ennobled European men and women. I am always deeply moved by Beethoven’s wonderful scoring of the duets in “Fidelio” with Florian and Leonora expressing their most thrilling and ecstatic feeling of loving mutuality. Likewise, in the marvellous quartet at the end of his 9th symphony, Beethoven achieved a most sublime and blissful rapture in the male and female voices expressing their commitment to the Joy that resides in the Peace and Harmony between all human beings.

POSTBAG The Declaration of Intent of the Sea of Faith Network says: “A Network for exploring and promoting religious faith as a human creation”. Today, I want to omit the phrase “religious faith”, and say instead: “A Network for exploring and promoting the human potential for creating human values”. Where do all these explorations and experiences leave me? In a state of wonder about the range of the human imagination and its rational mind, world-wide. In a state of thankfulness that human beings have evolved and are still evolving towards greater “complexity consciousness” and personal autonomy, accompanied by a greater willingness to take on responsibility for their natural, social economic and political environment.

— Rosemarie Wedell, Manchester

Rosemarie Wedell 18 Cranmer Road, Manchester M20 6AW This letter is an edited version of a longer paper by Rosemarie charting her own spiritual development and available direct from her.

Too intellectual?

I joined the SoF about two years ago and my experience of the Network has been akin to witnessing the first mild wind developing to displace a fog of mythology which has blurred the world’s capacity to think clearly for over 2000 years. This year’s conference cause that wind to increase its strength, and in particular, Don Cupitt’s article on world religion rang out like a clarion call. For me the wind declared more of its purpose and strengthened.

But the rate of acceleration is agonis- ingly slow. My recently deceased brother was a long time Humanist. I did not join, mainly due to the fact that they had no ability to appeal to a large population.

They were confined to being a small group of intellectuals who could only attract a small membership, mainly in the cities and larger towns.

We in SoF are currently locked in the same trap. And, until we can identify with the many in our population who, like me, do not consider themselves intellectuals, we are unlikely to become numerous enough to be a force for the enhancement of the world’s environment.

It is essential that we reach out to each small parish. The new SoF logo is a start. A car sticker proudly proclaiming, “I love the Sea of Faith” might well prompt a few more people to ask, “What is the Sea of Faith?”.

Let’s throw down the gauntlet to our members. Who is going to be the first to have a monthly local parish meeting of at least 10 members attending a service of popular music, human religious morality and inconsequential chat over tea and biscuits?

For those who wish to try, the steering committee might provide promotional material and other assistance and advice.

— Rex Harper, Auckley, Doncaster

Rex Harper 9 Myrtle Grove, Auckley, Doncaster DN9 3HR More than tricks When I first encountered Don Cupitt’s outright rejection of the supernatural and acknowledgement of the finality of death I felt a great wave of relief, that here was a very able, knowledgeable man who was still connected with the church, liberating us from the guilt of not being able to accept the picture of life, death and the after-life that the church took for granted.

I was very impressed’ by Don Cupitt’s summary of what he calls “the old religions”. He says there is “a small number of tricks and techniques of religious existence; ways of being a self and of relaying oneself to the whole of which one is a part.

These tricks can help us to love life and live well; that, now, is religion.” I was deeply sorry that he chose the word “tricks” to describe what I prefer to call, with Paul, being “in Christ”.

One technique that Cupitt mentions I have found immensely valuable. He calls it “The Blissful Void”. This is to relax completely, “slowing oneself and one’s passions down until the self is as it were dispersed into the fleeting insubstantial Emptiness of all existence. You must learn to experience nihilism as levity, lightness. the strange unexpected happiness this brings is a wonderful deliverance from the fear of death, loss and suffering.” This experience I would rather call losing oneself in the silence of eternity. I do not think of it as experiencing nihilism, but rather what T.S. Eliot calls “the point of intersection of the timeless with time”.

For me it gives meaning to the phrase “the ground of being”. Far from experiencing nihilism I rather interpret it as a profound experience of reconciliation and acceptance. I was very glad that Don Cupitt mentioned this as one of the valuable techniques of religious existence.

Ian Alexander Squilva, 7 Haymeadow Lane, Burghill, Hereford HR4 7RZ Postscripts by Seafarer Second coming Well, it’s good to be back. I was sad to have to give up the editorship a year ago, but it was a necessary sacrifice if I was to get a book and a couple of booklets done.

— Ian Alexander, Burghill, Hereford