People who are worried or angry or who feel themselves threatened in any way are very conscious of their selves as something distinct from the rest of the universe, separated by a shell or defensive wall to be maintained intact at all costs. But when we are on reasonably good terms with our surroundings and comfortably occupied with what we are doing, seeing, hearing or thinking, we are hardly conscious of having AUTUMN 1990 PAGE 7 SEA OF FAITH MAGAZINE A NONSUPERNATURAL THEOLOGY : WHAT RADICAL CHRISTIANITY IS by Elizabeth Burns In the first issue of Sea of Faith Magazine, John Mann and Clive Richards wrote about something which has also been bothering me for a long time, namely, the fact that while radicals are good at arguing against traditional Christianity, they are rather less good at arguing in favour of radical Christianity, and hardly make the attempt to say what radical Christianity /S John Mann extracts from the Sea of Faith lectures some hints on how radical Christianity could be practised and discusses why this is seldom debated, while Clive Richards offers us his personal view of the radical position and some of its implications. In this article I shall try to give a systematic account, pieced together mainly from Don Cupitt's books since Taking Leave of God, of what a 'radical' theology might entail.
I'd like to make two important preliminary points.
Firstly, Cupitt claims to present only a persona/vision of a revised Christianity, and what follows must therefore be seen as merely a series of suggestions.
Secondly, what I have referred to as the 'traditional' view is not so clearly defined as we are often led to believe. There are many different versions of traditional Christianity, and some of the things which radicals find reprehensible are also rejected by many so-called traditional Christians. Radicals certainly do not further their cause if they are guilty of attributing ludicrous beliefs to what they appear to regard as 'the opposition'. It may well be the case that radicals and traditionalists have more in common than is often supposed.
With these points in mind, let's begin.
WHAT IS GOD ?
Traditionally, God is said to have a loving, personal relationship with us. The radical Christian, finding herself unable to accept this, might choose to redefine God as a 'religious principle', the sum of our values, or the goal for which we aim in life. However, she can make rather more positive use of some of the other traditional attributes. So, God can still be all-powerful for the radical Christian if she believes that in living in accordance with the religious principle she will ultimately not be defeated by anything. Similarly, God can be all-knowing because living the religious life does not allow her to keep any part of her life concealed - it requires spiritual integrity. And the PAGE 8 radical Christian does not have the traditional Christian's problem about God's goodness : if God does not care for her personally but is 'only' a very powerful and very important concept, He cannot be held responsible for the awful things which happen to her. So she can say that God, the principle, is good, without the need for convoluted explanations and justifications.
WHO WAS JESUS ?
Traditional believers claim that Jesus was both God and man, and that faith enables us to accept this paradox, but radicals don't have this kind of faith. For them, Jesus can be seen as the instigator of a new type of religious consciousness, just as Socrates represents a similar change in the intellectual tradition. Radicals can still argue that Jesus was God to the extent that he embodied the religious principle. All human beings could be capable of embodying the religious principle to some degree, but Jesus seems to have been the most successful so far at teaching the principle and living in accordance with it. Obviously, if we're going to say this, we have to accept that the Biblical account of Jesus' life and teaching is reasonably accurate. However, the historical Jesus is not quite so important for radicals as he is for traditional Christians. If it could be proved that Jesus never lived or that he was immoral, the radical's beliefs would not necessarily collapse - although they wouldn't be Christian as such. There have been other religious teachers who would serve a similar purpose, if rather less successfully. So, for the radical, Jesus showed us what the religious life is and that it can be lived, but he was not unique.
The significance of Jesus' death and resurrection need not be understood in terms of one of the traditional atonement theories. Radicals can say that Jesus died because, although aware of the risk to his life, he stuck to his beliefs and rejected the legalistic religion of his time. He was seen as a threat by contemporary religious leaders and they arranged for him to be crucified. They killed the man, but his teachings lived on and his followers increased in number. For the radical Christian, this shows both that we should stand up for what we believe to be right, whatever the anticipated consequences, and that goodness is not always overcome by evil.
WHAT BELIEF DOES FOR THE RADICAL CHRISTIAN For the radical, the doctrine of Justification by Faith is not, as it is sometimes thought to be, a kind of two-way bargain in which our relationship with God is restored in return for our faith in Him. Rather, it means that if we have the faith to live in accordance with the religious principle we shall be released from self-destroying concern for ourselves.
Similarly, there is no forgiveness from God for the radical ; instead, she is forgiven either by her fellow human beings, or in the recognising and coming to terms with her wrong-doings which enables her to make a new attempt at seeking God.
Salvation is still a possibility, but not in the form of life after death. Radicals can't hope to be compensated for their suffering on earth by a utopian future existence, but must try to improve life in the present.
The end of the world refers to the end of the current state of affairs ; radical Christians hope that as certain aspects of the world change, these changes will be for the better, and they work to increase the possibility that they will be. Christians must be so concerned for the good of the community that their own lives and deaths cease to have any special significance.
THE BIBLE Radicals (in common with 'liberal' traditionalists) think that, in the light of twentieth century knowledge, some parts of the Old Testament are either immoral or irrelevant and that certain aspects of the New Testament are no longer applicable - for example, few but the most fundamentalist traditionalists would insist that Paul's requirement for women to cover their heads in church should be enforced. Since we can't be sure about what was actually said by the Biblical characters, radicals can argue that we shouldn't take what they are reported to have said too literally.
Indeed, the essence of Jesus' teaching seems to have been that the Sabbath was made for human beings and not the other way round - in other words, he taught general principles, not a series of dogmas and rules.
THE CHURCH, PRAYER AND WORSHIP if they belong to a church, radicals can consider themselves to be members of a moral community which is dedicated to the pursuit of virtue, an experimental community where new forms of life and new values are tried before they are generally adopted. Cupitt suggests that the churches stand in the same relation to culture as our plant-breeding research institutes stand in relation to agriculture. But this need not lead to exclusiveness or to a defensive mentality ; radicals can still acknowledge the claims of adherents of other faiths and be willing to work with them for the common good.
Public prayer affirms shared values and provides mutual support for members of the community - in praying for each other they express their love, hope and concern. Cupitt suggests that private prayer is a rather inadequate substitute for public prayer, but it could also be seen as a kind of meditation, or rational contemplation, which enables us seriously to examine our own attitudes and values and, perhaps, as a consequence of this, to change the way in which we live.
Worship is a way of ascribing value to the religious principle. In this activity, radicals postulate an idea of which they know they fall short but which they strive to reach. And rituals are ceremonies which help people to cross the frontier between one way of life and another. For example, the ritual of baptism, the symbol of the dying and rising Christ represents the way in which my personality and my life can be transformed by my religious beliefs, and thus helps me to achieve this. Similarly, the sacraments are signs which have an ethical efficacy ; they are social practices which help to increase our resolve to emphasise the value of life and to live accordingly.
So, for example, we can attend Holy Communion even if we don't have the supernatural beliefs which were originally associated with it, because it symbolises the way in which concern for our fellow human beings can make the world a better place and provides an opportunity for us to declare publicly our allegiance to this belief.
FAITH AND REASON But radical Christianity, like the traditional version, still needs both faith and reason - although radical Christianity puts most of its emphasis on reason, while faith plays a rather more prominent part in the traditional view. It may seem surprising that radicals should require faith at all, but they do still need to believe that there are reasons for trying to live in accordance with the religious principle. And although it is possible to produce some reasons for this, there is no such thing as a conclusive proof. However, even in our everyday lives, we can't prove everything which we claim to know : we always have to base some of our beliefs on things which can't be proved. For example, I can't be certain that I shall still be alive tomorrow, but I base my actions today on the assumption that I shall be. But radical Christianity does not require its adherents to believe things which don't, for one reason or another, make sense to them.
And, radicals think, it really does allow them to make a genuine choice ; whereas traditional Christianity tries to say both that we are responsible for our faith and that God chooses those who believe in him, on the radical view we are entirely responsible for our own faith.
ELIZABETH BURNS is researching a PhD at Cambridge concerning realist and anti-realist versions of radical Christianity and is a member of the SOF Steering Committee.