LEARNING FROM THE PAST Martin Langsdon I used to be infuriated by Dennis Nincham. My copy of Use and Abuse used to be annotated throughout by expressions of exasperated disagreement, so much so that I found it dificult to re-read it later. I think it was the suggestion that one could never directly transfer past expressions of faith into a later totality. I felt that this invalidated so much of what passed for theology in those days - and still does. Now the stone the builder rejected has become the head of the corner.
Nineham seems to me to be the stumbling block upon which so many other people falter - such as Graham Shaw, for instance. I was recently reading him and admiring his extraordinarily patient and lucid work, but then we came to the bit where, lo and behold, it seemed that Jesus had a way of looking at things that amazingly predates a Sea of Faith perspective. For Jesus, God is in our hands too! I even seem to see a similar thing in Cupitt. And what about good old neglected Alastair Kee?
Now he’s someone we should invite to an annual conference. Even he, having, appropriately, decided upon Christian faith without belief in God, reckons that you can continue in some way with belief in Jesus as the way of life for human beings.
Now am I alone in finding this tendency slightly on the unbelievable side? OK, it’s understandable that, as post-christians, we are going to want to retain some sense of continuity with our historical background. But it’s surely stretching the point a bit when we start finding that Jesus can really continue to function as some sort of guide, still, in the Twentieth century. I’m not denying that there is lots of good stuff still to be gleaned from the gospel tradition, when it’s re-situated in our milieu. But, it seems to me, this has to be appropriated in a Nineham sort of way - i.e., you do your back and forth shuffle, back to the First century (insofar as that is possible), forward to the Twentieth, leaving JC in his place, and find that the odd profound reflection has occurred to you.
But you should never imply that your profundities are Jesus’s ideas.
Whatever we can learn from the past (and if we forget it we’re gonna repeat its mistakes), we are now in a new, unique ‘‘we-haven’t-passed-this-way-heretofore’’ situation, in which we’ve got to let go of all security and plunge out into uncharted seas, deciding for ourselves what we are going to do. Myself, I’d love it if I could find some sort of infallible-ish guide from the past - I feel scared enough as it is. But I think that Jesus was a product of his setting, so he can’t relate directly to mine.
Unfortunately that means that I don’t feel I can participate in any Christian worship. It all seems to try to bring JC into the present and make him some sort of trans-cultural symbol. I just don’t find it can work. The idea of an “‘open church’’ does appeal to me but I just don’t see it happening. One thing’s for sure, though: I don’t intend to start forging links with the past that rest on illusion. Do you agree with me, have I exaggerated the problem, or am I wrong?
Martin Langsdon teaches Religious Studies in a secondary school and enjoys Robert De Niro films. ‘WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE KIDDING, MR HITLER...?” A L Rogers argues that the ‘Gallant 500”? who make up the membership of the SoF Network are following a dangerous precedent. “‘The Network promotes the validity of creative, humancentred religion’’, according to its membership form.