SOF Magazine 9, Spring 1992 7 NON-REALISTS, THE CHURCH AND WORSHIP Harold Steel The following deals with some of the questions about church membership and worship that I felt flowed from my thoughts that appeared in the last SOF magazine as One View of Truth. Although written at the same time as that article, what follows does touch on issues raised by John Coombes in SOFMAG # 7 and some of the subsequent correspondence.
Bearing in mind that One_View of Truth had been assembled as the basis for a discussion with the minister at the Methodist church I attend in place of the sermon one Sunday evening, I could not avoid dealing with the fact that traditional Christians would be bound to wonder what a radical/non-realist is doing in church. Should the radicals leave ? Should they be thrown out ? Clearly there is a strong dichotomy of view, and a fundamental one at that.
And what on earth do these non-realists worship ?
The first two of these three questions above have figured quite large in chats among members of the SOF conferences since 1988. They are pulled between maintaining their integrity, both publicly and privately, and the desire to put another point of view, the only obvious vehicle for which is the church in which a large percentage of them are already well established. Within SOF there are those who have left the church through reasons of conscience, or have been asked to leave by their local fellowship. There are those who have never been in church but have been attracted by Cupitt's writings and picked up on SOF through advertisements or invitations to those who have written to Cupitt, as was the case at SOF I.
But for most Network members the question remains - should they leave the church ?
A number have experienced a crisis of conscience on this front. if the church were clearly and obviously enforcing belief in the major traditional creeds, then I believe that they would have no choice. But the modern church, in its less extreme manifestations, is to some degree ambivalent. And, thank 'god', tolerant.
A non-realist, who sits in a congregation week by week, and reflects the non-realist tolerance of the views of others, quietly putting another point of view when the chance presents itself, will not only harm nobody but will give the church extra breadth - widening theological horizons and probably being of practical use as well. S/he is broadening the church's appeal and therefore is a positive asset.
The main difficulty lies in the fact that although the church may be prepared to tolerate the non-realist and vice versa, those outside the church presume (unknowingly) that the non-realist believes the same things as the traditional believer. This is not a problem of the relationship to the church but one of the relationship to those outside the church, and presents a pressure that could possibly bring the radical/non-realist to opt out. It is somewhat invidious to be thought of as something you are not !
If the foregoing can be lived with, there seems to be adequate reason for the non-realist to stay within the church's fold. But let me make a further point in this regard. Where those who hold positions of responsibility find themselves now to be non-realists, a difficulty arises. By virtue of their position within the church, they are honour-bound, as the traditional point of view would have it, to propagate the traditional faith. Yet when the non-realist uses the word "god", s/he means something different to the evangelical, the conservative, the middle of the road (whatever that means), or even the liberal. Should this come, or be brought, to the attention of the powers that be, then there is a risk they will be removed from office, or asked to leave the church altogether ; especially in the case of those who are in the lower echelons and are members of a less than open-minded fellowship. (Here we see the power pyramid at work, for these are not 'horizontal' groups.) If the radical/non-realist in a responsible position openly advocates their view, the traditionalists will allege that what is being propounded is not true and indeed is heresy, which to them it is. So non-realists are continually seeking ways in which to be true to themselves without giving excessive offence to those who hold a sincere traditional faith. And the situation reflects upon the wide diversity of what is considered to be true. It leads us back to what I was saying in my earlier article about the New Testament story being capable of being interpreted in a non-realist way. This in turn means concentrating on the kingdom of god on earth, rather than in heaven, because the whole community of the church, of whatever opinion, would like to see the kingdom of god set up on earth, though what they understand by that kingdom may be somewhat different. In this sense the radical/non8 SOF Magazine 9, Spring 1992 realist can stand shoulder to shoulder with the man and woman of traditional faith and, given mutual respect, can remain in the ranks of the church without too much trouble.
Should radicals be thrown out ? The response to this question has been already addressed in part in attempting to answer the previous question. One lady of my acquaintance was asked to leave by her Catholic priest. Her friends are still trying to bring her back into the fold. Here we have a classic case of two points of view which are not only irreconcilable but are seen as intolerant by at least one side. But you can see in history where this leads. It got Luther thrown out of the Church of Rome, and led to the Wesleys and their supporters leaving the Church of England. In fact it could be argued that, political intrigue apart, differences of opinion over what is true led to the appearance of so many sects within Christendom.
One of the lessons the church must absorb is the need for tolerance of the views of others, which in essence is what the ecumenical movement should be about. However, on the basis of what has emerged to date, it is still wholly realist in its stance, not a mix of realist and non-realist in appropriate proportions. In short it is still more concerned with the kingdom of god in heaven than it is with the kingdom of god on earth. I find I have to suggest that while the church retains this position it will remain to some extent exclusive, which in turn will lead to situations in which people are asked to leave. That would be to its shame, not its credit, besides being difficult to square with teaching and actions of Jesus.
Lastly, what on earth do non-realists come to church to worship ? Let us tackle this from the other end.
What is it that the traditional worshipper worships ? In essence it is a number of ideas or concepts which when integrated together infer the presence of a supreme being who is given the name of "God".
These ideas include in them concepts of what is good, what is pure, what is forgiving, what is just, what is gracious, what is beneficent, what is loving, what is joyous, what is creative, and ... what is true.
The non-realist/radical would suggest that the realist's god is an integration, projection and personalisation of these values. They are seen as dwelling in, and issuing from, god. Hence 'his' many (reported) attributes. God has been created in the image of the perfect human being, with added powers.
One of the disputes at the time of the Reformation was over the symbols which were used in the church being, or becoming, the substantive case. Hence some groupings insisted on austerity in their church building and furnishings ; Exodus 20:4 taken to the nth degree. It could be argued that men have appropriated to the figure of god all those concepts and virtues listed earlier and, on top of that, the honour which was their due. In a similar manner this honour was given to icons, crosses, statues of Mary, and other holy objects, which was in the eyes of the reformers more correctly due to god. The evangelicals, conservatives, fundamentalists and other similar groupings would undoubtedly aver that the non-realist had got the cart in front of the horse ; that god came first, and the values and virtues later. In this they would be backed up, but not so vociferously, by those of other groupings including theological liberals.
In historical terms they may be right, but this is because those who originated these ideas did not have the benefit of modern radical scholarship to apply to their deliberations. Things always look different with the benefit of hindsight. And hindsight is a far more rational tool than revelation. For it is undoubtedly correct that the concept that god came first relies on revelation ; and those who argue the case will agree. But we are drifting back to discussion about language. Stop.
An answer can now be attempted to the question regarding the non-realist and what s/he worships.
These thoughts are mine and other radicals/nonrealists may differ. Christian non-realists (and I use the word "Christian" here particularly in respect of non-realists like myself who are of, and mostly still within, the church) hold the concepts/virtues listed earlier in such high esteem that they find it beneficial each week to be reminded of them and how they should be applied to daily life. A lot of words within the Christian service, and some of the hymns and music, act in this manner. The most obvious example is Luke 10, and ... go, and do thou likewise ...
So while the non-realist/radical is not worshipping in the old sense of making homage to a deity, s/he is acknowledging a very high ethic of life and attempting to run their life in accordance with that ethic. It is more a celebration of life, and a desire to propagate a style of living which is seen to be for the good of the world at large. Particularly in these days when ecological issues are bearing down upon us with increasing force. There is very much a sense in which the non-realist/radical wants to 'save' the world and its inhabitants.
I am obviously arguing a case from within. It is almost inevitable that the terminology has a familiar ring to it.
Having been born into a practising Christian home, and been connected with the church all my days, it is not surprising. It comes as second nature, which brings us back to where I set off with One View_of Truth. For what was stated there was that what was seen to be true in the first instance is what we are told as little children, usually by our parents. I write this as a living witness to what I am suggesting. It is a lot harder for a Christian to come to a non-realist position than for someone who has never had that influence which is repeatedly pointing you in the opposite direction. The same could be said of a Moslem, or a Sikh, but not so much a Buddhist. One of the influences which has attracted non-realist/ radical, some more, some less, is that of Buddhism ; SOF Magazine 9, Spring 1992 9 this by the very fact that its dogma does not at its heart hold a supreme being. But Buddhism still has its stories and traditions, some of them just as fanciful as those to be found in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
Finally, at the first SOF conference a phrase kept cropping up on and off over the two days, that of "Christian Atheism". It could clearly be argued that this is the best expression of the non-realist position.
But on the other hand a lot depends on how you use the word "god". In the old sense of the word, Christian atheism is correct but what I am suggesting here is that, if we accept that humans are naturally worshipping creatures, the word "god" can stand to represent the relationship of the user to a number of things. Hence Bill Shankley once described Anfield football stadium as a cathedral, in respect of the relationship of the football club to its supporters. To the more fanatical their 'god' was in effect the club, for it took the most important place in their lives.
If we now apply a similar argument to the discussion about what it is the non-realist comes to worship if/when s/he attends church, then the high ideals, the high ethic, stands in the place in which god used to stand. It could now be developed into an extension of the discussion regarding the reformers and their fears that the symbol had become the substantive case, but here in reverse, for the word "god" in this case is used as a symbol of the high ideal and ethical principle. But the danger would be that it could be taken to mean something more.
Watch it !
HAROLD STEEL is an engineer in Suffolk.