Contents
Articles
- Learning to Live without 'Identity', Don Cupitt
- The Otherness of the Other – Islam Today, Ataullah Siddiqui
- Secular and Religious Humanism, Noel Cheer
Reviews
- Deconstructing Miracles, David Paterson
- Brown Linoleum Green Lawns, Danielle Hope
- The Life of Galileo, Cicely Herbert
- A Radical Reader: The Struggle for Change in England, 1381-1914, David Boulton
Poetry
- Poem for the Innocent Victims of War, A.C. Jacobs
- Fourth Station, Peter Campbell
- The Larger View, John Andrew Storey
Editorial
The magazine contains the three talks of the main speakers, with apologies to the authors when they have had to be abridged. Still on the theme of the Other, we have reviews of two books, one about disabled people by SoF local group convenor for Scotland, Graham Monteith, and one a collection of poems by Peter Campbell, many of which are on the theme of mental illness.
Of the three main speakers, Don Cupitt’s talk on Learning to Live without Identity put a strong case against ‘localism’ for a ‘globalist outlook [that] wants to see a single set of universal laws of reason, laws of nature and moral principles prevailing throughout the whole world.’ Embracing the whole of humanity, Don Cupitt’s globalist outlook echoes the sheer exhilaration of Paul’s christology,: ‘For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body – Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit.’ (1Cor. 12:13). ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (Gal. 3:28). We are ‘one body because we all share the same loaf’ (1Cor. 10:17). In this ‘glorious freedom’ (Rom. 8:21; cf. Gal. 5:1) ‘everything is yours’ (1 Cor. 3:22). Or as Don Cupitt puts it: ‘We can now be anything and everything.’ And: ‘Agreat tradition eventually comes to belong to all humankind.’ He also puts a strong case against a localism that expresses itself as violent extreme nationalism, citing, among others, the example of Israel: ‘The Return to Israel fulfils Judaism – and then eclipses it, as all the previous old religious values of Judaism disappear into militant nationalist politics.’ Universal human rights and well-being are a noble ideal and nationalism can lower the spirits even on less violent occasions. My heart always sinks a little when I visit the beautiful Kenwood House on Hampstead Heath and I see a notice saying ‘English Heritage’. Surely as public property, Kenwood House belongs first to Londoners (as Don Cupitt points out, a city of over 200 languages) and then to everybody.
In fact, Londoners are very proud of the diversity of their city and warmed to the Mayor’s campaign after the 7/7 bombings: ‘Seven million Londoners. One London.’ Perhaps that is why, despite the fact that any great metropolis can also be a ‘city of dreadful night’, visions of an endtime just society have often been portrayed (in Revelation and elsewhere) as a city (New Jerusalem, perhaps), or a garden city.
Other the other hand, I was greatly cheered up when I visited the ancient Mayan site of Palenque in Mexico and saw a notice saying ‘Patrimonio de l’Humanidad’: ‘Heritage of Humanity’. The standard translation is ‘World Heritage Site’, which completely dehumanises the idea and is a small illustration of what can be lost in translation.
During the English Revolution of 1649, the Digger Gerrard Winstanley wrote: ‘In the beginning of time the Great Creator Reason made the Earth to be a Common Treasury.’ But then he goes on to say: ‘But not one word was spoken in the beginning that one branch of Mankind should rule over another.’A Common Treasury in which ‘everything is everybody’s’ is an inspiring ideal: ‘When the Earth becomes a Common Treasury again ... then this enmity in all Lands will cease, for none shall dare seek a dominion over others , neither shall any dare to kill another, nor desire more of the Earth than another.’ But this is not the case at the moment. ‘The truth is, experience shows us that in this work of Community in the Earth and the fruits of the Earth is seen plainly a pitched battle between the Lamb and the Dragon.’ Or, speaking as a Muslim, as the SoF Conference’s first speaker,Attaullah Siddiqui, put it in answer to a questioner: ‘The fact is, you are killing us.’ Today many of the indigenous Mayan descendants of the great civilisation at Palenque are Zapatistas and one of their famous watchwords is ‘for a world with room for many worlds.’ They do want one world (they speak Spanish as well as their native Tojolobal, Tzotzil and Tzeltal) but in it they want people to be free to live in their own way, for as their leader Marcos put it (who, incidentally, posts his communiqués on the internet):
This process of total globalisation (economic, political and cultural) does not mean the inclusion of different societies incorporating their This is the annual Conference Issue of Sofia and SoF’s conference this year was on the theme of the Other. editorial particularities. On the contrary, it implies the imposition of one single way of thinking: that of financial capital. In this war of conquest everything and all of us are subjected to the criterion of the market – anything that opposes it or presents an obstacle will be eliminated. It implies the destruction of humanity as a sociocultural collective and reconstructs it as a market place.
Until we have globalisation with a just society, the dominant culture will always need criticising from below. In agricultural terms it is dangerous to have a monocrop and eliminate all the other strains, because if the monocrop strain becomes diseased, you risk disaster. The excluded Other needs to defend itself and struggle for a place in the world, not counter-domination but, to use a word stressed by Ataullah Siddiqui: participation. Any excluded group, including women, is not usually just ‘granted’ rights: they have to fight for them.
Asecond reason not to try to eliminate the Other is the poetry of Earth. The Nahuatl word for poetry is in xóchitl in cuícatl: ‘flower and song’. As the Maya prophet Chilam Balam de Chumayel said chillingly of the conquistadors: ‘They came to make our flowers wither, so that only their flower might live.’ Or as Blake castigated: ‘Planting thy Family alone/destroying all the world beside’. Just as Earth has so many different flowers and birds and animals, it is delightful that it has such an abundance and diversity of cultures and about 6000 languages are spoken on it, most with their own poetries and songs. Each of these has a slightly different ‘take’ on the world and although we can try to translate, often ‘poetry is what is lost in translation’. Many of these cultures and languages are rapidly disappearing and the Earth will be the poorer for it.
In the phrases quoted from Paul’s Letters above, ‘neither slave nor free, neither male nor female’ he is talking about equality ‘in one body, in Christ Jesus’.
Fortunately, slavery is supposed to have been abolished since Paul’s time. Of course, women want equal rights in the body politic, as do different groups, ‘Jews and Greeks’. On the other hand do we really want a whole world with ‘neither male nor female’? Doesn’t it add to the spice and pleasure of life to have both men and women (as well as the variety of children generated by sexual reproduction)? And doesn’t the abundance, particularity and diversity of human life, languages and cultures on Earth add greatly to its richness?
The problem remains: is it possible to have both the positive aspects of globalisation, in which ‘everything is everybody’s’, that Don Cupitt argues for so powerfully, and keep the vital positive contributions of the Other, both as offering a critique of the dominant culture and for its sheer wealth of life? And stop killing each other?
As Chaucer put it at the beginning of The Parliament of Fowls: ‘The life so short, the craft so long to lerne.’At the end of this poem, all the different birds fly away with their mates in a jubilant chorus:
And when this work all brought was to an ende, To every fowl Nature gave his make By even accord, and on their way they wende, And Lord, the blisse and joye that they make!
Dear Editor, As a relative newcomer to the Sea of Faith, I attended the conference with as open a mind as possible, based on the London conference in March of this year and the smattering of Cupitt’s work I had read in the time. My overall impression of the attendees was one of friendliness, open mindedness and cerebral agility, especially the latter (I have a considerable reading list to work through!) Much of the base group activity went over my head as it was concerned with internal goingson of the organisation, of which I had next to no knowledge. David Hart’s ‘Trading Faiths’ workshop was a particular highlight and provided considerable food for thought.
Better minds than mine will be able to discuss the numerous issues raised in the conference more eloquently than I can, so I shan’t attempt to do so.
However I will stick my neck out to discuss an issue which appeared to crop up repeatedly in base groups and over dinner; that of attracting ‘young people’ to the network. Although I am comfortably into my fourth decade, it was flattering to be addressed as ‘young’, and one supposes that in the context of the assembled SoF members, I appeared to be one of a tiny handful of ‘youth’. I will address some of the questions/comments heard.
How do we attract young people to the organisation?
Firstly, how do you define young? Are you talking about people of my age (early to mid 30’s) or younger still (teenagers/undergraduates)? In her report from the Steering Committee, Alison McRobb mentions the presence of a number of ‘young, really young’ people at the London conference, referring to (I assume) myself and what appeared to be a dozen or so sixth formers or first year university students. I would hazard saying that people younger than this sort of age are not going to be interested in the Network: the majority of youngsters are not interested in the grey areas of religious thought – they prefer clear-cut, well defined answers. Many young people might be put off by the intellectual muscle that is bandied around in the Network’s writings and discussion; I certainly found it intimidating to a degree.
Furthermore: do young people even know of the existence of the organisation? I did not know it existed until I read of the London conference on Sue Blackmore’s website. Even then, when discussing the Network with older people, the typical response was, ‘Don Cupitt? Is he still on the go?’ ‘We need a (young) guru-type figure to attract young people to the Network’ Do you? Why should this be the case? If a more youthful presence is required in the organisation, then surely you would like to attract them on the basis of the ideas discussed by the Network, rather than the influence of some hipster theologian who the kids will consider to be cool? Was there anyone particular you had in mind? I don’t see the suggestion that the older generation require a ‘guru-type figure’ to lead their thinking (perhaps Don fills this role to a certain extent).
Furthermore, why would a guru need to be young? At the two conferences I attended I had no problem chatting to people old enough to be my grandparents; I think the fact that I was at the conference at all was enough to be taken seriously. The last thing I would want to see would be a ‘SoF Youth League’ denying the young people the opportunity to hear the wisdom of the old and the old to experience the enthusiasm, ignorance, irreverence and (occasional) flashes of insight of the young.
Incidentally I find the somewhat radical nature of the SoF ‘old guard’ quite appealing in itself. I took secret pleasure in counting the hands of delegates at the London conference who would admit to having taken LSD! Which leads me onto… Fear of the ‘counterculture’ This is an issue I heard addressed by several people at the conference, either indirectly with regard to their children/grandchildren/youth of today, or directly as something that young people became involved in after abandoning a religious upbringing. I myself have been involved in this ‘counterculture’ and its proliferation of ideas and practices regarding sexuality, drug use, ‘alternative living’ (?), systems of belief and so forth, and I can readily understand how incomprehensible some of these ideas and practices may appear to older generations. However, I can safely say that although such things have had their own influence on my sense of spirituality, the ideas and practices of my (Roman Catholic) upbringing and education have had at least an equal influence in my religious development. It would be ridiculous to dismiss this aspect of my life completely, and SoF is perhaps one of the few places where such seemingly disparate influences can be discussed as seriously and objectively as possible.
Obviously I do not speak for all the delegates at the conference, but the few with whom I discussed such ideas had an idea of the counterculture as being more ‘other’ than any religious group. In short: I think that appealing to ‘younger generations’ might be a struggle for the Network, but hang in there! Aim for quality over letters quantity – it is surely preferable to have a small ‘youth wing’ who are eager to participate and are sympathetic to the aims of the Network than have no youthful element at all. ‘The presence of young people should be giving us some pointers for the future’ – making your existence known to them should be one of them.
— Andrew Murray, Sheffield
Andrew Murray 11 Walkley Road Sheffield S6 2XJ There are lots of people like us out there Dear Editor, I am prompted to write in response to the last paragraphs of Stephen Mitchell’s article in the July issue of Sofia. I joined Sea of Faith after having read Don Cupitt’s book of the same name, admittedly nearly twenty years after it was published, and because of an increasing disaffection with many aspects of the Church of England but also with the Church in general. Sea of Faith did appear to give some hope in that there were those of like mind who were seeking and exploring religion in an intelligible way in contrast to the growth of fundamentalism in all parts the Church.
I am quite prepared, as Stephen put it, to be one of the people who are willing to stick with it by staying in the church and find common starting points for dialogue. But that is difficult when amongst those who I would regard as non-fundamentalist amongst the clergy one often finds that their sermons assume a lack of intelligence amongst their congregation together with an unwillingness to recognise either the enormous steps taken by biblical scholarship over the last 150 years or the change in knowledge of our world since the enlightenment.
I am sure that within the churches there are many who think along the same lines but do not know where to go. If I was able to go so many years without knowledge of Sea of Faith does this indicate that there is a need for greater publicity of the organisation and its aims and to encourage more to join up?
— Philip Feakin, East Finchley, London
Philip Feakin 4 Oakview Gardens East Finchley London N2 0NJ God as being being, existing existence Dear Editor, As someone who was deeply influenced by the Sea of Faith T.V programmes, who has a shelf full of Don Cupitt books, quite a few Lloyd Geering and a couple of David Boulton’s, and has been a member of SoF for the last 6 years, and has struggled to remain in the Church, I am writing to express how enormously heartened I was to read Stephen Mitchell’s article The Trouble with SoF.
As Don Cupitt states in The Great Questions of Life ‘truth is just sitting there, in public’ ‘in the midst of common life and in the voices of common people’.
They know all about God – ’God help us’; ‘Thank God’; ‘By God’; ‘God willing’; ‘Oh God’; ‘By the grace of God’; ‘God bless’; ‘in God’s name’; ’Please God’; ‘Playing God’ etc. I’ve yet to hear ordinary people express themselves in non-theistic language ‘thank non-theism God’! Thank you, Stephen; like you, I now see God, not as a being, not as existing, not as real, not as alive, but instead as being-ness, as existence, as reality and as life – the very source of all that is. That is no more an abstraction than the use of the word ‘God’ by ordinary people. It is a faith to be tested by ordinary people in ordinary life.
— Grenville C. Gilbert, Sidmouth, Devon
Dear Editor, Your issue no.78 is enlightening. The soul, or spirit, needs the body but, in life, it can exit the body and lead ‘a life’ of its own. I speak from personal experience, from the effect of having spent most of my life coping with the effects of a ‘near death experience.’ In my 20s, I had a severe car crash. My CNS was crippled; my spine a hair’s breadth from total paralysis. I just survived, as a zombie, as the living walking dead. Many years later, innovative Cranial treatment disclosed to me the possibility, linked to the experiences of others, that my ‘spirit’ vacated my body at the moment of severe impact and went ‘walkabout’ for fifteen years – somewhere. It took me around twenty years to ‘get the spirit back in line with the body,’ to become I AM again. This has partly been achieved by stimulating undamaged tissue, tissue having memory, into remembering a younger, precrash self and thus to literally ‘reconstruct the self with a spirit’ using ‘tissue memory’ in a ‘laying on of hands’. Even so, somewhat alarmingly, I can still occasionally feel ‘myself’ move in and out of ‘myself,’ particularly in a potentially dangerous situation. Once, speeding on an autoroute in France, I found ‘myself’ on the car ceiling looking down at ‘myself’ below driving, very far away indeed. Briefly I had no link with the other ‘self’. If God is within us, he is outside us, the inconstant self, as well.
— Christopher Truman