Skip to main content

Barriers to faith

I get excited by the emerging church movement. I'm glad there's a group of Christians who are radically rethinking Christianity for a new generation. Different worship, a different approach to the way of doing Christianity. It's all good. However in some way it is going to fail if it doesn't take into account a few big issues. There's some things that have changed, and no incarnation of Christianity is going to be successful unless it deals with these changes.

1. Gender and sexuality. Our understanding of both gender and sexuality have dramatically changed in the last few generations in British/western society. I don't think the Church of England (easy to criticise I know, but hey) realises how irrelevant it sounds as it debates how much it want to discriminate against women or sexual minorities. They are debating something that is essential not an issue anymore in secular society. The ethical issue has essentially already been decided in the larger society. The churches are far behind. We had a woman Prime Minister 30 years ago. Yet there can still not be a woman Archbishop of Canterbury. Any religion that does not state categorically that women and queers are equal human beings is going to be viewed as irrelevant.

2. Religious pluralism. People are more aware today that there are many, many religions. Religious pluralism is the context in which we live, even though many Christians try to ignore this fact. A religion that is exclusivist, that says (or even implies) that it is the only way, and that something bad is going to happen to others, will be seen to be committing a sin as bad as racism. Modern people cannot and will not accept a message that seems so exclusive. Moderns cannot accept that God would condemn someone just for being born in the wrong country.

3. Empiricism. Or in other words - 'I only believes what I sees.' Science and the scientific method has given us a way of looking at the world which makes us less inclined to believe in something we cannot see. We cannot see God, there is no evidence for God's existence so we reject the hypothesis. We simply cannot believe in a being in the sky who creates/d and has power over the universe. Frankly it's a bloody stupid idea that we can pretty confidently reject. Any successful religion in Britain in the twenty-first century has to be able to show God in an empirically satisfying way, a flimsy hypothesis will just not do.



Let me be clear: I think these changes are all bloody brilliant. It's brilliant that women and queers are affirming their full humanity and that we can view sexuality as a healthy part of human life. It's brilliant that different religions are co-existing and learning about one another in the same society. It's absolutely brilliant that we don't believe everything we're told, that rational empirical investigations of the world have revealed it's amazing beauty; that we reject superstitions and religious systems that do not describe the physical world and may serve those in power. This is (post)modernity. And I think it's great.

But the only religious community I see dealing with these issues in anything like the way they need to be dealt with is Unitarianism. And that is why I'm a Unitarian, and not just a liberal Christian or and emerging Christian. We've had women ministers for over a hundred years. We've had openly gay ministers for 30 years. And we don't believe in a limited once and for all revelation.

Perhaps on point 3 we have not yet come to a good answer. An answer for many of us is humanism, rejecting all religious hypotheses and trusting only what is rational and empirical. That is a good and logical position. But I think ultimately it isn't good enough. It doesn't give us a good enough reason to go on living, to stop us burning out, in short, to save us.

Why I am a Unitarian is because I think we have the potential to answer this question if we tap into our mystical roots in Emerson and Martineau and further back to the radical reformation. It is good and right to only trust and believe what we can experience. But you can experience God, you can experience the religious depth within yourself beyond the words. I haven't thought that the 'idea' of God made any sense since I was 18. I only continue to speak of God because I have a real relationship with God. Empiricism is an invitation to mysticism. We must make the leap that Martineau told us we needed to take, to become a Religion of the Spirit. If we do that and let people know that we're a faith that has adapted to modernity in terms of sex, pluralism and empiricism then we have a real chance of being incredibly relevant to our society. But of course we will also have to take on the insights of the emerging church in terms of worship and how to do church.

Disclaimer: I know that there is still sexism and homophobia in both British society and Unitarianism; and that Unitarianism hasn't come up with a theologically coherent and satisfactory answer to the puzzle of religious pluralism. Hey, I paint with broad brush-strokes, OK?

Comments

LaReinaCobre said…
Are you an emergent Christian? Are you familiar with this movement? I just was introduced to this blog, and was really interested by the post about the book Exiles.

Also, his Wednesday post is a really powerful quote that I liked.

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with