Best go for a non-Christian (not actually sure it deserves the label 'humanist') service then!
Fancy a confused committal where the dearly departed is committed to Mother Earth and their spirit is set free to oblivion in the knowledge that because the people present will treasure their memories their life has found merit and meaning and they can rest safe in the knowledge that they lived for a purpose.
How's about being commended to 'all that is' and set free to be part of the whole realm of creation, tasking their part in the overall canvas of life and having the place they rest sanctified and hallowed to their memory for eternity?
The more I listen to people doing these services - especially the geezer what reads out cards, messages and emails as if it's a wedding - the more I wonder what some of these people are doing (other than making money out of the fact the customer knows nnnn 'Wasn't religious' so they offer something that is hopeless in oh so many ways!).
I am always surprised by the people who claim to have no faith and not be religious and the ways in which they cling to a hope of heaven, eternity and all that stuff. When I pointed out to one that what they'd delivered was the hope of Christianity coupled with some folklore and neo-confused pagan (ooooh, nature is so clever) tosh - the response was. 'Oh, but it gives them comfort to think there's more!'
Which is of course true but what I had before me was a snake oil salesman - offering hopelessness masquerading as hope and a terminal experience billed as something that with some confused continuance.
What makes it sadder is that some I have spoken to have told me how when the words, 'They weren't religious' are used by the person contracting the funeral then the potential for something 'humanist/non-religious' to be sourced is great. later though it transpires that this wasn't quite what the family might have wanted - they just didn't want to appear as if the deceased was an active Christian - and ended up with something quite different from that which they might have hoped for.
How very sad - and rather frustrating too :-(
Showing posts with label eternity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eternity. Show all posts
Friday, 29 November 2013
Thursday, 2 May 2013
Nominal Christians - Nominal Atheists
I often find myself reflecting upon the fact that I meet so many nominal Christians; you know the sort I'm sure - they're the people who might have been baptised but have never 'done' church in any shape, size or form.
I also meet a number of Atheists and find that whilst some will say they are 'Agnostic' the majority merely state that they are 'Atheists' and it is in this that I can find much humour and even more for me to take comfort in. The reasons for this are not mocking any of the groups but are rational and real (so the skeptics, agnostics and atheists can take joy too!) so I know I'm a crowd-pleaser today! ;-)
1. Some I meet are 'proper' atheists in that they have denied God (or gods) and have studied and formed a deep and (in their mind) rational and yet closed system to support their views. Some are willing to dialogue on level playing fields and engage in two-way street stuff, but this is (rather sadly) the exception to the breed. They are not only atheists but are also people with no religion and no beliefs in anything but the material and absolute.
2. Other I meet claim to be atheists but this is actually nothing more than a 'catch all' label to collect up their 'there is no god' stance and if there were perhaps a little more informed, or perhaps a little less lazy, would declare themselves to be merely 'agnostic'. These are the nominal atheists who hold beliefs in an eternity and life after death (but with who and why and what for?) and cling to some of the stuff that supports (and demands) a deity; the people who are rather 'just confused' and living under a flag of convenience. Perhaps best called 'syncretic unbelievers'!
3. The third group are people who are unhappy at being labelled 'atheist'; they are merely people who don't believe in a god. These people take the (most un-atheist like) position of 'whatever floats your boat!' 'You want to believe in a Creator God? That's fine as long as you don't expect me to have to do it too! You want to believe that there's nothing? Then for you there probably is, but don't try to drag me into your ways of thinking either!' The feel as aggrieved by fundamentalism whether it be theist or atheist (there's a cartoon on the blog about that from last month
4. I do meet some who make up a fourth (minority) group and these are true agnostics - they don't believe and want to wear the 'agnostic' badge with the subtext - 'so talk to me - I'm open either way!'
Now the interesting thing for me is that every now and then a nominal Christian, someone who has never had a church affiliation or been a member or can even tell you the stories, talk about Jesus and the like, comes to faith as an 'Atheist'. The 'no god' community tend to parade these people and yet, upon the most cursory of discussions it become clear that they are like a friend of mine who joined a political party a few years back so that they could resign their membership to make a point. Loads of gesture and yet no substance. The don't have a convert, they merely have a new member!
And the good news for me is that when I find a 'proper Atheist' coming to faith I find someone who has read, dialogued (and yet rarely openly discussed) and made a firm and conscious decision to take up that stance, putting it all aside to embrace the concept (and then for them the reality too) of their being a God! Now this is what the other side of the debate claim for every nominal and yet for the ersatz atheists and many of the agnostics too, this is not a defection but a taking up of belief (and when it happens the other way - and it does do that - the same applies too).
The good news is that I find more 'full on' atheists being convinced in our direction that I do the other way round and those I do meet who have become non-theists have rarely been theists- they just happened to be born in the UK and were baptised (or often these days not) and wore the nominal badge because they weren't Islamic, or Hindu or any of the other faiths. The 'Christian' was like a string of garlic to protect from other gods and labels!
So take heart: The many 'no faith' types are merely waiting to hear the good news from the Church or waiting to be convinced by the New Atheists and their disciples. The invitation is made, the challenge for people hearts and minds // minds and hearts is before us.
Who you gonna call?
What you gonna do?
Who are you going to affirm of deny today?
I also meet a number of Atheists and find that whilst some will say they are 'Agnostic' the majority merely state that they are 'Atheists' and it is in this that I can find much humour and even more for me to take comfort in. The reasons for this are not mocking any of the groups but are rational and real (so the skeptics, agnostics and atheists can take joy too!) so I know I'm a crowd-pleaser today! ;-)
1. Some I meet are 'proper' atheists in that they have denied God (or gods) and have studied and formed a deep and (in their mind) rational and yet closed system to support their views. Some are willing to dialogue on level playing fields and engage in two-way street stuff, but this is (rather sadly) the exception to the breed. They are not only atheists but are also people with no religion and no beliefs in anything but the material and absolute.
2. Other I meet claim to be atheists but this is actually nothing more than a 'catch all' label to collect up their 'there is no god' stance and if there were perhaps a little more informed, or perhaps a little less lazy, would declare themselves to be merely 'agnostic'. These are the nominal atheists who hold beliefs in an eternity and life after death (but with who and why and what for?) and cling to some of the stuff that supports (and demands) a deity; the people who are rather 'just confused' and living under a flag of convenience. Perhaps best called 'syncretic unbelievers'!
3. The third group are people who are unhappy at being labelled 'atheist'; they are merely people who don't believe in a god. These people take the (most un-atheist like) position of 'whatever floats your boat!' 'You want to believe in a Creator God? That's fine as long as you don't expect me to have to do it too! You want to believe that there's nothing? Then for you there probably is, but don't try to drag me into your ways of thinking either!' The feel as aggrieved by fundamentalism whether it be theist or atheist (there's a cartoon on the blog about that from last month
4. I do meet some who make up a fourth (minority) group and these are true agnostics - they don't believe and want to wear the 'agnostic' badge with the subtext - 'so talk to me - I'm open either way!'
Now the interesting thing for me is that every now and then a nominal Christian, someone who has never had a church affiliation or been a member or can even tell you the stories, talk about Jesus and the like, comes to faith as an 'Atheist'. The 'no god' community tend to parade these people and yet, upon the most cursory of discussions it become clear that they are like a friend of mine who joined a political party a few years back so that they could resign their membership to make a point. Loads of gesture and yet no substance. The don't have a convert, they merely have a new member!
And the good news for me is that when I find a 'proper Atheist' coming to faith I find someone who has read, dialogued (and yet rarely openly discussed) and made a firm and conscious decision to take up that stance, putting it all aside to embrace the concept (and then for them the reality too) of their being a God! Now this is what the other side of the debate claim for every nominal and yet for the ersatz atheists and many of the agnostics too, this is not a defection but a taking up of belief (and when it happens the other way - and it does do that - the same applies too).
The good news is that I find more 'full on' atheists being convinced in our direction that I do the other way round and those I do meet who have become non-theists have rarely been theists- they just happened to be born in the UK and were baptised (or often these days not) and wore the nominal badge because they weren't Islamic, or Hindu or any of the other faiths. The 'Christian' was like a string of garlic to protect from other gods and labels!
So take heart: The many 'no faith' types are merely waiting to hear the good news from the Church or waiting to be convinced by the New Atheists and their disciples. The invitation is made, the challenge for people hearts and minds // minds and hearts is before us.
Who you gonna call?
What you gonna do?
Who are you going to affirm of deny today?
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
God - respecting choice
Following my thoughts about grace I have been asked how I could worship a God who chooses to let more than half of the people perish and still consider this God to be a God of love. Jesus isn't the 'Saviour of the world', He's merely the saviour of some and condemns the rest! How can a God of love exclude Ghandi, the Dali Lama and others whose lives have touched nations and changed the path of history?
Let's try and look at this logically. God is a God of love and is, through the one atoning act of the cross, the Saviour of all. This is the reality and just as some choose to ignore the reality of their birthright by walking away from their family, some choose to walk away from this salvation. Both family and salvation remain as realities but the choice is made to live outside of them and so whilst it (family and salvation) continues to exist, it is not the day-to-day reality for them.
Now, as to the question,"How can a God of love not include Ghandi?" the answer is simple, God didn't exclude Ghandi, but Ghandi choose not to be in the family photograph but choose for himself a different existence. One that was separate from God and having done so made the choice. If God was then to force him to be part of the family later then He would neither be respecting that choice or leaving us to the wonderful reality that is freewill.
A friend of mine had a child who decided to leave home and live their life their own way. They told the family that they wanted nothing to do with them and whenever they were approached by either of the parents, complained that they didn't respect the child's choices. Whenever this happened, people would agree that the parents were being unreasonable and mutter against them.
That said, every now and again the same child would present demands for money or representation to settle debts or keep them from prison. Whenever they did this other people would point out how they (the parents) were being used and how they were being stupid. Eventually the situation arose when, after an expensive episode with the, now quite adult, child the parents asked whether they would come to a family celebration. The child responded by reiterating their contempt for the family and sadly these were their final words on the matter as, very sadly, they died a few weeks later.
They never stopped being loved but chose to live their own life outside of that love, even though they used it to their own advantage on a number of occasions, but in the end they died outside of that reality. The love never went away but they lived outside it and the family had to respect that choice. Ghandi made the same choices and God, being a God of love and giving freewill, respected that then and continues to even when the final day arrives! To drag Ghandi into the family he chose not to be part of when alive would be to deny his choices and would remove any respect got his choices and deny freewill.
As for the Dali Lama, think he has a god of his own making and a philosophy of his own that says his choices are elsewhere.
Pax
Let's try and look at this logically. God is a God of love and is, through the one atoning act of the cross, the Saviour of all. This is the reality and just as some choose to ignore the reality of their birthright by walking away from their family, some choose to walk away from this salvation. Both family and salvation remain as realities but the choice is made to live outside of them and so whilst it (family and salvation) continues to exist, it is not the day-to-day reality for them.
Now, as to the question,"How can a God of love not include Ghandi?" the answer is simple, God didn't exclude Ghandi, but Ghandi choose not to be in the family photograph but choose for himself a different existence. One that was separate from God and having done so made the choice. If God was then to force him to be part of the family later then He would neither be respecting that choice or leaving us to the wonderful reality that is freewill.
A friend of mine had a child who decided to leave home and live their life their own way. They told the family that they wanted nothing to do with them and whenever they were approached by either of the parents, complained that they didn't respect the child's choices. Whenever this happened, people would agree that the parents were being unreasonable and mutter against them.
That said, every now and again the same child would present demands for money or representation to settle debts or keep them from prison. Whenever they did this other people would point out how they (the parents) were being used and how they were being stupid. Eventually the situation arose when, after an expensive episode with the, now quite adult, child the parents asked whether they would come to a family celebration. The child responded by reiterating their contempt for the family and sadly these were their final words on the matter as, very sadly, they died a few weeks later.
They never stopped being loved but chose to live their own life outside of that love, even though they used it to their own advantage on a number of occasions, but in the end they died outside of that reality. The love never went away but they lived outside it and the family had to respect that choice. Ghandi made the same choices and God, being a God of love and giving freewill, respected that then and continues to even when the final day arrives! To drag Ghandi into the family he chose not to be part of when alive would be to deny his choices and would remove any respect got his choices and deny freewill.
As for the Dali Lama, think he has a god of his own making and a philosophy of his own that says his choices are elsewhere.
Pax
Monday, 1 August 2011
Annihilation?
I consider myself to be an Evangelical (of the open variety), which for me means that I believe in a triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and see the only way to relationship with the father as being won for me by the Son and that this is enabled by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is central to my life and belief and I uphold the orthodox, that is ‘traditional’ teachings and practice of the Church within the parameters of Scripture, tradition and reason (perhaps adding experience to have a quadrilateral)!
There are a number of areas that I struggle with and increasingly I find someone or other proclaiming that they are an ‘evangelical nnn’ (when nnn is usually something I struggle with accepting. So it was with a bit of surprise that I first encountered annihilationist thinking in an evangelical context from the late John Stott*. When he did there was much mumbling and accounts of great fallings out over it with certain well-known Christian figures. I struggled with it because I had always been taught that there were two parallel tracks:
Heaven – where God and His people were
Hell – Where those who were separate from God, were separate from God for eternity.
Not for me the eternal damnation and accordion playing that many think of when considering hell! Hell is merely eternal separation from God, and that is enough in itself to be terrible. In fact I abhor those who paint a picture of the terrors of hell in an attempt to peddle a ticket away from it. I seek to help people find true life with God through Christ not bring them into the boat because of fear!
But within the issue of hell are many pastoral, practical and theological issues. What if just as some thought the world to be flat the thinking on hell is totally skewed and there is doubt as to who is going to a ‘better place”? If the party never ends and the stores never close, what difference would an absence of God really make? Then again, if the accordion playing never stops and there are no Apple computers – could even the presence of God make such a place desirable?
I guess my thinking has been shaped not only by those who taught me but also by Keith Green’s ‘Sheep and Goats’:
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
Depart from Me.
And these shall go away into everlasting fire. But the righteous into eternal life!
And my friends, the only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to this scripture,
is what they did, and didn't do!!
So here we have, in music, Matthew twenty-five’s telling that some will go into ‘eternal punishment’ while others will go into ‘eternal life’. Of course if there are two sides of the coin and one is eternal life then it is fair to assume the complementary state that is eternal death. But my problem immediately comes to the fore because the Bible doesn’t say that. What it tells me is that what awaits some is eternal punishment and this doesn’t fit the idea of some unconscious state. If one is annihilated it would be as it they have never been (one of the hallmarks of the Shoah) and so the person sins and then reaping their reward vanishes such that all they had was all there was for them and the humanist viewpoint is found to be valid.
In discussion I find some who claim that all will get a new body and come before the throne on the day of judgment and then, those who are condemned will be zapped and be no more. Sounds a bit like a story of a bloke on death row who spent many years battling cancer. When eventually the doctors gave him a clean bill of health and pronounced him fit the state executed him. Sound pretty cruel to me I don’t see God as cruel. Mind you, others tell me this is compassion and justice combined.
Some tell me that we will all have new bodies and those who are set for eternal life will live for eternity whilst them others will go to a place where God is not and the ravages of age, ill-health and whatever will come upon them (just like now) and then they will cease to be. Not just wacky but doesn’t sound eternal (how’s about having your liver eaten every day – might be fun?).
The problem comes in that nasty word ‘eternal’ being coupled with an even nastier one ‘punishment’ and is exacerbated by my need to have some Biblical and theologically joined up bits.
I am told that a God of love wouldn’t keep people in eternal punishment but would remove them from being rather than have them suffer. This is why a kind God would favour annihilation. A cruel God would keep them in a matchbox and shake it ever now and then.
Just the first volley in this topic - hope it stimulates and challenges and is seen as an invitation to dialogue.
Pax
There are a number of areas that I struggle with and increasingly I find someone or other proclaiming that they are an ‘evangelical nnn’ (when nnn is usually something I struggle with accepting. So it was with a bit of surprise that I first encountered annihilationist thinking in an evangelical context from the late John Stott*. When he did there was much mumbling and accounts of great fallings out over it with certain well-known Christian figures. I struggled with it because I had always been taught that there were two parallel tracks:
Heaven – where God and His people were
Hell – Where those who were separate from God, were separate from God for eternity.
Not for me the eternal damnation and accordion playing that many think of when considering hell! Hell is merely eternal separation from God, and that is enough in itself to be terrible. In fact I abhor those who paint a picture of the terrors of hell in an attempt to peddle a ticket away from it. I seek to help people find true life with God through Christ not bring them into the boat because of fear!
But within the issue of hell are many pastoral, practical and theological issues. What if just as some thought the world to be flat the thinking on hell is totally skewed and there is doubt as to who is going to a ‘better place”? If the party never ends and the stores never close, what difference would an absence of God really make? Then again, if the accordion playing never stops and there are no Apple computers – could even the presence of God make such a place desirable?
I guess my thinking has been shaped not only by those who taught me but also by Keith Green’s ‘Sheep and Goats’:
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
Depart from Me.
And these shall go away into everlasting fire. But the righteous into eternal life!
And my friends, the only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to this scripture,
is what they did, and didn't do!!
So here we have, in music, Matthew twenty-five’s telling that some will go into ‘eternal punishment’ while others will go into ‘eternal life’. Of course if there are two sides of the coin and one is eternal life then it is fair to assume the complementary state that is eternal death. But my problem immediately comes to the fore because the Bible doesn’t say that. What it tells me is that what awaits some is eternal punishment and this doesn’t fit the idea of some unconscious state. If one is annihilated it would be as it they have never been (one of the hallmarks of the Shoah) and so the person sins and then reaping their reward vanishes such that all they had was all there was for them and the humanist viewpoint is found to be valid.
In discussion I find some who claim that all will get a new body and come before the throne on the day of judgment and then, those who are condemned will be zapped and be no more. Sounds a bit like a story of a bloke on death row who spent many years battling cancer. When eventually the doctors gave him a clean bill of health and pronounced him fit the state executed him. Sound pretty cruel to me I don’t see God as cruel. Mind you, others tell me this is compassion and justice combined.
Some tell me that we will all have new bodies and those who are set for eternal life will live for eternity whilst them others will go to a place where God is not and the ravages of age, ill-health and whatever will come upon them (just like now) and then they will cease to be. Not just wacky but doesn’t sound eternal (how’s about having your liver eaten every day – might be fun?).
The problem comes in that nasty word ‘eternal’ being coupled with an even nastier one ‘punishment’ and is exacerbated by my need to have some Biblical and theologically joined up bits.
I am told that a God of love wouldn’t keep people in eternal punishment but would remove them from being rather than have them suffer. This is why a kind God would favour annihilation. A cruel God would keep them in a matchbox and shake it ever now and then.
Just the first volley in this topic - hope it stimulates and challenges and is seen as an invitation to dialogue.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)