Does it matter why we go to church?
KarlLB
Shipmate
I mean, barring going with the intent of stealing the church cat or pelting the organist with a peashooter during a tricky bit or writing naughty words on the rood screen.
We have for the last year been attending a church in Sheffield on a regular basis. LBlet #3 (F, mid teens) comes with us.
Her main reason for coming is that she can help with the crêche and Godly Play - she has an immense love for and a way with young children and is intent on a career working with them. Ask her what the reading was or the sermon about and she wouldn't have a clue.
I mainly go for the music. A competent organist and a choir (which we now sing in) which can do Beatus Vir on two hours' rehearsal and has a full complement of lower voices is a rare and valuable thing.
I was musing on this and Inner Fundy got quite angsty that we weren't going for the Right Reasons. I challenged Inner Fundy to define the right reasons. Inner Fundy gave the sort of answers you might expect.
I concluded that Inner Fundy had far too narrow a view, as he always does. I can slag him off ad liberandum on account of his being a facet of my subconscious. It struck me that we talk a lot about the Church Community and Building Community and this sort of thing - which in fact is what is happening. LBlet #3 goes to a community where she feels safe - a respite from school where owing to a surfeit of jerks she doesn’t always - is valued, has a role and exercises her talents. To an extent those last three are what Mrs LB and I are doing, or hope we are. It's about belonging emphasised over believing.
Theology doesn't really come into it. Philosophy (informal definition) does, the church's values and ethos do.
We sang Enemy of Apathy (Bell & Maule). I recall one of the more progressive elements in the CU in University days introducing that one and getting shot down in flames by the visiting speaker and committee. Inner Fundy hates it. The imagery of:
She dances in fire, startling her spectators,
.
.
She weans and inspires all whose hearts are open,
felt liberating. Inner Fundy doesn't approve, even if he could get over the pronoun.
Sorry for the ramble; I'm not good with this hard to define and explain stuff.
We have for the last year been attending a church in Sheffield on a regular basis. LBlet #3 (F, mid teens) comes with us.
Her main reason for coming is that she can help with the crêche and Godly Play - she has an immense love for and a way with young children and is intent on a career working with them. Ask her what the reading was or the sermon about and she wouldn't have a clue.
I mainly go for the music. A competent organist and a choir (which we now sing in) which can do Beatus Vir on two hours' rehearsal and has a full complement of lower voices is a rare and valuable thing.
I was musing on this and Inner Fundy got quite angsty that we weren't going for the Right Reasons. I challenged Inner Fundy to define the right reasons. Inner Fundy gave the sort of answers you might expect.
I concluded that Inner Fundy had far too narrow a view, as he always does. I can slag him off ad liberandum on account of his being a facet of my subconscious. It struck me that we talk a lot about the Church Community and Building Community and this sort of thing - which in fact is what is happening. LBlet #3 goes to a community where she feels safe - a respite from school where owing to a surfeit of jerks she doesn’t always - is valued, has a role and exercises her talents. To an extent those last three are what Mrs LB and I are doing, or hope we are. It's about belonging emphasised over believing.
Theology doesn't really come into it. Philosophy (informal definition) does, the church's values and ethos do.
We sang Enemy of Apathy (Bell & Maule). I recall one of the more progressive elements in the CU in University days introducing that one and getting shot down in flames by the visiting speaker and committee. Inner Fundy hates it. The imagery of:
She dances in fire, startling her spectators,
.
.
She weans and inspires all whose hearts are open,
felt liberating. Inner Fundy doesn't approve, even if he could get over the pronoun.
Sorry for the ramble; I'm not good with this hard to define and explain stuff.
Comments
Which shouldn't be a problem, unless you want to engage in theological discussion or debate in the church milieu.
Granted, most of the other congregants probably don't know about your theological indifference, and you could probably get away with the odd comment here and there. But I'm speculating that were you to try and get into a deeper treatment of the subject, your lack of interest might become apparent.
(This assumes that your church is one where open theological debate takes place. I'm Unitarian myself, so it does happen in my milieu[though not as often as is sometimes assumed] but not all churches are the same, of course.)
But besides all that, your reasons for attending church seem perfectly legit. One question, though....
If the clergy and congregants at this shack knew your personal beliefs, would they be cool with them?
We started going there specifically because we knew they'd be cool, if they asked. But also because we knew we wouldn't be asked.
IME if clergy or punters at church ask you about your beliefs, it's a bad sign. I'm quite happy to be disapproved of - it's a feature rather than a bug for me - but Mrs LB gets very annoyed about any hint of being soundness tested.
I'm not indifferent to theology, although I hold that the only confident conclusion one can come to in any theological matter is "who knows, eh?". Theology for me is a bit like science. You can reject hypotheses but it's not really possible to make anything more than provisional positive propositions. The point is, my reasons for being there are not theological.
My take is that you and the family members attending with you enjoy attending this church and get something out of it, and the clergy know your beliefs and are fine with it - and honestly you darkening the door of a church is in itself miraculous for anyone who had the misfortune to attend a uni CU, so God should be grateful for getting that much. Also personally having someone with different beliefs working with the kids in church is undoubtedly going to be beneficial for the kids. I'm much more comfortable with your daughter teaching Godly Play than some fundy, not that fundies really do Godly Play anyway. But you get the picture.
As an aside, have you ever looked into getting counselling focused on spiritual trauma? It's something I've been considering for my own Inner Fundy issues but don’t really know where to start.
I should get that made into a t-shirt.
I've not really talked about my belief position; it's not something we do. The church is focused on what we do, rather than what we believe. It's the sort of thing I could get on board with even if I were an atheist.
I don't think Inner Fundy needs spiritual trauma counselling. He shares head-space with Inner Atheist so there is variety to be had there. He's just a projection, an inevitable consequence of the existence of fundamentalist Christianity. Like Inner Atheist he holds on to the possibility that he could be right after all.
In a sense, though I think that's the situation of many. I'm never sure how the thought "there are many different contradictory religious truth claims, each held by many people and communities, sufficient lack of objective evidence of any God or gods for atheism (at least in its weaker form) to be a reasoned conclusion for millions of intelligent people. How can I possibly know that the position I hold and the beliefs I espouse are actually reflect reality?" isn't prominent in everyone's thoughts on religion.
Bizarrely, that is the well from which both Inner Fundy and Inner Atheist draw their strength. I can't prove that either of them are wrong. I mean, it's entirely possible that Islam is the truth and we're all in deep do-do for asserting that God can have a Son who is himself God and failing to recognise Muhammed as His Prophet. It can't be that ridiculously impossible given the millions of people who believe exactly that.
I go because it is the place I can operate as a musician, because it is a caring/supportive community and that matters as we progress through our 70s. I go out of habit, and because I find the liturgy emotionally and aesthetically satisfying. And I go to plug myself into an important bit of our cultural history. And I go to keep myself on the straight and narrow and to keep my basic misanthropy under control.
Very interesting thread, thank you. It ties in with a number of thoughts and discussions I've been having over the past few months. At the weekend we spent an evening with some old friends of ours who are considering becoming members of our church, having attended and taken an active part in it for some time. We were very interested to talk with them as we have been members for a long time and have, for a number of reasons, been reconsidering that. Our friend said that one of the questions he'll have for the leadership when he meets with them is what does membership actually mean? Because he and his wife wouldn't agree with all that's said from the front, or the official line on some issues, and if membership means you have to then they wouldn't do it.
I too have an Inner Fundy and have only very recently started to embrace the idea of befriending and accepting her rather than doing my best to ignore or shut her up.
I think there are many reasons why we go to church, some of them have been well-expressed here already, and I don't think it particularly matters. I might even be tempted to steal the church cat, if there was one, as I love cats (but Mr Nen doesn't, and the son-in-law is allergic).
You go for the music? Brilliant! Not just Augustine of Hippo but even St Paul would approve - he who sings prays twice and all that. Your daughter is happy to use her God-given talents and gifts at church, that too can only be a good thing.
Relax and don't over-think things.
Having been a priest for most of my life, I'm happy to be retired from the responsibilities and admin associated with full-time ministry. I know of many clergy similarly retired who are equally happy not to attend church or even (who knows?) pray regularly. All I can say is that I feel the need to be plugged into the life of the Church (or rather, the life of Christ through the Church), and sharing in the Mass is the way to do this. It's not about being part of a like-minded community.
Yesterday our small inner-city congregation included two or three asylum seekers or recent refugees, a couple of retired clergy, retired academics and teachers, a young family with a neuro-diverse child, a seriously mentally-disturbed middle aged woman, and two officiating clergy, a recently-ordained woman priest and a male priest nearing retirement. Average age probably lower than that of Anglican congregations generally; ethnicity and social class probably more mixed.
I don't know what brings these people together (and it won't be the same group next week and wasn't last: there are far more people who show up occasionally than on any particular Sunday): it can't be a desire to meet up with friends as most people disappear rather than stay for the customary tea or coffee; it's not appreciation of choral church music (despite a good organist, the music is basic, and the cathedral is only a couple of minutes away); probably not an appreciation of challenging sermons since few people ever engage the preacher in discussion about it afterwards. For me, it is being able to sit (other postures are available) in a beautiful building enriched by more than a century of prayer, be caught up in the drama of the liturgy, and receive the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. These are the constants.
I don't know why all the others keep coming but if their reasons are very different from mine I'd be surprised.
I don't attend now, for various mostly medical/physical reasons, but pre-pandemic it was the liturgy and the music which kept me on board.
Ours is a very deprived parish, although a good 50% of the regulars (who often aren't especially regular IYSWIM) live within the parish, or within spitting distance of the boundary. I have remarked before how amazing it is that we have any congregation at all...
Were it not for those reasons, do you think you'd be attending?
Of the forty or so people who left my parish church around the time I did, because of the new style of leadership, some, maybe 3, have died, some, maybe 7 or 8 are no longer mobile or are too unwell, some ( about 12 that I know of) now attend other churches, and some go to no church. I would love to know why, but can only speculate.
FatherInCharge has just published and circulated his Holy Week programme leaflet, an idiosyncratic document listing all the services (and there are many), with explanations as to what each one means.
Alas, he has made what I think is an error by referring to people who don't go to church between Palm Sunday and Easter Day as *cheats* - somehow cheating God by not turning up on Maundy Thursday and/or Good Friday - although there may be many very good reasons for their absence.
Far from encouraging people to come to church in Holy Week (and MT and GF should be priorities, I suppose, though MT services tend to be in the evening*), this smacks of emotional blackmail, and is more likely to put people off.
YMMV, of course.
(*another local parish, with two churches, is holding a Maundy Thursday service at Church A at the sensible hour of 4pm, with the main service at 8m at Church
And he's an improvement on Fr Fuckwit? You poor sod.
Unfortunately complaining to those attending about those who aren't attending seems to be bewilderingly common for Holy Week services so FatherInCharge isn't the only one.
In all fairness, he really is an improvement on Fr F, but he does tend to get carried away with Enthusiasm™, and becomes a bit insensitive at times...
You are attending this church, in part, for the Christian Formation of your daughter. And that's a perfectly good reason. I worked with Godly Play for many years and mentored many of the adult volunteer storytellers at my church, and I can tell you that many of them would remark to me how they "had never understood this story before" or "this is really deep!" after working with the children on one of the biblical stories or parables. Maybe she can't tell you what the readings or sermon meant now, but she will become familiar with a lot of Scripture as she continues to work with Godly Play. I would suggest it is, ultimately, about theology. And it's also about being a good parent (if I may say so), bringing your daughter to a place where she feels safe and is valued. You really don't need better reasons than these.
Christian Formation. That's an interesting concept.
It's worth unpicking what it means.
Of the three LBlets, the one who probably has the deepest and most extensive understanding of Christian theology, Scripture and Doctrine is the one who's a fairly convinced atheist (I mean, he's open to God providing some evidence of his existence but thus far the Almighty has failed to oblige). In a way, he's the most like me. I just can't shake off the habit; can't quite come to the point of admitting - if that's not too strong a word - that evidence for God existing at all isn't strong and evidence for Christianity specifically being The Truth is weaker still*. I don't attend to worship God - I find the concept quite strange - why does God, if he exists, need or want me doing the "God, you are so very big. So absolutely huge. We're all really impressed down here, I can tell you!" stuff? God cannot benefit in any way from my being there; however I and those around me can hopefully benefit if I'm inspired by being with a like-minded community to more emulate the Christ concept as I understand it**. But that's not why - or not enough to be the reason why - I go. At least not the theological emphasis there.
But the point about LBlet #3 is she goes (she's not so young she couldn't be left behind) in order to work with pre-schoolers. I don't think any religious thoughts are in her mind at all. The Epiphany here is that this is, I think, still valid.
I don't have to care about the usefulness of primary care spirometry for avoiding hospital admissions for COPD to be a valid and useful part of a CCG IT department. I cannot force myself to care about God, per se, but what if that doesn't mean there's no place for me in the church?
*imagine that someone has mailed everyone in the UK a scratchcard. These cards have a code on them, some of which codes may entitle the bearer to a million pounds, but you won't know until New Year 2025 whether your code is a winner. It's a possibility the whole thing is a joke and none of the codes lead to a prize at all. The whole promotion has the support of reputable organisations and people. Do you chuck the card in the bin?
**Don't be a knob and help people out when you can.
'Does God exist?' is a meaningless question IMHO. If 'God' exists it means that s/he is a being existing alongside other beings. Therefore s/he can't be God. So much of the Church has been tainted with this idea of God as the Great Big One who must be obeyed, and it gives rise to all sorts of perversions such as persecutions, belief in hell, homophobia, and general knob-ness (to use your expression).
It all looks different once we stop thinking of God as a Being, and realise that God is just the name we give to 'being', 'existence' itself. God as the air we breathe (though that is a limited physical analogy), God as the 'ground of our being'. Then church, and worship, makes sense, because it is a way of entering into a deeper awareness of this reality.
Christianity, the depth and richness of our tradition, is for most of us (in the West and certainly on this website) the language by which we seek to understand this mystery. But other traditions are available, and just as people learn other languages and appreciate other cultures, some people feel drawn away from Christianity to a different way of appreciating the same mystery. But just as I know I will never become totally fluent in another language (not at my advanced age), I know it's too late for me to leave the environment of the Christian tradition. Other people's needs and experience may vary.
I can understand those (the majority in our culture) who have no time for any kind of religion. But I think they are missing out.
Wow! Thank you @angloid that is really helpful
OK. Is this "ground of being" capable of raising us from the dead? Was it incarnated in a carpenter's son 2000 years ago? Is it conscious? Is it a person that has a will? Can it approve or disapprove of our actions?
Put it another way, "does God exist" to me means "does this ground of being resemble God as the Abrahamic religions have imagined him?" It means "does this ground of being" have a will, a consciousness? Can it love? When we pray can it hear and can it respond? How does it do that?
I also feel faintly insulted by being told what is to me a fundamental question is meaningless. It absolutely isn't. If the universe is all that there is, then for me God does not exist.
The problem from an Eccles point of view is that to suggest that it doesn't matter at all - not just that it doesn't matter in terms of personal belief when attending church - then means that church as an experience is based ultimately on lies. To me there's a big difference between saying "it's OK to attend church for non-religious or non-spiritual reasons" and "God doesn't actually exist and we just do this because it feels nice". In the case of the latter I may as well just get those nice feelings from somewhere else and have a lie-in on Sunday. If Christianity is not somehow real in a tangible sense then church is also pretty pointless as well as Christianity as a whole. Even things like choirs no longer have to be done in churches.
Thank you for saying this. I'm reminded of a signature from the old ship (sourced elsewhere but much the same):
And Jesus said unto them, “But who do you say that I am?”
They replied, “You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed.”
And Jesus said, “What?!?”
I can just about grapple with philosophical ideas of God as far as the "uncaused cause" but much beyond that loses me.
Yes, this is what I was responding to upthread, the use of the word "exist" and I did find this concept meaningful and helpful but I know full well that some other people would not. I think this thread highlights for me again that discussion/ debate and dialogue are subtly different things.
If I bring my personal experience into a discussion I run the risk of possibly feeling trampled on by enthusiastically expressed responses from others. And yet those very responses can be a source of growth when I engage with them.
In a dialogue I seek to really hear another person and hope to be heard by them too which may involve levels of vulnerability and I accept is not going to be easy or even appropriate on a discussion board!
Can you rephrase that as I can't make any sense of it at all.
Why would anyone imagine God existing makes him a being like a cat?
All "Does God exist?" means is, as stated above, is God an objective reality or something we made up?
It seems to me that this "Does God exist is the wrong question to ask" and "It isn't a meaningful question" stuff is dodging the issue. I'm bloody sure that everyone knows what people mean by the question "Does God exist or not?"
I like the quote from Dylan Thomas - not at all unintelligible IMHO.
Our Place's congregation was a bit thin this morning, though whether that was due to the weather (it's British Summer Time, and therefore cold and wet), losing an hour on account of the clocks springing forward, or being accused of cheating God by not coming to church often enough in Holy Week, I couldn't say...
Yes that's what I was trying to get at. Sorry I confused people. Like most people on this Ship, I do believe in God. I just don't believe in a supernatural being alongside (albeit superior to) other beings. I'm no expert theologian or philosopher, but I rather think that St Thomas Aquinas would agree. Perhaps there is a non-pedantic way of using the term 'exist' without believing the former.
What verb would you prefer? I simply do not see why "exist" means anything more than "is real; not some idea people made up"
I didn't say God wasn't. I said God wasn't 'A being'.
The difficulty is that most people (maybe all) start with an idea of God. Even if they don't 'believe', they have an idea of what it is they don't believe in. So 'God exists' comes to mean 'my idea of God (which is probably a 'being' of some kind) exists.' God is mystery, not in the sense of a puzzle which clever people can find the answer to, but mystery in the sense of the deepest reality which is beyond all human words and concepts. That's why we Christians have Jesus, as the incarnation of that reality. But the only true response is what the hymn says, 'Let all mortal flesh keep silence.'
But there is the possibility that God isn't anything; he's just a made up idea. That's why the question "does God (any kind of God) exist?" is meaningful.
What *I* can't find meaningful is God being real in some way and not also being a being - a supreme being if you will, one from which all other beings derive their existence perhaps, but still a being. An entity.
The question is "is there anyone out there, whether you define him/she/it/them as a 'being' or not, listening, or are we praying to an invented idea that has no objective analogue?"