Wednesday, August 17, 2005

 
At work today, I was reminding someone why I'll be away for much or next week (summer course for ERMC at Ditchingham: kick-off for ordination training), and after asking "So, you're still convinced about it all?" (which, of itself, isn't such a great question to try to answer on a Wednesday afternoon, he asked "So, what's hell, then?"

This really isn't a good question to ask. Well, it's OK to ask, but it's really not very easy to answer. So, I stalled a bit, and then he said, "What about for people who don't believe, then?" I have to admit that I really wasn't very happy with the "you'll certainly regret it" which was my first answer (a little _too_ facetious, maybe not giving _very_ much more information). But, without going quite deep into the subject, it's really not a very easy question to answer. I explained that, in the liberal Western theological tradition (in which I'd place myself), the idea of a literal hell isn't strongly held. And I gave the canonical - or, at least, fairly orthodox - answer about knowing the fullness of all the things you'd done wrong, and the shame and hurt of being forgiven them despite that, but it felt a little flat. I think the problem was partly that for someone who is definitely an atheist, and a thinking one at that, it's difficult to find a way in. There's a hard balance to strike: I'm very strongly committed to avoiding being the sort of Christian who is a Christian with a _very_ big C, and who I'd feel alienated by if I were me, and not a Christian (or might even feel alienated by even as me, and a Christian!), but there are times when you need to stand up and be committed. And living the life isn't enough - you have to say things. I try to be clear, honest and definite, but not conceited, arrogant and annoying. But it's a fine line, when you look in from the outside.

One of the reasons that I accepted the vocation that God called me to (one of the parts of the call, indeed) was the thought "if I were me, and not a part of the Church of England, is it the sort of church I'd want to join?" The answer, too often, is "no", and that's part of what I need to embrace. And preaching fire and brimstone isn't what I'd need - even if it's what's expected. Even if (see yesterday's post), it's something I sometimes feel drawn towards.

The conversation was partly sparked by this very, very funny article. It takes the piss out of the "Intelligent Design" argument put up by some sections of the fundamentalist Christian movement (largely in the States) against the theory of evolution. It's a brilliant reductio ad absurdum, which pokes great holes in the "creationist" argument. My boss (bless him!) didn't realise that it was a brilliant piece of satire, and as I'd suggested it as a discussion point over lunch (I emailed a link out), started bemoaning the stupidity of those propounding these arguments. As well he might - this is only a step away from creationism. And creationism is, I'm afraid, a load of bollocks. It rejects (centuries of) biblical criticism, it completely misses the point of the scientific method, it ignores the difference between a scientific theory and socio-historical myth, and makes Christians a laughing stock. Hmm, that didn't sound very tolerant, did it? Well, next I'll start belabouring people who attack postmodernism, and _that'll_ show you... There are times when you need to stand up, and mocking the suggestion that creationism has equal merit as evolutionism is one of those times.

Music Today


# posted by MikeCamel @ 8:45 pm
Comments:
Thanks, Tosha. (I think...)
# posted by Blogger MikeCamel : 8:40 pm
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?