Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, you
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world:
For I was hungry, and you gave me food: I was thirsty, and you
gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was
in prison, and you came unto me.
-
Matthew
25:34-36
![]() |
|
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pasukaru76/4777196383/
|
Putting my metaphorical money
where my virtual mouth is, I went to my first Holy Communion at a local Anglican
Church the other week, and also had good chat with the vicar. It was both more
and less than what I expected, and my prejudices were confirmed and
challenged in equal measure. I’ve been mulling over the range of impressions I
have of the experience, each of which will no doubt be fodder for future posts.
There was humour, definitely. The eagerness to impress and hook new and – heavens!
– young blood was obvious. The experience of having to pray and sing things I
didn’t know the words to in the midst of a very grey congregation where I my
voice seemed to cut through everyone else’s mademe smile too. On the other
hand, the welcome was clearly heartfelt and genuine, as was the comfort derived
from the service and the community at the church, in addition to the obvious
commitment and pride that goes into the churches impressive ‘secular’
charitable endeavours. The food bank operating out of the church is very
impressive, as was the commitment of the congregation to be a hub for this kind
of service.
The theme of the service was surprisingly apt. The reading was Matthew 25: 31-46,
‘The sheep and goats judgement’, from which the excerpt above was taken.
The verse is concerned with the coming judgment, and – as the vicar told it –
the point was that superficial religious observance is insufficient to ensure a
place on the winning team when the end of days arrives. Rather, an
active charity and love was required of Christians, and that we were to love
one another as we should love Him. The vicar concentrated, oddly enough, on the
welcoming strangers part. Not chosen for my benefit - unless
they really do have special line to
the Big Guy. There was another bible reference that I really liked:
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some
have entertained angels unawares.
Definitely felt the feelings I
associate with religious experiences – which, despite my atheism, I have had – but which I’d only previously
known in Buddhist meditative contexts or while mulling over some whopper implication of a
scientific observation. There’s a sense of calm, effortless joyfulness and
unpredicated appreciativeness. It gives you a kind of mental
spaciousness, and I don’t (just) mean airheadness. No, it’s not faithful feelings I can’t do. Instead, its committing
to a cosmology, a sense of reality – be that a particular relation to the
world, or to a personal god - that doesn’t ring true for me. I find easy, and I
share, the comfort in religion as a choice one can make about ones relation to
the world. I find it difficult to accept as a description of the universe in
its own terms, given that – to me – it is so clearly anthropomorphic and anthropocentric.
Maybe I should understand faith in
similar terms to the way I have come to – relative to my younger self – understand
romantic love, after having had the (er...) benefit of a serious relationship for some years now. I find a
lot of adolescents, and adolescent adults, understand love as something that
happens to you, something that the universe arranges and that you have no part
in creating. For me at least, love is something you choose to be able to commit to, to be ready for and worthy of. Perhaps
faith is something you’ve got to engage with in the same way. William James,
talking about the active acquiescence
of religious life, makes a distinction between agreeing to, and agreeing with.

I'm reading an interesting book along these lines called "religion for athiests" - the author is a committed athiest, but believes that secular society is missing many of the beneficial institutions & ideas created & adopted by religion - not sure if that was what you were getting at, but it might be worth a read
ReplyDeleteNot sure I have a singular, ultimate point. The sphere I feel most stridently atheist is probably political, because there is an organised pro-religious lobby that wields a lot of power. On the other hand, what I find very interesting and have a lot of time for is religion as a source of personal strength and a way of dealing with life and the world we live it in. Ultimately, I think I'm a pluralist - there is space in our public discourse for religious and non-religious voices. I just think that sometimes those voices can be – at different times - appropriately understanding or raised in disagreement.
DeleteHave you ever been to a Quaker meeting? I once went to one in Brighton and as an atheist, it was the closest I've felt to being comfortable in a religious setting. Perhaps as there's no priest, no creed and no hymns, it's more accessible than the church experience you're talking about. One guy I spoke to afterwards (that's the thing - I felt I could talk to people in about their beliefs) told me he thought of himself as Quaker but not Christian, believing in a higher power but not a biblical God, Jesus maybe but not the Holy Spirit. As I've said before, my theory is that many people who call themselves Christians in Britain today hold beliefs which are more compatible with Quakerism than any other sect.
ReplyDeleteI havn't been to a Quaker meeting, no, but its definately on my list. In terms of your christians who are really quakers, I also wonder where some people who hold the kind of beliefs you mention would figure in the census information I included in the last post. Could someone who belives in a higher power, but no specific recognised diety or religion be included in No Religion?
Delete