11 April 2007

The end of religion the beginning of faith

This is the point where the issue of religious pluralism founders ultimately. At least so I thought when I was reviewing a book advocating religious pluralism. The thing tends to want to accord religious institutions 'salvific' parity. But what if, as many Christian evangelicals do, you tend to think that religion is a flawed friend of faith, spirituality and salvation, at best?
It means that religious pluralism is flawed by the lack of means to critique religion.

Now this article is not about religious pluralism but rather non-religious Christianity. And it seems to me that such a thing could and should exist. I wonder whether the same shift is possible for other faiths?

What if “religion,” and by this I mean the institutional and organizational form around faith, is no longer necessary for the future of faith?
Religions exist in certainty and sanctity; faith lives in inquiry and fluidity. The reason traditional faiths are having a hard time of things is that the present situation is one in which certainty is suspect and sanctity is being redefined.


Actually, a very interesting mini article from Barry Taylor of Fuller. Another intriguing thing he writes is.
One of the most interesting dynamics of the present time is the collapse of distinction between the sacred and the profane. Contemporary society allows for the “holy” to be found in the most unexpected places. As Christopher Partridge writes, “The new spiritual awakening makes use of thought-forms, ideas and practices, which are not at all alien to the majority of Westerners. They emerge from an essentially non-Christian religio-cultural milieu, a milieu that both resources and is resourced by popular culture.” The future of Christian faith lies in its ability to inhabit this gray world, not attempting to “sort it out” as much as to be available to help others navigate and negotiate the complexities that such a dynamic raises. To “go with the flow” might seem a trite way of describing theological engagement, but a commitment to fluidity and a willingness to swim in the cultural waters rather than insisting on one’s own paddling pool is a necessary perspective.


The interesting thing is also the reactions to this opinion piece. Some people just don't seem to 'get' the idea of separating institution from faith, expression from basis...

No comments:

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...