BACK to the FUTURE

A journey through 5000+ years of Theology by the Rev Dr Clive Yates. This is the print version of his address to the 2024 SOFiA AGM.

Some say that nothing ever changes in the Christian Church! And, that it is in rapid decline. I merely wish to point out something which may have escaped close attention.

Theology is talk about ‘spiritual’ things and is the formal language of all Religion. It has always been on the move; changing, adapting, discarding, yet continually evolving. This is true today still despite the numerical abandonment of Christianity (in the forms as we have known it). But the claims of terminable ‘decline’ undervalue the undercurrents of ‘spiritual awareness’ which are still present in Western societies. It is this specific, overlooked area of ‘awareness’ which is the basis of this address.

In the distant past, humankind looked at the night sky and were aware of the moon and stars. They were aware of objects and others around them. Thus, awareness grew out of their own self-identity. This was the start of ‘rationality’ as their observation eventually led to looking for similarities and repetitious patterns. Eventually, human minds looked for explanations of these phenomena based upon the possibility that regularity served some rational purpose. Clearly experiences which were pleasant were looked for, and some things were to be avoided. They had ideas of what was ‘good,’ but they also developed fears of bad or ‘evil’ things. Life seemed governed by a repetitive system which they identified with our Solar system, and from that recognition arose the ‘Stonehenge’ calendar and other Neolithic monuments. They measured and established the seasons and also their knowledge of the availability of food sources.

By about 4000 BCE, Egyptians were exploring the ideas of death and provision for their ‘afterlife’, and as a result built these funeral mausoleums we know as the Pyramids to await their future life. Elsewhere, in the Eastern Empires of Babylon and Persia, astronomical observations morphed into Astrological thought patterns predicting ‘Fate’ by the conjunction of these observed stars. The Persian religion of Zoroastrianism developed a complex dualistic belief system which attempted to explain the notions of ’Good’ and ‘Evil.’ These two concepts were accorded ‘Divine’ status and called Ahura-Mazda and Ah-Riman: corresponding to good and evil respectively.

Judaism’s Exilic period in the East encountered these dualistic concepts and the Jews incorporated the concepts of a ‘Creator’ and a ‘Satan’ into their belief system. The Jewish contact with other nations¹ had assisted them in identifying their Tribal peoples as a Nation with ideas of some form of afterlife. This developed into the ambiguous notion of ‘Sheol’² which was essentially some underground place, gloomy and dark; where the dead who were buried in the ‘pit,’ resided awaiting judgement. The ‘dead’ might no longer live active lives, but somehow were still ‘alive’! (From this developed a pre-existent idea of ‘Resurrection’ as a possibility (at least as a concept: --the ‘dead’ were not actually ‘dead & finished & gone’ irrevocably.)

Although tinged with Satanic dualism, the ‘Sheol’ concept informs us that a complex body of ethics aimed at ‘sinlessness’ was embedded into the Jewish Torah’s ‘Monotheism.’ And so, Jesus and Christianity appear at a time where Judaism finds itself under Roman oppression and exploitation, and Pharisaism has suppressed worship and religion into a rule-based, legalistic ‘righteousness’-compliance which could look the other way and tolerate a society where poverty and depression was endemic.

It was to that complex scene that Jesus of Nazareth appeared, lived, taught his followers, and was crucified by the Romans. Today, we have the Masoretic ‘Old Testament’ writings, as a guide to first Century thought.

The Christian community has been bequeathed the Canon of Scripture determined by Irenaeus of Lyons about 160 CE³. What seemed defined has actually become a muddle of textual inaccuracies⁴ and mistranslations; to which we have added our denominational distortions. The Constantinian Council of Nicaea essentially solidified doctrine as the Nicene ‘Creed’; -- a propositional formula which forms the backbone of today’s ‘belief’ structures with some additions.

Medieval times also added considerably with doctrines concerning child-baptism, and the major fourth century corruption in which Augustine added the new rationale of ‘Original Sin’⁵ whereby human sexuality itself became ‘the Sin’ which appeared to explain why ‘all were sinners’ and conversely ‘None were righteous’ regardless of any other human activity or strict compliance with the Decalogue.

It took another six centuries before the ambiguity created by the original attempts to explain exactly how Jesus’ death on the Cross led to “the forgiveness of sins” being granted by the Divinity. To this specific problem, a Norman named Anselm followed Anglo-Saxon logic in seeing ‘sin’ as an offence which required God’s Justice to punish such acts, but instead, to be ‘satisfied by a suitable and perfect ‘blood’ offering or ‘atoning sacrifice’. It was said that Jesus allowed himself to be that ‘blood sacrifice’ upon the cross⁶.

It took other Medieval brains to turn the ‘Sin’ concept into the idea of Pilgrimages, then into monetary Penances, and ever onwards towards Indulgences and Pardon for payments made into the grasping hands of Clergy. The REFORMATION, already rumbling for some three centuries prior, was almost inevitable. Luther may have dispensed with the previous Theological abuses, but he bequeathed a new mistress, namely sola fide, but controlled by sola scriptura, ( --hard and fast Biblical authority!).

I have taken the trouble to re-state all this to make you aware that Theology has never been absolutely fixed and, it was capable of ‘inadvertent and intentional change through time.’ So why is there such resistance today against another Reformation to bring Christianity up to date for today’s people⁷?

In my studies, I have taken note of the American ‘Jesus Seminar’ of Robert. Funk et al. and their efforts to separate ‘What Jesus did actually teach?” from the continuing accretions of the first three centuries. Latterly, I owe a debt to the late Bishop Spong who clearly enunciated the problems inhering in present-day Christian dogmatics. His popular writings and the work of others, beginning with Bishop John Robinson’s ‘Honest to God’; and continuing with the populist Don Cupitt’s Investigation of language used in Biblical texts and Religious Rituals⁸. All these books were eagerly sought by many in Church congregations, resulting not in changes, but inertia. They faced determined, dogmatic, strident, counterclaims falling only just short of ‘Heresy!’ if not legal accusations of ‘Blasphemy’. It seemed that the ‘faithful, having read them, assumed the final ‘word’ on religion and theology had been spoken!

Not so! Even Spong recognised the need for change but gave few clues as to the new paths to be followed. He did say it was time to “end de-construction and start re-construction of Christianity …” compatible with 20^th Century minds obsessed with scientific ‘truths’ and distracted by ‘worldly’ scepticism, status, and dreams of wealth.

However, it is one thing to recite (ad nauseum) the inherent problems: it is another to state firm foundations upon which to reconstruct! I therefore cite two foundation statements. Firstly, leaving aside the miraculous stories, Jesus and his ethical teachings affected the lives of a multitude of people throughout the Roman Empire. The reality of its meaning was more than the mere propositions it came to represent. We can usefully call it ‘spiritual awareness’ experienced personally. Secondly, people everywhere have always had an inner awareness of ‘forces’ outside of themselves which seem to act directly on their own consciousness in some way. Let us just stick with these ‘experiences’ as our accepted and unequivocable principles.

My re-construction starts with the premiss that we must each find God for ourselves. It is in fact that ‘awareness’ which Jesus recognised, and, from his own Jewish background, drew attention to that recognition. He taught that we should not only respect God as present in life, but we should respect all our neighbours too. In his teachings we are asked to care for others and share with others. Jesus’ teachings are the converse of today’s individualism; and cult of self-gratification, summed up in the old Scot’s phrase “the de’il tak the hinnermost.”

Considering where to start this Reformation, I suggest we choose what is common to everyone: --we ALL have ‘experiences.’ We experience gravity, fear, anger, beauty, awe, Music which inspires us, friendship, joy, and hope.

The question arises; “Are these experiences from God?” The true test is one of ethics. Are they helpful or self-harming? When you decide they are the former, then they can be counted as not only Christian, i.e. self-affirming, but real, and to be believed.

So, when I ‘experience’ or become aware mentally of these ‘good’ experiences, they confirm me in my Christian journeying. In the words of Martin Luther, “Here I stand” and if you adhere to these aspects of Jesus’ own teaching of ‘Love God and Love your neighbour and your enemies too,’ then you too are a Jesus follower (disciple.)

However, this demands that we need do practical things to make Christianity intelligible to this modern age. The ‘Mission’ is no longer “Get bottoms on Church pews and all will be well!” Christianity and its survival now rest upon us (-no-one else,) becoming agents of our own change! The following paragraphs highlight simple illustrations of where we necessarily need to make these changes.

The WORDS that we choose to use in our worship must be chosen with great care avoiding some of the doctrinal formulations or Terms as these no longer resonate as they may have done in the 16^th Century. References to ‘Heaven’ or ‘up-there’ are meaningless nowadays. An anthropocentric Deity somewhere above the cloudy stratosphere no longer resonates with science’s Hubble telescope or NASA. Thus, the choice of scripture(s) used should avoid ‘talk of Heaven /Hell and ‘moralism’ which points towards repercussions for either good or bad behaviour! The ‘Creation’ account in Genesis should be treated as an early attempt to explain Creation and simply placed alongside other hypotheses floated in this modern age about ‘Big-Bang’ or expanding ‘Quantum’ Universes.

The use of Prayer and its language ought to be carefully examined. It is one thing to praise the world of nature around us and its store of bounty by way of food and resources. It is right to acknowledge each day and what it brings; but quite another to request and look to invoke some form of aid from a Deity who no longer operates from a Throne on high dispensing blessings or curses (--for that matter) randomly or intentionally. Some words must have corresponding equivalents, e.g. “Father/Mother”/ God/ Lord; Angels / Holy Spirit. It may be helpful to think of ‘Intercessory Prayer’ as a community process which involves ethical thinking of human social care problems, while ‘Prayers of Approach’ acknowledge our awareness of the bounty of the hidden forces present in our daily lives and homes.

One point of difficulty foreseen is the need to adapt our traditional ‘Ritual’ to accommodate some of these proposals. Ritual is necessary, just as ‘Orders of Service’ and Programmes help us to keep the place. Thus, adaptive change is needed and to be encouraged. All the people present are ministering to each other. This is the most profound change to be undertaken!

MUSIC and the ARTS have always played a most useful, didactic role as illustrations, or mood-setting variations. (The Reformers whitewashed Parish churches and stripped them of all visual representations which instructed the populace) Hymns have always been sung as ‘Praises.’ They have been ‘teachers of Theology’ as well for many people, writers included. It is to be noted that some Hymn words are now regarded as ‘outdated’ or expressing dubious theological ideas. Many were written in the early 19^th Century and seem fixated on the ‘Redeeming blood’. Some so-called modern hymns express vague ideas not in accord with the directions sought.

What may be needed here is a genuine ‘mix’ of styles, using classical, modern, and even podcasts (where suitable) to reflect the chosen topic area. These are best used visually. There is no objection to using music’s emotional possibilities to enhance the experience of worship. Here there is a vital lesson. The visual illustration not only enhances interest, focus and mental engagement, but is remembered by an audience⁹.

ETHICAL teaching and examples. Suitable stress is to be place on Jesus’ ‘teachings’ especially on interactional relationships. This includes ‘charity’ and the need to aid those truly less fortunate. It follows that topics of ethical interest and involvement are suitable for intercessory Prayers. Constant attention needs be drawn to our own attitudes towards others, like smiling and greetings.

This leads to the most important function or purpose which is to stress and build COMMUNITY and TOGETHERNESS as a corporate act requiring participation at every level. Church has become a Sunday-hour only event for congregations. The stress now must be on acting together corporately in one or more ways in the public domain. We must learn that our passivity of the past occasioned by lengthy Sermons must be replaced with an activism which engages not only complete attention but encourages personal participation. This can be done effectively by use of PowerPoint with visual and short Videos emphasising self-learning through engaging eyes, ears, and minds; not ears only! There must be opportunity for everyday chatting and simple meals without reliance on others to provide hospitality every time.

It will be noted that some of these suggestions are already being explored by more progressive ministries. The biggest change these suggestions involve is to return worship to the people rather than ‘experts’ and professionals. These may now be outdated in the future! Rev Dr Clive Yates