It is because of silliness like this that people make fun of Episcopalians. If you don't truly believe in God, why go to a Christian church? Go to a Unitarian congregation where you can hear a lecture on wetland preservation.

Morris Post

While I'm sure Lawson Wulsin is a kind and sincere person, and the poem above can have great meaning for atheist humanists, I am constantly and consistently concerned about the Cafe's ongoing frequent decision to publicize and celebrate atheism and other forms of non-belief.

Do we really think the largest online Episcopalian presence should say, over and over again: It's pretty much okay to not believe in God.

The comments above, rejecting this credo even BEING here make me sad.

I don't believe I can say what everyone's path to knowing God can and should look like. It's in the seeking that we find.

My first response to reading this here on the Episcopal Cafe is that THIS is why I am Episcopalian-we embrace the searching, the questions, the diversity of all of God's creation.

Namaste-The God in me honors the God in you.

Susan Townsend

That poem is not about searching. It is a statement of (non) belief, a secular humanist's apologia for the existence (and, perhaps, goodness) of (made up) religions.

I had a time in my life when I questioned God's existence... I had a time when I doubted... I had a time when I felt disconnected from anything divine... I had a time when I was the only God in my life... and yet, at a time of God's choosing, God then revealed himself/herself to me and I believed... Let the one who has no sin cast the first stone... Allison Cornell

I don't think it is about sin. I think people are uncomfortable with someone who does not identify themselves as a Christian receiving communion. If his brother, the priest, knows that his brother is athiest he should not be giving him communion. The author of this email should be encouraged to come to Church and listen to the Word and grow in Faith.

Communion?

I'm talking about the Cafe's constant propagation of atheistic views without comment or explanation.

I have often had people write a Creed and share it in a study group - it helps people to see where they are in their faith journey. It is not a "last word" for all time -- but a seekers tool. Some times we compare notes and try to build a single creed - a great exercise in seeing the difficulties of the early councils. I advise reading MacCulloch's History of Christianity if you think there is one "sent from God" creed that we all agree on. I guess at least we don't kill each other physically these days.

No, Ann, there isn't one sent from God creed all Christians believe in. There are two, however, that Episcopalians are at least expected to believe in, and which are incompatible with the assertion that Man made God in his own image. Not everything is up for grabs.

What I find troubling is the suggestion that adopting this poem as a sort of mental reservation solves any problems Episcopalians might have in reciting the Nicene Creed. This sort of finger-crossing is something the enemies of the Episcopal Church love to make - "See? They don't really believe any of the stuff they say in Church!" It doesn't strike me as something that ought to be promoted by Episcopalians, lay or clergy.

Hmmm. I think this creed is a satisfying offering of half of the story, the half that the church and religious people are too reluctant to tell. Some deep desire and questioning in us humans pushes us to explain cosmically. We don't rest for searching for God and naming God and telling the story of God. Even today's "New Atheists" are at it, but they call their version of God "Reason." Our search for God and answering of our questions about what's ultimate is both holy and unholy, moved by the living God, and in danger of power games, psychological impoverishment, dark projection, etc. It's inescapably holy because it's the Spirits work in those 'sighs too deep for words' that St. Paul writes about in Romans. It's also a challenge for the discerning of Spirits (more St. Paul). The classic Christian corrective to this (and the other half of the story) is the oft-repeated saying of various desert fathers and mothers, "Every concept of God is an idol."

The other half of the story is that we believe, sense, recall, feel, and think that God is more committed to seeking us than we are to seeking God. Even the urge to make sense of the world is God moving in us. And the great story of the all-merciful God who becomes on of us in Christ is the most compelling and illuminating way of telling that half of the story that some of us know.

Belief is not something that can be willed. People believe what they can believe. Reciting a prayer is reciting the prayer of the larger community. As Ann points out, people are in different stages or places in their thinking.

I think it is more important to find out how a person lives rather than what he or she claims to believe.

What struck me here is that the son will marry in the Roman Catholic Church, having been raised by a cultural Episcopalian. Whereas the Episcopal Church is tolerant of people who at least recite the prayers, Rome is another kettle of fish.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I am enjoying the tug-and-pull of discussion here. Thanks to all here for a nice discussion.

I am one who embraces the traditional creed, and I also really enjoy hearing from other people like Dr. Wulsun. Not only does he compose poems well, but he challenges me to understand my own faith better. That, and articulate it better. I hope those who are upset by his words here can please make room for his voice.

I could go into a discussion about modern Naturalism and all that, but I'm really not much of a theologian. I do enjoy hearing how people come-to-believe, even if it isn't what I believe. So many people find "a way to believe", if I can phrase it that way, and it gives me great hope.

Kevin McGrane

May I add another comment, please?...

I took a course at a Quaker Meetinghouse on the basics of Quakerism. They nicknamed it “Quaker 101”. One of the students was a grad student working on his PhD in neuroscience. A very brilliant young fellow. He was there because of his studies of the human mind. He grew up in what he called a conservative religious home, and rejected the family faith years ago. But his study of the mind drew him to the Quakers.

He said, in effect, “I can tell you down to the electrons what goes on in the synapses of the mind while we eat, breath, and think. But I hit a wall at that point – what is there beyond that point of the physicality of human thought? There seems to be something beyond it that the science does not, maybe even cannot answer. What is that ‘consciousness’ beyond the physical science? I feel like I can only explore that here, among the Quakers.”

He struck me as a guy who was looking for a way to believe, or at least an understanding. It was a great moment in my faith journey, hearing from a fellow who truly was seeking. It was a revelation to me to watch him search for God.

Kevin McGrane

Let me be clear:

I am not against honest searching.

I am against the promotion of Secular Humanism and Atheism as legitimate alternatives to Christian belief.

Thanks to Dr. Wulsin, Mthr. Ann and also Fr. Schell. In the West, we have focused almost exclusively on cataphatic or "positive" theology. As time and thought have evolved over the centuries, there are some who find that the exclusive use of the "positive" theology has placed us "out of balance" as it were. I remember when reading about apophatic theology for the first time in the works of Karen Armstrong how liberating it was to know that there were those who believed that every "positive" statement about God should be followed by its "negative" complement. (e.g. God exists. God does not exist. God is all-good. God is not all good., etc.) To have only the "positives" is to demean/diminish the divine vision. These types of intellectual exercises keep us from making an "idol" of an anthropomorphic god made in our image and then lording this view over others that we try to terrorize into "toeing the line" of propositional faith. They are in the end a profound exercise as well in humility and acknowledgement of our complete incapacity to understand and really comprehend the wonder of the universe and God. It is possibly true that not everyone is fitted for or needs aphophatic theology, but for some of us, it is "ray of darkness" that continues to make a life of faith possible.

Adam: your voice is important, too. Thank you for being here and "hanging in there" with the rest of us.

Kevin McGrane

Dr Shy, whatever that poem is, it is not an example of apophatic theology. On the contrary, it makes explicit claims about God - such as the claim that he is a creation of humanity.

Thank you Bill.

Also- Dr. Shy: That is a gross mischaracterization of apophatic theology.

The thing is not "God does not exist" or "God is not good" the thing is "God does not exist... the way we usually speak about existing" and "God is not good... according to our human understanding of goodness"

Apophaticism (is that a word?) focuses on God's ineffable nature, it is not an exercise is relativistic truth-making.

(And, even if it meant exatly what you said... having a Greek-derived descriptive title does make a theological system legitimate or helpful).

Credo comes closer to the heart than the mind - perhaps our hearts are not quite as rigid as our minds with their preconceptions and desire for tight little boxes in which to put our God thinking.

Ann-
Funny, that's pretty much how I feel about the actual Creed, and (indeed) liturgy as a whole. It is my opinion that the mind is what gets in the way of a relationship with God. And the Credo poem - with its insistence that Man created God - seems bent on appealing to the (modern) mind.

I'm not immune to the lure of atheism, mind you- but God is quite immune. Or as I have written:

"Nay, chiefly are we born to die,
it matters not" he says, and I,
though tempted, and like sailors drawn,
to siren calls that bid them on,

I stay. Transfix'd by word,
so often read, so often heard,
my soul (must then it empty be?)
redoubles and re-sounds the sounds of Thee.

If emptiness be then my one defense
against seduction's war on every sense,
remove from me, oh God, what fills my mind
that resonances there your Word may find.

And if my soul be empty, so my heart,
That it may sing the music of your Art.
My will, my life, my all be emptied too:
Libations poured out - nay, drawn out by You.

I momentarily thought that I was reading BoingBoing instead of Episcopal Cafe.

(Sorry - that should have been:

having a Greek-derived descriptive title DOES NOT make a theological system legitimate or helpful
)

Ah, but both poems resonate deeply in me. As a cradle Episcopalian, I didn’t really live through the first poem, but rather I very intently examined my faith in light of the concepts it expresses. I always came back to my faith, but I am awestruck that the poem echoes my inner thought process, even as I spoke the creeds out loud. Now, the second poem gives me goose-bumps. It reflects much of where I am at now, and the words of the creeds are more and more meaning-full to me.

I know people who grew up in a faith tradition and never really left it, physically or spiritually. But as an EfM student and now mentor, I have had the privilege of hearing stories that reflect a wide variety of faith journeys. I can see that each of the poems can apply to different portions of the same journey. Journeys are not static, and each one is unique.

I'm all for meeting people where they are, but this seems to me to be more a denial of faith than honest searching for it. I would hope that the Episcopal Church could articulate a faith that speaks to all sorts and conditions without simply affirming any point of view whatsoever uncritically.

@Adam and @Bill

What I meant by my apparently dishonest, misleading and poorly worded and ignorant post is the probably very wrong idea that I believe that it can be helpful as we think about God to use non-theism (I believe that his view is primarily a non-supernatural theist one) as a way to jar us out of our sure convictions that some of us seem to hold that we know what God is and how he behaves and what he thinks and what he wants and what he wants us to believe and what he wants us to do and any other sorts of positive ideas. To the extent that this "credo" is a rather "anti-credo" as considered against the Nicene version (e.g. we created God, not the other way round), its negation of those "truths," I apparently wrongly believe, could be approached or considered as a form of apophatic or negative thought. Is it not remotely possible that a sincere "atheist"or "nontheist" view of God could perhaps teach (or better un-teach) us something, if we have open ears?
I don't think that "listening" to this "silliness" (as some have called it) is simply "affirming any view point whatsoever uncritically." Can we not even discuss things without entering "attack mode" any more? Am I alone in finding the Café an increasingly "mean" place to "hang out?" Maybe I _should_ be a unitarian and give my suffering TEC brothers and sisters a break. For me, the attack stuff is getting old.

Sometimes these attacks come because we are unwilling to see there might be some truth or we are not as sure of our beliefs as we say. I am certain that anyone entering the doors of these places where people are so sure and where they receive attack for any questioning - will be running away as fast as possible. I am shocked by the snarky retorts to this piece. There are ways to state your disagreement without mean remarks.

As to what the Café posts - it is a Café - if you don't like all the items on the menu- don't eat them!!

I'd like to say that I appreciate Adam Wood's willingness to continue voicing discomfort with the material -- something I share to a degree.

I read the initial poem with a half-raised eyebrow, and had to let out a slow whistle at the extent and apparent earnestness of the exercise, but as Ann said, I didn't "swallow it."

I'm aware that "reporting does not equal endorsing;" but I can also appreciate Adam at least raising the question (which might be worth its own post somewhere?) as to whether an informal authority accrues to the café simply by virtue of it becoming over time a central gathering place for Episcopal Church voices online.

1 Cor 8 strikes me as an astonishingly appropriate rubric for the ethics at stake; we know that food sacrificed to an idol (or a creed of atheism) has no particular power in itself, but we might be careful in our response to it, lest the exercise of our rights should become a stumbling block to the weak. Is that a fair ethic to challenge the editors at the cafe with? Perhaps, and certainly to the extent that they proclaim a public face of the Episcopal Church.

On the other hand, I was struck by this comment by CS Lewis (which happened to be the daily reading in The Business of Heaven when this post was added to the cafe): "My general case may be stated ... that culture is a storehouse of the best (sub-Christian) values. These values are in themselves of the soul, not the spirit. But God created the soul. Its values may be expected, therefore, to contain some reflection or antepast of the spiritual values. They will save no man. They resemble the regenerate life only as affection resembles charity, or honour resembles virtue, or the moon the sun. But though 'like is not the same', it is better than unlike. Imitation may pass into initiation. For some it is a good beginning. For others it is not; culture is not everyone's road into Jerusalem, and for some it is a road out."

Adam's raised the ways in which Christians might properly be concerned that this creed has become a "road out" for Mr. Wulsin. It may be worth our time to wonder whether it could ever be a road in? (This would seem to be at least part of the impulse of those who have raised apophatic theology) My slow whistle at the extent and earnestness of the post was connected to that question for me: I can't imagine this creed leading Mr. Wulsin to the saving grace of God.

Thankfully, that's ultimately God's business (or perhaps, I wryly note, the business of heaven), and not (tabling for a moment what could actually be an important and nuanced discussion of the role of the clergy) mine.

#2cents, as the kids say these days.

Ben Varnum

I don't think there's anything mean about saying that if you don't believe in God you're not a Christian. I love all kinds of people who aren't Christian and not all of them are theists.

A few years ago at the American Academy of Religion, there was a panel with Richard Rorty, a noted pragmatist atheist, a few other people, and Cornel West. Someone tried to make the argument that Rorty was an apophatic believer malgre lui. West rightly said something like the following. "Excuse me. But Richard Rorty is not a Christian. I love the brother and all, but we do have standards." Not every standard, or norm, involves looking down your nose at someone. We ought not present the non-normative as normative, or to pretend we don't have any norms.

The norms involve far more than a bare minimum theism. They require assent to the dogmas of Trinity and Incarnation and certain other foundational mysteries like resurrection. There is some leeway in interpretation, but not an infinite amount. I certainly want to be welcoming to all, but stating the norm is a perfectly valid and natural response for a Christian to make to a denial of God's existence.

It's very odd that anyone would look at Credo as an example of "questioning," as far as I'm
concerned. It doesn't appear to question much at all, but instead states fairly clearly that Man created God, that religion is simply a human construct. Claiming it as an example of "questioning," it seems to me, does an injustice to the poem, the poet's ability, and the intelligence of the reader.

Benedict wrote:

I'm aware that "reporting does not equal endorsing;" but I can also appreciate Adam at least raising the question (which might be worth its own post somewhere?) as to whether an informal authority accrues to the café simply by virtue of it becoming over time a central gathering place for Episcopal Church voices online.

Here is that post: No. We publish what the hell we want. As soon as we stop doing that and start trying to pretend we "represent" the church and must adjust our editorial decisions accordingly,we're screwed. We are independent or we are nothing.

Dr Shy, I've learned a great many things from atheists. I haven't found them at all convincing about the existence of God, however. YMMV.

And if someone hauls out that childish "mean" meme again, I shall scream.

People are in different places and should be encouraged to express themselves honestly.

The denominational independence of The Episcopal Cafe is one of its many virtues.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Jim, what are the criteria for placing a post in one section rather than another? What goes into the Art Blog is pretty self explanatory, but the distinctions between the other sections are less so. I ask because it seems odd to find a posting from a non-Christian in the Daily Episcopalian section, as if what it contained were somehow "Episcopalian."

Well, so much for people being encouraged to express themselves honestly. First I find a comment of mine altered by an editor, but without a notation to that effect, and now my comments are suddenly held for approval.

Bill - we moderate many commenters - as to deleting your sentence - just trying to save you from screaming! But it is back in its place now. A.

Not Jim, but answering since I currently edit Daily Episcopalian. My criteria are - is it interesting, does it reflect something that will evoke discussion, is it timely about some aspect of the church, is it within the broad spectrum of every day Episcopalians who are attending our churches. And sometimes just something about which I want to hear more comment and think others might also. This piece met several of these and has certainly had lots of comments.

When I look back over what gets discussion and what does not -- very interesting.

Ann

Thanks for letting me risk a scream, Ann.

But more seriously, though, aren't those also characteristics found in posts on The Lead? Not trying to be difficult here (it's a gift - no trying needed) just confused. Or do different people edit each section, and I haven't noticed?

The poem or credo does not seem to be related to a search for God. Rather, it seems to be the rambling statement of a devout atheist. For those who don't wish to profess our creeds, perhaps they should seek ordination in some "church" on the Internet and develop their own Church of No Discernible Belief.

Bill, the difference between The Lead and DE isn't content, but form. Much of what is on The Lead doesn't originate with us. It's more aggregation than creation. There are exceptions, and since The Lead has evolved into a de facto breaking news blog, we do put original reporting there on occasion as well. What we only seldom put on The Lead, though, are essays. The essays we do use on The Lead are usually written by me, and usually pertain to breaking church-related news stories. In general, essays appear on DE.

Thanks for the explanation, Jim.

Bill --There are 5 of us who keep The Lead going. If you look at the bottom of each item - you can see who is posting the stories. Speaking to the Soul is generally based on the Daily Office -- weekdays MTWF by Lowell Grisham, Th by BIll Carroll and weekends by LInda Ryan and Maria Evans. Daily Episcopalian and Speaking to the Soul are original essays generally not posted elsewhere (tho there are exceptions) - there are about 30 people who contribute at various times plus an occasional new writer.

Thanks for the information, Ann. I confess that I had noticed the names of various editors before, but didn't note the patterns of who did what.

I read this the other day which seems appropriate (I think!).

"So encourage each other and build it other up, just as you are already doing. Dear brothers and sisters, honor those who are your leaders in the Lord's work....Encourage those who are timid. Take care of those who are weak. Be patient with everyone."

1 Thess. 5: 11-15

I hope we can be patient with one another, encourage one another, take care of those among us who are "weak". If we are The Jesus People, we act differently that those of the rest of society: we make room for all.

Kevin McGrane

I find it fascinating that whole hunks of Episcopalians seem to expect every other blessed Episcopalian to be just as sure and certain about the Nicene Creed, et al as our ordained leadership. If you struggle or doubt or think "what the hell...", then don't touch that chalice, you get to stay seated while the rest of us God-blessed smarties get to file on by you. Maybe you'll get a smile and a wave.

I honestly have no idea about that which is Invisible. I just trust and carry on. If you have ideas, then you get to tell me why you have it figured out and I don't.

Clint, the part that especially bothers me whenever one of these "how can anyone say credo" posts comes around is how so many clerics jump on the "go ahead and doubt" bandwagon. One would like to think that there might be some encouragement of taking the church as some degree of an authority, and of helping people to confront and criticize their doubts, to the end that, well, orthodox faith might be reinforced. But it seems to me that this sort of approach is only supported by laypeople here.

Likewise, Jim, there are too many people in positions of some authority or representation to take the independence of this forum too seriously. I assume that novelties floated here are eventually going to turn into GC talking points, simply because so many of those present have some ability to make that happen.

C Wingate, you haven't got any idea the price that some of us associated with the Cafe have paid for its editorial independence. You've worn out your welcome.

"I find it fascinating that whole hunks of Episcopalians seem to expect every other blessed Episcopalian to be just as sure and certain about the Nicene Creed, et al as our ordained leadership."

I find it fascinating that you seem to think the laity regard our ordained leadership as being particularly sure and certain about the Nicene Creed, Clint.

I also find it fascinating that concerns expressed about this particular post are interpreted as being somehow against doubt or questioning, since the post itself doesn't deal with those topics at all. If someone on this thread has asserted that there is no place in the Church for questioning or doubt, I must have missed it.

On Pragmatic Theologians

O practiced hand of theory, ever taking
paths that lead to "useful," even making
knowledge of divine like kit instructions
turning points of dogma into functions-

Away! and take your scheming sermons with you.
I will not hear conclusions that your myth drew.
For I seek wisdom, truth, illumination-
but you say truth depends on situation.

Fall in the arms of God, and you will see, then,
That pragmatists are worse than any heathen,
For to have seen, but still "explain," God's graces,
is like a pen that writes and, just as fast, erases.

Yet there is hope for all (for God is gracious)
no matter how wrong-headed or fallacious.
For I once thought as you- but I was youthful,
and now know only truth makes something truthful.

The people who work on the Episcopal Cafe deserve people's thanks for providing such an amazingly open forum, one in which church leaders are called to explain themselves from time to time. I am thinking in particular about the discussion about the restructuring of the denomination.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I find it sad that it's "my way or the highway" for some folks here.

I am sure many current Episcopalians of quite orthodox beliefs were first drawn to the church by the motto, "whoever you are, and wherever you are on your spiritual journey, you are welcome here" that allowed them to find their own way into faith.

I doubt they would have arrived if they had to pass a checklist of required beliefs before they were allowed through the door.

As for the Cafe, I concur that there seems to be quite a bit of rancor, or at least polarization, of late. It is unfortunate.

Susan Forsburg