____________________________________
Clearly 'we' are at a point of a general and overt reassessment of the Christian belief-system. It is obvious that huge swaths of persons in our cultures have or are abandoning a Christian faith of their forefathers and either reject altogether the theological-doctrinal dictates altogether or else seek another type of faithfulness in a different religio-philosophical system. To some such an exodus, to use a wry term, makes complete sense and hardly needs to be defended. To come to such a point is evidence of intelligence, of clear-seeing, and a desire to live on reasonable and rational terms. To hold to a Christian faith is seen as regressive, illogical, non-progressive and perhaps even 'romantic' insofar as such a faith may be longing for a time that no longer exists; longing for established social mores that have been upended and revised; and in a general sense---almost as a perception of a sort of 'metaphysical miasma' that interweaves with our reality---of a deep paranoia/confusion about modern life and where it leads.
But I suggest that in no sense is this a simple issue. I suggest that there are numerous currents that flow through a general rejection of Christianity. Indeed, the closer one moves toward a definition of such rejection the nearer one comes to a very confusing nexus of motivations. It is possible that, in comparison to a sort of 'mindless existence' offered by consumer and entertainment culture that a 'thoughtful' Christian faith and practice, one that is grounded in social responsibility, commitment to a healthy family environment with emphasis on good relations, self-improvement, education and higher ideals, may indeed be recognizably superior to a life lived with no doctrinal system in place. Viewed in this way, a falling away from an intelligent faithfulness, if such a think is possible, and it seems that with some Christian theologians and their expressions of thoughtfulness it indeed is possible, that a rejection of one's Christian background may be a downward or backward step. It is possible that a rejection of such a doctrinal foundation with its parameters may be 'simply' a desire to live an uncontrolled, unregulated life.
There are many levels of complication. For example in those people who reject certain moral or moralizing aspects of Christian ethics---say in respect to sexuality---because they just don't buy or accept the authoritarian moral dictatorship of rigid Christians. Or that there exist too many bizarre Christian sects and Christian-derived sects (Mormon, Adventist, Pentecostal) which, when examined even superficially, seem filled with hopping nutcases. Not to mention of course the political aspect of conservative evangelicals most strongly noted in USA and to a lesser degree in Britain.
Now, it is not possible for me, nor honest, to approach this conversation from a 'faith-perspective' because, though I may have some level of 'faith' in existence, or some sort of god-behind-the-scenes, perhaps something akin to Providence, and a general, surrounding intelligence, yet I do not know how to have faith in the Christian god nor in Jesus Christ. I am formally 'on the outside' and it is likely there is no going 'back inside' for indeed what is really there? And what is 'the inside'?
But I came across, some time ago, a small volume of The Book of Common Prayer (According to the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church) which attracted me simply because it was such a nice little volume, nicely formatted and so forth. When I began to read it I noted that the value it represented overall and the subject matter was not at all of an inferior sort, indeed it was uniquely sophisticated. And I imagined such a person who might have internalized the ideas, the metaphysic, the values, in short (for want of a better word) the 'thoughtfulness' of the entire view presented (about life), and felt that such a Person is in some sense of a superior order and, also, that it is rare to encounter persons of depth, solidity, established value, commitment, etc.
Well, this is more or less the purpose of this topic: I thought to extract snips from this Common Prayer Book and perhaps from other Christian sources too, and try to comment on them in a 'fair' way if such is possible.
To start right at the very beginning I thought to snip out a phrase from the mere Preface:
- "It is a most invaluable part of that 'blessed liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free', that in his worship different forms and usages may without offense be allowed, provided the substance of the Faith be kept entire; and that, in every Church, what cannot be clearly determined to belong to Doctrine must be referred to Discipline; and therefor, by common consent and authority, may be altered, abridged, enlarged, amended, or otherwise disposed of, as may seem most convenient for the edification of the people, 'according to the various exigency of times and occasions' "