I can't help but think that.....

Categories: uncategorized

Date: 24 February 2005 20:32:16

.......heretics have gotten a really bad name for themselves. I would like to put the record straight(ish). I think maybe the source of the bad publicity heretics get amongst religious (I'll limit the blog to Christians for today) people is a result of a real lack of understanding of the history of the Christian church by the Christian church. It's an issue of self-understanding. Perhaps. Eckhart was put in court by the Pope (not the present one, he was still a kid) on heresy charges yet he was one of the most positive influences on the life of the church across Europe during his time (1260 - 1327....or 8, depends who you believe, what calendar he lived by, what calendar you live by and whether continental drift has caused mainland Europe to enter another time zone). He got away with it in the end. Just. Recommend his collection of his essays, etc, released by Penguin.

Rabelais (...er...that's Francois - late 1490's to about 1550 or so I'd say, no continental drift here, just can't be bothered to look it up - rather than Akira, whose music I would very much recommend by the way) managed to get away with it as well, somehow, and thus revealed a deep source of spiritual vitality in grotesque humour, sexuality, food, etc, etc, you get the idea, in our human creatureliness. I'd highly recommend his 'Gargantua' (don't worry, it's only a book....).

I guess the c-of-e (looks like a game of hangman where the answer is not quite coffee but nothing else either, hmmm) debate over whether to reintroduce "nice" heresy trials has got me thinking about this. Is it necessary for a priest to believe that God exists? I guess most people say absolutely. Was reading Paul Tillich's 'Christianity and Culture' over the summer and was reminded that it's quite theologically valid (don't really like the word 'orthodox', sounds to me more like 'party line' and gives me images of Christ as a sort of Party Whip) to believe that God does not exist. Tillich wrote that God did not exist in the same way that we exist, but rather that 'He' (feminism hadn't yet kicked in...) was existence itself, which seems to chime sweetly with that bit about 'in 'Him' (this was definitely before feminism kicked in) we live and breathe and have our being'. It also provides significant common ground for inter-faith dialogue and the valuing of the material in itself as well as for being spiritual resource. So would the c-of-e put Tillich on trial??? That's a thought I find pretty scary. What's the difference between faith 'tests' and religious totalitarianism?

Maintaining the serious attitude I would like to draw attention to a (ok, the one) comment I received about yesterdays post. Yes, I'm very happy to accept that there may well be a good deal of local variation of terminology on this matter. 'Whiz', 'whizz', 'wizz', 'wiz', 'waz', 'wazz', 'whaz', or 'whazz', I'm sure there is a place for all of them....umm, if y'know what I mean....