Archbishop of Canterbury 'doubts God exists'

[Nikolai1]

The full article is here:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29255792

 

His frankness seems to have been widely welcomed - clearly people seem to like it that he is not putting himself on a pedestal of certainty.

 

But I can't help thinking that this man is the head of the Anglican church - the spiritual leader of an estimated 86 million souls worldwide!

 

How can it be that he has not gained a bit more spiritual confidence?

 

How can it be that the modern Christian leaders are still trapped in the sterile intellectual dichotomy of existence versus non-existence of God?

 

Then we gain a glimpse of the Archbishop's methods of prayer...

 

 

"The other day I was praying over something while I was running and I ended up saying to God, 'this is all very well, but isn't it about time you did something, if you're there,' which is not probably what the Archbishop of Canterbury should say,"

 

So it seems that interspersed between the pounding of his feet and his heart, and his heavy breathing and the dodging of pedestrians, the snatches of mental monologue he hears in his head is his idea of prayer?

 

Can anything more vulgar be imagined?

 

Anyone who has made even a semi-serious attempt at prayer/meditation soon understands that it requires the very highest levels of concentration. Silence and solitude are incredibly useful aids to this. But the Archbishop thinks it can be something to be squeezed in to his daily jog!

 

And at the same time he all but confesses that his God is some kind of helperouter, someone to call up whilst out jogging for a bit of advice!

 

Only the spiritually immature would call upon God in this way. To understand God is to to understand that there is a part of us that is perfect and whole and loved regardless of our daily problems. It is by focussing on our spiritual selfhood that our daily problems attain manageable proportions.

 

But the spiritually immature are still very much wrapped up in all the hubbub of the world. Quite frankly, they want real world solutions to the problems without for a moment imagining that the problem is themselves and their overestimation of the inessential.

 

He admits that all this 'is not probably what the Archbishop of Canterbury should say.' No doubt he means that it is politically reckless to admit doubt.

 

But he should be able to say what he wants, and it is surely better that he admit his immaturity rather than attempt the appearance of holiness.

 

But there is one brutal truth that remains. A good deal of his ´deacons, priests, chaplains, lay readers, alter-servers and everyday church-goers will instantly recognise in this speech the tell-tale signs of spiritual immaturity. They will doubtless have passed through, and resolved, perhaps long ago, the same kind of crisis.

 

How on earth does he maintain his spiritual authority. His words are nothing other than the admission that the skills that brought him to the head of the Anglican Church were merely administrative.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Nikolai1

[Apech]

You can't expect much more from the Church of England these days ... there does not seem to be any contemplative side to their activities and it's almost considered bad taste to have any conviction about God or Jesus.

 

I imagine God feels much the same about the Archbishop ... vague sense he might exist but really not quite sure what the point of him is.

 

All religions need contemplatives as a kind of resource for renewal ... without that it becomes more or less an intellectual exercise. Thin, weedy and etiolated.

[dust]

So it seems that interspersed between the pounding of his feet and his heart, and his heavy breathing and the dodging of pedestrians, the snatches of mental monologue he hears in his head is his idea of prayer? (...) Anyone who has made even a semi-serious attempt at prayer/meditation soon understands that it requires the very highest levels of concentration. Silence and solitude are incredibly useful aids to this. But the Archbishop thinks it can be something to be squeezed in to his daily jog!

 

I'm not an expert on either prayer or meditation. As I understand, though,

 

Having been educated at a Protestant and a Catholic shool, as I've participated in and understood Christian prayer in the past, it is nothing more than putting one's hands together and talking to God. If we assume, as believers do, that God is omnipresent, there is no need to affect any kind of deep concentration in order for God to hear this. One might imagine, actually, that such a religious man would be talking to God and asking for advice for much of the day, and that during a jog -- seeing people on the street, trees, birds, life being lived -- might be a time when one feels most in touch with nature, and God.

 

In terms of meditation.. I've read about all sorts of different practices that don't involve serious concentration and silence. Some might use a gong, mandala, incense, mala, or other outward sound/sight/smell/touch tools to aid in the practice, no?

[Michael Sternbach]

The full article is here:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29255792

 

His frankness seems to have been widely welcomed - clearly people seem to like it that he is not putting himself on a pedestal of certainty.

 

But I can't help thinking that this man is the head of the Anglican church - the spiritual leader of an estimated 86 million souls worldwide!

 

How can it be that he has not gained a bit more spiritual confidence?

 

How can it be that the modern Christian leaders are still trapped in the sterile intellectual dichotomy of existence versus non-existence of God?

 

I'd say, it's illustrating that any dualistic concept of God or spirituality leaves one in doubt, eventually.

 

Then we gain a glimpse of the Archbishop's methods of prayer...

 

So it seems that interspersed between the pounding of his feet and his heart, and his heavy breathing and the dodging of pedestrians, the snatches of mental monologue he hears in his head is his idea of prayer?

 

Can anything more vulgar be imagined?

 

I beg to differ. You could actually say that a spontaneous and natural approach is expressing true belief. (See this as linked to my first paragraph.)

 

Anyone who has made even a semi-serious attempt at prayer/meditation soon understands that it requires the very highest levels of concentration. Silence and solitude are incredibly useful aids to this. But the Archbishop thinks it can be something to be squeezed in to his daily jog!

 

If one's meditation/prayer would be limited to this, it may seem to be lacking in the long run (no pun intended). Especially if you are an Archbishop.

 

However, there is nothing wrong with doing these things informally per se. Especially on the more advanced levels, you can do them at a moment's notice. Surely, Jesus would be a good example for this?

 

And at the same time he all but confesses that his God is some kind of helperouter, someone to call up whilst out jogging for a bit of advice!

 

Only the spiritually immature would call upon God in this way.

 

See my last paragraph.

 

To understand God is to to understand that there is a part of us that is perfect and whole and loved regardless of our daily problems. It is by focussing on our spiritual selfhood that our daily problems attain manageable proportions.

 

But the spiritually immature are still very much wrapped up in all the hubbub of the world. Quite frankly, they want real world solutions to the problems without for a moment imagining that the problem is themselves and their overestimation of the inessential.

 

Some truth in this.

 

He admits that all this 'is not probably what the Archbishop of Canterbury should say.' No doubt he means that it is politically reckless to admit doubt.

 

But he should be able to say what he wants, and it is surely better that he admit his immaturity rather than attempt the appearance of holiness.

 

I strongly agree with you here.

 

But there is one brutal truth that remains. A good deal of his ´deacons, priests, chaplains, lay readers, alter-servers and everyday church-goers will instantly recognise in this speech the tell-tale signs of spiritual immaturity. They will doubtless have passed through, and resolved, perhaps long ago, the same kind of crisis.

 

How on earth does he maintain his spiritual authority. His words are nothing other than the admission that the skills that brought him to the head of the Anglican Church were merely administrative.

 

Well, this is often the case, and not limited to Christian institutions. Didn't you know?

 

Yes, the Archbishop's attitude is not very assertive for faith in the classic style. But in the new paradigm, knowledge and personal experience are substituted for pure belief. Christian organizations which don't take into account people's increasing spirituality will lose all their significance over time, imo... as their unprecedented loss of followers in modern times demonstrates!

[Chang]

Alas. The Church of England has tried to be so many different things to so many different people for so many years that it has long since ceased to be anything to anybody. It would not surprise me in the least to hear that the Archbishop of Canterbury had decided to become a Muslim; in which case he had best keep silent regarding his doubts on the existence of God.

[C T]

The concepts around God, since a long time ago, aren't they formed around crisis, doubts, tribulations and general unrest? Would God be if these weren't the source of its creation in the minds of beings?

 

Think about it... the central theme in the NT is... salvation! What sort of spiritual foundation can one build on a theme like that?

[Protector]

*chanting in the distance grows louder* atheism ATHEISM! ATHEISM!

[Apech]

The concepts around God, since a long time ago, aren't they formed around crisis, doubts, tribulations and general unrest? Would God be if these weren't the source of its creation in the minds of beings?

 

Think about it... the central theme in the NT is... salvation! What sort of spiritual foundation can one build on a theme like that?

 

 

Eh? Buddhism is soteriological also. Different approach granted but not very different ethically from NT and both believe in liberation of sorts.

[Apech]

*chanting in the distance grows louder* atheism ATHEISM! ATHEISM!

 

A meaningless word if there is no God and a meaningless word if there is.

[Nikolai1]

Having been educated at a Protestant and a Catholic shool, as I've participated in and understood Christian prayer in the past, it is nothing more than putting one's hands together and talking to God.

 

The prayer tradition in Christianity is so rich and varied that it includes pretty much everything.

 

But the aim of the Christian life is the same as all the world religions: union of the individual self with the Divine principle. Progress along this path occurs in stages:

 

Obviously those that are furthest from this goal are those who are most wedded to the idea of an individual mortal self in a world of time and space. Such people's aims, hopes and dreams will only make sense within this worldview. The prayer of such people will be petitionary. They will ask and request God to give them want they like ,and need and spare them what they don't like and need

 

A slightly less egocentric petitonary prayer is also very common, praying in order to secure the earthly needs of those they care for.

 

A quantum leap in spiritual growth is when the immense peace and joy of God is first felt. With this comes the recognition that anything can be tolerated in this life if the peace of God happens to be with you. Prayer for these people now becomes very different. One does not prayer for specific outcomes, but for the grace to tolerate any outcome, whatever God wills it to be. One might prayer for peace and fortitude, in case of the bad, or gratitude and humility in case of the good.

 

The next level comes when you realise you want nothing from God, you ask for nothing, not even his peace. You prayer simply in order to join with Him. This empty mental prayer is the prayer of the mystics, many of whom are the most influential figures in Christianity.

 

Of course, when it comes to the spiritual life, very few reach the heights of union with God, and the lowest petitionary prayer is probably the most representative prayer of the Christian movement. What is surprising though is the Archbishop of Canterbury is openly confessing to be at a pretty low level of spiritual maturity.

 

Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

If one's meditation/prayer would be limited to this, it may seem to be lacking in the long run (no pun intended). Especially if you are an Archbishop.

 

Once you have experienced God directly, either transiently in the form of grace, or permanently in the state of union. It can feel pretty nigh on sacrilegious to revert back to the prayer style of the mortal in time and space. You feel morally degraded by the attempt, even if it occurs to you. In fact, you would even hope that God wouldn't answer such a request because you feel that to have it granted would weaken you spiritually. I'm sure there are many people who can associate with this. God's will is all you want, and what that is is left for him to decide.

 

Our experience of God changes the form of our prayer - the two develop in concert. I find it psychologically impossible that the Archbishop would talk in this way about prayer, if his experience of God were mature.

[C T]

Eh? Buddhism is soteriological also. Different approach granted but not very different ethically from NT and both believe in liberation of sorts.

Partly true, where the general, less precise followers are concerned, yet, upon deeper introspection and study, the difference is quite apparent.

 

While both speaks of liberation, each differs vastly in the ethics formed around this. Can it be any other way when both approach the nature of man from totally contrasting perspectives - one speak of man's essential nature to be sinful, while the other speaks of the same nature to be self-perfected. The only similarities lie in the slogans attached to practice, like love and compassion, kindness, etc. Not to mention where each differ again regarding the concept of heaven.

[Apech]

Partly true, where the general, less precise followers are concerned, yet, upon deeper introspection and study, the difference is quite apparent.

 

While both speaks of liberation, each differs vastly in the ethics formed around this. Can it be any other way when both approach the nature of man from totally contrasting perspectives - one speak of man's essential nature to be sinful, while the other speaks of the same nature to be self-perfected. The only similarities lie in the slogans attached to practice, like love and compassion, kindness, etc. Not to mention where each differ again regarding the concept of heaven.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[dust]

Obviously those that are furthest from this goal are those who are most wedded to the idea of an individual mortal self in a world of time and space. Such people's aims, hopes and dreams will only make sense within this worldview. The prayer of such people will be petitionary. They will ask and request God to give them want they like ,and need and spare them what they don't like and need

 

This is what Christianity is, and what the Abrahamic religions have always been -- people vs people in a world created by a supreme being; individuals in a world of time and space.

 

In Matthew 6, we're given the Lord's Prayer. Jesus told us to ask for things.

 

http://neno.co.ke/bible/book/Matthew/6/11

 

I have never come across the idea, among any Christian I've ever met -- anyone who truly believes in the Old and/or New Testaments -- of being more "spiritually mature" than people like Moses, Job, or Jesus. They all talked to God, telling him things and asking him questions, and received miracles.

Edited September 19, 2014 by dustybeijing

[C T]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Too bad, could have been very enlightening to reflect on your views.

[Chang]

Too bad, could have been very enlightening to reflect on your views.

“Oh, come with old Khayyám, and leave the Wise

To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;

One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;

The Flower that once has blown for ever dies.”

[C T]

“Oh, come with old Khayyám, and leave the Wise

To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;

One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;

The Flower that once blown for ever dies.”

[Nikolai1]

This is what Christianity is, and what the Abrahamic religions have always been -- people vs people in a world created by a supreme being; individuals in a world of time and space.

 

True, but they have also believed that there is a portion of themselves - the soul - which transcends time and space.

 

The spiritually immature Christian's level of consciousness is very much occupied with their existence in time and space: body not soul.

 

The spiritually mature Christian's level of consciousness is spiritual. The kingdom of heaven is even more to them than some happy posthumous state. It can be directly realised; it is 'within us' or 'at hand'.

 

Within the religion, it is the spiritually mature who have captivated the hearts and minds of the people and directed them. They have been turned into saints, Doctors of the Church etc.

 

It is quite clear the that the present Archbishop's troubles are very much here on earth, he does not feel the comfort and peace of 'heaven within him'...and therefore asks God to take away his troubles!

[Apech]

Too bad, could have been very enlightening to reflect on your views.

 

Oh well if you insist!!!

 

behind, within or developed from (it matters little) the NT story is a tradition which holds that man exists in a fallen state, that is out of relation with God = the Absolute nature or reality. That we exist like the prodigal son eating husks (the outer shell of things) with pigs (fellow ignorant beings). That Jesus as saviour demonstrated a way back to Truth which leads to union with God and finding the Kingdom (which is within) - 'when thine eye be single then thy whole body also is filled with light' - this way is one of individuation = finding within yourself the keys to the kingdom and involved the embodiment of love (that is the energy of willing the benefit of all beings which reflects the original creative power of God).

 

Not so very different in some ways to saying we as individual beings exist in ignorance which leads to suffering. And that there is a way (8 fold path) which leads away from this towards a realisation of the true nature of things = liberation. That this way is both ethical and introspective and that it is possible because we have within us the seed of Buddha-nature.

 

That's more or less it. two paths very different in origin and cultural trappings which some praxis at odds with each other ... but beneath the surface not so very different at all. One for people who relate to and have a connection with the idea of God as a person, the other for those who do not.

[forestofclarity]

Actually, I think this is a bit reductionist. There is no monolithic Christianity just as there is monolithic Buddhism.

 

Mystical Judeo-Christian teachings tend to present human beings as a mix of higher and lower natures. The animalistic nature tends to pull one down, while the spiritual nature leads one higher. Human beings are, after all, made in the image of God, so to say that the essence of a human being is sin is a bit simplistic. Humans stand between heaven and earth and can perform as a channel so that divine energy can manifest on earth.

 

Actually, taking a closer look at this, the ancient Jews taught that the blood contained the animal soul, or nefesh. So a blood sacrifice can be seen in some ways to be a sacrifice of the lower or animal nature. It is this lower of animal nature that tends to pull people down.

 

One difference that I see is that Christian mysticism is completely dependent on grace. There is something of a lack of historical methods because one cannot manipulate God, so to speak. Rather, many of the mystics speak of clearing away the old self, or kenosis (which actually reminds me a lot of Soto Zen). Once self-emptying is accomplished, the divine presence may manifest (i.e. theosis). So a Christian mystic doesn't practice in order to achieve anything. Rather, a Christian mystic practices in order to get rid of the obstacles between oneself and God. And once these obstacles are removed, it is only natural for God to manifest.

 

As far as comparisons to Buddhism, I would take a look at Pureland teachings which are also other-power oriented.

 

 

Partly true, where the general, less precise followers are concerned, yet, upon deeper introspection and study, the difference is quite apparent.

 

While both speaks of liberation, each differs vastly in the ethics formed around this. Can it be any other way when both approach the nature of man from totally contrasting perspectives - one speak of man's essential nature to be sinful, while the other speaks of the same nature to be self-perfected. The only similarities lie in the slogans attached to practice, like love and compassion, kindness, etc. Not to mention where each differ again regarding the concept of heaven.

[Silent Answers]

Or ... Maybe he thought it would make him seem more down to earth...help ease the worries of other followers that are carrying guilt over having doubted.

 

But then again, I'm not exactly a full on believer myself.

 

This is @ dustybeijing, regarding prayer...Think of it as a form of meditation, with the hands touching like a mudra. You can really get some good results with a correctly felt prayer.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Silent Answers

[dust]

True, but they have also believed that there is a portion of themselves - the soul - which transcends time and space.

 

Yes..though I think most just think of it as the shiny thing that will fly to heaven when they die!

 

The spiritually mature Christian's level of consciousness is spiritual. The kingdom of heaven is even more to them than some happy posthumous state. It can be directly realised; it is 'within us' or 'at hand'.

 

This may well be true...I haven't met every Christian on the planet. But those I have met, and heard about, and read about, are generally lacking in this regard.

 

I may have a somewhat jaded view, but can you blame me? The priest at my Catholic school, a man who most thought was wonderful and spiritual and wise, was sent to prison on child porn charges...

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Sadly blind faith gives no answers, while genuine Christian cultivation probably does. The attitude in the UK seems to be 'you can be religious if you must, but experience anything and you're nuts'. The AoC seems decent and honest, I hope he finds something that works for him.

[Nikolai1]

Or ... Maybe he thought it would make him seem more down to earth...help ease the worries of other followers that are carrying guilt over having doubted.

 

 

I certainly think he wanted to appear down to earth. I also think he spoke with full sincerity.

 

But the genuine spiritual director does not wish to pretend to be less holy, just to make others feel better. All they want is for their pupil to find God. He does not say 'hey, we all doubt God, but its OK.' He rather says, doubt is a phase we all must go through, but there is Truth, certainty and peace waiting for us at the end of it.

 

This may well be true...I haven't met every Christian on the planet. But those I have met, and heard about, and read about, are generally lacking in this regard.

 

The overwhelming majority of Christians are just regular people, no more spiritually minded than atheists, just regular people living their life in the common sense world view of 'eat, drink and be merry for soon we shall die.' Their religion is just something they have learned to say about themselves, like a box to tick off on a form. Attending a church service just gives them something positive to feel about themself, the kind of self-satisfaction one gets when, say, completing a crossword.

 

Those who start to awaken to spiritual truth are rare; but when they do they will find everything they need within the Christian tradition. There is no need to change their profession. Christianity is rich, beautiful and whole exactly as it is. Its quite clear from this website that people of all sorts of backgrounds find many Christian writers to be deeply inspiring, myself included.

 

I may have a somewhat jaded view, but can you blame me? The priest at my Catholic school, a man who most thought was wonderful and spiritual and wise, was sent to prison on child porn charges...

 

The expectation for priests to be celibate is a deep poison at the heart of the Catholic Church and causes priests to resort to desperate actions that disgust all people, and make average churchgoers ashamed and faithless. I think once you recognise that the error lies with the institution, you can start to feel more forgiving to individual perpetrators, who are victims of corporate ignorance. But all this must be looked beyond if you want to find the real jewels in Catholicism

[Protector]

*atheism intensifies*

[dust]

The overwhelming majority of Christians are just regular people, no more spiritually minded than atheists, just regular people living their life in the common sense world view of 'eat, drink and be merry for soon we shall die.' Their religion is just something they have learned to say about themselves, like a box to tick off on a form. Attending a church service just gives them something positive to feel about themself, the kind of self-satisfaction one gets when, say, completing a crossword.

 

Agreed. In the UK, at least (I know a few Americans who are more devout), this is the way of things.

 

 

 

Those who start to awaken to spiritual truth are rare; but when they do they will find everything they need within the Christian tradition. There is no need to change their profession. Christianity is rich, beautiful and whole exactly as it is. Its quite clear from this website that people of all sorts of backgrounds find many Christian writers to be deeply inspiring, myself included.

 

Being a fiction fan, I'm usually not aware of an author's convictions as they're largely irrelevant, but certainly in terms of music and art, I'm aware that many of my favourites are/were believers of some sort (Christian, Jewish, Islamic), and throughout history most of Europe and the Middle East's greatest literature, painting, sculpture, calligraphy, music, architecture, and other beautiful stuff has been created by believers. No arguments from me there!

 

I am not convinced, though, that any of those great artists were more "spiritually mature" than anyone else -- just more talented and nourished in their particular field.

 

 

The expectation for priests to be celibate is a deep poison at the heart of the Catholic Church and causes priests to resort to desperate actions that disgust all people, and make average churchgoers ashamed and faithless. I think once you recognise that the error lies with the institution, you can start to feel more forgiving to individual perpetrators, who are victims of corporate ignorance. But all this must be looked beyond if you want to find the real jewels in Catholicism

 

Yes to the bold, but I'm still not sure that, apart from a propensity for producing pretty things, Catholicism contains any real spiritual jewels.

Edited September 19, 2014 by dustybeijing