Michael Hull's chair
book takes its title from an aphorism by the Russian critic and essayist Vasilii Rozanov which, Holloway says, has haunted him for years: 鈥淎ll religions will pass, but this will remain: simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.鈥 When it was published in 2004, it marked another important page-turn in the story of Richard Holloway.
After reading Michael Hull's winning credo entry on this blog, I have this image of Michael sitting on his chair in Bardonia, a hamlet in the New York metropolitan area, looking in the distance and reflecting on life. As his prize for winning our 272-word competition, I've mailed Michael a copy of Holloway's book (or, rather, I've asked a bookshop in New Jersey to mail it to him). I'm looking in the distance and hoping to eventually read Michael's reflections on Richard Holloway.
Incidentally, you can hear my interview with Richard Holloway, which dealt with this book, in the Sunday Sequence archive. I hope to talk to him again soon, now that he's published another book, : What's Left of Christianity?
Comments
Thats a great choice for Michael's credo. Well done again Michael and keep writing: your comments are always worth reading.
I really appreciate Bishop Holloway's advocacy for gay christians. He's a saint.
Will:
Good choice! I haven't read "Looking in the Distance" so I will look forward to receiving it - thanks.
Re: Richard Holloway - I thought that his treatment of the parable of the Good Samaritan in chapter 8 of his book "How to Read the Bible" was one of the best that I have come across - check it out.
Also in the introduction to the same book he asks:
"Is reading the Bible a sport for believers only or can anyone get into the game?"
To this question he offers an interesting triangulation approach to biblical interpretation, two sides of the triangle for believers and one for non-believers.
There is room for everyone at the inn - even for you, Mark! ;-)
Regards to Everyone,
Michael
Great article.
Interesting article by R Holloway from 2003 on sexuality
Bigotry and the Bishops
And he advocates morality without god - then he's obviously a secular Humanist like most of us!!
alan
Alan - You're obviously playing catch-up on the story of Richard Holloway! He's famous for losing his faith as a bishop. Yes, he is a humanist nowadays and his written many books explaining why. You're wrong to describe him as a secular humanist though. He calls himself a "religious humanist"; he's still an ordained Anglican priest and he still conducts worship on the same terms as that other great ordained humanist Don Cupitt.
Re Post 6.
I'm pretty ignorant about the workings of the church.
How is it possible to conduct what is (I presume) Christian worhip in (I presume) a church, yet not have faith?
Yep, you can presume it was christian worship. In fact, Bishop Holloway was the head of the Anglican Church in Scotland! He believes worship and relgious language have a function to unite and inspire people, even though he doesn't believe in God anymore.
wierd!!
Can't imagine the congregations are quite getting what they came for then...
Chris
I'm well aware of his writings
I think it's RH and you need to play catch-up - if he doesn't believe in a god anymore surely that makes him a secular humanist - or indeed a Humanist?
Re Holloway:
A more apt term to describe Holloway might be 'agnostic Christian'
Next time Will interviews him he might ask if he would accept that definition.
Regards,
Michael
Whar about 'Doubting Dickie'?
Michael, the last time I interviewed Rochard Holloway he was vey happy to be described as an agnostic Christian and as a religious humanist.
Alan, no offence intended with my "catch up comment". I concluded from your comments that you hadn't realised that Holloway already calls himself a humanist. Unlike secular humanists, he believes religion and religious life (worship, etc.) have important and positive contributions to make to the world and to all of us. Let's be careful not to define other people's worldviews out of existence by reducing all humanists to one class only (Secular Humanists).
Christine French
I'm a secular inhumanist myself. Dr. Strangelove is my favorite movie. It has such a happy ending. :>)
Re Post 15:
Mark: I see that you have finally identified yourself as a 鈥榮ecular humanist鈥.
One of my criticisms of Dawkins and other secular humanists is that they are always railing about what they find wrong with the beliefs of others and do not concentrate on putting forward a more positive picture of their position.
I like Paul Kurtz鈥檚 way of presenting himself (Paul Kurtz, founder of the Council for Secular Humanism, is editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry and professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo.)
Paul wrote in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 22, Number 4:
鈥淪ecular humanism and atheism are not identical. One can be an atheist and not a secular humanist or humanist. Indeed, some thinkers or activists who call themselves atheists explicitly reject humanist ethical values (for example, Stalin, Lenin, Nietzsche, and others).
I should also make it clear that secular humanism is not antireligious; it is simply nonreligious.
There is a difference. Secular humanists are nontheists; they may be atheists, agnostics, or skeptics about the God question and/or immortality of the soul. To say that we are nonreligious means, that is, that we are not religious; ours is a scientific, ethical, and philosophical life stance.
Secular humanism is nonreligious. But this does not mean that it does not criticize the claims of religion; indeed, we have a moral obligation to speak the plain truth. There is a difference, however, between being antireligious鈥攁ttacking religion or dismissing it cavalierly鈥攁nd being willing to analyze religious claims and calling them to account for their lack of reliable empirical foundations.
What is central to humanism, in my view, is the ethical component; namely, humanists believe that:
Ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, independent of theological claims, amenable to rational scrutiny, testing value judgments by their consequences.
Ethical values and judgments are relative to human interests, needs, desires, ends, and values; they are open to objective criticism and evaluation.
Fulfillment, realization, and maximization of human freedom and happiness are what humanists seek, both for the individual and the community.
Thus there are ethical responsibilities that humanists hold toward others within the community, on the interpersonal level, the level of the democratic society, and the planetary community as well.
Clearly, secular humanism is not equivalent to atheism鈥攊t is far more than that. Similarly, secular humanism finds itself at odds with religious humanism, since its outlook is clearly nonreligious. It goes beyond any negative skeptical inquiry insofar as it seeks to provide a positive and affirmative alternative to customary moral and religious practices.
We stand for more than atheism alone, since we offer an alternative ethical life stance and eupraxsophy which is an inherent part of our position. That ethical dimension, indeed, defines our humanism.鈥
Mark:
With what parts of Paul POV are you in accord?
Regards,
Michael
GW
Ref worship without God... I think you have hit the nail on the head...
you might enlighten yourself a little more about this if you surveyed all your friends and acquaintances, even if only in your mind's eye, and tallied up how many secular humanists or agnostics play an active role in a a church.
In my understanding if you don't believe in God very few have enough conviction to get involved.
Perhaps some of our other athiest/agnostic contributors might care to comment.
I know Michael is an agnostic church elder so there are exceptions, but I would expect the results would be in line without your incredulity.
(Can you imagine being an active Man Utd supporter if werent sure if the team existed?)
;-)
PB
I know loads of peopple who support the club without being sure of the team.
They do it to get their kids into the "right school".
I reflected on this for a while as my kids go to such a school, their mother is an active church member :0
Then it dawned on me - the church are "fishers of men" and the modern day hook is a cosy school for out little darlings, but we are the fish, not the kids - well both really...
So I speak from experience - our local CoE is stuffed full to the rafters with hopeful mummies singing and clapping till the rector signs the application form.
Pick the bones out of that one!
Re #18
"So I speak from experience - our local CoE is stuffed full to the rafters with hopeful mummies singing and clapping till the rector signs the application form. Pick the bones out of that one!"
I often think it would have been a better world had Jesus been a woman - Care to speculate anyone on what difference it would have made?
Peace,
Maureen
Maureen,
What was it in my post that prompted that question?
I think imagining a Christianity with a female focus would just be a diferent flavour of fairy tale. Although maybe if it had been such, you wouldnt have needed a false beard to get into the stoning!
Some of the fundies probably think this line of questioning is a gross heresy - "Come on Brian, let's go to the stoning"...
Two flats and a bag of gravel for me please!
Can someone please help me with the definition of "fundies'. I'm not familiar with the word.
Thanks,
Michael
Re Post 20 Gee wrote:
"What was it in my post that prompted that question?"
In post 18 you referred to the mother (your wife?) of your kids as an 'active church member' and I got the impression from your comment "our local CoE is stuffed full to the rafters with hopeful mummies singing and clapping till the rector signs the application form" that she or the other mothers might be hypocrites.
Maybe I just misunderstood the post? But in general it seems to me that in the USA many mothers attend church with their children (where no applications need to be signed) while the fathers absent themselves from this important training they are receiving in their lives.
I see the dads turning up when the children are doing something in the church - singing in a choir for example - or coming at Christmas but that's about it.
So if the mothers are the ones leading the Christian upbringing of the offspring I wonder what the world would have been like if the Christ had been female.
Peace,
Maureen
Hi,
had a few days off the blogs - sorry for the delay in responding.
OK I see what you are getting at.
My wife is an active Church member - I most certainly am not. You are quite right this is a pattern I see a lot. I harbour an opinion that there is a lot of hypocrisy involved when school admission is contingent on church membership etc. (a seperate debate is that here in the UK so called Church supported schools receive the vast majority of their support from the state and as such it is questionable whther the church earns it's veto on applicants).
Anyway, your point that in the US the pattern is repeated without the school carrot is interesting and I understand your question now. It's not one I'm qualified to answer as I am an atheist, but maybe the guys here may have an opinion.
Michael,
I imagine you won't find "fundie" in the dictionary.
I picked it up from someone else on the blog - I take it to mean anyone with a fundamental take on matters. In this instance christian fundamentalism, which I would guess is uncomfortable with the notion of a female christ.