I earlier posted about a fellow blogger who believes that there are certain beliefs that are common to all who claim to be Christian, and that those beliefs are so common that we can assume them to be true in all cases. I previously offered evidence that would tend to dispute that claim, now I offer more. These quotes are from a pastor of a mainline protestant Christian denomination, so I guess we could assume he is a Christian.
"Did Jesus Die for the Sins of Humanity, or Not? Not."
"Adam and Eve supposedly sinned in the garden and as punishment all their descendents are infused with a shot of original sin. Since God the Father needs to have his honor restored (talk about patriarchal nonsense) he kills his Son (who in the weird Trinitarian formula is really the same guy, sort of) so that everyone on planet Earth doesn't spend eternity in hell. If anyone takes twenty minutes thinking this through they can see that the whole structure is absurd. Beginning with the fact that Adam and Eve never existed."
"The great Christian doctrines such as Trinity, Creation, Sin, Christology, Atonement, and Eschatology, are no longer great. They are shadows. They don't speak of reality on a grand scale like they once purported to do. They may fill an emotional or psychological niche here and there. For more and more people they hold little interest or suasion. The world has passed these doctrines by in the way that science has left alchemy."
To be clear, my point is not that I deny or question whether this gentleman is or is not a Christian. Nor is it a desire to define, limit, exclude, or include anyone from anything. It is simply to point out that as we look at what is called Christianity these days that there is less and less that one can take for granted in terms of commonly held beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Craig,
Why don't you adopt the biblical definition of Christian?
Jodie Gallo
Los Angeles, CA
Jodie,
Perhaps you misinterpreted the purpose of my post. I believe that I quite clearly said that my point is not that I deny or question whether this gentleman is or is not a Christian. Nor is it a desire to define, limit, exclude, or include anyone from anything. It is simply to point out that as we look at what is called Christianity these days that there is less and less that one can take for granted in terms of commonly held beliefs.
Given that I must wonder why you would ask a question that has so little to do with the actual post.
Although, I'd be fascinated to hear what you think the biblical definition of a christian is.
Off the topic, but fascinating nonetheless.
Craig,
I think I am completely ON topic. My point is that If you adopted the biblical use and definition of the term "Christian", you would not be barking up this tree at all.
In the Biblical use of the term, (I assume you know it) there never has been much at all that one could "take for granted in terms of commonly held beliefs" among "Christians".
Nor was there ever much of a concern that the term be correlated with a specific set of beliefs.
I just think that if you adopted that biblical definition, you would loose interest in the fact that Christians have so many different beliefs.
Now, as there always have.
Plus, you might find that what is essential is not that we have a common set of beliefs, but that we live in a particular way, such that people who do not live that way recognize it, and label it as Christian nonetheless.
Perhaps the best description of that way is written by Paul in the 15 verses that start with the second half of 1 Cor 12:31.
Jodie Gallo
Jodie,
Once again you seem to be missing my point. As an aside, it is my blog, my post and my point, so I guess I should be able to determine what is on topic and what is not.
Had you paid attention to both of these posts you would realize that I am NOT trying to define, limit, include, or exclude. I am simply saying that for someone to insist that ANY belief MUST be assumed about one who identifies as a Christian is naive at best. To make my point I am using the statements of TWO folks who seem to identify themselves as Christians, yet who would disagree with what have been commonly held beliefs among Christians until quite recently. To clarify, I am not commenting on the beliefs themselves, nor on those who hold these beliefs. I am using them as an example to demonstrate that while at one point there was some degree of consensus on what were beliefs held by the vast majority of Christians, this is no longer the case. Further, I am specifically addressing beliefs, not actions. While I agree that Christian belief is manifested in action, for the purposes of this specific example it is not the issue.
If you want to define what a Christian is, feel free, that is not nor has it ever been my intention with these two posts. You might have noticed that because I have explicitly stated this several times.
So, if you would like to give your definition, that's fine, or you could comment on the topic.
Craig,
You must assume that I paid close attention to what you said. Otherwise we cannot communicate.
You just said "...while at one point there was some degree of consensus on what were beliefs held by the vast majority of Christians, this in no longer the case".
That is simply not true.
To make such a claim, you must have some definition of what a Christian is in mind. But I would wager that it is not true regardless of the definition you use.
I am trying to simplify matters by picking the earliest (biblical) definition and showing that right out of the gate it was not possible to even consider making such a claim, since it was a subjective definition in the eyes of people who themselves were NOT Christian and had little or no idea what Christians believed.
So the real question for you is "Who told you that story?" What reference system do you have that makes you claim that at one time "most" Christians held common beliefs?
Note that I hear and agree with your statement that TODAY one cannot make the claim that Christians carry common beliefs. But I am responding with the question "why are you so surprised? When did they ever?"
Then I am trying to get you to move beyond that point. You titled your post "What identifies a Christian?". I would offer that if you try to answer that question the way it was origianally answered, you might discover something old and wonderful about Christianity that makes it uniquely powerful and transformative. Something that transcends all doctrine.
Jodie Gallo
Jodie,
Again, it seems you miss the point, but I'll try to go down this road a little.
I would suggest that no matter how small you would like to make the list, there are certain beliefs that most Christians have subscribed to for quite some time. Again, I'm not trying to enumerate the entire list, just establish that there were some basic common beliefs that most Christians held in common.
We can start with the creed related in 1 Cor 15, move on to the Apostles and Nicene creeds, then through the various confessions which should get us in the ball park.
My point (in this case) is that I was remonstrated by a gentleman who identifies himself as a Christian. What got his panties in a wad? The fact that I wouldn't assume that a self identified Christian would automatically seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
My point then and now is that at one point that would have been a safe assumption, but no more.
Again, no matter how short your list of common beliefs, I would suggest that the existence of God (YHWH) and Jesus (Christ) would be on there. Yet we see that even those baseline beliefs are up for grabs among "theologians".
Again, my sole point here, is to make the point that as we sit here in 2011 that for some, every single doctrine that has been a part of historic Christianity is up for grabs.
Specifically, this gentleman's umbrage at my suggestion that it was assumed that a Christian would consult the Holy Spirit is small potatoes when put against a denial that God exists.
Again, to be clear, I really don't care what these folks believe or don't. I don't know or care whether they are Christian or not. I am simply suggesting that (which you seem to agree with) the degree of common belief is significantly different now than it has been in the past. Therefore it seems wise not to assume that anyone who identifies as a Christian actually holds any particular set of beliefs (no matter how short), and further that it is not safe to assume that others would even define terms the same way as you might.
I don't know how to say that I am not trying to define what a Christian believes. I'm not even saying that there aren't some areas where people can hold different beliefs and still be Christians. I'm just saying that it is entirely reasonable not to assume anything about anyone elses beliefs.
I realized that perhaps the title of the posts was presenting a problem so I changed it to try to better reflect what I am getting at.
"I'm just saying that it is entirely reasonable not to assume anything about anyone elses beliefs."
And maybe that is as it should be. Maybe it doesn't really matter what they believe. Maybe what matters is something else altogether.
Jodie
"And maybe that is as it should be. Maybe it doesn't really matter what they believe. Maybe what matters is something else altogether."
And maybe you're right. But as long as you continue to go beyond the limited narrow scope of these posts, it really is beside the point.
"Why don't you adopt the biblical definition of Christian?"
Actually as I thought about it this question makes my point fairly effectively.
If we lived in a world where we could agree on things like the existence of God, the existence and diety of Christ, and the inspiration of scripture (or at least that it's not all fiction), then a Biblical definition of Christianity might be helpful. But since there is a growing segment of folks who don't, then it seems like a Biblical definition is as arbitrary as any other.
So, I guess I would say that we can't even assume there is a Biblical definition that can be agreed on.
Perhaps,
But I thought you and I might agree on it.
Jodie
Jodie,
You and I might well agree on it, but that's not really my point.
You made your point.
Is there a "therefore" that comes after it?
If so, how does the "therefore" change if you adopt the biblical use of the term "Christian"?
Jodie
In this context, it makes no difference at all.
If you could establish that there is a Biblical definition of a Christian. Which would necessitate a Christ, as well as a God, and for the Bible to be something other than myth or fiction, for it to have any meaning beyond your interpretation. Then this might be a worthwhile conversation in a different context.
Perhaps you might want to write a post at your blog outlining your definition and why someone who denies many of the foundational underpinnings of historic Christianity should accept your definition.
Please understand, I'm not suggesting that the two of us couldn't agree on a definition, I'm suggesting that in this context it is beside the point. Also, wouldn't establishing a definition (Biblical or otherwise) simply be a basis to exclude those who disagree with you?
I am not sure I am completely understanding what you just posted. Are you saying you have no "therefore" that follows from your original post and the point you made?
Jodie
I'm not sure what therefore you are talking about.
I was unaware of a therefore rule in blogging.
hummm... why evade the question?
Either you have one or you don't. If you have one, either you share it or you don't.
In your #1 post on the topic you seemed to allude to one when you said:
"Ultimately my problem is not that these guys believe this stuff, it's that the masquerade and christians and potentially cause harm to others."
I think the grammar got a bit scrambled, but the words "cause harm to others" sounds like a "therefore" kind of statement.
Jodie
"hummm... why evade the question?"
hummmmmm...not evading anything. Your question made no sense.
As to he quote from the first post. I think I was saying that I have no desire to tell folks what they must believe. However, when you call your belief system Christianity, when it is not, it seems that there is potential for harm to people.
I guess maybe, its "Therefore be honest about what you call your belief system" or "therefore in the absence of a common set of Christian beliefs communication gets really difficult" or "therefore you shouldn't assume that anyone who identifies as a Christian believes X,Y, or Z" or "therefore, I was unaware of the blogging rule that every post was required to have a therefore statement, therefore I didn't feel it was necessary to include one since they are not required"
There...four.
Speaking of dodging the question, I've yet to see your biblical definition of a Christian.
Fair is fair.
I thought I told you.
It's not "my" biblical definition, its just the definition used in the bible.
Look up the word "Christian". It shows up only twice, and its a name non-Christians used to describe followers of "the way".
Paul defines "the more perfect way" in 1 Cor. I gave you the reference.
Per the Bible, a "Christian" is defined from the outside. On the inside, per the Scriptures, we follow the Way.
Jodie
Thanks for the incredibly helpful definition.
Unfortunately this post is about what beliefs that Christians hold, and therefore not particularly enlightening.
Or to paraphrase some of my progressive friends "The Bible is not a dictionary". (insert history book or science book)
It was interesting is a beside the point sort of way.
But I am glad that I was never trying to define the word Christian.
Yes, but you made the observation that you can't tell what beliefs identify a Christian from asking a Christian.
And I said that maybe that is as it should be. You should be asking that question of non-Christians.
"Yes, but you made the observation that you can't tell what beliefs identify a Christian from asking a Christian."
Actually my point was more that the core Christian beliefs have been so diluted or dismissed that it is unwise to assume that anyone holds any particular belief.
"And I said that maybe that is as it should be. You should be asking that question of non-Christians."
I guess I'd like to know who decided that it should be that way. Also, why would I expect someone who is a non Christian to define or compile a core group of Christian beliefs.
That's a strange point of view, but you're welcome to it.
You also need to keep the context in mind. This was prompted by a gentleman who was upset that I didn't make certain assumptions about his beliefs. In that context, all I am trying to do is suggest that making assumptions about someone else's beliefs is a bad idea.
I think you're trying to make this more than it is.
"why would I expect someone who is a non Christian to define or compile a core group of Christian beliefs."
Because that is the scriptural model and usage of the term?
Jodie
"Because that is the scriptural model and usage of the term?"
Perhaps you could actually present some scripture that supports this position, and some evidence that your view is normative in the present.
It seems to me that if one looks at scripture that Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers defined what it means to follow Jesus.
Yes, but none of them called it being a "Christian". In the Bible that was a term that only non-Christians used.
The biblical thing to do would be to leave it that way.
Next chapter: What does it mean to "follow Jesus"? You mean the Prince of Peace? The one we have to pick up a cross to follow? The one who said we have to feed the hungry and cloth the naked in order to be known by him? The one who prays for his enemies and represents our case to God? That Jesus?
Seems to be a topic very few people discuss today. Actually "following" Jesus, that is.
"Yes, but none of them called it being a "Christian". In the Bible that was a term that only non-Christians used.
The biblical thing to do would be to leave it that way."
So, because non believer callede early believers Christians, you're willing to go so far as to suggest that this is normative for us today, and that we should then allow non believers to define Christian doctrine.
Those seem to be pretty large leaps based on what is essentially a descriptive term.
"You mean the Prince of Peace? The one we have to pick up a cross to follow? The one who said we have to feed the hungry and cloth the naked in order to be known by him? The one who prays for his enemies and represents our case to God? That Jesus?"
Actually that's exactly who I mean. The second person of the trinity, the one who was in the beginning, who did not consider equailty with God something to be grasped, that's the one. The one who lived a perfect sinless life and died an undeserved death on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice, yeah Him.
Unfortunately, more and more who identify themselves as progressive would like to get rid of that Jesus and substitute one of their own making. It's certainly easier to follow your own personal Jesus, just isn't Biblical.
I don't know why you are picking on progressives. I don't see too many Evangelicals trying to follow Jesus either. It's a lost art, to actually follow Jesus.
I do hear a lot of language more suited to following Mars, the god of war.
Truth is, almost everyone does some substitution. Would Jesus recognize anybody as his follower today? Would we recognize him? Not clear that we would.
Just a final comment on the earlier question, I don't know that non-Christians would identify Christians by their doctrine. It was only with Constantine that a set of doctrines was selected above all others to define Christianity, with all others being stamped out. The importance of doctrine is a reflection of the heavy influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity. But Judaism is not about doctrine, and neither was Jewish Christianity. Doctrine is about right thinking. But early Christianity at least is about right being, and right behaving. Faith, as Paul speaks of it, is not about professing a set of beliefs, as much as it is about about trusting God.
So while you can find a crisis of doctrine among Progressives, I can find a crisis of faith among Conservatives.
I think the common element is that Christianity today is having an identity crisis. And God only knows where it is really going.
I don't know how many evangelicals you know, but pretty much every one I know is putting a fair degree of effort into following Jesus.
However, your mistake is to assume that I am talking about all progressives. I have specified some fairly specific theological positions espoused by some progressives, and these are who I am referring to. I have no reason to broad brush all progressives (I know many progressive bloggers who don't show this kind of restraint, but that's yet another digression), and have not done so.
I hope you would agree that it would be foolish to follow someone who didn't/doesn't exist. Yet that is what some on the progressive side propose to do. It seems foolish to follow someone when the only source of information we have about them is mythic (or inaccurate, or corrupted, or whatever the current term is to indicate that the Bible is wrong). Yet, we hear that very thing proposed by those on the progressive side.
I'm not talking about some substitution, I'm talking about replacing Jesus with one that fits ones personal predilections. No doubt some substitution exists almost everywhere, but what we are seeing from these folks goes way beyond this.
Personally, I think Jesus has no trouble identifying those He has chosen. It seems that scripture would bear that out. But I would also suggest that we don't see what Jesus sees and our observations just might be more fallible than His.
Yet it seems that in the NT we see some doctrines that were later codified more rigidly. I find it strange that I continue to hear folks claim that one can engage in right actions (orthopraxy) without knowledge (orthodoxy) of what actions are right. But even a blind pig finds an acorn mow and again.
I don't know that I find a crisis of doctrine so much as a wholesale rush to eliminate doctrine. Were not talking about some confusion about this or that, we're talking about junking it all.
Further, I don't see a crisis of faith on the conservative side. I see conservatives that are involved in funding orphanages world wide, who travel to the third world to provide medical care unavailable for thousands, who build medical centers to treat AIDS in Africa, fund and pack meals that feed millions of kids worldwide, buy and rehabilitate housing stock in the urban core, and much more. All the while doing it unabashedly in the name of Christ. Maybe the problem is you need to broaden your circle of conservative acquaintances. I know it's easy to broad brush the right (I see it frequently on left leaning blogs), but it just doesn't represent reality.
I will agree that only God knows what will happen. The problem is that more and more progressives deny even this, since they deny the existence of a transcendent supernatural God.
Craig...
The fact that I wouldn't assume that a self identified Christian would automatically seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Since I am the Christian in question, perhaps it would help to point out that THIS Christian (whom Craig has read for years, now) has explicitly stated his belief in the Holy Spirit, God's Comforter, our Companion.
So, it's not just that SOME Christians somewhere might not mean "I'm seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit," when they say, "I'm seeking God's will," but whether THIS particular believer means it.
Of course, there are SOME believers somewhere who don't believe in the HS, or who don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or who don't believe we are to live a simple life, or who believe that it is okay for Christians to kill the children of our enemies, etc, but you were speaking to a SPECIFIC Christian with whom you had some familiarity, and that was the problem, the lack of grace and the legalism involved in your approach to my answers.
Just for clarity's sake.
Dan,
You are, as usual, free to interpret things in any way you choose.
However, my point with these posts still stands. Given what folks who identify themselves the same way you do (progressive) believe, I am forced to conclude that it is a mistake to assume anything about what anyone believes.
You may think that I have total recall of everything you have ever written, or that I should give you some sort of benefit of the doubt, but in reality I know very little about you or what you believe.
"Of course, there are SOME believers somewhere who don't believe in the HS, or who don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead..."
Unfortunately we are not just talking about "SOME believers somewhere" were (I'm) talking about folks who are pastors, teachers, writers, and "theologians". Folks who influence people everyday by what they teach, write and preach.
Sorry, it's just not all about you.
Given the fact that you are such a wonderful example of love and grace, I of course take your comments with utmost seriousness.
Dan,
I do have to give you credit for one thing. This type of post where one extensively quotes someone else (while not mentioning the quotee's name), or using someones comments as a springboard for a post, is something that I have seen you do numerous times.
So, thanks for that bit of inspiration.
I intentionally did not identify you because this post was not so much about what you said, but rather what is being taught by those on the progressive side of things, and how one responds to folks on that side of issues.
You're welcome.
As to this...
Given what folks who identify themselves the same way you do (progressive) believe
I identify myself as an anabaptist. I, therefore, consider my positions pretty danged conservative (or what USED to be considered conservative) in many ways and a little progressive in a few ways.
I didn't leave the conservatives. They left me.
As I've pointed out repeatedly...
I believe in God the Creator of the World;
I believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God who came, teaching and showing us how to live, was killed, buried and resurrected;
I believe in the Holy Spirit and the triune nature of God;
I believe in humanity's sinful nature;
I believe that we are lost and in need of salvation;
I believe that salvation is found in God's grace, through faith in Jesus;
I believe in the virgin birth;
I believe the Bible to be as Scripture to us, and as such, it is God's revelation to humanity, profitable for teaching, correction and rebuke;
I believe in taking Jesus' teachings pretty danged literally (which puts me to the RIGHT of many "conservative" evangelicals);
In short, pretty orthodox and tradition and conservative in all the essential areas of historic Christian teaching, and MORESO in other areas. Yes, on the area of marriage and gay folk, I would be considered progressive (although even there, I hold my positions for pretty conservative reasons - that is, BECAUSE I take the Bible seriously, I have reached my positions on marriage equity).
Dan,
Thank you ever so much for you bullet point list of what you believe.
I appreciate it, but it completely MISSES THE POINT. These posts are NOT ABOUT YOU. I don't understand why you find this so difficult to understand.
These posts were inspired by your insistence that I assume that you held certain beliefs.
What you actually believe or don't believe is irrelevant in this context.
I am simply pointing out that in our current situation, it is unwise to assume that someone believes certain things simply by how they identify themselves.
If you would like to comment on the topic, fine, but please no more about you.
I suppose that means we have no idea what you believe either.
Glimpses suggest you believe "progressive" is "bad" and "conservative" is "good", but also that you have no idea what "progressives" balieve, nor what "conservatives" believe, as these would be subsets of "Christian".
So, is all of this some kind of elaborate way of saying you feel like you have no idea what you are talking about? I don't mean that to sound insulting. It kinda does. But it seems like that is really what you are trying to say, bottom line.
Nothing wrong with that. Its a kind of humility, in a way.
"I suppose that means we have no idea what you believe either."
Didn't say that, don't think that. I will say that Dan (at times) appears to misrepresent certain things that those on the conservative side believe. I have also seen many instances where folks on the left attack me for what they assume I believe or think. So, I don't know what idea you have about what others believe.
"Glimpses suggest you believe "progressive" is "bad" and "conservative" is "good",..."
Didn't say this either. I will say that I fall more to the conservative side. I don't know that I would use the terms bad or good in either case.
"but also that you have no idea what "progressives" balieve,..."
I'm not sure what your point is exactly, but I'll take a stab. When I talk about beliefs, I try to stick to what folks have actually said and not broad brush an entire worldview. Having said that, one can come up with a number of common threads of belief within one side or the other. So, I'm not suggesting that "all" progressives believe X. What I am suggesting in these posts is that there is a stream of progressive thought that denies some very basic tenets of Christianity. I am further suggesting that this stream is growing, and that this is not merely some fringe wacko's out in the boonies somewhere.
'...nor what "conservatives" believe, as these would be subsets of "Christian"."
Yes, there are conservative and progressive subsets of Christianity. This is not news. What is news is that there are those on the progressive side of things who would like to remove so much of what makes Christianity distinctive, yet still retain the identity of Christian. At some point this becomes impossible.
"So, is all of this some kind of elaborate way of saying you feel like you have no idea what you are talking about?"
Nope, it's a specific response to a specific conversation. The fact that the comments have gone off topic is another matter.
"I don't mean that to sound insulting."
But you kind of do.
"Nothing wrong with that. Its a kind of humility, in a way."
Thanks, I think.
Post a Comment