|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why did Christianity diversify so much and has it lost its definition?
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
I imagine a christian is someone who believes in Jesus. Outside of this definition can we say anything else? I'm not a historian so correct me if i'm wrong but way back in time I imagine that Christians had somethings in common. I mean they would of had some differences of opinion but nothing like the diversity of political, doctrinal and moral outlook we have today.
Today if you meet someone for the first time and they tell you they are a christian it gives you no practical information what so ever. They could be a hard right woman shaming, abortion clinic protesting, gun nut republican or a hard left socialist, feminist, NRA hating universal healthcare supporting liberal. They could be completely apolitical. You might find you become best of friends or worst enemy's. The fact that there are people who are Christians and can hold completely polar opposite and contradictory views makes it completely useless as a tool for gauging what that person is like.
So I'm wondering...
If Christianity was always this diverse and why it is that a group that teaches how best to live your life has members living their lives so differently?
Are there many ways to God or just one as Jesus said?
Is the point meant to be that God is diverse and all these members are just showing different reflections of this diversity?
[Wrongly apostrophised thread title was making the baby Jesus cry]
[ 10. July 2015, 10:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Cracking question, although for someone from England, you've gone for a strangely American view of the stereotypes.
I'm reminded of the quote that you can be sure you've made God in your own image when he shares all your prejudices.
I suppose it's always had some degree of diversity given that it started with one man and his twelve followers, and has spread across the whole world. Something this big would never be uniform, as it would always absorb (and be absorbed by) the pre-existing cultures it encountered.
The bigger it got, the more diverse it got.
Looking at any of stereotypes, it's hard to know how sincere they are in "real" Christian beliefs (prayer, the resurrection, life after death etc), and how many of them are just "cultural Christians" who are doing "it" because that's what you do in their world.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, Islam is also pretty diverse, so is Judaism ... and probably any of the other 'world religions'.
The longer something is around, the more diverse it's likely to become.
That said, I've heard it postulated that there were up to around 30 different types of 'Christianities' in the first few centuries - many of them rather Gnostic or odd-ball from an orthodox perspective.
What emerged as generally accepted orthodoxy did so in reaction or in relation to these insofar as the Church felt the need to define and identify what it believed in order to safeguard against heresy.
It's hard to say how much diversity - beyond local custom - there was across the Christian world in, say, the 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries. It's interesting how much there is in common between those Churches which claims descent from the earliest times - the RCC, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.
How diverse or how unified it was back then is a matter for debate - and as ever with these things - it depends on the lenses we have in our spectacles. Someone from a more Protestant background is going to look for evidence of greater diversity back then - those coming at it from an RC or Orthodox perspective are going to emphasise the unity rather than the diversity.
I'm not sure that answers your question ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Christians only seem to be united in their hope for something better. The diversity and disagreement lies in the definition of what that 'something better' actually is.
The Gospels show that Jesus' disciples were squabbling before He went to the cross and most of His followers have been squabbling ever since. There is nothing to suggest that won't be forever the case unto the End.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I imagine a christian is someone who believes in Jesus. Outside of this definition can we say anything else?
That was my initial definition when I first sought to become a Christian. I recall being shocked to find that many people defined it as someone who believes in the Bible. I was rather hoping the Church would teach me what to believe about Jesus, but it turned out they just wanted to point me towards 4 conflicting written accounts of who He was and what He had done.
You would think that having it in writing might reduce diversity and bring us to a common understanding of our belief. But paradoxically, it's the churches that put more weight on scripture who are more diverse. Those who have a strong sense of tradition seem to hold together more tightly.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Wasn't the Jewish religion already split when Jesus showed up; the Pharisees and the Saducees? Not to mention the Essenes? It seems to be a natural thing.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's good division and bad division. The bad stuff--well, I think we all recognize that. But the good stuff--that's more like local variety, particular "flavors." Since the early church started from eleven guys and a whole bunch of other followers (male and female, young and old, rich and poor, Judeans and Galileans), it's no surprise to find diversity from the start--which just got worse (excuse me, better) because the first churches were intensely local--thus you get references to "the church in Philippi, the church in Ephesus," etc. One Church, yes, but incarnate in various places with different flavors. I suspect the Jerusalemites would have been bemused by the Philippian potlucks or what have you, and vice versa. And of course it's just gone on more and more this way, as the Church universal moves into new places, languages, and ethnic groups.
Which is a very good thing. It means that basically anybody can find a place in the church that smells of home, though it may take some looking. It also forces us to learn to love one another actively, instead of merely recognizing one another, as clones might do. In my own local setting I'm learning to appreciate Liberian cooking and Burundi music at my home church, and at least to tolerate English-language Kendrick songs ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) . That last may be a stretch too far.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Ther e has always been diversity within Christianity. The Johanon community very different than the community that the book of Matthew community.
It did not take long for Christians to have their first council meeting to deal with the question of what to do with all the Gentiles joining the fellowship.
Paul and Peter had strong disagreements concerning their understanding of the Old Testament Law. The list goes on.
When Constantine became emperor, he wanted the church to be more unified. He called for the first Ecumenical Council to reach a common statement of faith. This did not happen until after the second ecumenical council.
I am a Christian, but I do not believe in the Bible. To me, the Bible is the cradle of the Living Word which is Jesus as the Christ, the promised one of God, the Son of God.
I also would say that a Christian is a part of the community of faith that is gathered around the (spoken/living) Word and the Sacraments. A Christian also exhibits certain Christlike characteristics in their daily living.
That said, I also acknowledge, this side of eternity, there is no perfect Christian. Christians remain quite diverse in their worldview. We continue to work out a number of differences, which will never end on this side of eternity.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Today if you meet someone for the first time and they tell you they are a christian it gives you no practical information what so ever. They could be a hard right woman shaming, abortion clinic protesting, gun nut republican or a hard left socialist, feminist, NRA hating universal healthcare supporting liberal. They could be completely apolitical. You might find you become best of friends or worst enemy's. The fact that there are people who are Christians and can hold completely polar opposite and contradictory views makes it completely useless as a tool for gauging what that person is like.
I would say the differences you highlight are differences in ethics, and Christianity is not, primarily, a system of ethics.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
And therein lies the rub. Surely what Jesus actually said is now overgrown with centuries of barnacles, and any idea of how a Christian should behave has become meaningless.
I know some Christians who 'practice what they preach', but for every one of those there are thousands who don't, and I am shocked regularly by the cruelties of British politicians in particular who espouse Christianity but appear to delight in harm.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It will, I think, tell you that they either believe the basic teachings found in the Apostles Creed, or that they are affiliated with a group that historically (though perhaps not recently) has been in agreement with it.
Though of course as individuals they may have unusual takes on one or more of these teachings.
And you always have to reckon with the people who claim to be Christian (or Muslim, or whatever) out of ignorance--usually the mistaken assumption that to be [insert nationality or ethnic group here] is automatically to be [insert religious group here].
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
And therein lies the rub. Surely what Jesus actually said is now overgrown with centuries of barnacles, and any idea of how a Christian should behave has become meaningless.
I don't think so, considering we still have the basic documents (i.e. the Gospels and Epistles). You can scrape off quite a few barnacles by resorting to those.
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I know some Christians who 'practice what they preach', but for every one of those there are thousands who don't, and I am shocked regularly by the cruelties of British politicians in particular who espouse Christianity but appear to delight in harm.
As for politicians and the everyday jerks, the hypocrites you shall have always with you, and I wouldn't go so far as to blame Christianity for the assholery of everyone who simply claims the name, any more than I would do that for alleged Muslims.
Of course this leaves us with the age-old problem of how you determine if someone / some group is really Christian, so you can then pass judgment on their ethics or lack thereof. But unfortunately (fortunately?) that's not something we can determine with certainty in this life, since the definition of a Christian is someone Jesus Christ accepts as his own. The best we're going to be able to do here and now is take a guess, with the help of some biblical guidelines which are beyond the scope of this post.
But we can at least improve our guessing accuracy by lopping off the unethical who have obvious incentives to falsely claim Christian faith. (E.g. just try to find a major US politician who makes no claim at all to Christian ties, however vague. I can think of one Jew, and that's pretty much it.)
[ 11. July 2015, 13:48: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for politicians and the everyday jerks, the hypocrites you shall have always with you, and I wouldn't go so far as to blame Christianity for the assholery of everyone who simply claims the name, any more than I would do that for alleged Muslims.
No, of course not, and neither would I, but I wasn't trying to imply that 'only Christians can be jerks and hypocrites' but rather suggesting in relation to the OP, what then defines a Christian, or Christianity, beyond just the name?
Perhaps it means in essence Christianity is just a cult like any other. For instance I could say I belonged to the Star Trek cult, which means I believe in IDIC: Infinite Diversity through Infinite Combinations. I can still be a hypocrite and not care if the poor suffer or disabled people's benefits are cut off - or think it's 'for their own good' - but hey, I believe in IDIC all the same.
In my idealistic mind I always think Christianity ought to be better than that. It certainly claims to be.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well (echoing others up thread), Christianity is not primarily an ethical system--its ethics are more or less identical in most ways to what everybody's grandma taught them about good behavior. Which is of course what you would expect if Christianity is actually true and reflects the everlasting core realities of the universe. As Lewis put it, "The Origin of everything cannot suddenly start being 'original.'"
Nor is ethical self-improvement the goal of Christianity--it is a side effect.
Christianity is about God's rescue of the human race, and his remaking of us into children of God, and of his creation in general into the new, redeemed creation. To be sure, this will eventually result in ethical improvement (along with a great many non-ethical improvements). But the time table on when this becomes noticeable in any given person is far from set in stone.
If God is working on my hellish pride and arrogance at the moment, he may choose to leave my tendency toward gossip, or my bad relationship with food, off to the side for the moment. Yet those may be much more visible to the average observer than the area where God is focusing his attention at the mo. It's similar to rehabbing a house--the time you spend getting the foundation up to code is the same time your neighbors will be bitching about the fact that the external paint is peeling. They have no clue what you are doing inside.
What's more, some people just start further behind than others (at least in the eyes of the world). Someone who has been well brought up is going to do a much better imitation of having her shit together ethically than a person who grew up with no guidance, no manners, no scoldings. Of the two, I'd say that the first person is going to look ethical (look, not be) far sooner than the second, even if they both come to faith on the same day. Which means that it's rarely a good idea to pass judgment on other people's standing before God. We so rarely have all the facts.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
To paraphrase author Louis de Bernières from my memory, from one of his trilogy set in Latin America, a Christian is someone who worships Christ as found in fellow human beings. The other ones who are focused on magical realism, self improvement, and disapproval, have experienced what happens to every religion when it comes to power: ignore the more inconvenient ideas of the Founder and judge God by evidence from their personal lives.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I should think most people respond to God from 'the evidence in their personal lives'.
People who are faced with poverty, discrimination and oppression everywhere they go frequently have a different kind of spirituality from those who experience approval, success and comfort, and so on.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Which makes the point. The life evidence is of doctrinaire versions failing, with the human relational aspects making better literature and lives.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What's more, some people just start further behind than others (at least in the eyes of the world). Someone who has been well brought up is going to do a much better imitation of having her shit together ethically than a person who grew up with no guidance, no manners, no scoldings. Of the two, I'd say that the first person is going to look ethical (look, not be) far sooner than the second, even if they both come to faith on the same day. Which means that it's rarely a good idea to pass judgment on other people's standing before God. We so rarely have all the facts.
Or why a non-Christian may be more ethical than a devout Christian. What is significant is no what Christian A looks like in comparison to non-Chrhistian B, but rather, what mature Christian A looks like compared to pre-conversion or early-conversion Christian A.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
According to this guy, Christianity was diverse from the very beginning, and included several now-repudiated varieties of the faith. His Lost Christianities, available in both lecture and book form, investigates not only these various groups, but also expounds on the hows and whys of their coming into being (and in some cases, their fading away -- or getting stomped out).
Personally, I think a drive toward more uniformity is part of what the increase in fundamentalism in the last 25 years has been all about. The loosey-goosey nature of what many mainline Protestant churches espouse / preach these days is probably all that keeps them going.
And what Lamb Chopped said.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I have long held that Christianity is or has become a set of signifiers so capacious of the meanings projected on to them that you could say only the name remains the same.
If you don't believe - as I don't - that there is an actual supernatural reality behind it all then what you have is not widely, and wildly, varying responses but WAWV expressions.
Faith is the coalescing of imagination, situation and idea. I have always acknowledged that Christianity has a wonderful Idea - that of the divine inhabiting an ordinary human life and the possibility of ones own ordinary life being subsumed into the divine. How you see that happening is conditioned by where you are and what you most desire. How intensely or successfully you realise it is down to the individual creative imagination*.
This, to me explains the qualitative differences in believers: A just is a better person than B. It also explains why B can nevertheless inspire C, or why, even though a follower of A, D is a charlatan.
*Creativity being, to me, the one numinous thing.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What is significant is no what Christian A looks like in comparison to non-Chrhistian B, but rather, what mature Christian A looks like compared to pre-conversion or early-conversion Christian A.
Hi cliffdweller,
The point you're making is a valid one. But it seems like you're arguing that a Christian life is a life of ethical improvement (even though that's not always apparent from a cross-sectional survey).
Whereas ISTM that the OP is questioning that. If Christianity is so diverse that there are/were Christians for and against slavery, Christians for and against war, Christians for and against contraception, Christians for and against medical research, how can becoming Christian (or becoming a more mature Christian) possibly be seen as becoming a more ethical person ?
Seems like the Christian vs non-Christian dimension is so perpendicular to all the everyday moral issues that one is irrelevant to the other. If Christian metaphysics doesn't lead to a Christian ethic what earthly use is it ?
Are more ethical people just as likely to be wrong, but just confused at a higher level ? Is that what being an ethical person means ? Is morality about choosing the side you choose for the right reason, rather than about choosing the right side ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Ghandi does it for me with his observation-- 'I like your Christ but not your Christianity'.
Being lead to Christ and the wonder of diversity is the best any Christian can hope for, there is no other definition.
The actual diversity of so-called Christianity is, for me, something entirely different. This seems to be all about the inescapable flawed nature of humanity being incorporated into any of the institutions we attempt to build.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
And therein lies the rub. Surely what Jesus actually said is now overgrown with centuries of barnacles, and any idea of how a Christian should behave has become meaningless.
I don't think so, considering we still have the basic documents (i.e. the Gospels and Epistles). You can scrape off quite a few barnacles by resorting to those.
But you can't get rid of every last barnacle. More importantly is that we do not know the whole of it anyway
At least two of the epistles (2 Corinthians and Philippians) are in reply to letters. Yet without the letters FROM the Corinthians and Philippians, which we do not have, we cannot be entirely certain of the context of the replies. We can get close, but there's always going to be some degree of disagreement.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Personally, I think a drive toward more uniformity is part of what the increase in fundamentalism in the last 25 years has been all about. The loosey-goosey nature of what many mainline Protestant churches espouse / preach these days is probably all that keeps them going.
I don't understand what you mean here. Which 'drive towards more uniformity'? And how does the 'loosey-goosey' nature of mainline Protestantism contribute towards this uniformity?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Personally, I think a drive toward more uniformity is part of what the increase in fundamentalism in the last 25 years has been all about. The loosey-goosey nature of what many mainline Protestant churches espouse / preach these days is probably all that keeps them going.
I don't understand what you mean here. Which 'drive towards more uniformity'? And how does the 'loosey-goosey' nature of mainline Protestantism contribute towards this uniformity?
The Fundamentals were published at the beginning of the 20th Century, up to 1915. (Happy 100th birthday fundamentalism) as an attempt to define what united conservative evangelicalism. As there was no mention of the social aspects of the Gospel what it actual did was divide conservative evangelicals into 2 camps.
The next attempt was in the 1970's and 80's. with The Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy, biblical hermeneutics and biblical application.
Both of these were a reaction to liberal theology. Without liberalism there would be no fundamentals and no Chicago statements. Porridge seems to be right.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
And therein lies the rub. Surely what Jesus actually said is now overgrown with centuries of barnacles, and any idea of how a Christian should behave has become meaningless.
I don't think so, considering we still have the basic documents (i.e. the Gospels and Epistles). You can scrape off quite a few barnacles by resorting to those.
But you can't get rid of every last barnacle. More importantly is that we do not know the whole of it anyway
At least two of the epistles (2 Corinthians and Philippians) are in reply to letters. Yet without the letters FROM the Corinthians and Philippians, which we do not have, we cannot be entirely certain of the context of the replies. We can get close, but there's always going to be some degree of disagreement.
Certainly. But that's a long way off from saying that the barnacles have hopelessly swamped Christianity to the point where we have no idea what the essence/beginning even looks like. A whale with barnacles is still recognizably a whale. And the whale's flipper and tail and teeth/baleen and blowhole and belly are all clearly "whale" in spite of their different functions and appearances. Neither barnacles on the outside nor diversity of parts in the body trump the essential whaleness.
Christianity is a whale, then. It looks very very different depending on what bit you're looking at, and it also carries a fair load of not-actually-Christian barnacles along with it. But it is in fact one body, even if the parts occasionally spat with each other. (And the one-body recognition of Christian groups is really pretty amazing, if you stop to think about it. It's still "one Lord, one baptism, one faith" even though we argue about the details like idiots, and have stupid hissy fits. But even at our worst it is highly, highly unusual for one part of the Christian Church to simply outright deny the baptism of another part, or to claim that other Christians (however benighted in their understanding of church polity or liturgy) are in fact outside the Faith.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Personally, I think a drive toward more uniformity is part of what the increase in fundamentalism in the last 25 years has been all about. The loosey-goosey nature of what many mainline Protestant churches espouse / preach these days is probably all that keeps them going.
I don't understand what you mean here. Which 'drive towards more uniformity'? And how does the 'loosey-goosey' nature of mainline Protestantism contribute towards this uniformity?
The Fundamentals were published at the beginning of the 20th Century, up to 1915. (Happy 100th birthday fundamentalism) as an attempt to define what united conservative evangelicalism. As there was no mention of the social aspects of the Gospel what it actual did was divide conservative evangelicals into 2 camps.
The next attempt was in the 1970's and 80's. with The Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy, biblical hermeneutics and biblical application.
Both of these were a reaction to liberal theology. Without liberalism there would be no fundamentals and no Chicago statements. Porridge seems to be right.
Ah, I see, yes.
I have heard of 'The Fundamentals' as a document, and the idea that fundamentalism exists as a response to the rise of liberalism, but wasn't exactly sure if this was what Porridge was getting at.
It's hard to believe that theological liberalism can be the motivating factor today, though, since American liberal churches have become relatively weak when compared with the more conservative denominations. I would have thought that today's American fundamentalists are responding more directly to the surrounding secular culture rather than the pronouncements of liberal Episcopalian theologians.
As for the UK, perhaps the CofE and its sister churches have more influence since they remain much more culturally dominant. Even so, I sort of imagine that the days when strict British Calvinists were galvanised by CofE vicars who didn't believe in the virgin birth, etc., are long gone now. The 'heresies' of clergymen with small congregations seem like old news, and almost denominations have more pressing issues to deal with these days.
[ 12. July 2015, 20:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think that there is an inevitable evolution of ideas, and when someone is so poorly packaged as Christianity, it is ripe for constant reinvention, generation after generation after generation - until you get a situation where the current species are derived from shared ancestors what were so long ago that they are barely recognisable as the same religion.
The struggle then is that if you believe there is such a thing as "authentic" Christianity, how to sort the wheat from the chaff from all the miriad of conflicting truth claims.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
I imagine a christian is someone who believes in Jesus. Outside of this definition can we say anything else?
Yes I would suggest that there is a bit more to the definition of a Christian.
The confession that Jesus is LORD and Saviour.
How Christians understand these terms is likely to vary and there will be debate as to what else some would want to add to such a definition but I would suggest the above is the theological minimum.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think that there is an inevitable evolution of ideas, and when someone is so poorly packaged as Christianity, it is ripe for constant reinvention, generation after generation after generation - until you get a situation where the current species are derived from shared ancestors what were so long ago that they are barely recognisable as the same religion.
I'd say that there is something recognisable as being Christian in nearly all of them. And that is more than simply sharing the same label..
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I once read somewhere that the way for mainstream Christians to improve relations with Christian fundamentalists is to treat them as members of another religion. This creates an inter-faith context rather than an ecumenical one. I don't know if that would work....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think all Christians agree that one ought to love one's neighbour as oneself. That's got some content as an ethical injunction - there are some kinds of behaviour that can't be reconciled with that.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I'd say that there is something recognisable as being Christian in nearly all of them. And that is more than simply sharing the same label..
I think there is a clear familial relationship which can be discerned, but I don't think that means that they would all be recognised as the same religion. For a start, many Christian churches do not recognise other Christian churches as Christian.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
I imagine a christian is someone who believes in Jesus. Outside of this definition can we say anything else?
Yes I would suggest that there is a bit more to the definition of a Christian.
The confession that Jesus is LORD and Saviour.
How Christians understand these terms is likely to vary and there will be debate as to what else some would want to add to such a definition but I would suggest the above is the theological minimum.
And it isn't just about confessing "Jesus is Lord" when those words mean different things to different groups. I was reading about the Sandemanians the other day, the way they defined "confession" would probably be unacceptable to many.
Or start contemplating the Mormons, Unitarians, Quakers etc. Are these unorthodox groups Christian (are they saved)?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I was rather hoping the Church would teach me what to believe about Jesus, but it turned out they just wanted to point me towards 4 conflicting written accounts of who He was and what He had done.
You would think that having it in writing might reduce diversity and bring us to a common understanding of our belief. But paradoxically, it's the churches that put more weight on scripture who are more diverse. Those who have a strong sense of tradition seem to hold together more tightly.
Yet having things written down provides endless opportunities for the re-interpretation of the text. Rituals and symbols, however, stay more or less the same, even if our beliefs about them change.
I think convenience has a lot to do with keeping traditional churches together. They may be (quasi) state churches, and may have a considerable amount of land and money tied up. Pay and conditions for employees are more reliable than in new, risky outfits (although some independent pastors from newish churches can become very wealthy under certain conditions). Older churches are also likely to have stronger relationships with the surrounding culture and members of the establishment.
IOW, older, traditional churches have far more to keep them together than newer churches. They have too much to lose to allow their internal differences to blow everything apart.
[ 13. July 2015, 09:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yet having things written down provides endless opportunities for the re-interpretation of the text.
Rituals and symbols, however, stay more or less the same, even if our beliefs about them change.
(i) Yes, absolutely.
(ii) No, not so. See any history of liturgy e.g. George Guiver's excellent and thought-provoking
Vision upon Vision , often available at a knock-down price whenever Church House Bookshop has an online sale.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm sure you're right, but I wasn't thinking of liturgy in particular but 'rituals and symbols' more broadly.
Perhaps the very problem with liturgies is that they are collections of words - and as we agree, words provide an excellent opportunity for battles over interpretation. You can't change the words in the Bible, but you can change your liturgies.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Or start contemplating the Mormons, Unitarians, Quakers etc. Are these unorthodox groups Christian (are they saved)?
The sociological question of which groups can be meaningfully called Christian is I think distinct from the theological question of who is saved.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I imagine a christian is someone who believes in Jesus. Outside of this definition can we say anything else? I'm not a historian so correct me if i'm wrong but way back in time I imagine that Christians had somethings in common. I mean they would of had some differences of opinion but nothing like the diversity of political, doctrinal and moral outlook we have today.
Perhaps not to the same degree, but the early Church - e.g. in first-century Corinth - had quite the mixture of Jews and Greeks, freemen and slaves.
quote:
The fact that there are people who are Christians and can hold completely polar opposite and contradictory views makes it completely useless as a tool for gauging what that person is like.
I'm a Christian and I have other Christian friends whose political and theological opinions drive me up the wall, but we still have a unity in Christ and I can still choose to love and respect them as human beings even if I don't always agree with them.
The best gauge for gauging a Christian is to see how actually 'Christian' they are. Never mind the political and religious labels, these almost fade into irrelevance compared to whether a person claiming to be a Christian also walks the walk as well as talking the talk. And walking the walk must, in my opinion, include being a loving, caring person in addition to saying you believe in Jesus, because Jesus was a loving, caring person. That would be my gauge. Doubtless I've failed the 'loving and caring' test many times. But I still aspire to it.
In answer to your title question, I can't see that Christianity has lost any of its definition. Christianity is quite a fluid faith, it seems to me: it has adapted itself a great deal down the centuries ... which is probably why it endures.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The sociological question of which groups can be meaningfully called Christian is I think distinct from the theological question of who is saved.
That's interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean, can you unpack?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure you're right, but I wasn't thinking of liturgy in particular but 'rituals and symbols' more broadly.
I'm sorry, doubtless being a bit dim, but I can't think of rituals and symbols, other than in the sense of worship practices/liturgy. Can you offer some examples of what you mean?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
Some recent media debate I remember (I think it was along the lines of "my religion is bigger than your religion") decided that the only meaningful definition of a Christian was self-identification. Therefore we can trust the census to tell us how many Christians there are in our country because they're the ones who tick the box.
I think there is a lot to be said for that.
However, the media seems to be more careful about this definition when it comes to those who want to self-identify as Muslim. I would have thought the two questions should have the same criteria.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Albertus
I was thinking of practices rather than the words that accompany those practices.
For example, baptism is a constant, even if the liturgy around it changes as a result of shifting theology. Marriage is a constant, even if women no longer have to promise to 'obey' their husbands. Pentecostals will speak in tongues even if the intensity or theology around it develops.
In some cases rituals do die out, but this seems to have more to do with neglect than anything else. Liturgy can only be changed as a result of deliberate thought and action.
Perhaps I'm looking at this from a Methodist perspective: Methodists tend not to obsess about liturgies, although they have them and change them. Physical church rituals and practices seem more significant in terms of church culture.
[ 13. July 2015, 12:08: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
The OP suggests that being a Christian in the most basic way means believing in Jesus. What does that mean, exactly? and whence that belief?
I'm intrigued by John (the evangelist's) use of the word belief. In the fourth gospel, people are slated for not believing - without the benefit of hindsight of the resurrection.
But if knowledge of the resurrection was not necessary for belief then, what was the point of the resurrection anyway?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The sociological question of which groups can be meaningfully called Christian is I think distinct from the theological question of who is saved.
That's interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean, can you unpack?
On the one hand, an atheist can use the word 'Christian' to refer to a group of people (a bit fuzzy round the edges) without thinking anybody is saved. For that matter, I think even the most evangelical Calvinists allow that there may be people in churches who are Christians in the sense of filling up the seats and saying the words but who are not necessarily therefore saved.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church among other groups believe that there are people who are adherents of other religions or none who are still saved.
I think the question of 'who is a Christian' is largely a secular question about identifying a group that can be identified as such even by atheists, agnostics, and adherents of other religions. The question of who is saved is known only to God and I believe we're counselled that it's best left there.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I see, Svitlana, thanks
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Thank you. Fascinating answers all.
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The best gauge for gauging a Christian is to see how actually 'Christian' they are. Never mind the political and religious labels, these almost fade into irrelevance compared to whether a person claiming to be a Christian also walks the walk as well as talking the talk. And walking the walk must, in my opinion, include being a loving, caring person in addition to saying you believe in Jesus, because Jesus was a loving, caring person.
I see what you mean. However there are a lot of christians whos politics directly contradicts that.
[ 13. July 2015, 18:52: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Thank you. Fascinating answers all.
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The best gauge for gauging a Christian is to see how actually 'Christian' they are. Never mind the political and religious labels, these almost fade into irrelevance compared to whether a person claiming to be a Christian also walks the walk as well as talking the talk. And walking the walk must, in my opinion, include being a loving, caring person in addition to saying you believe in Jesus, because Jesus was a loving, caring person.
I see what you mean. However there are a lot of christians whos politics directly contradicts that.
My youngest and oldest both graduated from a university founded by a Christian Anarchist who figured it was a sin for a Christian to mess around with politics, that we should persuade and never compel.
Instead of that, I'd encourage one to look at Galatians 5 and each of us examine ourselves for being like the acts of the flesh or the fruits of the spirit.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I'm a Christian and I have other Christian friends whose political and theological opinions drive me up the wall, but we still have a unity in Christ and I can still choose to love and respect them as human beings even if I don't always agree with them.
Amen. Aren't those with whom you disagree also actually more interesting to talk to about things or to work on something together?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I once read somewhere that the way for mainstream Christians to improve relations with Christian fundamentalists is to treat them as members of another religion. This creates an inter-faith context rather than an ecumenical one. I don't know if that would work....
Wouldn't it be better to treat family like family? If you shake the family tree nuts will fall out every time.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm afraid I don't understand your reference to the 'family tree' and to 'nuts'!
Perhaps you mean that fundamentalists should be treated like nutty relatives, like the batty old aunt whom no one wants to visit??
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
