Ship of Fools: Why did Christianity diversify so much and has it lost its definition?

Thread: Why did Christianity diversify so much and has it lost its definition? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029227

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

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 ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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 ...

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

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.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

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.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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!]

. That last may be a stretch too far.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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.

Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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].

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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 ]

Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Which makes the point. The life evidence is of doctrinaire versions failing, with the human relational aspects making better literature and lives.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

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.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

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

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

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.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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 ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

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.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

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..

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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....

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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)?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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 ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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?

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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 ]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

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?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I see, Svitlana, thanks

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

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 ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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??

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I see what you mean. However there are a lot of christians whos politics directly contradicts that.

Oh, sure. I'm British, support strict gun laws and am all for 'socialised medicine'. But people whose politics differ sharply from our own are not necessarily, or always, our enemies.

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Amen. Aren't those with whom you disagree also actually more interesting to talk to about things or to work on something together?

Well, I guess it can liven things up. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps you mean that fundamentalists should be treated like nutty relatives, like the batty old aunt whom no one wants to visit??

People are people. Some 'fundamentalists' are very kind, generous people who give a lot to charity and do a lot of charitable work in their communities.

Religious profiling has a limited usefulness.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
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??

No, we are all nutty relatives. You're nuts, yourself, according to some folks who know you. So am I.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I see what you mean. However there are a lot of christians whos politics directly contradicts that.
Oh, sure. I'm British, support strict gun laws and am all for 'socialised medicine'. But people whose politics differ sharply from our own are not necessarily, or always, our enemies.

We don't have to be enemy's but the difference negates the part about being a loving, caring person in addition saying they believe in Jesus.

[ 14. July 2015, 15:49: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I see what you mean. However there are a lot of christians whos politics directly contradicts that.
Oh, sure. I'm British, support strict gun laws and am all for 'socialised medicine'. But people whose politics differ sharply from our own are not necessarily, or always, our enemies.
We don't have to be enemy's but the difference negates the part about being a loving, caring person in addition saying they believe in Jesus.

It seems you are really getting out there on a weak limb to say that being a loving, caring Jesus believer is shown by voting the same as you.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I think it's easy to feel that way honestly. There is one person I know who is Christian and a interesting smart guy. But as far as I can tell he doesn't care a bit about other people at all unless they're his people. Of course that influences his voting preferences, and that (his caring not just his voting) really is a major bar in my making any effort to get into a closer friendship with him. I almost had trouble calling him a Christian in this post, but I thought of the quote about "whoever is not against us is for us" and bit my judgemental thoughts. He is probably doing as well as I am. Still I'd like him every so much more if he didn't consider himself a Christian.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

An excellent post because it raises so many basic questions. At the risk of repeating any earlier observations, I should like to contribute my take on the specific questions George asks in his original communication.

quote:
George Spigot: " 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?”

I don’t think (believe) that Christianity is as prescriptive as the framing of the question suggests, largely because it has sought to adapt general principles to widely varying social and political contexts. Take, for example, attitudes towards the state and political authority. The teacher who urged his followers to pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as in heaven”, also said they were “To render to Caesar the things that are Caesars”. The meanest of his apostles stated that “whoever resisteth the power(s that be) resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation,” though Rome and its emperors were seen as much less benign in Revelation. Similarly, St. Paul did not share Jesus’ apparent implaccability towards divorce.

quote:
George Spigot: "I'm wondering are there many ways to God or just one as Jesus said.”

ISTM that there are different ways of understanding the text “No one commeth to the father but by me,” ranging from the notion that one cannot come to the father except as a baptised professing Christian (without the Church there is no salvation), to the idea that any successful religious quest by whatever route will ultimately lead to Christ out of logical necessity i.e. there are many ways to Christ.

quote:
George Spigot: "I'm wondering is the point meant to be that God is diverse and all these members are just showing different reflections of this diversity?”

I don’t believe that God is diverse. In fact he is very simple and uncomplicated: God is Love. Diversity of religious belief is a function of our difficulty in trying to sort out what that simplicity is: as the apostle wrote, “we see through a glass darkly.”

From my perspective, if someone tells me he or she is Christian then I assume we can engage in a conversation about the world etc. through our understanding of the life and teaching of Jesus. Of course we cannot assume our understandings are the same, but such engagements enable us to clarify and refine our existing beliefs and spirituality.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems you are really getting out there on a weak limb to say that being a loving, caring Jesus believer is shown by voting the same as you.

To be clear I'm not saying that you can't be a christian if you vote a certain way. I'm saying you can't be a loving, caring human and vote a certain way.

[ 14. July 2015, 18:34: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems you are really getting out there on a weak limb to say that being a loving, caring Jesus believer is shown by voting the same as you.
To be clear I'm not saying that you can't be a christian if you vote a certain way. I'm saying you can't be a loving, caring human and vote a certain way.

Oh. I disagree.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yes. This is really oversimplifying. When were the lines between human light and darkness ever drawn that clearly?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Well I'm posting from my current experience of Conservative rule. Your own mileage may very.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

It seems to me that one only has to take a look through the pages of history to see that there is no clearcut path from being a caring person to any particular ideas about social structure and government. People generally and Christians in particular have had all sorts of ideas about those subjects, many of which are not currently part of any of the main schools of thought.

One could do an experiment by getting to know people and observing their behaviour without ever talking about politics, and deciding which ones you thought were caring and which not. Then their voting choices could be made known. I would be amazed if you or anyone else found anything close to 100% correlation between the two.

The reason I mention that is that I think you are in danger of making your statement true by definition. If the way you define loving and caring includes voting for your preferred party, then obviously you'll conclude that people who vote a different way aren't loving and caring.

But if you try to judge one without knowing the other, and then test your judgment, then I think people will surprise you.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Is this the classic talking-past-each-other which means the Left think the Right have no heart and the Right think the Left have no brain ?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is this the classic talking-past-each-other which means the Left think the Right have no heart and the Right think the Left have no brain ?

Maybe, but I'm not sure. I'm hinky about asking more of fellow Christians than was asked of them in the conversion accounts found in Acts. None of them were asked about how they vote. I won't do it now.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is this the classic talking-past-each-other which means the Left think the Right have no heart and the Right think the Left have no brain ?
Maybe, but I'm not sure. I'm hinky about asking more of fellow Christians than was asked of them in the conversion accounts found in Acts. None of them were asked about how they vote. I won't do it now.

But they weren't asked how they vote because they couldn't vote. They were asked to use their own positions in the world for the Gospel. For Christians in the West, that would now include voting as far as I can see. I wouldn't go as far as saying that anyone voting for xyz party cannot be a Christian, but removing how one votes from self-examination of one's faith seems to not be in keeping with Acts.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I wouldn't go as far as saying that anyone voting for xyz party cannot be a Christian, but removing how one votes from self-examination of one's faith seems to not be in keeping with Acts.

We should self-examine on everything. It could cause one to vote left, right, or some other label, or even to not vote. I don't see a good reason for me to examine your politics as a way of determining whether or not you are a good Christian or a Christian at all. Your life is too complicated for me to examine. Encouraging each other to avoid the works of the flesh and to grow in the fruits of the spirit should suffice.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's God?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0