homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Are other Christians really Christian? (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Are other Christians really Christian?
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474

 - Posted      Profile for Karin 3   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why, Father Gregory? I mean, where I worship on Sunday is important to me, because it is where I feel comfortable, where I receive teaching that seems relelvant to me, but I am quite happy for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to worship where they feel happiest. Do you have a problem with that, or was I not understanding quite what you meant?

--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably

Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have no problem with worshipping where you feel comfortable Karin ... that is very important. No, I meant that not everyone and not all churches have a biblical opinion concerning Christ so saying "I believe in him" or "I follow him" begs a lot of questions.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
saying "I believe in him" or "I follow him" begs a lot of questions.

Such as what it means to believe in someone or to follow them ?

Seems to me that if you took a plain-English understanding of these words you wouldn't come up with either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism as being what is meant by believing in Him and following Him.

I think you should admit that reaching your position, or JL's position, or any other denominationally entrenched position, requires some extra set of premises, let's call it P, above and beyond simply "believing in and following".

P may be believing that a particular institution embodies the teaching of Christ in some particular way. It may be a single proposition or several. Different denominations have different such premises.

Believing any particular version of P may be very reasonable. But it is still the case that one can be a "believer in and follower" without believing P.

You've suggested in the past that not everyone is ready for Orthodoxy, and JL has agreed that there are Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church, so hopefully the existence of P isn't too contentious.

I think you're saying that believing P isn't just a matter of taste and style, as Karin's post might imply, and would agree that it's more fundamental than that.

Some of us like to think that the gap - between being a "believer in and follower" and not - is or ought to be so large that whether or not one believes P is a relatively trivial difference by comparison (even if it constitutes a major philosophical difference on any other scale). That may be an over-optimistic view, but I see no evil in it. Under-emphasising differences of view over P may naively under-estimate the difficulties that any move to unity faces, but it causes no active harm.

What of the opposite error - the possibility of over-emphasising the importance of P ? Someone going too far in that direction ends up totally marginalizing the believing in and following of Christ, says that that counts for next to nothing beside the cosmic significance or believing or not believing P. What name should we give to such ? Is that not a far worse error ?

If one labels this premise or premises P as "God's Truth", then it's easy to mistake rejecting P for rejecting God. Going the other way, if the P-believers have "ownership" of P, so that it is "our traditional belief" which they exalt at the expense of "believing in and following", then it's not hard to understand the charge of idolatry which sometimes arises.

What can we do but be as honest as we can ?

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Russ

A bottom line candidate for "P" (not coterminous with belonging to the Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches) is the Nicene Creed. I know this to be the case as far as Orthodoxy is concerned because the Ecumenical Patriarch suggested this a while ago as a useful and positive starting point for ecumenism and no Orthodox church dissented from his view. That is also my bottom line. (Leave the filioque issue out of this for the moment please).

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Nicene Creed seems like a practical meeting point for established churches. My only hesitation is over the potential for someone to claim that "our church is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, so if you really believed the Creed, you'd all join our church." A similar play could be made for the one baptism, but I think it is far more likely with regard to the identity of the Church itself.

This begs the question, once we agree on the Creed, where have we gotten? I doubt whether such an agreement will result in the OCC or RCC changing its position on anything. I assume that those of us not in either church will still be considered to be outsiders. If such an agreement is a starting point, what do you conceive as the next step in the journey?

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474

 - Posted      Profile for Karin 3   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm. I shall stick my neck out and say that I have met some Catholics for whom the believing and following was more important than "P", as Russ put it so succinctly, and I suspect there could be some Orthodox Christians for whom that it true - I've only ever met one and our shared language wasn't good enough to go into it in depth.

Moreover, I'm afraid to say, although I would class myself as a Protestant if I have to class myself as any kind of Christian, I have found some Protestants for whom "P" or one of it's close relations was more important than believing and following. (Hope that doesn't make me sound too heretical).

--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably

Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Scot

quote:
If such an agreement is a starting point, what do you conceive as the next step in the journey?

(Let's leave the rest ... I've not raised it).

Each Church (including the Orthodox Church) would engage in a MODERATED self assessment on how faithfully the creed was implemented in its own faith, life and structures. Deficiencies would then be identified NOT by the moderator(s) but by the same church itself. Those deficiencies would then become a program for renewal and reform. If everyone did that the churches would inexorably move closer whilst retaining diverse and legitimate traditions. The only "deficiency" in the Creed itself (because it was not designed to cover such an issue) is worship. There is, for example, no reference to the Eucharist. This is not because the Eucharist was of litle importance to the fathers of Nicaea ... far from it. What we need for worship is a close examination of early forms of worship which in their commonalities represent basic principles, contents and forms. These could then be used as yardsticks for similar self assessments in the area of worship.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636

 - Posted      Profile for fatprophet   Email fatprophet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One should unpack "believing and following". The phrase is not adequate to explain christianity unless we explain the object of our belief.
At the very least the one believed in and followed is worthy of such treatment, but this is not quite enough to suggest a religious or spiritual dimension to the activity as one can believe in and follow any political or other hero. Believing and following Jesus as "only" another human guru is utterly different from an intellectual and moral point of view, from believing and following Jesus as the revelation of God, God with us, Christ, Living Lord etc.

Being christian involves a superlative belief and following par excellence because of the nature of its object and goal; It is a believing and following that extends its vision beyond time and space towards eternity. It is a believing and following that ultimately invests supreme confidence in the reliability and veracity of the one believed in and followed, through trials and temptations. One stakes one's eternal destiny and the destiny of the whole world on following this particular person. Thus following Jesus, because he is divine, differentiates christianity from all other non-religious followings and beliefs.

In sum, I believe a christian is one who believes and follows a divine Jesus (however that divinity is understood) but it at least includes the idea that he is Lord of heaven and earth, time and eternity.
This is the bare irreducible minimum of christian religion. However for those who cannot manage even that level of belief, while they are clearly outside of the umbrella of the worldview and tradition that is the christian religion no one should say that they must be also outside of God's grace.

--------------------
FAT PROPHET

Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think many Baptists would be reluctant to engage in anything that resembles assent to a creed. They are historically non-creedal. They would probably have little difficulty affirming the beliefs that are expressed in the creeds, but they oppose the codification of these beliefs in creedal form

Greta

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear CorgiGreta

I recognise what you are saying but the implications are unpalatable ... to us anyway.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474

 - Posted      Profile for Karin 3   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think many Baptists would be reluctant to engage in anything that resembles assent to a creed. They are historically non-creedal. They would probably have little difficulty affirming the beliefs that are expressed in the creeds, but they oppose the codification of these beliefs in creedal form

Greta

True, but I know some who have found it's not so terrible after all. [Smile]

I imagine it's about being open to God and not being afraid to try something from a different tradition if God seems to lead us toward it.

Of course, it's probably easier for me because I didn't grow up in any Christian tradition.

Are any of you familiar with the concept of Renovare? The idea is to achieve a balance of the 6 disciplines practised by the different Christian traditions:
Contemplative: The Prayer-filled life;
Holiness: The Virtuous Life;
Charismatic: The Spirit-Empowered Life;
Social Justice: The Compassionate Life;
Evangelical: The Word-Centered Life;
Incarnational: The Sacramental Life.

Richard Foster looks at these at length in his book, "Streams of Living Water".

--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably

Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think many Baptists would be reluctant to engage in anything that resembles assent to a creed. They are historically non-creedal. They would probably have little difficulty affirming the beliefs that are expressed in the creeds, but they oppose the codification of these beliefs in creedal form

Greta

When the General Baptists were faced with some of their churches becoming unitarian they needed something to say as to why unitarianism was "wrong" - the creeds became very useful, which is why by Baptist standards the former General Baptists tend to be creedal. Why reinvent statements?

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)

Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fatprophet:
I believe a christian is one who believes and follows a divine Jesus (however that divinity is understood) but it at least includes the idea that he is Lord of heaven and earth, time and eternity.
This is the bare irreducible minimum of christian religion.

So the minimum shared premises (above and beyond believing in and following) for being a member of your church are:
a proposition about divinity
a proposition about Lordship
a proposition about the nature of heaven
a proposition about the nature of time and eternity
and do I detect a proposition that "religion" is the aim ?

Don't get me wrong. What you say sounds sensible in terms of criteria for identifying people who think sufficiently like you do to feel not-too-out-of-place in your church. And I think it's great that you place no limits on the grace of God, and don't look down on those "followers" who don't share your premises.

But I'm reminded that when Jesus called the disciples, he said "Follow me" and they did.

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073

 - Posted      Profile for Tiffer   Author's homepage   Email Tiffer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus:
Those who deny any penally substitutionary

I really am truly very sorry, but whats this morsellic piece of theology when it's at home?

And do I believe in it? Please, o Theophilus, do I get to come to heaven too!

Tiffer xx

(Dont u dare say no!)

--------------------
"All the Fat belongs to the Lord"
-Leviticus 3:16b

Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311

 - Posted      Profile for Theophilus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Greta, I think any sort of 'litmus test' has to be applied according to the beliefs of the person applying it, otherwise it becomes nonexistent, because different people use the same words in different contexts

As far as litmus tests in general go, I think basic justification for 'generalising' as to what beliefs constitute Christianity, or requiring some sort of creedal statement, can be found in Galatians: 'As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!' (Gal 1:9). Presumably, one has to demarcate what constitutes the apostolic gospel, and what does not. It is clear that apostolic authors taught that believing propositional facts about Christ was part of following him: e.g. 'This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.' (1 John 4:3-4a)

Fr G, the Nicene Creed, even without the filioque, is not really a formula for Christian unity - as you well know, the precise definition of 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' is hardly agreed upon. I can say the Nicene Creed in my Anglican service (while I also attend a free charismatic church out of term-time) but a Roman Catholic such as JL would undoubtedly believe that I had no right to say it with my current beliefs.

Tiff, 'penal substitution' is, put simply, the idea that Jesus got punished for our sins instead of us.

--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis

Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Theophilus

I offered the Nicene Creed because it was for many centuries the sine qua non of being a Christian. There has to be some cut off point or baseline for a reasonable consensus. I submit that the Nicene Creed remains such an instrument of ecumenical rapprochement. Not all will dance to that tune ... but it is a good tune that most know and feel able to jig about to.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus:
Tiff, 'penal substitution' is, put simply, the idea that Jesus got punished for our sins instead of us.

If this doctrine, that the Fater was compelled to kill *someone* because of our sins, and he decided that killing his Son instead of us would make everything okay, is necessary to being a Christian, Theophilus, then I am not a Christian.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636

 - Posted      Profile for fatprophet   Email fatprophet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]]do I detect a proposition that "religion" is the aim ?

Don't get me wrong. What you say sounds sensible in terms of criteria for identifying people who think sufficiently like you do to feel not-too-out-of-place in your church. And I think it's great that you place no limits on the grace of God, and don't look down on those "followers" who don't share your premises.

But I'm reminded that when Jesus called the disciples, he said "Follow me" and they did.


Er, yes Russ. Christianity is a religion.

Yep, "following Jesus" is handy shorthand, but I don't believe for one minute that you really think that is all Christianity involves without a whole massive set of other propositions being relevant too.

If being a Christian is simply about "following Jesus" period with nothing more to be said, then the statement would be meaningless. A martian would immediately retort "follow Who? Where? and Why?" You must explain why Jesus should be followed rather than Russ or FatProphet.

I have no doubt whatsoever you have very definite ideas about what Jesus does and teaches and very definite ideas about who Jesus isn't and what he doesn't preach. Are you going to have a definition of Jesus that allows someone to be a Buddhist and a follower of Jesus? Maybe. What about an unrepentant racist or serial killer as a follower of Jesus? If the latter is inconsistent with following Jesus, Why?
The more ambivalent and vague your definition the more people that you don't like it includes. This is of course what creeds are for. They exist to exclude, but some exclusion of certain beliefs and behaviours is necessary. Where you draw the line is the whole issue, and I think my definition encompasses every known denomination and movement recognised as christian, so its hardly sectarian. It obviously excludes secular total atheists, but I can hardly think why they would mind

You hint you have a problem Russ with a religious definition of Christian. I think its indispensable. Apart from being impossible to convey the significance of what it can mean to follow Jesus rather than any other pleb, you are faced with the problem that Jesus was himself, very religious. How could one be following him, if one denied the existence of God that he believed in? In fact one could say that one would have to share all of Jesus' religious and moral convictions if one was a Christian. We can argue what those religious convictions were, but we can't give up trying to approximate to them if following Jesus is not just a slogan.

--------------------
FAT PROPHET

Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the word 'religion' is rooted in a Latin word (ligare, perhaps) meaning to tie or bind; as in 'ligature.' I think that Jesus was profoundly anti-religion in this sense, and I think that there are strands within Christianity which follow him in this way.

Christianity has obviously become a religion - perhaps many religions. Many Christians 'buy into' one of the Christian religions. It structures their lives, tells them what to do and think, even feel, and says why they are saved and who obviously isn't.

But I think that there is still a Jesus following beyond and within the Christian religions. Francis from Assisi threw all the status stuff away and started a new movement. Theresa of Calcutta did something beautiful in the slums. MLK, a randy, passionate, black and beautiful man, called the Kingdom down. Ghandi, a stranger to Christianity, turned out to be one of Jesus's best friends.

I am a full-time church functionary, God help me, but I believe that what really matters, matters in spite of the churches. As Russ said, you can still follow Jesus (whatever that means, we'll sort it out as we go). Nothing else matters much.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fatprophet:
In fact one could say that one would have to share all of Jesus' religious and moral convictions if one was a Christian. We can argue what those religious convictions were, but we can't give up trying to approximate to them if following Jesus is not just a slogan.

An excellent attempt at unpacking "believing in and following", which I wouldn't want to argue with.

Jesus' attitude to the institutionalised religion of his day is one of those convictions. The extent to which it is applicable to the institutionalised religion of our own day is one of those things on which Christians differ. So that the word "religion" can carry both positive and negative overtones.

My image of Jesus is such that I imagine His view of an unrepentant serial killer would be that he should repent. But that His view of a would-be follower from a culture that has been shaped by Buddhism wouldn't necessarily involve trying to convert him/her to western philosophical views on the nature of divinity, authority, time, etc.

I guess I'm just saying that we have to try to beware the temptation of identifying our version of Christianity (along with all its cultural preconceptions) with the "believing in and following" itself.

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
starrina
The rose warrior
# 3549

 - Posted      Profile for starrina   Email starrina   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having read the whole thread (yes, really!) there are a couple of points I want to make:

1) It's interesting that in anthropology of religion there are 7 basic definitions of religion that range from the very basic (eg a belief in a deity and a community of worshippers) to the very complex (eg a belief in a deity, a community of worshippers, rituals, priesthood, etc etc) and Christianity fits all of them!
make of this what you will.

I am not saying this is all there is to Christianity (I do believe quite happily that Christianity is more than the religion of pagans/tribal/classical society, but now I write this I can't think how to explain it properly) [Embarrassed]

2) On the Eucharist. I have been raised Protestant, with an unsacramental view of faith. However through certain circumstances I have ended up on the road of converting to Catholicism. I do attend mass and have only taken communion once (and taht was an accident, no one had told me to cross my arms over my breast when I went up for a blessing. This confused the priest and I was too embarassed to ask for a blessing at that point). That was a year ago and I have not taken communion since. I do miss it, but taht's not the point. The point is that if faith is sacramental (which I believe it is) the path of faith is upheld by both moral and spiritual boundaries. If our faith in christ is to mean anything then they must be made to count.
I understand people's frustration at not being able to take communion with Catholics (do I mean just Roman here? There is so much jargon floating about I am confused), but if you do not believe what the (ROman?) Catholics believe it is fair enough that you should not take communion. Perhaps it is harder on people like me who do believe in transubstantiation who still cannot take communion?? Yet oddly I have little problem with this. [Big Grin]

--------------------
"what have you been doing while Bells has been maturing?"
"Drinking better whiskey."

Posts: 275 | From: the kwoon | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools