Ship of Fools: What makes Christianity Christian (and are we placed to judge anyway)?

Thread: What makes Christianity Christian (and are we placed to judge anyway)? 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=025371

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

I read this MW report:

quote:

.Someone named Rosemary got up to deliver a message from God. God's message (as channeled by Rosemary) consisted of 15 minutesofrandom snippets about winning races, eagles soaring, not beingable to understand the Bible, positive andnegative electrical currents, being "plugged into"God, hidden manna, and the "report of God." Utternonsense.

Was the worship stiff-upper-lip, happy clappy, or what? The worship was excruciating. We sangonlyfive happy-clappy songs overa whole hour,as the leaders thought itbesttorepeat choruses over and over again ratherthan toventure intonew material. One song hada grand total of ten words to it, but lasted as many minutes. After 30 minutesofthis, I noticed that half the congregation hadgiven up andsat down, but on and on the music went!After40minutesI tookadvantage of the invitation to slip out for a smoke, but when I got back theywere still at it! Even the preacher mentioned how the worship went "on and on." The Bible was not read from, or even mentioned,once inthe almost three hourordeal, exceptfor a passing reference by Rosemary.

Toward the end of the sermon,IanAndrews asked who in the congregation,when speakingintongues,favouredthe letter S or K. A few people raised their hands. He then asked one lady who had raised her hand to stand up and speak in tongues, but to favour the letter L. The poor lady look horrified but obliged. He then asked someone tointerpretwhat she had said, which somebody did. He repeatedthis several times.

In a nutshell, what was the sermon about? I really would like to summarize it in a nutshell, but all I can do is list the various things he talked about:(1) entering the "gloryrealm" by travelling from "here to there,to there;" (2) speaking in tongues;(3) Godcovering people in gold dust; (4) jewels appearing from the floor; (5) being questioned by God about white rooms; (6) a woman who was gifted with the ability to "see green" on people who were suffering from problems with the lungs. And so on – if I listed them all, I'm afraid I'd be accused of making them up.

... That was Christianity?

So what makes a Church Christian then? Like the original author I would be hardpressed to find something Christian in that service. This Chatroom seems to use being Trinitarian as a litmus test. Is that fair? Where do the Bible, the Creeds fit in?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

If I'm not mistaken, the 19th century Unitarians were Christians. So I'm not sure that trinitarianism is the real determinant (although I think that small 'o' orthodoxy would presumably require it.) ISTM that what makes you a Christian is that Christ -- however you view Him -- is central to your faith life.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

"Where two or three gather in my name, there I am also".

In that sense, this group of people gathered in a room in Christ's name, was Christianity, despite having no recognisable gospel message, and some odd, if not downright damagingly wrong doctrine and practices.

If Christianity is only an attempt to follow Christ, then meeting together in his name is enough. As is any attempt individuals make to follow and emulate Him. Christianity is far more than hymns, sacraments and a sermon on a Sunday morning.

The question of whether this Christian get-together followed orthodox doctrine or whether they were just wittering bollocks at each other is another question.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That was a wonderful review, I am still laughing about it. I love people picking a letter from the alphabet to 'speak' about, and seeing green, and so on. So daft that it's kind of delightful. The bit about going out for a smoke, and coming back, and 'they're still at it', is hilarious.

[ 26. April 2013, 11:55: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

Holy cow. [Killing me]

But also,

The ignoring of the Bible. The self-indulgence. The silliness. The New Age flakiness. The bullying:

Toward the end of the sermon, Ian Andrews asked who in the congregation, when speaking in tongues, favoured the letter S or K. A few people raised their hands. He then asked one lady who had raised her hand to stand up and speak in tongues, but to favour the letter L. The poor lady look horrified but obliged. He then asked someone to interpretwhat she had said, which somebody did. He repeated this several times.

As someone who does actually pray in tongues (mostly privately, and if in church, discreetly) my reaction to this is ... [Ultra confused]

and

The gift of tongues is not given so that you can SHOW OFF, you asshat of a pastor! I feel for the poor lady, bullied publicly into treating her spiritual gift as if it was a circus toy. [Roll Eyes]

In answer to the OP: yes, this is Christianity. Unfortunately. The shallow, silly, non-thinking (and abusive, IMO) fringe of the faith. Lord, have mercy.

I might come back with deeper thoughts on the thread topic: otherwise, what Tom Clune said.

I'm still reeling from reading that. [Ultra confused]

I mean, yeah, it's funny, but I'm also horrified.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
In that sense, this group of people gathered in a room in Christ's name, was Christianity, despite having no recognisable gospel message, and some odd, if not downright damagingly wrong doctrine and practices.

Exactly. It might not be particularly good Christianity, in fact it might be downright bad Christianity, but it's still Christianity.

A bad apple is still an apple, after all.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
"Where two or three gather in my name, there I am also".

Is that Jesu, Jesus, or Yeshuah? Do they all have to pronounce it the same way?

Seriously, what's in a name? It was the Gentiles who typically had an obsession with divine names and titles, and the need to get them exactly right if God were to hear you. Jesus cautioned us not to pray like them.

The answer to the question above is the tricky part. The name must mean something and those gathered must have a fairly common sense of that meaning. I suppose those of us who have grown up in Christendom have absorbed enough connotations around the name that we needn't worry, or at least we assume that we need not.

FWIW, if I'm not mistaken the four points of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (Scripture, creeds, sacraments, historic episcopate) are a latter-day articulation of four ancient criteria. In most places there's no need to content oneself with a body that is deficient in any of these regards.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
In that sense, this group of people gathered in a room in Christ's name, was Christianity, despite having no recognisable gospel message, and some odd, if not downright damagingly wrong doctrine and practices.
Exactly. It might not be particularly good Christianity, in fact it might be downright bad Christianity, but it's still Christianity.

A bad apple is still an apple, after all.

So at what point is one forced to say, "Okay, this isn't an apple, it's a pear or a quince or something."

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

Would some kind shipmate identify the original MW report, perhaps by a link? I've browsed the list of reports, but not tracked this one down yet, and I'd like to read the whole report. Thanks
Angus

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
"Where two or three gather in my name, there I am also".

In that sense, this group of people gathered in a room in Christ's name, was Christianity, despite having no recognisable gospel message, and some odd, if not downright damagingly wrong doctrine and practices.

If Christianity is only an attempt to follow Christ, then meeting together in his name is enough. As is any attempt individuals make to follow and emulate Him. Christianity is far more than hymns, sacraments and a sermon on a Sunday morning.

The question of whether this Christian get-together followed orthodox doctrine or whether they were just wittering bollocks at each other is another question.

Thanks for reminding me of this - sometimes it seems obvious to intellectually assent to it, but evidently practicing is harder...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
In that sense, this group of people gathered in a room in Christ's name, was Christianity, despite having no recognisable gospel message, and some odd, if not downright damagingly wrong doctrine and practices.
Exactly. It might not be particularly good Christianity, in fact it might be downright bad Christianity, but it's still Christianity.

A bad apple is still an apple, after all.
So at what point is one forced to say, "Okay, this isn't an apple, it's a pear or a quince or something."

When it comes from a pear tree and has never been an apple.

The silliness axis is orthogonal to the Christianness axis.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So at what point is one forced to say, "Okay, this isn't an apple, it's a pear or a quince or something."
When it comes from a pear tree and has never been an apple.

The silliness axis is orthogonal to the Christianness axis.

Non-trinitarians have never been Christians since the vocabulary existed to pose the question. Silliness has nothing to do with it. You are seeing things that I am not seeing. It may seem silly to you that I don't agree with you; it seems ridiculous to me that you can't defend your position by anything other than calling mine silly.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
In that sense, this group of people gathered in a room in Christ's name, was Christianity, despite having no recognisable gospel message, and some odd, if not downright damagingly wrong doctrine and practices.
Exactly. It might not be particularly good Christianity, in fact it might be downright bad Christianity, but it's still Christianity.

A bad apple is still an apple, after all.
So at what point is one forced to say, "Okay, this isn't an apple, it's a pear or a quince or something."

When they don't meet together in Jesus' name.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So at what point is one forced to say, "Okay, this isn't an apple, it's a pear or a quince or something."
When they don't meet together in Jesus' name.

So what constitutes meeting in Jesus name? Just saying, "We're meeting in Jesus' name"? Does it matter what they do when they meet in Jesus' name? If they meet in Jesus' name strictly for the purpose of going out and beating people up or murdering grandmothers, is it still the church?

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

A. Pilgrim - sorry, not good at the linky thing, but it's report 2426 from 2012 - Go Church, Horsham.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons would claim to be meeting together in Jesus's name, Hawk.

Therefore we have to adopt a more prescriptive position than that, surely?

Just saying that we are meeting in Jesus's name doesn't mean that we are actually doings so.

Ok, on one level JWs and Mormons are 'marginal' groups rather than groups with no relation to Christianity in any way, shape or form - such as Hindus, say.

So in that sense you could say that they were heretical forms of Christianity - or offshoots from the generally accepted 'norm'.

But then, how do we deal with people who are effectively unitarian within avowedly Trinitarian settings? There are plenty of CofE clergy, some Baptist, URC and Methodist and Presbyterian ministers etc who are effectively unitarian despite belonging to denominations with a Trinitarian creedal framework.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Here's a link: http://www.shipoffools.com/mystery/2012/2426.html

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sheep. Goats.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So at what point is one forced to say, "Okay, this isn't an apple, it's a pear or a quince or something."
When they don't meet together in Jesus' name.
So what constitutes meeting in Jesus name? Just saying, "We're meeting in Jesus' name"? Does it matter what they do when they meet in Jesus' name? If they meet in Jesus' name strictly for the purpose of going out and beating people up or murdering grandmothers, is it still the church?

I agree this is the issue.

I think about it like this - When (according to cartoons, anyway) do you have to open your door? When demanded in the name of the law. If I say the magic words "open up, in the name if the law" do you have to open your door? No, because I'm not sent by the law, I;m making a false claim that has no power of the law behind it.

"in Jesus's name" means truly representing Jesus, sent by Jesus, acting according to Jesus' desires. It does not mean just mouthing those syllables.

How can we tell who is gathering in Jesus' name? Back in history they fought and killed over the right to define it. Now we tend to say "if he calls himself Christian no one can argue." It's how we get along, but also confuses people. But since each Christian group thinks the others are seriously lacking (or we'd be the other) maybe putting up with the confusion is the only way to getting along.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If I want my denial of Christ to be tolerated, I'd better tolerate it in everyone else.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So at what point is one forced to say, "Okay, this isn't an apple, it's a pear or a quince or something."
When they don't meet together in Jesus' name.
So what constitutes meeting in Jesus name? Just saying, "We're meeting in Jesus' name"?

It's like bankruptcy - you have to declare it.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I expect that Westboro Baptist Church claim to meet in Jesus' name. However, can we possibly consider those folk to be Christians? Their message is nothing to do with the message of Jesus. "By their fruits..."

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Gamaliel, if JWs and Mormons or Muslims or Wiccans or North Koreans are giving water to the thirsty, in Whose Name, in Whom are they doing it?

If Christians aren't ...

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I expect that Westboro Baptist Church claim to meet in Jesus' name. However, can we possibly consider those folk to be Christians? Their message is nothing to do with the message of Jesus. "By their fruits..."

Unfortumately, sheep and goats graze together, wheat and tares grow together, and it ain't our job to sort them out.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

By way of comparison: A fairly dodgy New Age / "alternative medicine" therapy group once set up shop in my little town. They presented themselves as "Christian" but their actual practices relied on beliefs about magnetic energy, healing vibrations, unproven herbal remedies, and the like.

Not much to do with historic Christianity, in other words. But labeling themselves "Christian" had business advantages in a small rural Southern US town. It gave them cover. Many residents took the label at face value and defended the group because of their alleged "Christian healing" practices.

I am not saying that's what the church in the MW report was up to, but it is reason to be on our guard.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

Thanks to Kittyville and Rosa Winkel for the info.

It's difficult to judge the nature of the church just from the MW report, but thanks to the good old interwebby thingy, one can look at the church website and to Ian Andrews's own sites iequippers and Citadel Ministries (all linked in the MW report). Well worth doing this sort of research before getting involved in a church.

And what an interesting browse they were. The church seems to be well out in the charismatic fruitcake zone, along with Bethel Church, which seems to have had a big influence on them, and not just on the subject of honour:
"We have been so affected by the Bethel, Redding CA, teaching on Honour. It has revolutionised our view of relationships." (quoted from their own site, page headed 'Our DNA') There is also a reference to SOZO on Ian Andrews's site, which is a term I had never come across before, but appears to be also a product of Bethel Church. Ministries of inner healing set off the loudest alarm bells in my mind at the prospect of those who are off the rails themselves messing about in the minds of vulnerable people. [Mad]

Ian Andrews appears to be a self-appointed apostle (as they do rather tend to be) and was awarded "an honorary degree of Doctor of Ministry" (quoted from iequippers.org) but without mentioning from which Doctorate-awarding institution.

Oh, and he is married to Rosemary. Now it may be a coincidence that the MW report mentions a 15-minute ramble from a woman called Rosemary, but like me, I guess that most shipmates will be thinking 'coincidence my a**e'. And both of Ian Andrews' organisations and the church have an identical Statement of Faith, with a wording that I have never come across before. Seems as though he has a strong influence on the church - perhaps he's their 'apostle'?

I suppose I'd better write something relevant to the OP. [Biased]

Is it a Christian gathering? Hmm, seems a bit presumptuous to cast judgement. But with all these sort of outfits, the focus seems to be on the healings, signs, and wonders, not on the person of Christ himself. An emphasis on producing the works at all costs. Not exacly a fully-rounded, balanced approach to ministry. So while not non-Christian, perhaps off-Christian.

I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. And maybe that indicates that this sort of church should be assessed very critically indeed. If I feel that my Christian spirituality would be harmed by involvement in this church, then what about protecting those who are more innocent and trusting? Tough questions indeed.
Angus

Edit to comment on x-post with BA

quote:
Unfortu[n]ately, sheep and goats graze together, wheat and tares grow together, and it ain't our job to sort them out.

Perhaps it's the job of a pastor/shepherd to protect sheep from wolves in sheep's clothing. Or even wolves in shepherd's clothing.

[ 27. April 2013, 20:45: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

Might I offer up the term "Christianish"?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Might I offer up the term "Christianish"?

Works for me. Though I try to avoid saying who is or isn't a christian.

But I'm not particularly convinced by all this sheep and goats/wheat and tares stuff. Those are ultimate judgements we are specifically enjoined not to make. Just as well that nobody is making them, then. The question is rather - if you wake up in bed one morning to find the people you are in bed with are smelling rather goaty, what should you do? Do you have a responsibility to your fellows to point this out? If so, how best to do it? Of course you shouldn't have got there in the first place, but none of us is perfect. And anyway, groups change character.

Those are more difficult questions to give answers to, but they are compelling questions.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I expect that Westboro Baptist Church claim to meet in Jesus' name. However, can we possibly consider those folk to be Christians? Their message is nothing to do with the message of Jesus. "By their fruits..."
Unfortumately, sheep and goats graze together, wheat and tares grow together, and it ain't our job to sort them out.

No but it's my job to decide who I'm going to pitch my tent with, and "We're not called to judge" isn't going to cut it if we've been aiding and abetting hate and destruction.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Some authorities (eg the ODCC) treat the terms “notes” and “marks” as synonymous, but classical Protestant ecclesiology distinguishes the Nicene “notes” of the universal church, both militant and triumphant, ie unity, sanctity, catholicity and apostolicity, from the “marks” of a true example of a church, ie the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments and the exercise of discipline.

Whether the church visited by the MW displays the marks of a church or not is impossible to tell from the report.

The features on which MW concentrates certainly sound fruitcakey, and it is probable that it is in fact “fruitcakes all the way down”.

However, if anyone is intent on piss-taking, any church can be made to look silly.

Someone who described a Roman Catholic, Orthodox or non-Chalcedonian (eg Coptic) service by writing up features such as smells, bells and vestments in a certain way, could easily make it look ridiculous ( but probably wouldn’t even attempt it, out of a snobbish reluctance to diss the ecclesiastical equivalent of “old money”).

The ultimately insoluble problem of inclusivist versus purist boundary-setting goes back at least as far as Augustine (the church is like the ark, containing pure and impure animals) versus the exclusivist Donatists, each of whom would have accused the other of “aiding and abetting hate and destruction”.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree, even as someone who has a soft-spot for the groups you've mentioned there, Kaplan, that it would be very easy to make any church service sound ridiculous.

That said, I think there is a fine-line. I tease you about the Brethren at times, but I don't think I've attended any Brethren service that I'd consider wildly way-out and whacky in the way that this group in the MW report does. I might have heard things in Brethren sermons that have made me wince or sung some execrable (as well as excellent) stuff out of Redemption Hymnal (which is what the Brethren I knew used) but I wouldn't consider them fruit-cake.

People's mileage would vary, though.

Sooner or later, however, in any form of church service, there's tended to be (with me at least) an, 'ah, I get it ...' moment. I can think of such things in my experience in settings as diverse as Gypsy Pentecostal church in Spain through to York Minister.

I smiled at your 'old money' analogy and think that holds to some extent. But I don't think I'm doing the Emporer's New Clothes thing when I say that even in the most high-octane Catholic style worship I've encountered I've known a sense of 'something there' which would deter me from taking the mickey in a no-holds barred type way.

I would say the same about standard or classic Pentecostalism too, to an extent.

But I'm afraid I don't have as much compunction/scruples when it comes to some of these newer outfits.

If that makes me an ecclesiastical snob then so be it. But I don't think so. I think it's the voice of experience ... although experience is always relative and tempered by what we've been through, of course.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I expect that Westboro Baptist Church claim to meet in Jesus' name. However, can we possibly consider those folk to be Christians?

Of course they are. There's more than a whiff of "no true Scotsman" about those who say otherwise.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

The majority of people are not true Scotsmen - they are in fact not Scotsmen at all, irrespective of whatever claims they might make.

It's an attractive POV which on inspection doesn't get you anywhere other than back to square one. The square where you have to ask "OK then, what is a Scotsman?". Once you know that, then you can decide whether you are dealing with a logical error of rhetoric ("No True Scotsman"), or a category error (Not actually a Scotsman).

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

Excellent comment, Honest Ron. A.P

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I expect that Westboro Baptist Church claim to meet in Jesus' name. However, can we possibly consider those folk to be Christians?
Of course they are. There's more than a whiff of "no true Scotsman" about those who say otherwise.

In which case we are right back to the word "Christian" not having any definition at all -- because if we actually, you know, decided that it stood for some things and NOT for others, it would be using the One True Scotsman Fallacy. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

"in Jesus's name" means truly representing Jesus, sent by Jesus, acting according to Jesus' desires. It does not mean just mouthing those syllables.

That reminds me of Matt 7:21

quote:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In which case we are right back to the word "Christian" not having any definition at all

Rubbish. The definition is simply that you are Christian if you honestly want to be. The entrance exam is really simple - "do you turn to Christ?" That's all.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

The disciples didn't like that either when Christ said it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In which case we are right back to the word "Christian" not having any definition at all
Rubbish. The definition is simply that you are Christian if you honestly want to be. The entrance exam is really simple - "do you turn to Christ?" That's all.

You try to make it out to be an easy thing, but you deceive yourself. What does this mean, turning to Christ? Please be explicit. Use examples if necessary.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You try to make it out to be an easy thing, but you deceive yourself. What does this mean, turning to Christ? Please be explicit. Use examples if necessary.

It is easy. What happens once you're "in" may well be hard, but that's a different thing. You ask what it means, but that's for the Christian to determine for themselves though their life of Christian fellowship.

Expecting someone to sign up to a detailed Declaration of Faith before even becoming a Christian is like expecting someone to have a black belt before joining the dojo. It kinda misses the point.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
it's my job to decide who I'm going to pitch my tent with, and "We're not called to judge" isn't going to cut it if we've been aiding and abetting hate and destruction.

Agreed - if you really think someone has turned to the Dark Side, there's a duty ISTM not only to not join them, but also to warn others off from doing so.

But there's also the case of people you don't want to join for reasons of taste (you have it and they don't) and culture, where it's OK for you to have nothing to do with them - that's your free choice - but it would be wrong to prevent others from choosing. If I have no taste either, a tasteless neo-Church may be just what I need to awaken my hunger for God.

And when we don't know which case we're dealing with, it seems better - more humble, more charitable - to give other people the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Expecting someone to sign up to a detailed Declaration of Faith before even becoming a Christian is like expecting someone to have a black belt before joining the dojo.

I don't think this is the simile you want. You are saying here that the end purpose of becoming a Christian is to believe the Creed. Or at best, your reward for years of working hard at being a Christian is to be allowed to believe the Creed.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't think this is the simile you want.

I could try to waffle some faux-profound stuff about the true purpose of karate being not the belts but the personal journey and try to save face that way, but it'd just be bullshit. You're right, poor simile.

I still think following Christ is more important than knowing and/or believing the creeds and doctrines of the Church (whichever one you happen to be in), though. Christ said "by this shall men know you are my disciples: by your love for one another" (I may be paraphrasing). He didn't say "...by your assent to the creeds and doctrines that the Church will create about me". To mix up Biblical references, if the fruit of a tree is good, should we call it bad simply because its leaves are the wrong shape?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Aye Marvin the Martian.

A plague and embrace of both houses of OUR false dichotomy.

What makes CHRISTIANS Christian is our rare exercise of true religion. I'm approximately 1% Christian on a good week by that criterion, if I'm being wildly generous to myself.

Our beliefs don't make us Christian in the SLIGHTEST if we believe that they are separate from our behaviour.

[ 04. May 2013, 11:07: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Aren't there different contexts in which "Christian" means different things? We should decide what we mean by it here.

For example, from a sociological/religious-studies perspective, yes, these folks in the OP, Westboro Baptist, JWs and Mormons, the guy who hangs around my school with a sign proclaiming if you don't call Christ "Yoshua" instead of "Jesus" he won't listen to your prayers, the Pope, the Pope Emeritus, and mousethief are all Christian. If they say they are, they are.

Institutions have certain interests, for example, guarding the faith, maintaining the institution, and so forth; so their definitions may be pretty strict with the definition of who they think is Christian and who isn't.

On another level, we need to ask whether we mean "Is so-and-so [a] Christian in the sense of their religious identity?" or "Is so-and-so saved/going to heaven/in a relationship with Jesus/God?"

So which are we after here?

The wheat and tares parable is instructive re: that very last question. It's not for us to judge whether someone is saved or damned (or whatever language we use). We may not know what God is doing in any individual's life, and where they are in the process.

I think we can make the distinction, though, between institutions, creeds, and structures. That's the question worth debating.

Different institutions will define it differently, although those definitions might be related to the particular church's ideas about who is saved and who is damned. If a church believes there is no salvation outside the church, for example, it's going to want to (a) clearly define the church, so people can know if they're in it or not; and (b) carefully guard the faith so as not to change the church into something in which salvation might not be found. If a church has split off from another church, they might define "Christian" in a way to exclude those they split off from (see the anti-Catholicism in some Protestant groups).

And then there's the impulse to distance ourselves from our more outlandish cousins, which might be what's going on with this OP.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0