By VorJack
John Shelby Spong once joked that talking to moderate Christians is like watching someone play rummy: they know they have to discard something, but what? “I’ll get rid of the virgin birth, but I have to keep the resurrection. I’ll give up on the divinity of Jesus, but I need some way to hold on to substitutionary atonement.”
The joke, for Spong, was that he’s willing to lay down everything. He’s willing to toss any card that he finds unacceptable, even if that leaves him empty handed. But this raises the question: is he still playing the same game? And if you’re no longer playing the same game, why are you still at the table?
Reluctance
Pullquote: What right does anyone have to define Christianity? I certainly don’t own the copyright, but neither does anyone else.
I am hesitant to bring up the matter of definition. Firstly, because this is the kind of stick that the fundamentalists have used to beat the liberal Christians for a century. The whole point of the original “fundamentals” was to lay out the set of beliefs required to be a real Christian. That’s not an act I want to follow.
Further, what right have I to try and define Christianity? But by the same token, what right does anyone have? I certainly don’t own the copyright, but neither does anyone else. This is probably not a question that’s ever going to be fully answered.
Definition
Pullquote: There seems to be nothing — no biblical passage, no creedal statement, no traditional belief — that all Christians agree on.
The only reason I bring this up at all is that atheist blogs are frequently beset by commenters who are eager to explain the real Christianity. The more even-handed just want to be clear that there are many different interpretations, and that fundamentalism isn’t the only form of Christianity. The latter group is right, of course, but when pressed to provide a criteria for their interpretation, things get vague.
There seems to be nothing — no biblical passage, no creedal statement, no traditional belief — that all Christians agree on. I would think that substitutionary atonement — “Jesus died for your sins” — would be non-negotiable. After all, this is probably the most basic Christian belief, and possibly the original impulse that led to the formation of the first Jewish-Christian sects. And yet I frequently come across self-professed Christians who tell me they reject this basic idea.
To sever yourself from 2,000 years of Christian thought takes brass, and I respect that. But to do so and still say you’re engaged with the tradition seems almost delusional.
Communication
I want to talk about religion. I want to talk about Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. I particularly want to talk about Christianity, since I live in a culture that’s saturated in it. But this gets increasingly difficult as the word itself seems to grow increasingly nebulous.
Is the only thing that unites Christians the fact that they all call themselves Christians? Is anyone who finds the golden rule a good idea a Christian? Are we all Christians now? Are none of us?
As minister who grew up fundamentalist then got an MDiv at a liberal school, I gotta say you’ve made a powerful point. Is there ANYTHING that Christians agree on? In fact the liberals and conservatives spend a great deal of time fighting each other to prove “the truth.” We don’t even spend that much time intelligently debating you athiests–we’d rather die fighting on the hill of evolution vs creationism.
But even that is not a common point. Lots of christians have no problem with evolution.
I think that’s clergy guy’s point …
You can die on a hill fighting that fight… but it will be worthless as evolution is a scientific fact.
I recently asked someone in a comment string on Facebook to tell me where to find the “tons” of scientific evidence pointing to the validity of creation as told in the bible. (She said there was “plenty of evidence – TONS of it!”) She never responded… wonder why? Because she was just repeating what some Preacher or Sunday school teacher said… and what she swallowed without even asking to see it for herself. Poor girl.
Yes– and when that ask me that, I point them to talkorigins.com or to pubmed!
mwaaaahaahahahaaa!
It’s human nature, we invent something and no one can agree on it.
AFAIK the central belief for Christians is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Believe in Jesus’ resurrection, you are a Christian.
Discard it, you are not a Christian, at least not in the religious sense.
Is that “physical” resurrection? Or, just resurrection?
The “real” god believes what I want him to believe!
DINGDINGDING! As I’ve said before: “What would Jesus do?” Whatever the person asking the question would do, obviously, because who is their Jesus?
No no, Kodie, it’s the other way around. At least, that’s the impression more than a few fundie commenters on this blog have wanted to convey, when they explain why they dislike homosexuality. It’s because God tells them to. It has absolutely nothing to do with them being prejudiced to begin with.
There are people who will include atheists and other heathens in their definition of Christian. Their only requirement is that you lead a “moral” life. I think it’s there way of avoiding the idea that most of the world is going to hell.
“The joke, for Spong, was that he’s willing to lay down everything. He’s willing to toss any card that he finds unacceptable, even if that leaves him empty handed. But this raises the question: is he still playing the same game?”
John C?
Fransesc…
This is an entirely faulty premise. Politely as possible…Spong is wrong. “We” dont pick up or toss anyTHING (doctrines, creeds, beliefs) but rather someOne, and in that One is ALL. This idea that the Spirit led life is a “game” of keep or toss is a self-focused futility. Christianity is not a set of mere beliefs that “I” strive to adhere to, obey in my vain attempts to assuage a seemingly angry or demanding God.
It is impossible for “me” (or anyone) to live the “Christian” life, to fulfill the law, it’s His life afterall. God doesn’t want us to “try” but to “die” to ourselves for it is no longer “I” that lives, but Christ is the One doing the living through me (Gal 2.20). It’s an exchanged life.
“I” (my former, faulty, inherited adamic self) died with Him on the cross that day some 2000 years ago. (Romans 6.6) and now He is resurrected within me, it’s His life not mine that’s doing the living. Of course this makes zero sense to our “natural” minds. But since faith (which He supplies also, as with everything pertaining to life and Godliness) is a living, connective dynamic bridging the seen and unseen it manifests the truth of that unseen realm within my inner being, the spiritual aspect of mySelf bringing His heaven (kingly realm of authority, dominion, truth) into my “earth”…as Jesus said in the Lord’s prayer…”may it be on earth (us) as it is in heaven”. Christ being the intersection of the two realms.
So there is nothing that “I” have to “do”, ie keep or toss, all we have to do is receive what Love has already done for us. He does it ALL and it is finished as Christ said. All the best.
Did this comment sound eerily Derridean to anyone else?
No, its not Derridean, it’s the Gospel. No self effort, all has been done for us. It is finished, a completed work.
And just toss aside those sneaky ideas that it just doesn’t make sense… that there are inconsistencies with the non-followed text… It’ll all be okay, it’s all been thought for us and we can just be free from any annoying questions by knowing that we’ll get the answers “someday”.
Since when does any scripture make “sense”?
I was googling around just to see if there have been any serious attempts by Derrida or other deconstructivists (and there have), but man oh man do some Christians really really hate Derrida. Kinda took be by surprise just how much.
In case that made *no* sense, I meant to say serious attempts to do a deconstruction of the Biblical text…
We don’t live by a “text”…surprise, surpise I know but its true.
Of course you live by a text… you quote it all the time. Your ideas didn’t just pop into your head, you *read* them in the bible and that is what you live by. Therefore, you *are* accepting a standard and you try to live up to it. All this talk about love living in us, well most people *do* experience love… it’s called oxytocin. No magical spirit realm needed for that… just good ol’ neurochemistry.
No, I have shared many (too many ha) things with you guys that weren’t “scripture”, where did they come from? And dont say Plato cuz I still haven’t read him! lol
All the best LRA!! yeehaw :)
LOL! Read it!!!!!!!11!!!!1!
@John C
And just because YOU haven’t read it doesn’t mean the people that wrote the things you read didn’t it; nor does it mean that the people that have taught you what you understand as BRAND NEW INFORMATION have not read it, or probably more likely, their teachers read it – the brand new info, ain’t brand new
to spell it out a bit – that bible – and the men whose hands held whatever tools wrote it – those hands may have held Plato, and read him, as many of us have, give it a shot, it may help you understand the “I’s” etc that you like to use
PS: I know this because of the Light inside of all of us that “I” was able to realize by accepting the One True Truth into “me” – “It” is “me” and all of “us” – hence the quotes… but “That’s” how “I” know that “I’m” right about everything that “I” just “wrote” – quotes because “I” did not write it, “We” or “He” or “Us” did… and “this” should make sense to “you” because “you” seem to understand what writing like this means —
and after doing all that, i feel buddhist – wait, im over it
Hey, on the same comment, is the first time I don’t agree in any way with LRA
(“Your ideas didn’t just pop into your head”)
and I agree with JohnC
(“Since when does any scripture make “sense”? “)
Today has to be one of those bizarre days…
And yet, you cite it multiple times in the post in question, and provide references twice (Gal 2.20 and Romans 6.6).
You’ll excuse us if the distinction escapes us.
I only cite the reference verse for you guys, since I always get asked, “where does it say that”?. All the best Sam.
Bob Dylan seems Derridean in his songs, but he doesn’t think so. I’m glad John C. doesn’t seem Derridean to me in his explanation of our shared faith. (thanks for the discovery what Derridean means–smile)
“It is NOT those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who OBEY the law who will be declared righteous. Rom. 2:13. Which law is he talking about?
“Don’t bang on it” law
The fact that there is almost infinite room for interpretation of the teachings is probably the main reason Christianity has been so successful as a religion. It can adapt to almost any point of view, any culture, and any scientific discovery. From a survivability perspective this is a great strength. From a credibility perspective it is obviously the biggest weakness; as our knowledge of the world advances, it becomes increasingly clear how intellectually bankrupt Christianity is.
It’s a bit glib, but one way to define it is: a Christian is someone who follows some sort of Christ. How they define that Christ varies wildly, of course, but it serves to distinguish Christians from, say, Buddhists (who, under this scheme, would be folks who follow some sort of Buddha).
Just because someone is your role model doesn’t make you an -ist or -ian of any sort really. That’s even more cherry-picking and delusional than the real kind. Cult of personality? People do this with musicians/songwriters a lot, and I suppose authors, not to mention talk show hosts and other people in some sort of self-help authority position like Wayne Dyer. It doesn’t make you better or worse to choose someone who might influence or guide you sometimes, but labeling the system that works for you, by your own coinage or someone else’s especially, or calling yourself after whatever person you think has the ultimate wisdom seems really unnecessary, and almost surely impervious to differing concepts that work for other people.
Even like, say, I’m an atheist, people seem to find it necessary to define that more strictly than there is no god, like some author or great thinker lines it up and this is what we believe, like I can be categorized. I guess it’s shorthand? so that people can make certain assumptions about you before you have to say them, get the label out of the way so the approach can be custom-tailored. Like it’s important for people to know, hypothetically, I’m on a diet, so they don’t offer me a brownie, but don’t hold back on the bacon if you have extra, ’cause I’m low-carb and all that. Just be up front, what single person’s own philosophies have you assessed and concluded are the be-all and end-all? Who influenced them that they have gathered all the good stuff together in one place, that could never have occurred to anyone else?
I’ve read your reply a couple of times now, and I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Read my post again. I admit that my definition is (a) glib and (b) only one way to define the term “Christian.” It’s useful in so far as it helps point out the wide range of beliefs that can fall under the term, and that not everyone who calls themselves Christian is going to agree with everyone else who calls themselves Christian.
I would think that substitutionary atonement — “Jesus died for your sins” — would be non-negotiable. After all, this is probably the most basic Christian belief, and possibly the original impulse that led to the formation of the first Jewish-Christian sects. And yet I frequently come across self-professed Christians who tell me they reject this basic idea.
Do you observe that they also have a strong tendency to be in the group of Christians that now reject the divinity of Christ? I’ve noticed that these two things seem to come together in a pair – Jesus wasn’t actually divine and his death on the cross was a tragedy, but not a sacrifice for humanity’s sins. The strand that I’ve noticed that follows this line tends to believe that a “Christian” is someone who takes the message of Jesus from the Gospels – notably the Beatitudes – and attempt to follow that as a moral code or life philosophy. They tend to ignore most of the rest of the New Testament (and tend to have nasty things to say about Paul for the most part). I guess it doesn’t bother me that much if these folks want to call themselves “Christians” – they’re way outside the established tradition of Christianity as represented by the last 1500 years or so, but given that they’re attempting to view Christianity as a philosophy rather than as a tradition it seems to be a fitting name.
This is an excellent topic, and one I hope some Christians will shed light on. I know this sort of conflict pops up all the time with my wife and others around her.
We often talk about “so-and-so” whose idea of practicing Christianity is “way off” in some manner, like praying for the wrong stuff or behaving the wrong way. Almost every time, I can think of scriptural support for their position, or at the very least not be willing to bet it’s not somewhere in the bible.
I’ve found a lot of my friends identify themselves as belonging to a religion because there parents were part of it. To them its almost like its a genetic trait rather then a system of beliefs, and thats how they refer to it. Especially my “Catholic” friends. I use it in quotes because they don’t go to Mass, or read the bible, or even know what the bible does or doesn’t say. But they are quick to jump in with the information that they are Catholic.
So Christianity can be a genetic trait?
Also its a genetic trait that tends to be passed down from the mothers side rather then the fathers. I don’t know why, but its seems to always be because there mother was x that they are. never the father.
For that matter, in my experience churches tend to have a significant female/male skew (with most of the males who are there being married to a female or a kid who is brought by the mother.) Does this hold up to other peoples experience? And if so why do you think Christianity skews so much towards the ladies? I always got the impression God didn’t like women from reading His book. And he extra doesn’t like them when it’s “that time of the month” But I guess all guys can relate to that. Am i right fellas?
“The more even-handed just want to be clear that there are many different interpretations, and that fundamentalism isn’t the only form of Christianity. The latter group is right, of course, but when pressed to provide a criteria for their interpretation, things get vague.”
Amen, brother.
None of us are Christians. I live in the “heartland” of what is ostensibly the most religious nation on earth; yet I have never met a person making even a halfhearted attempt to live a life like Jesus. I have never heard rumor of such a person.
“Christian” does not describe a set of beliefs, a code of conduct, a heredity or even familiarity with the relevant book. If it means anything, it means: “I’ve stopped inquiring about such things, if I ever did.”
I have a question! Like, when Christians say about atheism, that it means we’ve turned away from god or rejected him, do other religions assume this as well?
Do other religions assume that we (atheists) have turned away from god? I would assume so. But it would be that we have turned away from their god–not the christian god. But my question– do other religions view christians as having turned away from their god? If you are a christian, you have obviously rejected the teachings and practices of all gods but yours, so are you viewed the same as we are?
How can you turn away from something that isn’t there? Such a thing can only be said of a theist: someone who believes in God but rejects him. In the Christian cosmology, dialectic or whatever you want to call it, this would more properly be called Satanism. Satan, in this dualistic monotheism, is the only alternative to rejecting God. What an atheist is rejecting is irrationality and superstition. It’s just that, for atheists, God, or the concept thereof, fits into that category.
I was more asking if other religions have that as a concept…. for what atheists do, like some of us (not me) who were raised with dogmatic religions and decided to be rational instead. Some or maybe most Christians seem to not understand the concept of “no god” but instead process this information as someone has “rejected” god, because they think there is one, or “know” there is one – to them, there’s obviously a god and we’re all pretending not to notice or denying an apparent “fact”.
So yeah, to summarize the idea – I’ve never heard this accusation from someone of a religion other than Christianity of some form. Or is it just more popular to be a Christian, therefore, more opinions of faith come from Christians?
I am Spartacus.
Is anyone who finds the golden rule a good idea a Christian?
I think it makes us all ancient Egyptians.
or Confucionists.
Put it this way: How many divisions of atheism are there?
Uh… let’s see. There are the “militant” atheists, and the “fundamentalist” atheists, and the “proselytizing” atheists…
There’s also those who hold there is no god, and those who say there is no god, also those who say they don’t believe in a god. I think some even claim a god doesn’t exist.
It’s a tragic The Movement is so fragmented. How will The Sinful World know we’re truly not from god? We must band together, comrades!
Raising a hand here for the antitheists.
what about born-again atheists?? What would we get dunked in? A fine locally brewed pale ale? In that case… put me on the list.
This may not be precise but I think it could give you something to work with: if a person is engaged with the Christian tradition, including it’s rites, practices, and worship there you have a Christian. You remove the propositional belief piece (which Christianity has been divided on from the start) and you decouple it with morality (lots of moral folks outside of any given religion). So Spong as a retired bishop is a Christian.
Dwight, this is probably the most accurate definition I’ve read. We should not equate a “Christian” with any specific Christian belief I supppose. This is a useful social definition, but not very useful when discussing beliefs, morality, philosophy etc.
I suspect for the latter all you could do like a taxonomist is sort out schools of thought and traditions. Liberal protestantism is one to be sure, as is evangelical protestantism. There is Calvinism, Wesleyan, Holiness/Pentecostalism, and there is enough subgroups within them to make for a lifetime of study. But really is there any other human phenomena where this isn’t the case?
Here’s the difference. Many hold to a tradition, rituals, a historic Christianity and a historical (physical) Christ. These are they that “hold to a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof”. An InChristed follower has a resurrected, indwelling Lord and that one lives “from” that higher Life form within (spirit) in the same way that Christ lived “from” the life of His Father while in the flesh here on earth.
In the paradoxical Paternity one finds great liberty in being in wholly dependent on the Father, and He is within.
I don’t think any of us act outside of a tradition (or a set of them). The question is if we are aware of it, can appropriate some of it, be critical of other parts, etc.
uh huh… and how do we know who has a “resurrected, indwelling Lord” and who doesn’t? Is it the amount of theological logorrhea they can call forth?
“logorrhea” HAAAAAAhaaahahaahahaaa!!! Good one!
@John C
I once knew a young woman that loved like a women I knew before her… was she a resurrected, indwelling of my ex-girlfriend? It kind of seemed like it…weird.
They love like Him.
gobbledygook ……
John C is actually God, can’t you feel it?
so those were HIS initials in that miracle tomato?
One day, you guys are gonna say…that damn John C was right all along! He spoke truth to us but we didnt know it. Then we will throw a giant celebration and party till the prodigals come home!
The wine will flow (both kinds) !
Love to all :)
Or, winged monkeys will come flying out of my butt and then buy me a lifetime’s suppy of sno-cones.
Because that is exactly as likely.
M&M’s, not snow cones. Silly Ty :)
I like M&Ms.
I like cheeze sammiches! :P
@ John C
“One day, you guys are gonna say…that damn John C was right all along! He spoke truth to us but we didnt know it. Then we will throw a giant celebration and party till the prodigals come home!”
…
Love to all :)
PRIDE PRIDE PRIDE – JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT
“I’m right, you are wrong. I’m so right that someday you will throw me a big party because I am great, especially in my rightness about God…oh wait…was I supposed to witness about “Him” and praise “Him” or BOAST like a child?”
What would Jesus say if “He” read that comment.
-The exact same amount of love back at you.
Oh relax Jerome…I was being silly, didnt mean any harm, not mean spirited my friend. All the best.
Pride usually isn’t mean spirited for the prideful; it feels good…one feels proud of their superiority.
Can’t wait for the big party thrown in your honor; hoping for safe but fun drugs and smart, nice, pretty ladies. Not necessarily in that order.
Peace be with you.
“What would Jesus say if “He” read that comment.”
That he wasn’t very good at foreign languages. Mind you even if he did learn English he would still look at John C’s posts and say WTF is this?
I would think that a Christian must believe that Jesus was/is the “Christ” ie the Messiah. Those who do not believe in God or resurrection etc, but “follow” the moral teachings of Jesus from the Gospels should not call themselves Christian if they care about the meaning of the word.
Of course, they generally do not care about the meaning of the word, and are really just part of the Church for social, ritual, and psychological reasons.
I’ll call them… Jesusites?
But I think you may be sneaking some evaluative judgment in this. Of course there are Christians who are in churches who join for psychological, social, other reasons. Definition ally I’m not sure how to cut out folks from a group based on some interior motives. And I’m not sure if there isn’t any group that doesn’t have that, but I would be wary of separating the true believers (who also get psychological benefit from being a “true believer”) from the other mess of complex reasons why any one joins any group.
Actually, you’ve got some company on this outlook. The 60′s and 70′s in the US saw the rise of the “Jesus Movement”, and it gave us the term “Jesus Freaks”. It was, basically, a sub-set of ‘hippie’ culture that cast Jesus as the first of the ‘long-haired freaky people’ and it served as the initial impulse for, among other things, ‘Christian Rock’ music. Perhaps most surprisingly, a genealogy of contemporary ‘fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity’ will find many of its strands leading back to this movement.
In the history of Christendom (and, whether we are all Christians or none of us are, it is only the most narrow of perspectives that would deny that we live in a ‘Christendom’–at least in the ‘West’) from about the 15th century, there have been several eruptions of movements oriented towards the name–and ‘personality’–of Jesus (or ‘Yeshua’ for those who like to play up a more Ebionite or pseudo-scholarly interpretation). The whole line of post-Lutheran Protestantism is, arguably, just such a case.
The problem that this article highlights stems from the tendency–both from within these movements, and as a practice of those who observe and comment on them–to use the term ‘Christian’ as an exceptionally broad category. The ‘accurate’ definition of the term depends on who is using it–there is no universally accepted authority on the question… Except, perhaps, for the Christ himself, but I’ve yet to see him pop up on a blog and clarify the matter (and even if he did, I know a number of Theologians and Philosophers who would argue the point with him).
For my part, if pressed, I would argue that ‘true’ Christians are those who would rather be thrown to the lions, literally, than deny that it is right to call them by that name. If you’re willing to die rather than *not* be called ‘Christian’, then you pretty well deserve the title. Unfortunately, taking the name Christian carries little cost anymore–and, in fact, can often be beneficial… so yeah, Bill, I’m with you on the lack of ‘meaning’ in the term.
As to the rest of the original article, and what I read to be the intent of its question, I would suggest that term ‘Christian’ is, today, much more social/political statement than one of belief or faith… Much as, it appears, ‘Atheist’ is (or is at least rapidly becoming). In order to say what people ‘believe’, no single label will be completely accurate.
Except maybe for Erisians…
fnord.
Christianity is actually a religion of many gods, with each denomination, Church, adherent having their own take on God. This is the reason Christianity flourishes in America. It is a go it yourself, make your own God program.
Even simple questions about the so called “fundamentals” elicit numerous responses with each respondent saying “I am right.” Salvation? There seem to be dozens of ways to heaven.
If Christianity was monolithic and presented to the world one Church and one doctrine then it would cause us to at least pause and consider the truth of it. Such is not the case. Christianity has been fragmenting since the days of the Apostles and IMO it has no legitimacy as a result.
I admit, that has an authoritarian wiff about it. We’re not talking about this or that propositional belief about a way of life.. How does one ever find a unity in it? Would we want it? America is better for the many ways of life found in it, I wouldn’t want there to be just one way to be American. I think the same can said for Christianity, for other religions, for humanism, philosophy and the like.
The difference with Christianity is that is sets itself up as THE way, truth, and life. It says our divine book is THE divine path. It says our God has given an absolute morality and ethic. I only judge Christianity by the standard it sets for itself……….and it fails miserably.
If God is divine why can he not present his truth in such a way that there is unity? All churches, to some degree or another, believe they are speaking for God. Why is God so schizophrenic?
I don’t think a Christian can make that claim without making the religion itself a god, placing humans as something beyond what any of us are or in a position to claim. In that sense it’s self defeating (even if convenient for some to claim). But not all Christians would make that claim in any case.
And yet they make that claim all the time. If this means that religion itself is god, then I think you’ve just identified the problem.
Actually, substitutionary atonement wasn’t a fully formed idea until Aquinas in the 13th century. In the early church the Ransom to Satan and Christus Victor theories of atonement were the most popular. Amongst others, the Eastern Orthodox churches reject substitutionary atonement.
“Actually, substitutionary atonement wasn’t a fully formed idea until Aquinas in the 13th century”
I’m siding with scholars like April DeConick, who argue that the first meaning assigned to the death of Jesus was derived from the Maccabean texts: Jesus was a martyr whose death atoned for the sins of Israel. That, I’d argue, is a variation of substitutionary atonement, though it is quite different from the models proposed by St. Anselm and others.
Regardless of the whens wrt substitutionary atonement, I’d consider the ransom theory and Christus Victor equally valid Christian theologies. All three have Jesus as a divine character – so these are more orthodox IMO than the “philosophical Jesus” of the most liberal Chistians. My personal drawing line is belief in a divine Jesus. The divinty is the woo part anyway.
So you’d be for denying the Christianity of a large percentage of the Church of the first 4 centuries? The divinity of Jesus wasn’t (isn’t) a cut and dry case…
Vorjack…who is Israel?
Israel literally means wrestles with God. It refers to the Jewish people, God’s “chosen”.
In Reformed, Covenant, Puritan influenced theology Israel is the Church. (who are the elect)
The process of becoming an “Israelite” is typified in the combined experiences of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. I wont go into all the processes but this is a beautiful undertaking the Father commits to in us if we will only believe, stay the course, trust Him. For He who bagan a good work in you will complete (perfect) it until the day of Christ Jesus (His nature being formed in you).
An Isrealite is a fully formed (mature) Son (meaning spiritual offspring) in the image of the Father. He is Christlike in every way. He has wrestled with God in the night season and…won his birthright…to be re-formed in the true image.
PS….hey LRA…all the best.
So if I threaten to kill my son because voices in my head tell me to I get to go to be an “Israelite”? Thanks, I’ll pass.
That’s a stretch there Cyber…dont ya think?
My real name means, “gives god a wedgie.”
My real name means “seller of purple dye”.
My real name means “Christlike”. AaaaaaaahahahahahAHAHAHahaha*cough*
Yes, my name is Biblical, too…
Actually, I think my real name means ‘maker of shoes’ or something equally lame.
LOL, My root name is Jeremiah, or “May Jehovah exalt. or Exalted of the Lord”
I love it when Xtians ask me about it, “Thats a fine Christian name”.
I get to explain that my parents were Hippies and I’m named after the song, “Jeremiah Was A Bullfrog”.
Unity Church is a sect that calls itself Christian but does not believe in redemption through the death and resurrection. We are all part of god, there is no original sin, Jesus was the way-shower (Show-er – person who shows, not a downpour of water!) and big brother, etc. It is very inclusive, which means very very vague.
This comes up so much in discussions around No True Scotsman and the problem of evil, because people who identify themselves as Christian keep changing the rules to exclude anyone not like them. The only thing I’m left with is that Christians are people who identify themselves as Christians.
Substitution atonement theory is but one of several theories of the atonement. In America, particularly among those of Evangelical persuasion, the substitutionary atonement theory is considered a cardinal doctrine. To deny it is to deny the faith.
Evangelicals are most often poorly schooled in the history of theology. Many would be surprised to find that there are other theories on the atonement and that there was a time when the substitutionary atonement theory was not the predominate theory.
Evangelicals are most often poorly schooled at a lot more than the history of theology!
Quite correct. The pastoral training I received in the 70′s was at best over-glorified Sunday School training. It was in the study, on my own, that I received a real education. Of course this real education ultimately led me to become an agnostic……….so maybe I should have stuck to the Sunday School level education. :)
You know what, me too! One (of the many reasons) I left Christianity was because I studied the bible… and read concords, and attended debates between Christians and Atheists, and asked hard questions to apologists (who never had a good answer), etc. etc. etc…
If you keep going, then, will you graduate to atheism?
Here is an evangelical who writes at length about the various models of atonement. His entry on July 8th is the most recent one but off to the right he has links to a lengthy but excellent essay on Christus Victor which would almost make me reconsider Christianity.
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Evangelicals are most often poorly schooled in the history of theology.
That’s an incredibly bold generalization. Who do you have in mind when you say “Evangelicals?”
Maybe your claim was accurate in the ’70′s. I don’t know. I wasn’t alive then.
Maybe your claim is accurate about the laity, but even then, I don’t know how you can make the claim confidently.
But I think you might be overstating the case a bit when it comes to current Evangelicals, and Evangelical scholarship in particular. Then again, maybe you have a very specific reference point that I’m just missing.
As a former Evangelical who pastored for 25 plus years I am quite sure I am not overstating it. :) In general, Evangelicals are not trained well in matters of theology, pastors included. (especially at the undergrad level)
Usually, a well educated Evangelical is one who did their post-grad work at a liberal theological institution. In many Evangelical schools, the objective is not to give the student a well rounded theological education. The objective it to teach them WHAT to believe.
Most Evangelical schools have a statement of faith. Many require their faulty to sign an affirmation of the prescribed doctrine of the school. Hardly, an open educational experience………
I’m guessing by “faulty” you meant “faculty” …. how pleased Freud would be.
Fair enough, Bruce.
I attended a rather “conservative” undergrad institution and then attended a “liberal” seminary, so I understand your perspective.
I think an alternative way of understanding at least some streams of Evangelicalism, however, (and this probably applies more to the post-grad than under-grad institutions) is that those institutions aren’t trying to teach their students what they have to believe but rather their own understanding of the faith and how their tradition is distinct.
That explains my training, anyway. Even my conservative undergrad school wasn’t out to teach me what to believe, and my seminary certainly wasn’t. They provided opportunities to explore history and doctrine, ask tough questions, and even be a skeptic. It’s my impression of the current academic landscape that more Evangelical colleges are taking such approaches.
However, all one needs to do is look at schools like Liberty and ORU to see that your point is valid in some places (and perhaps most … I don’t know with certainty).
Whose got two thumbs and knows he *ain’t* a christian?
I seem to recall being taught that the basic definition of “Christian” was contained in the Apostles’ Creed (and the Nicene Creed). I thought those statements of belief were christianity?
Of course, it has been a long time since confirmation classes (Lutheran church). I could be wrong. And it’s not like those hold any meaning for me personally, so I’ve probably dumped the info to make room in my brain for more important things. Like what the “T” in James T. Kirk stands for.
T = tiberius. but what’s the H in jesus H christ?
hmmmm….
The H was actually mistranslated. In fact, the correct middle initial was E, which gave him the name of Jesus Effing Christ. When yelled from the heavens, he knew for sure he was in really deep doodoo.
Actually, Jesus H. was just a stage name. He figured no one would take the whole saviour thing seriously from a guy name Buford Tiberius Christ.
Or possibly it was his tranny name and it just, you know, ‘stuck’ after a while.
Sorry, no, it’s really really F. If you’re partial to saying things like ‘shucks’ and ‘H-E-double hockey sticks’, you know, E is fine. Also JFC uses a secret blend of only 12 herbs and spices, one of which, I found out, is myrrh, in case you wondered what a baby needed with myrrh.
Well, actually I just changed cults, and you are once again off by one letter. Its not JFC, its UFC, which is where the Ultimate Fighting Championship actually took it from, given that Israel means “wrestles with god”, and any good dad will, at least once in a while, wrestle with his kids.
Yeah, any good dad who made our arms too short to box with him. Pretty crafty designing us like that.
“Is anyone who finds the golden rule a good idea a Christian?”
I can’t remember who to give proper credit to;
A sadist is nothing more than a masochist following the golden rule.
Pingback: A Gentleman and A Christian » Spiritual Tramp
From a strictly semantic perspective, a Christian is a “little Christ,” or in other words, a disciple of Christ, someone who follows Christ.
I would say that anyone who self-identifies as a follower of Christ and strives to live into what the definition entails is a Christian.
Yeah but “what the definition entails” as a follower of Christ is the issue of disagreement.
Sure, I’m not denying there’s disagreement, just that I don’t put much stock in that disagreement, nor do I bother spending much time with it.
If someone claims to be a Christian and strives to love God and love their neighbor, that’s my own understanding of what the term means.
The dictionary says -ian means “of, relating to, belonging to, or resembling” none of which strongly implies the characteristic “little.” It’s a club, do you belong to it? Does it have rules or can you make your own rules?
The dictionary also says the suffix -an and -ian are derived from the Latin “anus.” So a Christian in the strictly semantic is someone who ….. I’m not going to spell it out for you, I have to be somewhere.
You’d have to go back to the Greek (christianos), not the Latin, to see my point, Kodie.
BR…true, “little Christ” is a good depiction and an ancient one as well. But it’s their fruits that tell us who is real and who is not. Father knows those who belong to Him.
“someone who follows Christ.”
Right. My understanding is that the -ian suffix was used in the Roman world to designate a follower of a certain person. So you were a ‘Julian’ if you were in the party of Julius Caesar, or a ‘Pompian’ if you were backing Pompeius in the Roman civil war. So a Christian was a follow of the Christ, the messiah. It gets a little sticky since that’s a title instead of a name, but it works.
Well, the title is applied to the person …
Right, it’s just that I wonder about Tacitus and his reference to “Christus” . I wonder if he hadn’t heard the word “Christian” and came to the logical conclusion that it meant “follower of someone named Christ-something” and stuck on the generic masculine ending.
Then again, I don’t know that the word “Christian” was in use yet. But why let chronology stand in the way of a good theory?
But why let chronology stand in the way of a good theory?
lol :)
Great post Daniel – and having not stopped in for a while, your blog header made me sigh a nice long breathe of peace… I want to go there. And start a religion. LOL!
The strange part is that the same is apparently true for Atheists. I was watching a Penn Jillette video where he pointed out that there are sects of Quakers who claim to be atheists. So he’s toying with other nomenclature, like Anti-theist, to remain unaffiliated. I agree that the term atheist comes with some baggage, but I’d never have imagined that some of those bags would contain organized religion. It’d be nice for all of us to be able to label ourselves with a word that would convey our beliefs (or lack thereof) exactly and succinctly to everyone, but that will just never happen. To quote Monty Python’s Life of Brian, “We’re all individuals.”
When i was eight years old and someone asked me whether i was a Christian, i said “what’s that?” and they told me “it’s someone who believes in God.”
Simple, but it’s the definition that’s always stuck in my mind. “God,” of course, refers to the god of the Bible. One could argue that Jews and Muslims technically believe in the same god, though, so maybe this definition still doesn’t work.
I’d say it’s someone who believes at least part of the supernatural ideas within the Bible. Believing that the Golden Rule makes sense in no way makes a person a Christian. Believing that God exists, though, does at least in my mind.
** Overlapping xians creeds or opting out of xianity completely
* Xianity defined (an historical starting point)
A definition of xianity? Easy. Xianity is a (quasi) monotheism which specifies a list of “revealed truths” which must be believed. These are its creeds. Search “creeds, christian.”
You’ll find that after hundreds of years of bickering and slaughter (in about 500 CE) what we would call the direct ancestor of today’s RC church specified what everyone must acknowledge, out loud, in order to be an orthodox xian. (ortho-dox = correct belief) Any deviance from orthodoxy brands you as ‘heterodox’ or worse a ‘heretic.’
* Beliefs belonging to orthodoxy?
1. One God, made up of 3 distinct persons — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit)
2. Jesus Christ is God’s only Son who became a human being
3. Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead after 3 days
4. He returned to Heaven, but will come back one day to judge all mankind now living and those who have died.
5. The (RC) church is a hallowed institution, the sole dispenser of God’s forgiveness of sin, headed by the Pope. (Sin is a supernatural condition of separation from God which Jesus’ death on the Cross did “expiate” “heal” or “amend”.)
6. Authority in matters of faith and morals lies with the Pope and bishops. It is not limited by what the Bible says.
* Xianity has never been one set of beliefs — it is overlapping sets of beliefs.
Who are the “heretics”? According to the (incomplete) list above:
1. all Protestant denominations — deny points 5 and 6 ( claiming Faith alone and biblical authority)
2. Mormonism – which adds unorthodox texts and deny points 1, 5, 6
3. Unitarianism (old and Universalist) — deny point 2 (old), denies all (Universalist)
4. Deism — denies all points, but claims there is a single “God”
5. Pantheism — denies all points, but claims that Nature is “God”
And the other religions belonging to the big-3 near eastern monotheisms are also heretics:
the Jews for failing to accept Christ and the Moslems for adding new texts, rejecting the trinity, and proclaiming a new set of revelations and new prophet, Mohammed.
* What do the near eastern big-3 have in common?
Here are some assumptions which are common to the near eastern group of religions (which would also include the great-granddaddy of them all Zoroastrianism).
1. There are two distinct “worlds” one natural the other supernatural
2. Human beings belong to both worlds (unlike angels or non-human animals)
3. The natural world was created by a unique God: it displays an order understandable by humans
4. The supernatural world (Heaven) is a morally ordered world (a world wholly good)
5. Human beings are (supernaturally) free to choose between good and evil
6. Aligning oneself with God’s moral order requires “faith” which demands working for the good
……….
Each particular religious group specifies under what conditions (beliefs in creeds and acts in conformity with those beliefs) a person is admitted and remains in “good standing” here and in the “the here-after.
Know the oppo. The de-deification of nature (including all the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.
anti_supernaturalist
Sorry didn’t intend to bold the whole text.
Can you limit bold to title
Yes, there isn’t a title exactly, you use open tags to start an effect and close tags to end it.
[b]With pointy brackets instead of square brackets, this text would be bold.[/b]
Thanks for a great article, VorJack, and welcome to the complexities of the post-modern world! I find it intriguing when athiest folk are upset by the lack of homogeneity in Christianity — we are a harder target when they can’t pin us down, perhaps? Personally I’m less concerned with finding a common faith-rule or practice that will unite all Christians everywhere — doubt we could, anyway. I am concerned, however, with having a clear sense of identity and integrity within my congregation (so that we know who we are, and can communicate that clearly), and with having some ability to work together with other Christians (see american website for progressive christians, NOT canadian one) and with people of other faiths and no faith, to effect positive change in the world. peace to all.
Pingback: “Are We All Christians Now?” « Jesse Hair's Blog