Setting boundaries
There’s a tendency that I’ve seen quite a lot recently, in online debates, to claim that “being a Christian” necessarily involves assent to a certain set of doctrines. This list may be long or short, and may include some more or less universal Christian beliefs. However, what seems wrong-headed to me about this is the idea that our identity as Christians depends on our doctrine.
We see this in various ways. The most obvious, perhaps, is when certain people are declared to be “obviously not Christian” because of their beliefs – this is seen particularly in arguments about church parties (evangelical/liberal, catholic/protestant etc.) but crops up all over the place. The attitude is also seen in many presentations of the “Gospel”, which consist essentially of a set of doctrines to which we are expected to assent before we can be “saved” – man is sinful, the penalty for sin is death, Jesus built a bridge between man and God etc. etc.
The fundamental error with this whole attitude, it seems to me, is that it puts the cart before the horse. “Being a Christian” is not, and cannot be, primarily about a particular set of doctrines – whatever those doctrines may be. Our Christian faith is, before anything else, about a relationship with God through Christ. The call of the good news to the Christian is “come to Me all you who labour, all you who are weary, all you who are burdened”. Jesus didn’t teach the catechism and then call people – He called (indeed, attracted and compelled) people to follow Him and then educated them in what that meant. The Christian Gospel isn’t doctrine, it’s a Person. Christ is first and last.
For evangelism, this is absolutely crucial. If we approach evangelism with the idea that the task is to convey particular doctrines then we will see it primarily as about talking, proclaiming, teaching. However, this is not the true model. The goal of evangelism is to introduce someone to Christ – and so the task is far more about listening, helping and doing. The task of making Christ known in the world is performed not by talking about Christ but by being Christ to the world. As St Francis once said, “preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words.”
When it comes to judging other Christians, this distinction is even more important. For we simply cannot determine whether someone is truly Christian by what they say. If we were going to do that, we would have had to write off most of the apostles and a great many of the Church’s greatest saints at one time or another. The most we can say is that someone’s understanding is confused or wrong. The reasons for this can range from the fact that they talk in completely different categories (a common problem that is badly underestimated by many people) to genuine mistakes. However, understanding God wrongly doesn’t prove that we are not in relationship with God.
The point here is an idea that I first heard many years ago from Dave Andrews. The question, he said, is one of how we see the Church – is it a bounded set or a centred set? That is, is membership in the Church defined by whether we’re “inside” a certain boundary (creeds or doctrinal statements) or by whether we’re focused on Christ as the centre? Is the Church a circle, within which everyone is saved and outside which no one is saved? Or is the Church a central point (Christ) surrounded by many people, some close and some far away, some moving towards the centre and others moving away? Surely it is far more relevant whether someone is centred on Christ, moving towards Christ, than whether they can assent to intellectual descriptions of a religion? Is it not better to be a murderer who is moving towards Christ than a suburban socialite who is moving away, regardless of which one can assent to the “pure doctrines”?
Indeed, this idea of assent to doctrine smuggles an intellectual arrogance into Christianity – for it means that one’s status as a Christian depends largely on how well we can understand and communicate these doctrines, rather than on how well we actually imitate Christ. And the Christian faith is far more about the doing of Christ’s will than it is about talking about it.
This idea of doctrinal purity also has a corrosive effect on the Christian family. It places human understanding above love – the characteristic that Christ said was to distinguish His Church. Father Jake recently posted something unrelated that contained this quote from Robert G. Certain, a priest (and candidate for bishop) in the Episcopal Church. It is talking about the Anglican view of church authority, which depends on many voices speaking together rather than one voice of central authority.
Since our ancient theology holds that the Holy Spirit guides most clearly in ecumenical council, it is in the deliberations of the Communion that we can find our greatest hope. Any insistence to agree on everything sounds like a call to build a new “Tower of Babel”. In the Bible story, unity of language and purpose led to pride, with the people patting themselves on the back for being so smart. In turn, God decided to destroy the tower and to confuse our language in order to keep us mindful that only God creates anything of lasting significance. Differences remind us that God alone is sovereign – not you, me, theologians or doctrines. Divergent ideas and actions, even heretical ones, will not destroy us, our faith, or Our Lord. But they will lead us to ask more questions, find new answers, correct old errors, and rediscover the depths of the love of God in Christ Jesus.
That is, we cannot prejudge what the result of any debate will be. To insist going in that everyone agrees with me is to deny this truth – it says that God has spoken to me, and everyone else had better listen. It says that I am the teacher and you the pupil; but Jesus said that we have only one teacher (Mat 23:6-8). By contrast, to believe genuinely that God speaks to the church corporately means setting aside personal agendas, however deeply held, before starting the debate. It means allowing God to speak through people we dislike and disagree with. Humility is a Christian virtue – which means that we have to accept the company of those we disagree with even on central issues. We can disagree with them, even vehemently. But we cannot, without the gravest reasons and with the gravest care, declare that someone else isn’t following Christ simply because of that disagreement.
We can say that they are wrong. We cannot say that they are not following Christ.
pax et bonum
Follow comments using Co.mments.com
Add to your del.icio.us bookmarks
Pam Ostrander () (URL)
2:12pm on 04 September 2006
Anyway, I get what youre saying here. Thanks.
Chris (in TX) () (URL)
7:54pm on 04 September 2006
Suzy () (URL)
1:59pm on 05 September 2006
That said, “following Christ” still means something. It may be broader than some think, but it is certainly not as broad as leaving it up to the individual or parochial little “communities” in my own here and now.
That’s why the church has relied upon the “rule of faith” and creeds for a very basic set of doctrines since its earliest days.
Hammertime () (URL)
10:13pm on 05 September 2006
I’m not suggesting that we stop holding one another to certain principles, nor that we stop talking about the truth. The problem comes in failing to distinguish between someone holding correct or incorrect beliefs and their position in Christ – correct belief will not save us, only Christ can do that.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
10:32pm on 05 September 2006
Perhaps I’m being obtuse, but I can’t understand if you actually said anything with that comment. As a proponent of grace, I needn’t be reminded that we are saved by grace and through faith. Thus, although it is the grace of God in Christ that saves us, our faith is the vehicle that grace is known. Faith has to mean something, and it does. So, do you actually propose that if person A claims they are a Christian, we can in no fashion tell them they are not? Or even less confrontational, we cannot even decide that they are not?
Can we not agree that a decision must be made in order to determine how we relate to one another? While the Gospel is not a one-and-done trick play, there is a difference in how I relate to Christians and non-Christians. Otherwise, the Christian community is a mirage.
The man who betrayed William Tyndale to death was obviously not a Christian, yet he fooled Tyndale into believing he was – and I doubt Tyndale accepted him into confidence based upon a mere profession of belief. While we can be wrong in either direction, there must be a basis for our community besides a T-shirt reading “Jesus is my Homeboy”.
Hammertime () (URL)
4:43pm on 06 September 2006
I’m trying to distinguish between two quite different things – disagreeing with someone’s beliefs and actions (the point you address) and proclaiming their status before God. We can and should declare and debate our differences, and point out where our actions aren’t right. What we should not do without the gravest cause is to translate disagreement into damnation. In almost all cases, there is no justification for moving from “You have a wrong understanding of God” to “You are going to Hell”. Indeed, your own theology of justification pretty much forbids us from equating the two!
Also, I don’t think that I agree with you that “a decision must be made in order to determine how we relate to one another“. We don’t (and shouldn’t) relate to other people in a binary either-or way depending on whether we accept them as fellow believers. We relate to other people along several different scales of affection and intimacy. Although sharing a faith is important, it doesn’t separate humanity cleanly into two parts. So, we may relate to our Christian friends slightly differently to the way we relate to our non-Christian friends – but that difference isn’t total, and shouldn’t translate into condemnation (the topic I’m addressing). Our agreement (or disagreement) with their beliefs only affects the nature of the discussions we have with them. And, if they’re friends, we will be having those discussions!
Fundamentally, nothing is achieved by damning your opponents. And it is a declaration of supreme hubris in any case – no man can judge another’s servant, Jesus said.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
10:32pm on 06 September 2006
I appreciate your patience with me in this.
Isn’t someone who lies a liar? Isn’t someone who murders a murderer? Isn’t someone who believes a believer? Conversely, if one does not lie they are not liars, if they do not murder they are not murderers, and if they do not believe they are not believers. Thus, there must be a basic set of beliefs that make one a believer in the risen Christ.
In order for me to grasp your opposition to this, I must ask – where do you get the rule that we “must not proclaim [anyone’s] status before God”? Indeed, unless I missed part of one of the Gospels, which I confess I have not memorized ;), the quote about judging another man’s servant is from the Epistle to the Romans in which Paul is discussing Christian freedom – it is not a ‘Jesus teaching’ and does not relate to fundamentals of the faith, but instead is an excellent dismissal of legalism.
Actions and beliefs are the basis for understanding status before God. The 1st Epistle of St. John makes this abundantly clear. Whoever says “I know Him” but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 Jn 2:4-6) Jesus himself spoke of the connection between specific beliefs and actions and their salvation (Matt 23 is a good example). After he warns us against looking at the sins of others instead of our own (In Matt 7, which I assume you were referring to), he warns against false prophets, who will be known by their works, and declares that many will say unto Him “Lord” who never knew Him and He never knew.
Jude has some pretty awful words for ungodly men who claim to be Christians as well. While I am in no way responsible for the salvation of another man, there is plenty of prescription and description to show that we need to warn others who think that they are Christians that they may not be. To do otherwise would be the most unloving thing I could think of.
Hammertime () (URL)
3:49pm on 07 September 2006
“Thus, there must be a basic set of beliefs that make one a believer in the risen Christ.“
This is the issue. There is a difference, and a crucial one, between the concepts “believer in the risen Christ” and “partaker in the risen Christ” (if I can phrase it that way). The former is about our beliefs – and criticising and debating beliefs is fine by me, provided it’s done with charity. The latter, though, is about our status before God – are we saved, elect, adopted children of the living God, however you want to say it? It is perfectly possible to partake in Christ without having a correct belief system. That is, it is possible to be a Christian without having a correct belief system. (Just as it’s possible to put forth all the ‘correct’ theological positions without actually being a Christian.)
Our status before God will (must) affect our actions. However, none of us is yet perfect, and so even our actions cannot properly be used to declare that someone is damned – although they can certainly be used to criticise someone. In fact, the only way to discern whether someone is, in fact, a Christian (partakes in Christ, shares the inheritance of the saints, whatever) is by the exercise of spiritual gifts. God may reveal to the church that one of its members is not a member of Christ’s Body – and that will have consequences. However, this discernment is totally separate from the exercise of human reasoning and skill in dissecting someone’s theology. And, I would suggest, hardly likely to operate across the Internet regarding people none of us has ever met or communicated with (as in the situation that prompted this post). In such a situation, we need do no more than say that someone is mistaken about what God is like. There is no benefit to saying “and they’re damned to Hell” because we have no way of knowing that, unless we’re claiming specific spiritual discernment in this case.
“While I am in no way responsible for the salvation of another man, there is plenty of prescription and description to show that we need to warn others who think that they are Christians that they may not be. To do otherwise would be the most unloving thing I could think of.“
I agree, with one reservation. As I said, challenging and debating with one another is perfectly fine (indeed, an obligation). It’s the step from “you’re wrong” to “you’re damned” that I reject as a fallacy. So, the task isn’t (as I see it) to tell other people that they might not be Christians. The task is to help other people gain a fuller and more accurate picture of God – and to draw them closer to that God (whether they’re “saved” or not) by our actions.
Is that a bit clearer?
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
4:35pm on 07 September 2006
I don’t mean to say that “the task” is to tell other people that they are not Christians. A task is, when we discuss the gospel with someone who claims to own it, and we see they do not, to demonstrate what the gospel is. When they reject it, they should be told that they cannot be Christians.
I believe I understand your overall point – I just don’t think it is of any value whatsoever, unless it is my choice of words that have led to disagreement.
There is a difference, and a crucial one, between the concepts “believer in the risen Christ” and “partaker in the risen Christ” (if I can phrase it that way).
If you thought I meant “believe” as in ‘knows facts’, then I agree. That is the testimony of Scripture, which tells us that even the demons believe and tremble. However, what I meant is believe as in ‘puts your entire being into’, better demonstrated by the following verses:
Romans 1:16 – The gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe.
John 3:16 – Whoever believes has everlasting life.
Romans 3:22 – All who believe have received the righteousness of Christ
Romans 10:10-16 – Those who believe are justified and saved, those who do nto are condemned.
2 Thessalonians 11-12 – Those who will not believe will be condemned.
John 1:12 – All who believe are given the rights to become children of God.
If your point is that belief is not part and parcel of partaking, you are mistaken – if we believe the Bible. If you were saying that there are a great many doctrines we need not believe in order to be Christ’s, you are correct. However, I do not see you drawing a clear distinction. If, as the Scriptures tell us, belief IS something a believer has, that belief must be something more than calling ourselves Christians. It means there are very specific things (and really, very few) that we actually believe in. To be a follower of Christ means that there is someone we follow who has specific characteristics, and if we do not believe that He has those characteristics – again, a specific few – then we are not following Him, but an idol of our own making.
That is why the church from the earliest days established the rule of faith and the creeds (repeated from above). There is a line between believer and non-believer, even when they both call themselves Christians. I strain to see that you admit that.
As one who considers himself an “evangelical Catholic” as I recall, I know I needn’t remind you of these words, which I have known from my youth – but they drive the point home.
I belive in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only begotten son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the body, and life in the world to come. Amen.
(As this is from memory, I am sure I have conflated the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed, since a High Mass often had the Nicene Creed and we had to memorize the Apostle’s Creed for CCD. It has been 11 years since I left the Catholic Church, so I’m a little out of practice.)
Which of these can we reject and still follow Christ? If one, why not all? If we reject them all, who the heck are we following?
Hammertime () (URL)
3:09pm on 08 September 2006
There are essential beliefs that we should encourage all Christians to hold. There are essential beliefs that we should tell people they are wrong if they don’t accept them. I wouldn’t say that anything in the creeds is wrong (although I’m not a filioque fan), but I would say that knowing the creed isn’t essential to being a Christian.
To take an example, I firmly believe that it is possible for a young child or a mentally disabled person to be a Christian – to have been adopted as one of God’s children, to be members of Christ’s Body – even if they are not capable of articulating all of the essential beliefs of the Christian religion. Do we refuse salvation to children or the disabled until they can pass an intelligence test? Or do we require someone to parrot phrases that they do not understand? I don’t think you would want that. It is the living Person of Christ who we follow. Jesus said that His sheep would recognise the Shepherd. As long as we recognise and follow, He will take care of the rest.
The line I am drawing is moving from “You understand God wrongly” to “God will not save you”. I do not believe that it is universally possible, simply from hearing the propositional belief system someone has (and, most particularly, from hearing part of that system expressed in a theological language that is not our own) to discern whether God is saving them. Given that impossibility, it is not good for us to condemn people based only on this. We can say “you are wrong” and “God actually works like this”. What more do you want?
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
3:41pm on 08 September 2006
Let’s dispense with the straw men, as we do actually differ, and I am sure you can articulate an argument against mine, or you would not differ!
I obviously agree that knowing the creed is not salvific.
I obviously agree that God does not hold those with limited ability to understand as less because of their limitations.
I obviously agree that no one should parrot phrases that they do not understand.
I obviously don’t say that “God will not save you” because I don’t know what God will do.
I disagree that there exists in the English language, with which I do claim to be more familiar than the average English speaker, “theological language that is not our own”. An example of this is a great post you had one day about how Christ was described by an African community, as a “big boat” and other images that describe their understanding of the omnipotent. I didn’t even comment, because I agreed with that premise – that cultural language is not a dividing line of significance.
I disagree because the implication is that some of different theological persuasions somehow speak a language that others don’t understand in essential beliefs. How does one describe any of the truths in the creed in a fashion that I won’t immediately recognize as those truths?
“What I want” is for you to describe how we can be wrong about these essential beliefs yet still be a follower of the risen Christ. We both know I am not describing ignorance, but willful denial. Where do we get the maxim that there is a line between “you are rejecting the risen Christ and worship a false god” and “you have not yet experienced the might grace of God Almighty”?
I did not use the word “misunderstand” for a reason. We can be ignorant and taught wrongly some ideas, but when confronted with the Incarnation, and we deny his deity, or sonship, or resurrection, and we call them lies, we are not misunderstanding. We are denying Him.
Hammertime () (URL)
4:46pm on 08 September 2006
Sorry for the delay – busy weekend!
These aren’t straw men. I think you misunderstand my purpose. The problem is that I’m trying to find a way of talking of this issue that communicates to you. The distinction I’m trying to draw seems blindingly clear to me, and yet totally opaque to you. This leaves me floundering slightly when trying to explain it!
So, to the points you raised. You disputed the existence of different theological languages. Do you mean, by that, that liberal, evangelical, neo-orthodox, catholic, liberation, feminist etc. theologians all use the same words and images in precisely the same ways? Surely that is not true. Rather, to translate the same truth into these different systems requires that we use different imagery and language. By the same reasoning, when we read theology from outside our own tradition, we have to be extraordinarily careful not to mis-read what is written because the writer is working within a totally different system and language. Most especially, when a writer appears to deny a truth in one place, we must check everywhere else to see whether they in fact affirm it using different imagery elsewhere.
As an example, look at recent discussions of NT Wright. He is an evangelical theologian, albeit not a conservative one, and (even worse from some perspectives) an anglican one. In online discussions of his work (and even in some published books), he is condemned as non-Christian by many because he appears (to them) to deny central parts of the Reformed Christian faith, such as justification by imputation. However, according to those who follow him more closely, this is untrue. He simply uses different ways of talking to arrive at the same ends. Do you see my point? Even relatively closely aligned thinkers (all evangelical of one flavour or another) can misunderstand each other’s theology because they are using words differently. How much more will this happen between traditions? So, it will take time and effort to truly understand what someone else is saying – and it will require charity not to prejudge them before the effort is complete, otherwise we will read them through biased eyes.
“What I want” is for you to describe how we can be wrong about these essential beliefs yet still be a follower of the risen Christ…We can be ignorant and taught wrongly some ideas, but when confronted with the Incarnation, and we deny his deity, or sonship, or resurrection, and we call them lies, we are not misunderstanding. We are denying Him.
Here, perhaps, is where we can see the line. I am saying that someone can follow Christ without knowing the correct facts about them, or misunderstanding them even after they have been explained. To use an image, I could follow a map to find my destination in France even if I believe that I am in Angola – provided that I have the correct map. I may believe that I have a map of Angola. I may believe that the towns I pass are in Angola. But as long as the map I have is actually a map of France, I will arrive in the right place. Similarly, I can follow a leader on a hike. Provided I trust the leader and follow him, it doesn’t matter whether I think he’s a policeman or a shopkeeper – as long as the leader is true, I will travel the right path.
So, I believe that it is possible for someone to have a great many incorrect beliefs about Christ and yet to follow Him. What seems odd about your position is that you seem to require us to have correct propositional facts in order to follow a Person. And yet these two things are not connected – the Person is there whatever we believe. And Jesus loves us and wants us to follow. Now, Jesus also wants us to know Him and to grow in that knowledge. But given the infinity of truth needed truly to understand God, how are we to judge which facts God regards as more important for that person, as long as they follow? Indeed, given that the purpose of the Christian life is not to learn facts but to grow in perfection, one could argue that the facts are irrelevant. We should try to share the truth with one another, and we would hope that our brothers and sisters will accept the truth about God when we tell them. It is to their detriment when they reject it. But it is not the same as rejecting God.
I am saying that Jesus is a real Person, standing before us. Jesus will not turn away someone who mistakes part of the facts of His existence as long as they are willing to follow Him and to grow into His likeness. If someone regards the resurrection as a spiritual event rather than a physical one, I think that they’re wrong – but I do not thing that Christ Himself would reject the follower because of that. I don’t think you’ll find biblical justification for that view. The language of the NT is relentlessly focused on the Person of Christ, not the facts. The facts are proclaimed so that we may know Christ, not the other way around. There will come a point where the picture becomes too unlike the Person, but where exactly that point is I cannot say. And I believe that it is both impossible and counterproductive to do so. Because you are trying to equate two poorly related things – propositional facts about a Person and a direct personal relationship with that Person. Yes, we should try and have our facts straight. And having all the facts wrong is probably an indicator that we are not following Christ. So, if someone denied the miracles, teaching, love, bias, death, resurrection, atonement and divinity of Christ, I would probably concur that they couldn’t be a Christian. But what if they only denied one of those? Which one is the essential one that, when subtracted, makes someone unable to follow Christ? We’re not talking about an irreducible set here, remember – someone may believe an awful lot more about Jesus than some abstract minimum, and yet not accept one of this arbitrary set. Does that mean that their picture of Christ is so flawed that they cannot follow Christ? They may be wrong; they may even be outside the Christian religion. But can they follow Christ, and hence be inside the Church?
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
10:54am on 11 September 2006
I appreciate the lengths you are going to in order to clarify your position. It is now much easier for me to explain mine!
First, I obviously need to proofread not just for spelling and grammar, but for content. I should have written, ‘I disagree that there exists in the English language, “theological language that is not our own” that I do not sufficiently understand.’ Some may say “imputed” while others merely say “charged to the account”. I understand both, and when I did not understand “imputed” I looked it up. To claim that my differences with someone like Marcus Borg are merely a function of my failure to understand his theological language is far from the case.
I don’t call NT Wright an evangelical because of the definition of evangelical. I do call him a Christian. I find his work, well, trite. However, I do expect to see him in the kingdom, where one of us will find his eschatology quite wrong!
The facts are proclaimed so that we may know Christ, not the other way around. EXACTLY!
If a man is following a map to a destination in France, the map must actually be an accurate map of France. If the map is off three degrees magnetic, we will not arrive at our destination, though we may end up in France. If the map is of Angola, no matter how much we believe it is a map of France, it still isn’t, and we have no hope of ending up in Orleans.
The leader on the hike must be the right leader, the one leader, the true leader – particularly in an area where there are many false leaders! All the trust and hope in the world will not help if we are following the wrong leader. How do we know who the right leader is? Well, he’s black, he’s 5’10”, he is wearing a geeen hat and combat boots. Even thought that fella there is wearing a green hat, combat boots, and is 5’10”, he is white – and he’s not the leader! If we are following a “Jesus” with specific attributes, and those key attributes are wrong, we are not following Jesus at all, but a savior of our own making.
“So, if someone denied the miracles, teaching, love, bias, death, resurrection, atonement and divinity of Christ, I would probably concur that they couldn’t be a Christian.
Probably??? Is it safe to say that you absolutely refuse to name anyone who calls themselves Christian a non-Christian?
Lastly, this must be said:
“the resurrection as a spiritual event rather than a physical one”
That doesn’t mean a blessed thing. A spiritual resurrection? What in the world is that? Something there is aboslutely no chance of corraborating evidence for, that’s what. Something safe to say you believe in, because it offends no one. Something you throw at the Christians so you can call yoruself one while committing to nothing that atheists will mock you for. Spiritual resurrection? It’s as meaningful to the faith as a God who can “calm our emotional storms” but somehow can’t calm the real ones. “Believing” in a spiritual resurrection is believing in nothing. Any fool can claim they believe that – but we preach Christ crucified and resurrected in the body, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks. Paul’s preaching in Athens was regarded as bizzare because he spoke of a bodily resurrection, not a “spiritual ressurection”, which nearly every pagan believes.
Hammertime () (URL)
7:47pm on 11 September 2006
Hammertime () (URL)
7:56pm on 11 September 2006
The point about Wright is that he does disagree with classic formulations of imputed justification, whether phrased as “imputed” or “charged to the account” – he says that this isn’t how it works (and I think he’s 100% right on that; I find the imagery unlikely and unbiblical). But he doesn’t deny the truths that the idea is trying to convey – he simply places them elsewhere in his theology. So, suggesting that (because he uses different language and imagery) that he denies any aspect of the Christian faith is incorrect. (Note, I’m not saying whether you disagree with him or not – just using him as a current and well-publicised example!)
Re maps and leaders – we agree here. My point, though, seems to have slid past. It doesn’t matter whether we think the map is of Angola or France. As long as it’s actually of France, we’ll find our goal. So, with Christ – it doesn’t matter what we think He is. As long as we follow, we’ll find our goal. It doesn’t ultimately matter who we think (with our rational minds) He is, provided that we have listened to His voice, trusted His leading and followed His path.
To quote Tom from BigBulkyAnglican, in a post he just published:
I am always intrigued by people who believe that we are to be saved (or otherwise) by what we “believe” about Jesus, rather than that we have faith in Jesus.
Jesus never said to anyone that their correct beliefs healed them (made them whole) he said to people “your faith has made you well”. Of course most wings of the Church retain particular vitriol for those it believes its own, who turn out to be something different.
Update
Also, Alastair just posted the following, from a discussion on Tom Wright’s theology (so appropriate in two ways
Evangelicals tend to operate in terms of a private heart faith that demands a greater degree of knowledge and rules out infants…It seems to me that the first century Christian would have regarded the modern evangelical understanding of faith as very narrow. It does not include outward faithfulness, allegiance in a more political sense, it rules out the faith of infants and the faith of those who have a loyalty to Christ or to the Church with little or any knowledge to back it up (the sort of faith that most Christians prior to the Reformation had). Clearly the later form of faith is far from ideal, the faith of infants immature, and outward faithfulness and a more political allegiance often insufficient, but that does not mean that they are never genuine forms of faith, even of saving faith.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
10:12pm on 11 September 2006
You make absoultely no sense. If we don’t know who we’re following, we’ll certainly end up somewhere, but it won’t be the goal we hoped it would be! How do we know Christ’s voice or His leading if we don’t believe who the Bible says He is? If we aren’t using the Bible as our compass for who God is and what He is like, we are lost!
Mrshammer ()
7:00pm on 20 September 2006
Mrshammer ()
7:02pm on 20 September 2006
Don’t worry. I’ve corrected the italics – you’d just got the closing tag wrong.
“If we don’t know who we’re following, we’ll certainly end up somewhere, but it won’t be the goal we hoped it would be!“
Where we hoped to be is surely irrelevant. Provided we actually follow Christ, we will end up where He leads us. Our understanding may be wrong and may make our journey harder but, provided that we really do follow Him, what else is needed?
“If we aren’t using the Bible as our compass for who God is and what He is like, we are lost!“
Absolutely not. The Bible is not our ultimate guide – God Himself is. Beware of elevating the Bible too high. It is God’s self-revelation and witness. It is not the sole channel through which God reveals Himself.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
08:55am on 21 September 2006
After looking into the subject somewhat, both NT Wright and I may be, and yet not be, evangelical! What is certain is that if I am, he is not, and vice versa. I’m curious, do you define evangelical like you do Christian – anyone who says he is can’t be told he isn’t, no matter what he believes?
Hammertime () (URL)
7:23pm on 21 September 2006
sigh I sure wish the only title I needed was “Christian”. With all of the social security numbers of the family, passwords to online sites for banking and email, and other numbers for Scripture, telephone numbers and keeping track of the numbers associated with the schedule with the kids, it would be nice to have a simple title to define “Bible believer”...unfortunately, I can’t imagine a day where “Christian” conveys just that…Bible believer!
Ramblings..I know. Hardly worth the weight of what is being discussed here. However, in the simplest form-it’s what it comes down to. “What does Christian even mean”?
Rightthinker-Andrea (URL)
04:06am on 22 September 2006
Rightthinker-Andrea (URL)
04:08am on 22 September 2006
The primary problem with “evangelical” is, I think, that it’s not a term defined primarily by doctrine. It’s a term defined by tradition and inheritance. Since the first people were labelled “evangelicals”, the tradition has developed in different directions (hence the many qualifiers now attached to the term – con, neocon, charismatic, liberal, catholic etc.). As a result, many branches have much less overlap than they might like. But all have a claim to the label “evangelical” by inheritance.
So, you and Wright can equally be called “evangelical”. It’s just that the term means different things in each case
This is totally different to “Christian”, which cannot be defined by tradition and inheritance in that way. As I see it, there are two uses of the word, both valid and quite different. There is “member of the Christian religion” – someone who attends church, assents to the creeds etc. Then, there is “follower of Christ” – who may or may not attend church (by choice or circumstance), who may or may not assent to the creeds (by choice, conviction or circumstance) etc. The two meanings are obviously overlapping but non-congruous. The only debate is, I think, whether “followers of Christ” are found exclusively within the “members of the Christian religion” or not.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
09:00am on 22 September 2006
I wish I had read this response of yours a few days ago! I think it si much more clear what you are saying as opposed to the back and forth over in Team Hammer land. It’s likely because so much was said by so many that it was harder to simplify.
I believe that the invisible church is contained within the visible church – the visible church being anyone who would affirm the creed and seeks the words of Christ and the fellowship of His body. I recognize that the latter two can take several forms – but that excludes much more than what you would, I gather.
I think you’re right on with “evangelical”. It is a term that truly has lost any real significance!
Hammertime () (URL)
12:08am on 25 September 2006