just for the record

[percival]

According to my definition of Christianity, all denominations and all followers of non-denominational churches are Christians in the sense that they try to follow Christ's teachings.

Seeing people contrast Christians with Catholics, even if they don't wish to imply that Catholics disregard Christ's teachings, makes me angry. Please compare evangelical Christians with Catholics, or Baptists with Catholics, or Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone with Catholics who also emphasise salvation through works.

I for one don't like to perpetuate the myth that one denomination or one non-denominational tradition has The Truth, and that only one of the many approaches to Jesus Christ is The Right and Only Correct One. Many of you will feel differently, in particular some of you who have found a path to God through Christ that works for them, and that's fine with me.

However, what I will fight for is the right to approach Christ from many different angles and spiritual traditions, and the right to call oneself a Christian even if one is NOT an evangelical or believes in salvation through faith alone.

Comments

[acusa-dora.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting. I was inspired earlier this year when our community had lectures for Christian Unity week. I was particularly inspired by the fact that we reached out to other Christians, to Jews, and to Moslems. We're all on the same journey, whether we want to admit it or not.

[wahlee-98.livejournal.com]

Oh, good. That means you consider us Mormons Christians, too. Lots of Christians don't.

[-kaleidoscopic-.livejournal.com]

Thank you. It's the common opinion in my area that Catholics aren't Christians despite, y'know, believing in Christ as the Messiah. Stange stuff.

[lotrfan.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

This helps people like me, too, who have no official religious "training." Just because I'm trying to find a place where I belong doesn't mean that I'm not already "partway there", so to speak.

Personally, I think you could extend this to other faiths beyond Christianity - but that's a little more difficult to back up and the source of much controversy.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

A-MEN!!

You've heard me on this before, so suffice it to say, I'm with ya, sister.

[seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com]

I think one can be not surprised that some
people analyze, draw lines between, and
others synthesize--is it not the way all people
are. cant find question mark on this icelandic
computer let it be. anyway this leaves me free
from sense that something is wrong with myself
or on the other hand with them, those who need
to make distinctions between themselves and
others. or to feel something has gone wrong in
history that people do this... because it would
seem that it is part of the way things are and
grow and converge too maybe...but not in a simple
diagramatic way maybe but of hearts and hearts..
? ha found it ...also see a mexican restaurant of
all things off I go. ta ta as we vikings say +S.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

I'll be honest here, and having heard some stuff from missionaries, I've always been sceptical.

So I decided that I would do with Mormons exactly what I do with everyone else, and see how they behave, speak and think. I don't think I consider the Mormon Church to be a 'church' in the same way that I don't consider The society of Friends (Quakers), Salvation Army etc to be 'A church'. But I consider them to be part of the church, and the individuals to be Christians if that is how they identify themselves. Strange dichotomy to make, I realise.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

So would you consider Mormons and Quakers part of the body of Christ?

[perceval.livejournal.com]

I do actually extend this to all religions and paths - not just the monotheistic religions.

and God bless you, I think that you will find, because you seem to be seeking honestly.

Official training doesn't come into it, believe me - God will find a way of reaching you, and it sounds like you are open to making contact.

Training helps, but there are so many resources you can resort to, and so many people willing and able to help that this should be the least of your worries.

You have an open heart, that is what counts (at least in my experience)

[perceval.livejournal.com]

I had to smile when I read this reply. How very wise. Do you think He is secretly amused at all our squabbling?

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Not because they are mormons, but because of who they are. Same as I don't see Evangelicals or Catholics or Anglicans or Methodists as being necessarily part of the body of Christ. Or even those that take the label 'Christian'. Because being a Christian is a relationship between God and the individual, and who am I to define that relationship.

I consider Ecclesiology to be a different matter, and tend to split hairs about it.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

Yes, it makes perfect sense to separate the theological from the ecclesiological - mixing the two was just what I was getting upset about, in fact!

[murasaki99.livejournal.com]

Can't resist. Saw a bumper sticker which read: "God is coming, and boy is She pissed!" LOL Semi-seriously though, no, I don't think the Creator spirit laughs at us. With us, I hope.

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

Exactly. This is a *huge* peeve of mine. *HUGE*

I just finished a book on how Catholics can respond to those sort of attacks. Very academic theology, and a little pedantic in style, but it was an interesting book--just needed a better author.

Checking in from the other side

[dr-c.livejournal.com]

All right-- since no other evangelicals have jumped in here, I guess it falls to me.

Properly speaking, the issue you've raised is a matter of definitions. Trouble generally arises when we use words in a manner different from how our hearers will understand them. The use of the term "Christian," as you indirectly point out, can be as fertile a ground for definition fallacies as any. It is for that reason that, although among my fellow evangelicals I do use the term in the stricter sense about which you're complaining, here in the broader culture of the fandom I use the term "Christian" in the broad sense that you prefer, and specify "evangelical" when I wish to refer to those who share my particular understanding of what Christianity is about.

The only context in which a definition discussion like this even becomes interesting is when the parties agree on an objective source for their definitions (i.e. a source external to themselves), but disagree on what definition may be derived from that source. In the case of the term "Christian," it is possible that two people could agree that they both wished to use the term "Christian" as it was used in the New Testament, but still disagree on how the term was used there. In that case the question becomes one of correct vs. incorrect interpretation of the Scriptures, and we can discuss that objectively, even if we have to end up agreeing to disagree while each thinking the other to be terribly and tragically wrong.

Now, of course I realize that what bothers you about my less-carefully-spoken co-religionists isn't the linguistics, it's the theology. (In which case, by all rights, you should dislike me every bit as much as you do them.) The question I might ask of you, though, is: Does it seem impossible to you that Jesus and the apostles themselves may have held to an exclusionary view of Christianity? Or is it simply your view that the inclusive view must be upheld, regardless of who might have thought otherwise in the past?

Re: Checking in from the other side

[perceval.livejournal.com]

A detailed answer merits a detailed reply :)

The only context in which a definition discussion like this even becomes interesting is when the parties agree on an objective source for their definitions (i.e. a source external to themselves), but disagree on what definition may be derived from that source.

Or when a group of Christians (exclusive definition) exerts such a strong influence on society that many people of other religious traditions or with a secular humanist background are regarding these "Exclusivists" as the "real Christians", and everybody from a non-evangelical background as "non-Christian", heathen, or heretic. This is what shocks me as a Catholic: having to explain to fellow Buddhists that yes, Catholics are Christians, too.

The Catholic Church and the protestants used to be big on exclusivity ("papal idolatry" vs. "heretics"), and it's led them nowhere. Now, both churches are very careful to emphasise that their point of view is founded on Christ's teachings, but coloured by a specific theology and traditions. This sort of attitude is much more likely to stimulate dialogue and mutual understanding.

Now, of course I realize that what bothers you about my less-carefully-spoken co-religionists isn't the linguistics, it's the theology. (In which case, by all rights, you should dislike me every bit as much as you do them.)
I can like a person very much even though some of their views sadden me or make me angry. For example, I violently disagree with creationists on theoretical grounds, but I still love reading synaesthete7's blog and appreciate her reflections on things theological and not-so-theological. And I have very good friends in RL who share your definition of the term "Christian". But I didn't let that prevent me from enjoying the church service in which their son was baptised.

The question I might ask of you, though, is: Does it seem impossible to you that Jesus and the apostles themselves may have held to an exclusionary view of Christianity?
No, that's not impossible. In fact, I think it's highly likely that your namesake held to that view, even though I would doubt that Jesus did.

Or is it simply your view that the inclusive view must be upheld, regardless of who might have thought otherwise in the past?
I personally believe that it would be beneficial for interfaith dialogue if the inclusive interpretation were promoted and used in society. Why? Well, European History 400AD-1900AD, basically, with special reference to the Thirty Year War between Catholics and Protestants. Oh, and also the prosecution of Catholics and Protestants, and the concomitant blood baths.

Finally, at the risk of repeating myself:
Many of you will feel differently, in particular some of you who have found a path to God through Christ that works for them, and that's fine with me.


Does that answer your questions?

Re: Checking in from the other side

[dr-c.livejournal.com]

Does that answer your questions?

Yes, as well as could be hoped for. Thanks. (To take it further would probably be to cover ground that we've probably trodden too well already!) :-)