Why Call Ourselves Christians?

[Nick the Nevermet]

As an addendum, there seem to be about three distinct definition of mysticism that I can think of. These are not mutually exclusive, and neither is necessarily superior to the others. However, I think it is worth pointing out they diverge as well as intersect.

 

First, there is a "psychological" view, that is extremely focused on subjective experience. The explicit definition of this can be found in William James, but he was really crystalizing an understanding of subjectivity that had been central to a lot of 19th Century thought.

 

Second, there is a "transcendent" view, which is basically the neoplatonist understanding. Whether it is God or ultimate reality or something else, there is something "beyond" our normal understanding of the world. Discussions of acension fall into this pretty quickly,

 

Third, there is a "methodological" view, where certain mystical practices (meditation, ascetic rites, etc.) are important for spiritual growth. I can't think of a specific person or group that explicitly uses this definition, but I think that the adjective "mystical" can sometimes get applied to practices that then get divorced from the above two.

 

In my view, then, it is important to note what mysticism is not. First, while it may be supernatural, it doesn't have to be. The Resurrection, traditionally understood by Nicene/Chalcedonian Christianity, wasn't a moment of heightened consciousness or seeing a deeper reality, but it was seeing a man who should be dead walking around in a new body, and then ascend to heaven. One of the deep ironies of American-style fundamentalism (broadly defined) is just how materialist in a modernist, quasi-scientific way it is. It really does need Jesus to be superman flying into a cloud. In this extremely materialist account, there's no need to “get behind” the stated reality to access a more transcendent reality.

 

Second, and this is strange because it tortures some language, but there's an important distinction between a mystery and the mystical. A mystery is something that defies explanation. One can respond to mystery in several ways, and they need not be mystical. Indeed, someone can quite rationally go about stating, "Given this, what must necessarily follow?" and make a very rational and systematic argument grounded on a central, and unexplainable, mystery. In this sense, the Trinity and the doctrine of Jesus as fully human and fully God are, in the best theology, often treated as a mystery rather than a rational claim.

 

I'm sure this sounds like hairsplitting, but it's important to me. Especially if we disagree with something, we need to be very clear about what and why we disagree. Disliking mysticism, the supernatural, overly subjective emphases, and an over-reliance on mystery are not the same thing.

 

......I think I had too much coffee this morning. My apologies if this was... excessive.

[BillM]

Another aspect of this topic in which I think we see a subtle but important shift is that while theology remains important to liberal and progressive Christians, many of them are focusing more on the Christian life or the Christian faith being more about how we live than about our specific beliefs.

 

Though the following is a generality, many (if not most) churches used to define themselves by their statements of faith, by a list of what they believed (much like the Creeds), whereas nowadays a ever-growing number of churches tend to highlight what they are doing in their local communities. Statements of faith or "What We Believe" used to be the first thing we would see in church bulletins or church websites. Now there seems to be trend that churches are highlighting their activities or how they are living out their faith more than creedal statements. The statements are often still there, but they have to be searched for. Imo, this is a good trend. If I did choose to wear the label "Christian", I would want it to more reflect my lifestyle and my relationships than to reflect a set of never-changing beliefs that I hold to.

 

And maybe this is why we are seeing a plethora of new "Christian" descriptors -- a new kind of Christian, post-modern Christian, emergent Christian, progressive Christian. People want to have some kind of tie to the faith of the past, but they don't want to be bound by the limitations of that faith. And some are asking: if the beliefs of the past don't really produce good fruit, then are those beliefs necessary or beneficial?

[BillM]

At the middle of the spectrum, the notion for at least myself is that mystical Christ is not an entity but rather a union or connectivity with God (as in a smearing together -anointing) and is available to everyone at all times before and after the appearance of Jesus and was reportedly manifested in the human known as Jesus to such a degree that he appeared as one with God.

 

Joseph, I like and appreciate what you say about the “smearing together-anointing” aspect/experience. And I would certainly agree with you that other cultures and religions have had people that have also had or manifested this “smearing together with God” experience. For me, though, I would simply call that being spiritual, mainly because I think “Christ” originally referred to a ruling/delivering king. As I’m sure you know, these “messiahs” were often anointed with oil/spices to symbolize God’s authority or blessing upon them to act in God’s stead. So the messianic anointing had a purpose, an end in mind.

 

From your perspective, what do you think is the purpose of this “smearing together”? In other words, on a personal level, what is it that the experience of the mystical Christ does for you or enables you to do?

[Nick the Nevermet]

Another aspect of this topic in which I think we see a subtle but important shift is that while theology remains important to liberal and progressive Christians, many of them are focusing more on the Christian life or the Christian faith being more about how we live than about our specific beliefs.

 

Though the following is a generality, many (if not most) churches used to define themselves by their statements of faith, by a list of what they believed (much like the Creeds), whereas nowadays a ever-growing number of churches tend to highlight what they are doing in their local communities. Statements of faith or "What We Believe" used to be the first thing we would see in church bulletins or church websites. Now there seems to be trend that churches are highlighting their activities or how they are living out their faith more than creedal statements. The statements are often still there, but they have to be searched for. Imo, this is a good trend. If I did choose to wear the label "Christian", I would want it to more reflect my lifestyle and my relationships than to reflect a set of never-changing beliefs that I hold to.

 

And maybe this is why we are seeing a plethora of new "Christian" descriptors -- a new kind of Christian, post-modern Christian, emergent Christian, progressive Christian. People want to have some kind of tie to the faith of the past, but they don't want to be bound by the limitations of that faith. And some are asking: if the beliefs of the past don't really produce good fruit, then are those beliefs necessary or beneficial?

 

Excellent point. Doctrine & dogma is always a historically situated thing, and will always be changing, and always should be changing. George Lindbeck, who is a Yale theologian and a Lutheran in good standing (i.e., not an "outsider" like Crossan or Borg) argued once that no doctrine is beyond revision or rejection, including the Trinity. PC(USA) publishes its Book of Confession with no less than 11 different creeds & confessions of faith - and admits they do not always line up perfectly. PCA - the primary conservative American Presbyterian denomination - has an unsurprisingly different opinion about such things.

[JosephM]

 

Joseph, I like and appreciate what you say about the “smearing together-anointing” aspect/experience. And I would certainly agree with you that other cultures and religions have had people that have also had or manifested this “smearing together with God” experience. For me, though, I would simply call that being spiritual, mainly because I think “Christ” originally referred to a ruling/delivering king. As I’m sure you know, these “messiahs” were often anointed with oil/spices to symbolize God’s authority or blessing upon them to act in God’s stead. So the messianic anointing had a purpose, an end in mind.

Regardless of the OT meaning , It seems to me that Jesus made it clear as reported in the NT that there is a difference in the way the Jews saw the kingdom and the way Jesus saw the kingdom. One it seems looked strictly for a physical appearance of a physical king being anointed with oil while Jesus differentiated between that which is flesh and that which is Spirit. Perhaps the revealing of Christ is not with flesh and blood or by anointing with oil but by hearing directly from (connecting with) the Father. I personally do not see the OT interpretations taken by some to trump the teachings recorded of Jesus in the NT and the root Greek meaning of the word.

 

From your perspective, what do you think is the purpose of this “smearing together”? In other words, on a personal level, what is it that the experience of the mystical Christ does for you or enables you to do?

The purpose of that smearing together is to connect with the whole so that ones actions then become not the work of the individual carnal minded self but rather the works of the same Spirit that is recorded moving Jesus. It is recorded he said " the works that i do are not my own but the Father that sent me". Also Jesus is recorded praying that we might be one even as he and the Father were one.. Elsewhere in the NT it is recorded "that the anointing which you have received abides in you and you need not that any man should teach you but that same anointing shall teach you all things" The point of all this to say that the purpose of the anointing or "smearing together" (sometimes referred to as being in Christ), in my view, is obviously to make the same connection Jesus did so we would become more like him in our actions which was as One with the Divine nature of God. That to me is what the experience does on a personal level.

 

Joseph

 

PS In my view, it is possible to try and follow the man Jesus rather than what he pointed to (Christ) and miss what i would consider the point of his teachings. Just as it is possible to follow the man called Buddha and miss the awakening he spoke of and manifested. Just as it is possible to follow all the Law of the OT and miss the purpose of it all.

[BillM]

Thanks for the explanation, Joseph.

 

In my view, it is possible to try and follow the man Jesus rather than what he pointed to (Christ) and miss what i would consider the point of his teachings. Just as it is possible to follow the man called Buddha and miss the awakening he spoke of and manifested. Just as it is possible to follow all the Law of the OT and miss the purpose of it all.

 

In my view, I don't think Jesus pointed to Christ. I think he pointed to God and God's kingdom. I don't recall any scriptures where Jesus speaks of Christ as being other people. In fact, in Matt 24:23, Jesus says *not* to believe that other people are the Christ (messiah). In my view, Christ is the title or surname that the Church bestowed upon the risen "something" (sorry, but I can't be any more specific than that as the scriptures are too vague and contradictory on the subject). So I see Christ as a Greek layer of divinity that was placed over Jesus of Nazareth in order to make him God. Ironically, I accept Jesus but reject the deified Christ. What a mess I am, huh?

 

But I agree with you in that I think Jesus rejected the role of messianic warrior and of king. He seemed to flee every time the people wanted to make him king. His notions of God’s kingdom seemed to entail serving others, not be served. It was an upside-down kingdom where the first were last and the least were the greatest. I’m still trying to get my head and heart around with this means and its implications. What I don’t think it means, as the Sunday School class I attend does, it that America as a “Christian nation” means we rule the world. I think God's kingdom is for the earth, but not from the fleshly way most of us do things.

 

PS - To me, following Jesus is *not* worshipping Jesus. Instead, it is, as I think you have said, being led by the Spirit as Jesus was. That is my goal in following Jesus -- to be led by the Spirit (though I don't always hear so good and I fail). But I would never consider myself to be the messiah.

[JosephM]

 

In my view, I don't think Jesus pointed to Christ. I think he pointed to God and God's kingdom. (snip)

 

Perhaps, different words for different folks. Christ is the connection. To me, God doesn't need pointing to. Only the connection does and when that is made, God and the kingdom is experienced and words become secondary.

 

PS - To me, following Jesus is *not* worshipping Jesus. Instead, it is, as I think you have said, being led by the Spirit as Jesus was. That is my goal in following Jesus -- to be led by the Spirit (though I don't always hear so good and I fail). But I would never consider myself to be the messiah.

 

I think we can agree on that. The only difference is i see that spirit as the word Christ, the anointing or smearing together with God. Some might call it the holy spirit but what we call it may not be all that important. If you find the word Christ to mean differently than i , i am okay with that. We can be hid in that selfsame Spirit , whether you call it Christ or not,..... together.

[Nick the Nevermet]

But I agree with you in that I think Jesus rejected the role of messianic warrior and of king. He seemed to flee every time the people wanted to make him king. His notions of God’s kingdom seemed to entail serving others, not be served. It was an upside-down kingdom where the first were last and the least were the greatest. I’m still trying to get my head and heart around with this means and its implications. What I don’t think it means, as the Sunday School class I attend does, it that America as a “Christian nation” means we rule the world. I think God's kingdom is for the earth, but not from the fleshly way most of us do things.

 

PS - To me, following Jesus is *not* worshipping Jesus. Instead, it is, as I think you have said, being led by the Spirit as Jesus was. That is my goal in following Jesus -- to be led by the Spirit (though I don't always hear so good and I fail). But I would never consider myself to be the messiah.

 

100% agreed. The phrase, "In Jesus' name, we pray" suggests we should not be worshipping Jesus

[GeorgeW]

The phrase, "In Jesus' name, we pray" suggests we should not be worshipping Jesus

Interesting thought. Hmm, what does it suggest?

 

George

[JosephM]

sbnr1 said...

I don't recall any scriptures where Jesus speaks of Christ as being other people

 

Perhaps that is because Christ in the spiritual sense is not a person. In my view, its a title denoting an anointing that all can partake of. Some who partake in that anointing choose to call themselves Christians and some not. Some may choose to not partake and call themselves Christians. Labels as always say very little sometimes.

 

Joseph

[Nick the Nevermet]

Interesting thought. Hmm, what does it suggest?

 

George

 

That the teachings, works, and/or existence of Jesus allows us to pray.

 

EDIT: This is a variation on the idea that through Jesus, we are "adopted" as children of God. In this application, Jesus really is the way, as it says in John. IMHO and all other disclaimers apply

[GeorgeW]

Nick,

 

As an aside, in Islam, almost everything (prayers, school classes, speeches, readings in the Qur'an, etc.) begin with the bismillah ('In the name of God the gracious, the merciful'). Prayers end with ameen (amen).

 

George

[Nick the Nevermet]

Nick,

 

As an aside, in Islam, almost everything (prayers, school classes, speeches, readings in the Qur'an, etc.) begin with the bismillah ('In the name of God the gracious, the merciful'). Prayers end with ameen (amen).

 

George

 

I knew about ameen, but not about bismilah.

And my point gets more problematic the more one tries to pin down exactly what "to worship" means. However, Christianity does have a history of talking about Jesus as the way, the teacher, the mediator, being an obedient son... all of those things suggest Jesus leads to something else, the son reconciles the world to the father, etc, etc, etc.

 

EDIT: I posted too quickly before. I think I have something resembling a point in the last sentence of this post, but things get complicated quickly, unsurprisingly.

[JenellYB]

Labeling a medical condition isn't labeling a person according to that condition.

 

Jenell

[Neon Genesis]

One of the deep ironies of American-style fundamentalism (broadly defined) is just how materialist in a modernist, quasi-scientific way it is. It really does need Jesus to be superman flying into a cloud. In this extremely materialist account, there's no need to “get behind” the stated reality to access a more transcendent reality.

It's interesting you bring this up because I was listening to bible scholar Robert Price's Bible Geek podcast awhile back and he made the same observation. In one episode, he had argued that modern day fundamentalist Christianity was inspired by the 19th century Christian Rationalists. The Christian Rationalists believed in God and the bible but they had more of a deistic type view of God and they argued that the miracles of Jesus could be explained in fully naturalistic terms. Like one of their arguments was that Jesus didn't really die or was raised from the dead but he "swooned" on the cross and just pretended to be dead. Robert Price is an atheist but he observed that modern Christian apologists like Lee Strobel were using the same types of arguments by coming up with quasi-scientific explanations to prove the resurrection was real rather than simply accepting it as a miracle to believe in by faith.

[Nick the Nevermet]

It's interesting you bring this up because I was listening to bible scholar Robert Price's Bible Geek podcast awhile back and he made the same observation. In one episode, he had argued that modern day fundamentalist Christianity was inspired by the 19th century Christian Rationalists. The Christian Rationalists believed in God and the bible but they had more of a deistic type view of God and they argued that the miracles of Jesus could be explained in fully naturalistic terms. Like one of their arguments was that Jesus didn't really die or was raised from the dead but he "swooned" on the cross and just pretended to be dead. Robert Price is an atheist but he observed that modern Christian apologists like Lee Strobel were using the same types of arguments by coming up with quasi-scientific explanations to prove the resurrection was real rather than simply accepting it as a miracle to believe in by faith.

 

Ah, the swooning argument. If you are to the point of claiming that a guy swooned while crucified (and stabbed), but didn't die, and Roman Soldiers didn't notice.... just agree with the people who claim it was either metaphorical or a purely subjective experience.

 

But yeah... fundamentalism (specific definition here - the American movement emerging from the Niagara Bible Conference and The Fundamentals) is in its own way highly materialistic and rationalistic thing, very much interested in a type of certainty that feels the same as scientific fact (or at least the way fact is 'supposed' to feel). Of course, their method to get there involves an incredible amount of sneaking tradition in through the back door (sola scriptura isn't).

[JenellYB]

I have realized, with more than just a bit of irony and amusement at times, that this had a great deal with my own starting to really think about why I believed anything I believed as I was taught in my early religious life, and set me on a course of progessive disillusionment about those religious traditions.

 

I can remember how it was that things I had simply accepted, believed on faith, without needing material or rational basis for believing, actually began to unravel and crumble under that very thing. Before that, I had not questioned why i believed whatever it was, I just did, but when I was told I should believe "because" of some lame attempt to "explain" it in material and pseudo-rational terms, ot snapped on a lightbulb....hey, this just doesn't hold up to good sense!

 

Jenell

[GeorgeW]

But yeah... fundamentalism (specific definition here - the American movement emerging from the Niagara Bible Conference and The Fundamentals) is in its own way highly materialistic and rationalistic thing, very much interested in a type of certainty that feels the same as scientific fact (or at least the way fact is 'supposed' to feel).

This basis of faith is built on "sinking sand". As we learn more about the world through science, one is stuck with denying the roundness of the world or losing their faith.

 

George

[BillM]

Robin Meyers, in his book "Saving Jesus From the Church", notes how divided Christians are about the nature of Jesus. Robin is a member of TCPC, a member of the Jesus Seminar, and pastors a UCC church in Oklahoma City. I like what he says about the Jesus question though. He says that the question is not so much what do Christians believe about the nature of Jesus as it is, what kind of God did Jesus reveal?

[Nick the Nevermet]

Robin Meyers, in his book "Saving Jesus From the Church", notes how divided Christians are about the nature of Jesus. Robin is a member of TCPC, a member of the Jesus Seminar, and pastors a UCC church in Oklahoma City. I like what he says about the Jesus question though. He says that the question is not so much what do Christians believe about the nature of Jesus as it is, what kind of God did Jesus reveal?

 

Oh, I like that.

[JenellYB]

A good book along this idea that I encountered in a rel studies course, is "American Jesus" How the son of God became an American Icon" by Stephen Prothero.

Its amazing how many shapes and forms of "Jesus" Americans have invented and still do. My summary of the idea in the book is how Christians create Jesus/God in their own image, or more accurately, in an image of a servant-God according to their own needs and wants at the time.

 

Jenell

[NORM]

 

Its amazing how many shapes and forms of "Jesus" Americans have invented and still do.

 

Jenell

 

Yes, and most Jesus imaginings are non-Semitic, white, European types. I can remember the Sunday School flannel grams showing a blue-eyed, blonde-haired Swede wearing a white robe and sandals knocking on a door superimposed on the outside of a human heart. (Rev: Behold, I stand at the door and knock...).

 

NORM

[JenellYB]

Yeah, me too. I'm 63, back when I was a kid lots of people had Jesus pictures hanging in their homes, and always the light hair and blue eyes. Yet oddly I never pictured him that way in my mind, I seem to have always imagined him dark hair and eyes.

That book I mentioned, really interesting, not only the hair and eye color, but other things about how he has been represented, very different stylized images, from 'suffering savior' to 'gentle shepherd' to 'conquering Lord'...some stylized feminine, in the Victorian era he was often so feminized he looked more like a woman, then some macho...I'm remembering some from that book, in the 1930's I think, of him as a muscular boxing champ looking guy. American Jesus, truly a man for all seasons and all reasons, lol.

 

Jenell

[BillM]

Here is a picture of the REAL American Jesus (LOL):

 

 

I was involved in the Pentecostal movement for most of my later teens and early twenties. I remember going to what we called "The Black Church" for a while. The first thing I noticed at that church was their mural of "The Lord's Supper", and there wasn't a white guy to be found around the table! Jesus and the disciples were all black! In my youthful ignorance, I thought, at first, that this was blasphemous...until I stopped to think of all the images of Jesus and God in my own WASP culture.

 

We are creatures of imagination, creatures who often hold to images as reality. Perhaps this is why there is a strain of truth in the ancient Jewish religion that says, "Make no images of God." We tend to worship our human-created images as reality. And when we do that, I don't think it is the case that God gets offended, it is, rather, that our images make God way too small and confining, little gods that we make, as you've said, to serve us. God represents us instead of us being icons of God.

 

I don't know how or if we can escape this tendency. Our Christian culture is chocked full of graven images, from stained-glass windows (though I love them) to statues of saints to our pictures of Jesus. But in my life, it is helpful for me to remember that our images are not the Reality that the images point to, they are just signs. An image reflects Reality, it is not the Reality.

 

Spewing forth a little bit more of my heresy, I think we see somewhat a shift between the OT and the NT, or, maybe, a reclamation of the image of God. The Jews knew (or thought) that no one could look at God and live. So they were careful not to make graven images of God. But the NT asserts that people saw God in Jesus, in this itinerant teacher from Nazareth. This is, to me, the reclamation of the truth of Genesis, that if we are to see God in our world, we best find God...in each other. God is "incarnational" in each and every age, and, as much as we follow the leading of the Spirit, in each and every person. So I see God in Jenell...in Mike...in Nick...in Joseph...in Yvonne...in others here. And on extremely rare occasions when the planets align and if I hold my tongue just right, I even think I see God in me. But I certainly am not a buffed-up, gun-toting Jebus!

 

ws

[soma]

I am a Christian and thanks to your post have found my ministry. It is to teach protest in Protestant and universal in Catholicism. Thank you all.