Why Call Ourselves Christians?

[PaulS]

Yvonne,

 

I'm well and truly a fence-sitter when it comes to Christianity. I'm not sure what I believe about God and the identity of Jesus.

 

But I subscribe to Jack Spong's newsletter and I loved what he had to say about a little Christian community called the Harrisena Community Church in Lake George New York.

 

Apparently on the back of their Sunday bulletin they have this statement:

 

We believe in the profound message brought to humankind by Jesus of Nazareth. We believe that it is in this message rather than the institutions conveying it that forms the most enduring foundation for a positive life. We believe that Christ’s message is at least as germane to the world today as it was two thousand years ago. We believe that this message better enables each of us to see and worship God in our own way. We believe that Christianity is enriched by human reason not in conflict with it. We believe that as a church family, we are responsible to one another and our community.

 

In that case, perhaps I'm closer to being a Christian than I thought.

[themoreilearnthelessiknow]

Man, you guys sure like to get off topic and swirl around like a spiral with all your thoughts and ideas and then come back again!

 

I like it!!

 

My 2 bits.

 

Having just left (escaped, LOL) from a fundamentalist church, a lot of your thoughts/ideas hit home with me. I remember the way the leaders of the church struggled to keep everyone on the same page when it came to what a "Christian" meant. It often reminded me of this quote attributed to George W.:"you're either with us or against us . . .". Yikes! I mean everyone was expected to have this cookie cutter version of Jesus and they would often say things like: "if you don't believe in the Bible's version of Jesus then you believe in a "different Jesus." For quite some time this view had become ingrained in my theology to the point where I was afraid to challenge it. When like many posters here, my understanding of the natural world challenged my theological notions of creation, I was finally able to slowly let go of the "fundamentalist Jesus."

 

This is not to say I don't disagree with some of you in regards to each person having their own perspective on Jesus but I will say this: fundamentalism fights tooth and nail to make sure its followers have the same basic concepts of Jesus.

[..ant]

Are we in danger of taking Christ out of Christianity? These questions came to me because of the “feel” I'm getting from forum posts. If the term Christ means anointed or appointed, and if we do not take the resurrection and ascension literally, what use is the term? If the term Christ has no validity, why call ourselves Christian? Or is it all just semantics?

 

Hi Yvonne,

 

Great questions. I can only answer for myself, of course.

 

I call myself a Christian for very traditional reasons: I am a follower of Jesus of Nazareth because in the story of Jesus I find the story of one who was one with God. By following Christ, and trying to live his example as best I can, I too am led to oneness with God. Without reservation I say that I have faith in God through Christ.

 

What is non-traditional is my understanding of the terms God, oneness with God, Christ and faith that are not built around beliefs in supernatural forces and causes. What is also non-traditional is my perspective on the stories of the bible as stories, not literal historical events. For me the symbols of resurrection and ascension are incredibly meaningful, just not literal. The term Christ is extremely valid, just not exclusive and divisive.

 

Rather than "taking Christ out of Christianity," if anything, for me, my non-traditional approach has made Christ more central to my Christianity than before, as I am no longer "distracted" by the superstitions, orthodoxy and dogma of traditional Christianity, and more focused on seeking to understand and live out Jesus' example of love, empathy, compassion and forgiveness.

 

..ant

[matt67]

I agree Yvonne.

 

What makes me uncomfortable with Progressive Christianity is that it wants to do away with the Resurrection, the Incarnation, as well as other "myths" about God that form orthodoxy. If I were to really believe the likes of Marcus Borg and Bishop Spong, I could not call myself a Christian. I respect these two men and have read almost everything they have written. Ultimately I think they are honest and holy men who I don't agree with and who are merely reactionaries against fundamentalism, which is not the only way to approach Christianity. That doesn't mean I am a fundamentalist or orthodox, but I cannot submit to what Huston Smith calls, "scientism" which he defines as being "an unfortunate worldview distinct from science" that "hides the metaphysical from view." I know what Marcus Borg doesn't believe but after I read his work I come out saying, what does he believe? For example, because he denies the actual fact of the resurrection he ultimately buys into what Tony Jones calls "a paradigm of modern rationality" and as Jones puts it this mentality basically says that "if the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t jibe with modern understandings of science, then it doesn’t wash." Why should it make sense? Why does something have to "make sense" to be true. Why deconstruct and dissect the scripture until there is nothing left?

 

Should be the same way toward the Buddha and other religions? Should we impose this "modern rationality" to question the veracity of the Tao? Why should we accept anything the Buddha taught (if he really taught it) or whether or not nirvana or karma really exist - which he accepts as being "real?" Why even say anything about suffering if it ultimately isn't real, too? Why should we accept that the Dalai Lama or is he a kindhearted, but deluded old coot convinced he is a reincarnation of Avalokitesvara. He doesn't take that metaphorically nor do Tibetan Buddhists. Also, why accept the mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha in Shin Buddhism, which was founded by Shinran who is considered to be another manifestation of Avalokitsvara.

 

Why accept past life regression and channeling and psychic abilities?

 

I personally believe that Jesus was a fully human being who was fully divine in his spirit, as well all ultimately are. I do believe he was the perfect image of God in flesh, that image of God which are all given too. Even Jesus said that if we had a modicum of faith we would be able to do things greater than what he did. I believe in the ultimate destiny of humanity being reconciled with God (I have heavy universalist tendencies, so I don't believe in this whole eternal torment thing that some Christians believe in) in an amazingly unimaginable way. I do believe in a supernatural event that will be called the Second Coming, but it won't be like the Left Behind people think it will be. Or maybe it will. No one really knows, do they?

 

I don't think that Christians can be like Buddhists in accepting or not accepting certain core beliefs - call it dogma or points or whatever. The PC 8 points can be as dogmatic as Calvin's T.U.L.I.P. (though I think Calvin was well meaning but was out of his mind - or maybe he wasn't, I don't know).

 

Ultimately, I believe Jesus is the Christ. In the I AM he claimed to be and I don't really find any contradiction with other wisdom traditions when he says that. I believe he was speaking about what is called the Cosmic Christ, which is the same as all the incarnations of Shiva and Vishnu, which are all just manifestations of God. I believe in the bodily resurrection. I believe in a Second Coming. I believe there is a plan for humanity. I believe that God brings the Kingdom of Heaven through people - which is why it's taking so long to be realized. That is why I consider myself a Christian. I know others believe differently and I do not think they are wrong. For me, it's about the mystery and the things that are completely supranatural and nonsensical, the unreal, the mythic, as well as the tangible and reasonable and the factual.

[JosephM]

Matt67 said.....

What makes me uncomfortable with Progressive Christianity is that it wants to do away with the Resurrection, the Incarnation, as well as other "myths" about God that form orthodoxy.

Matt67,

I thinks perhaps you may be mistaken in your words as PC claims no such thing. While people who identify as PC have certain views or beliefs that may include believing in or not believing in a literal resurrection, etc. etc. Those views do not speak for PC regardless of the commonalty one might find among those identifying as such. PC as defined here at TCPC now ProgressiveChristianity.org says in point 6...."By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes." While there indeed may be people whose intent is to do away with the Resurrection by sharing their personal views, the real 'intent' or mission of PC (at least here) is more of being supporttive of those on a personal journey and search for truth by those who found an approach to God through the reported teachings of Jesus.

 

It seems to me, specific doctrine and dogma on such items as you expressed are shared as personal views of members but is not the intent or an official position of Progressive Christianity as it exists today.

 

That is my own best summation of a PC response to your quoted statement.

Joseph

 

PS While Borg and Spong are well known, highly respected and have been instrumental in their writings and talks in promoting a progressive approach to Christianity, it is my view that their interpretation of the Bible and its doctrines and their individual views expressed is their own understanding. These views are not an official view of PC and members are encouraged to investigate for themselves and feel free to accept or reject any differing opinions as part of their own views.

[BillM]

That's a good post, Matt, and much of it resonates with me.

 

I'm not so sure that PC wants to "do away" with the miraculous things of orthodoxy like the resurrection or the incarnation as much as it wants to reinterpret or demythologize them. But I'm with you in saying that PC (the movement, not TCPC) seems to be better at deconstruction than at reconstruction.

 

Why should it make sense? Why does something have to "make sense" to be true.

 

I have a strong rationalist bent (appreciating the works of Paine and Channing) so, in a nutshell, I can't see giving my life or time to something that doesn't make sense, to something that is nonsense. This is why, for me, God, in my best definition, is the Mind that created everything, the Divine Logic behind creation. This differs quite a bit from Spong's view that God is a human concept for our best ideas and virtues. I don't think our best ideas created the universe. I certainly don't believe that God is an old man in the sky, but neither do I think that God is a figment of the human imagination as many PCs seem to do. Imo, God is a real entity behind the universe. To take it a step further, I think Jesus was right about us loving God and loving each other as the meaning of life, as the way of wisdom. To me, that's what makes me "Christian." It has nothing to do with the resurrection or the incarnation as doctrines. But that's me.

 

But while I find much in PC that is often helpful to me, I also find it to be a strange animal. As much as the conservative fundamentalists insists that God is a supernatural being "out there" with *very* human qualities, I find that PC can be just as "fundamentalist" in insisting that God is *not* a being external to ourselves, that God is only internal. The notion comes across that, like the sound of a falling tree in the forest, if no humans existed, God wouldn't exist either. I find this view to be somewhat arrogant, especially given that many PCs acknowledge that God is a mystery or transcendant.

 

I think (and hope) there is a middle ground that needs exploring. For all of their talk about "Jesus in my heart", most of the conservative fundamentalists that I know act and live as if God is only "up there." And it seems to me that many, if not most, PCs think of God as only "in here." I think there is a middle ground of both/and. God is both external to us and internal to us. We can experience God via both avenues and I suspect we are healthier and more balanced that way. I disagree with Borg, Spong, & Co. that God is a result of only certain chemical reactions in our brains, but I agree with them that the way forward is not blind, unthinking superstition. So, for now, I'm seeking a middle way.

 

Bill

[Mike]

Hi Matt,

 

Ultimately I think they are honest and holy men who I don't agree with and who are merely reactionaries against fundamentalism, which is not the only way to approach Christianity. That doesn't mean I am a fundamentalist or orthodox, but I cannot submit to what Huston Smith calls, "scientism" which he defines as being "an unfortunate worldview distinct from science" that "hides the metaphysical from view."

 

I don't think Marcus Borg et. al. are given to scientism (you’d more likely find the new atheists following that path) -- though I agree with Smith's definition of that problem. I think their views were arrived at by the weighing of many factors -- through a culminating sense of the way our world is and what is most reasonable to suppose. It's not just "science," but based on a critical appraisal of the situation from many perspectives.

 

As I understand Borg, "myth" for him is a gateway/mediator to the Sacred -- which itself is no myth.

 

Now, of course, what is "most reasonable" is subjective. There is no way to deduce from first principles "how things are". What is an extraordinary claim for one person might not be extraordinary to another. Science itself has shown us this: for instance, until the empirical evidence demanded it, nobody could have ever guessed that the speed of light is constant for every observer.

 

Why should it make sense? Why does something have to "make sense" to be true. Why deconstruct and dissect the scripture until there is nothing left?

 

The subjective nature of what "makes sense" is again an issue. When reality "makes no sense", what we really mean is that it doesn't fit into categories we presently entertain. But we can adjust our categories so that an alignment obtains. Hopefully, when this alignment takes place -- intelligibility will appear: a sense of non-contradiction. If we feel that the resurrection conflicts with everything else we feel about our existence, then our desires to believe in the resurrection will be strained. If the resurrection does not conflict with how we feel things are, then no conflict is present and reality "makes sense." In either case, reality does not change. It neither makes sense nor does it not make sense. It is we who make sense; it is reality which becomes sensible in us. "Sense" really lies in the rules of our grammar and categories.

 

I don't think that Christians can be like Buddhists in accepting or not accepting certain core beliefs - call it dogma or points or whatever. The PC 8 points can be as dogmatic as Calvin's T.U.L.I.P. (though I think Calvin was well meaning but was out of his mind - or maybe he wasn't, I don't know).

 

I think Christians can have core beliefs -- just like Buddhists do - which distinguishes Christians from others. I think, though, it would be helpful to look at what "dogma" means. First, let me state upfront how I view ideal religious teachings. For me they are about intuitive apprehension of pre-articulate, pre-rational realities. Teachings should lead me to this: they should be expressions of sacredness, tools for realization. They are devices that lead us into a new way of knowing and loving truth. They can move us individually and communally toward a vision of reality which finds its basic sustenance in life itself. But they cannot in their essence be a stand-in for truth. They are not meant to be unquestionable, but to lead us to what is beyond answers. They lead us to God. Their value lies in what they say.

 

Dogmas are revealed mysteries that are one-way -- God to us, opposite to any natural theology. Dogmas are unquestionable, unintelligible, mysterious essences. They are set in stone (at least ideally), and their value lies in what they don't say; they must be accepted to serve as the ground upon which all questioning can commence. This is not to indict dogma as such; I'm simply stating what they are. They are Holy Nonsense by which to experience sacred reality but which are in themselves totally inscrutable. I don't mind that people approach things this way.

 

But there's the obvious downside to dogma -- it is unquestionable. It is exclusive and resistent to change. Of course -- anything can become a "dogma" if it is treated as such. But I don't think the 8 points lean in that direction.

 

I think you're correct in your basic perception that PC wants to get away from dogma. This may be what defines PC as a movement. However, this is not to say dogmas are therefore excluded. That, to me, would be too dogmatic.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[matt67]

Point 6 is too vague for me. It implies that there is a reluctance to state what you believe and attempt to live by it. What I find interesting is that when I listen to evangelicals they are in the habit of qualifying their beliefs with "unapologetically" or "unashamedly". I think they are reacting to the tendency for liberal and progressive Christian expressing Point 6. Sure they have different ways of looking at the scripture. Can anyone of say they are wrong? We may like to think we have no certainty, but our openness is our certainty, our dogma. Are we so certain that we are right? We can be open to other faiths, but are we willing to include other Christians who have drastically different views into the dialogue? Or do we think we're so much holier?

[matt67]

Mike

 

What I get from Marcus Borg is that he has his views. He presumes that what he thinks is what the early church thought, thinks that Jesus is not the Son of God and was not resurrected. He pontificates about words saying he wants to get back to their original meanings, but imposes his modernist views on those words and projects them onto the past. His views on Paul are interesting, but I have to say, so what? Who cares what he did or didn't supposedly say. It really doesn't matter because what matters, for me, is the TRUTH that they convey. And in the contradictions therein lies a tension that we need to have. We need to wrestle with scripture like Jacob wrestled with the angel. That is what the personal Christian God wants from us - to engage him. And if not like Jacob, then through the words.

 

Like I said, I read Borg and I'm intellectually tickled, then I'm like, "Okay, and you BELIEVE what?"

 

I like the way you use the word "revealed" Don't you think that the Bible is a revealed text? Don't you think other wisdom traditions don't think their texts are revealed as well? Christian apologists make the mistake of thinking that only Christianity makes the bold statement that their text is a revelation of God, when that is not true. You know that. The Buddha does appeal to Indra, doesn't he do so in the Avatamsaka Sutra and isn't that part of the Huayan School? The Bhagavad Gita is as revealed a text by the Divine as any of the prophetic book in the Bible. That makes it dogmatic to some extent. Dogma isn't a bad word and I think there's too much anxiety with how people associate it with their beliefs. All beliefs, even non-belief is dogma to some extent.

[matt67]

Wayseeker, I agree with doing away with the God out there idea, which Paul Tillich discusses and the likes of John AT Robinson in Honest to God. I am not a literalist, but I do believe that language, which is a symbol, is important. When establishing the 8 Points, we are drawing a line in the sand. We are saying, this is what we believe, which essentially is believe what you want.

[BillM]

When establishing the 8 Points, we are drawing a line in the sand. We are saying, this is what we believe, which essentially is believe what you want.

 

...As long as you are sincere...and nice.

 

In my study of the 8 Points, I think it is more analogous to spreading the sand around than drawing lines in it. The 8 Points *seem* to be definitive, but they really aren't. For instance, they say, "We are Christians..." without ever saying what a Christian is. This goes back to what I mentioned previously: we all have the right and freedom to decide for ourselves whether we are Christians or not, based, not upon orthodoxy, but upon our own internal definition.

 

To me, the only truth claim that the PC movement makes is that no truth claims can be made. It knows how much damage religion can do when people claim as infallible truth the opinions of others (as found in the Bible, the Church, etc.). But, again in my opinion, it is so horrified by what it finds in one ditch (bad fruit of truth claims) that it back into the other ditch (of no truth claims) where everything is mere human subjectivity and, therefore, relative. There is wisdom in the warning, I agree with that. But I find it highly unlikely that we, as humans who naturally seek the truth, can live meaningful lives without *some* truth claims, some points of reference, some "lines in the sand." We are meaning-seeking creatures, and if there is no truth, there is no meaning.

 

Small PS - the difference between my view of "God out there" and the traditional "God out there" is that, imo, the God out there works through natural means in our universe and even in us. For traditional Christianity, the "God out there" works by breaking the laws he created in the first place.

 

Bill

[GeorgeW]

WS,

 

It seems to me that the truth claims in PC are more about behavior (orthopraxy) than claims about belief (orthodoxy).

 

George

[JosephM]

Point 6 is too vague for me. It implies that there is a reluctance to state what you believe and attempt to live by it. What I find interesting is that when I listen to evangelicals they are in the habit of qualifying their beliefs with "unapologetically" or "unashamedly". I think they are reacting to the tendency for liberal and progressive Christian expressing Point 6. Sure they have different ways of looking at the scripture. Can anyone of say they are wrong? We may like to think we have no certainty, but our openness is our certainty, our dogma. Are we so certain that we are right? We can be open to other faiths, but are we willing to include other Christians who have drastically different views into the dialogue? Or do we think we're so much holier?

 

Matt67.

 

I would agree point 6 is perhaps vague as are some other points and might i add intentionally so. I think it is obvious by all the differing views of members present that we are not only willing to include Christians who have different views but do. Certainty, for the individual is desired by many, and is fine, but not the focus of PC. Sharing and support of each other on their journey is the mission. Each is encouraged to look but never told what to believe or what is certainly 'right'. Saying the 'correct' words, or being 'right' in dialog or obtaining agreement with the majority of members is always secondary to behavior.

 

You ask... " We can be open to other faiths, but are we willing to include other Christians who have drastically different views into the dialogue? " I would answer with a question perplexed... Isn't that what we are doing here?

 

Why you would also even ask or infer in your last sentence above if members or PC's here think they are holier, is beyond my understanding. Unless of course i am misunderstanding your words or intent?

 

Joseph

[BillM]

WS, It seems to me that the truth claims in PC are more about behavior (orthopraxy) than claims about belief (orthodoxy). George

 

George,

 

Ultimately, imo, *everything* is about belief. Even in orthopraxy, we believe that certain behaviors and attitudes are better than others. We believe it is better to be compassionate than to be dispassionate. We believe it is better to be loving than hateful. We believe it is better to forgive than to bear grudges. We believe it is better to work for a better world than to let it go to hell in a handbasket. Imo, all orthopraxy comes from what we believe to be true or what we believe to be better or wiser. I don’t think there is any such thing as orthopraxy without beliefs. Beliefs are, imo, how we conceptualize things to really be, and then our orthopraxy is our way of testing our beliefs to see if our beliefs stand the test of reality or morality.

 

Where I think the PC movement has erred is in thinking that if there is no supernatural God (a God who breaks the laws of the universe or who plays favorites with humanity through divine revelation), then there is no other choice but to reject God outright or to think of ourselves as God. The first leads to atheism. The second to self-deification or New Age religion which is, imo, demonstrably false. As I said previously, we didn’t create the universe nor all the laws that keep it together.

 

I suppose the question can be asked, “Does it really matter as long as we are nice to each other?” Perhaps on a certain level it does not. If all we are seeking is a nicer humanity, then maybe it doesn’t matter what we believe as long as we place nice with one another.

 

But this website and this forum has the moniker of Christianity. That says something. That implies something. What is it that makes us Christians?

 

Christianity, like it or not, is a belief-based religion. The creeds reflect this. The Church doctrines reflect this. Statements of faith reflect this. PC says, “We want the label Christian, but we don’t want the beliefs.” Okay. Now, how is that done? If Christianity is a belief-based religion, how does one get the religion without the beliefs? It’s like saying, “I want a new car, but take off the wheels, pull out the engine, and remove the seats.” Well, you have *something* left, but is it still a car?

 

Allow me to, briefly, take it a step further. Jesus seemed to believe in God as a person-like Spirit. Jesus addressed God as a “who”, not as a “what”. Jesus claimed unity with a “who”, not with a “what.” If the teachings of Jesus are as important to PCs as the Eight Points say, then why are PCs so eager to change God into a “what” or to imply that in addressing God, Jesus was really just talking to himself, suffering narcissictic delusions? How far can we go from Jesus’ own point-of-view and still call ourselves Christians?

 

Jesus never taught his incarnation, so I can see why that doctrine is negotiable. Nor did Jesus teach that salvation or entering God’s kingdom was based on belief in his resurrection, so I can see why that doctrine is negotiable. But if we, in our PC worldview, say that Jesus was completely wrong in his ideas about God, then why still call ourselves Christians? If we don’t, on some level, see truth or reality as Christ saw it, then why bear his name? Aren’t we just being hypocrites?

[GeorgeW]

WS,

 

"Ultimately, imo, *everything* is about belief."

 

Maybe, I should have said 'behavior' vs. 'theology.' A fundamentalist might be inclined to make an absolute claim about the nature of God. A PC might be inclined to make an absolute statement about caring for others.

 

FWIW, academics make the distinction of Christianity as an orthodox religion vs. Islam and Judaism as orthopraxy. Salvation to most conservative (vs. PC) Christians involves correct belief in the nature of God and Jesus. Salvation to conservative Jews and Muslims is based on correct behavior (i.e. religious behavior - fasting, praying, dietary, etc.)

 

"But this website and this forum has the moniker of Christianity. That says something. That implies something. What is it that makes us Christians?"

 

This is a good question and one that has been litigated here from time to time. My personal view is a Christian is someone whose theology or philosophy is centered on Jesus.

 

As an example, Muslims recognize Jesus as a high-ranking prophet, but focus on the teachings/revelations of Muhammad. Jews focus on the Tanakh and particularly the person of Moses. Atheists might respect Jesus but place him on equal status with other teachers and philosophers.

 

"Jesus seemed to believe in God as a person-like Spirit. Jesus addressed God as a “who”, not as a “what”. Jesus claimed unity with a “who”, not with a “what.” If the teachings of Jesus are as important to PCs as the Eight Points say, then why are PCs so eager to change God into a “what” or to imply that in addressing God."

 

Very good point. I agree that Jesus did believe in God in a theistic way. Whether he thought he was god incarnate is another question about which I personally have serious doubt.

 

However, I don't think one must believe that every word in the NT literally represents Jesus' teaching. And, I don't think it is necessary to believe that Jesus was inerrant. I propose that one can find great truth in his moral teachings while being agnostic or not believing that he was unique among all humans in terms of divinity and still remain a Christian (according to my definition).

 

What do you think is the minimal belief that one must hold in order to qualify as "a Christian?"

 

George

[BillM]

George,

 

Maybe, I should have said 'behavior' vs. 'theology.' A fundamentalist might be inclined to make an absolute claim about the nature of God. A PC might be inclined to make an absolute statement about caring for others.

 

This seems to reflect my experience, also, although I would be quick to add that I know many fundamentalists who are loving, caring people in spite of what their group-think might say. Most of them, imo, try to be good, moral people, and I think they succeed. But I don’t buy into *everything* that they consider to be immoral (such as homosexuality, abortion, unilaterl war-support, etc.).

 

There is something at work here that I can’t quite put my finger on, George, and I wish I understood better. On one hand is the fundamentalist who, though often holding to, imo, either superstitious or even immoral theology, is a loving, caring person. On the other hand is the PC who is often a caring, loving person who often insists that his/her good behavior does not come from theology, at least not in an absolute sense. So it seems to me that, in both cases, the good behavior does not come primarily from theology. Where does it come from then?

 

FWIW, academics make the distinction of Christianity as an orthodox religion vs. Islam and Judaism as orthopraxy. Salvation to most conservative (vs. PC) Christians involves correct belief in the nature of God and Jesus. Salvation to conservative Jews and Muslims is based on correct behavior (i.e. religious behavior - fasting, praying, dietary, etc.)

 

Just to stir the pot a bit, the deist might say that orthodoxy comes from the external but orthopraxy comes from the internal. In other words, as the apostle Paul says, we can look to nature and know that God (as creator) exists. This might tell us that God is powerful, logical (in the sense of creating design and natural laws), relishes variety, and appreciates aesthetics. But we have to look inward to discover morality. It is when we look inward that we discover Jesus’ two commandments written in our hearts. But deists would say that these “laws” are natural, not supernatural. They don’t come from external revelation, but from internal enlightenment. So correct behavior comes from God putting these “seeds” in our heart.

 

"But this website and this forum has the moniker of Christianity. That says something. That implies something. What is it that makes us Christians?"

This is a good question and one that has been litigated here from time to time.

 

I think the reason it comes up so often is because many folks, coming from belief-based Christianity, want to know what PCs believe or how we are different.

 

The question might be taken to an extreme and phrased thus: “Okay, so you PCs don’t believe that Jesus is God, or in the resurrection, or in the incarnation, or in hell, or in substitutionary atonement, or in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, or in the historic creeds of the Church. So why do you still call yourselves Christians?”

 

Our answer: “Because we choose to. We want to be known as Christians too!”

 

Not very convincing.

 

I mean, if PCs reject almost everything that traditional Christianity holds to, then WHAT IS IT that PCs *do* hold to that makes them still want to insist that they are Christians?

 

What do you think is the minimal belief that one must hold in order to qualify as "a Christian?"

 

Generally, George, I don’t speak that way. For me, Christianity is my roots, not my destination. My destination is to be a caring, loving person. I am “Christian” only insofar as I believe (and practice) what Jesus said about loving God and loving others. But my rejection of the aforementioned doctrines puts me *way* outside of orthodox, traditional Christianity. Because my own “definition” of following Jesus falls so far outside of Christianity, I hardly ever make the claim anymore. I even feel guilty if I post in the part of the forums here that are for “Progressive Christians.” My own definition of following Jesus leaves little to nothing of Christianity left, so I can’t comfortably agree with the Eight Points in saying, “I am a Christian who…” So I can’t answer your question without first asking you, “What do you mean by Christian?” I could then tell you whether or not I meet your definition.

 

But as minimal and stripped-down as my own semi-answer is, it is better than saying, “I’m a Christian because I claim to be a Christian.”

[GeorgeW]

WS,

 

"So I can’t answer your question without first asking you, “What do you mean by Christian?” I could then tell you whether or not I meet your definition."

 

In my post to which you responded, I proposed that a Christian is someone whose theology or philosophy is centered on Jesus. Maybe you missed it. Or maybe this is not clear enough. If needed, I will try to elaborate farther.

 

I say this not as a personal confession, but through observation and analysis of what others say and write, here and elsewhere. I look at it more from a definitional aspect that differentiates someone from non-Christian than some kind of test to be met: descriptive rather than prescriptive.

 

But, this like most conclusions is tentative and subject to revision.

 

George

[BillM]

In my post to which you responded, I proposed that a Christian is someone whose theology or philosophy is centered on Jesus. Maybe you missed it. Or maybe this is not clear enough. If needed, I will try to elaborate farther.

 

No, George, I didn’t miss it. But your definition is quite wide, and perhaps you like it so. “Centered on Jesus”.

 

Centered on Jesus how?

His virgin birth?

The incarnation?

His dual nature?

His sinlessness?

His power to perform miracles?

His ability to exorcise demons?

His fulfillment of some OT prophecies?

His lack of fulfillment of some OT prophecies?

His teachings? If so, which ones?

His vicarious death and substitutionary atonement?

His resurrection?

His ascension?

His return?

His continued presence with us today?

Do I need to believe he was a prophet; or a human sacrifice to appease God’s wrath; or a wise sage; or God in human clothes?

 

Which of these subjects centered on Jesus do I need to believe in order to be a Christian and what must I believe about these different aspects of Jesus?

 

I’m not trying to be confrontation or belligerent about this, George, but, to me, there is the religion about Jesus…and then there is the religion of Jesus. I don’t find them to be the same. Imo, Christianity is the religion about Jesus. We are supposed to believe all these, literally, incredible things about Jesus. Doesn’t work for me. I lost my faith in Christianity. But I still find Jesus’ central message as stated previously to be meaningful and worthy of consideration, possibly even key to our time in history. If that makes me “not a Christian”, so be it.

[Yvonne]

I find the discussion between Wayseeker and GeorgeW to be particularly interesting -but my original question - Why call ourselves Christian? still stands. I get that we could say because we're centered on Jesus, but then why not say we're Jesusites? If we center on Christ, what does that mean? (and there is is another thread on who/what is the Christ.)

 

I have accepted the label "Christian" throughout my life - even though there have been times when the label "agnostic" was closer to the truth. At this point in my journey, I struggled with 3 things: the relevance of the bible, the human person Jesus, and "The Christ".

 

Even after reading all the interesting and intelligent discussions in this thread, I feel I still have no answers. Perhaps there aren't any. Please continue your discussion GeorgeW and Wayseeker!

[BillM]

Yvonne, while your question is a good one, I doubt that any of us can or really want to answer it for *you*. This website and forum takes the stance, imo, that if a person considers themselves to be a Christian (by any personal criteria they might use to make that determination), that should be good enough for the rest of us. In other words, the goal here is not to determine who are and who are not Christians, but to allow people who self-confess to be so (as well as those who don’t) to talk about what this means to them.

 

I used an analogy in another thread of spirituality being analogous to God being a beam of light that, once God hits the prism of the human heart, spreads into all of these different “colors” of human spiritual experience without a right color or a wrong color. My analogy only works insofar as God is real (another topic), but I think that analogy works for Jesus also.

 

We all experience Jesus differently. It has always been so. Our Bibles reflect four central experiences of Jesus from the early church with enough congruity that it can be safely said that there was something transformative about the man that made people think him important to humanity. But there are also enough differences between the gospel writers’ views to make it extremely difficult to get at the “human Jesus.” And when we add in the apostle Paul’s experience, not of the human Jesus, but of the risen, deified Christ, we get another view yet. Christians have, somehow, always found ways to hold these different views in tension, even complementary.

 

When the story of Jesus hits our heart, we must each determine for ourselves what that story means and what place he will have in our lives. It’s my conviction that the Jesus story has resulted in people experiencing him, just like the prism analogy, in a myriad of ways – as shepherd, healer, exorcist, door, bread of life, light, savior, salt, enlightener, protector, comforter, guarantor of afterlife, etc. Traditional Christianity tends to want to portray Jesus as only one “color” – Savior (with overtones of Lord throne in).

 

PC, imo, wants to leave the issue open, wants to allow for people to experience Jesus in whatever “color” (or colors) that are meaningful to them. It doesn’t want to narrow or nail Jesus down. That’s been done once and, if rumor is correct, he didn’t stay there. But in allowing for all the different colors of Jesus, as I mentioned in another thread, the light and colors get diffused, less distinct. This is going to bother people who want to know *exactly* who Jesus was/is, especially with a crowd as diverse as we are.

 

So I can’t tell you why PC calls itself Christian or Christianity. It seems to have something to do with Jesus, but I’m unsure of the relationship. But it’s that way in my own heart also. We have the fun and responsible task of deciding for ourselves who Jesus is, what he means to us, and what it means to call ourselves Christian if we so choose.

[matt67]

Centered on Jesus how? By having a personal relationship with him.

His virgin birth? Believe in it

The incarnation? Believe in it

His dual nature? Fully human and fully divine

His sinlessness? None

His power to perform miracles? Believe in them

His ability to exorcise demons? Believe

His fulfillment of some OT prophecies? Believe

His lack of fulfillment of some OT prophecies? Not yet fulfilled

His teachings? If so, which ones? All of them

His vicarious death and substitutionary atonement? Yep

His resurrection? Bodily

His ascension? Bodily

His return? Have no idea when

His continued presence with us today? Yep

Do I need to believe he was a prophet; or a human sacrifice to appease God’s wrath; or a wise sage; or God in human clothes? the Christ,

 

Which of these subjects centered on Jesus do I need to believe in order to be a Christian and what must I believe about these different aspects of Jesus? See above answers

[BillM]

That's why I'm not a Christian, Matt, I don't have the faith to believe in Christianity. My heart won't accept what my head tells me isn't true.

 

But I do have the experience/goal of loving God and others.

[matt67]

I don't have the faith to believe in Christianity. I believe in Jesus. My head gives a lot of reasons why I shouldn't believe and boy do I have a beef with God about a lot of things. but in heart I believe. Frankly, I don't think you have to worry really because Jesus isn't for Christians only. Not in my opinion. The way I choose to try and live it is the only way I can comfortably do so because the symbols and the language I can relate to. I can't relate to Buddhism or Hinduism and would not do that path justice because I would only intellectualize it which is what the West has had a tendency to do with those paths. God wants us in my opinion to come to Him (don't mean to offend with that pronoun) with whatever we have. I don't believe for a moment that you have to be a Christian to be loved by God or to please him. And frankly from what I gather from you on this post, you're a better Christian than myself.

[JenellYB]

For me, in what Jesus demonstrates to me, my own Christology I guess I'd say, is something signficantly different from orthodoxy (what you beleive) and from orthopraxy (what you do) as well.

 

For me, what to me is the message of Jesus, the concept and vision of Christ He taught and demonstrated, is about how we are.

As orthodoxy represents the "Law" as written on our mind in what we believe, and orthopraxy the "Law" as it is written in our actions, what we do, but Christ is about the "Law" as it is written upon our heart, in how we are.

 

And that how we are, as that "Law" is it is written upon our heart, underlies and provides the ground out of which either our orthodoxy (beliefs) and our orthopaxy (actions) will inevitable and consistently arise out of.

 

Jesus taught that, that out of our hearts arise our thoughts (beliefs) and our deeds (actions), that will always be consistent with the heart out of which they arise.

 

Btw, I consider myself "christian" in the orginal sense of being one in Christ, a member of the body of Christ. But I no longer consider myself a "Christian" in the sense of being a member of or follower of Christianity, Christian religion.

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

Matt posted: His return? Have no idea when

His continued presence with us today? Yep

 

 

So how are we to reconcile these two positive statments? If we believe His continued presence is with us today, what "return" from "where" are we anticipating, since we just established He is already here?

 

Jenell