Why Call Ourselves Christians?

[JosephM]

Sbnr1,

 

That was an interesting poem and makes imo some very valid points. Of course my only personal disagreement with that label for me is that i consider myself more a follower of Christ that was reportedly manifested by Jesus rather than a follower of a man named Jesus. While i value the reported teachings of Jesus, through which i have found an approach to God, i consider myself more a follower of what Jesus pointed to rather than his name. Therefore i personally prefer the word Christian or follower of Christ regardless of its nebulous and diverse definitions given my others. However, as always i am okay with others preferring or using the label "Jesusian".

 

Just my own view,

Joseph

[JenellYB]

I'm trying to get away from labels of any kind...that durnd sticky goo they leave behind when you try to remove them is sooo hard to try to get rid of, just keeps picking up more dirt and getting nastier and gunkier and you just can't get the stuff off ...know what I mean?

 

Jenell

[Nick the Nevermet]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that labels can be useful (EDIT: and often unavoidable). But one needs to remember labels are just a tool for discussion and not reality itself. They're never perfect, and should be revised & double checked often.

[BillM]

Joseph,

 

i consider myself more a follower of Christ that was reportedly manifested by Jesus rather than a follower of a man named Jesus.

 

Yes, I understand that view. I suspect this is what the apostle Paul advocated also, leaving behind the human Jesus in order to embrace the cosmic or mystical Christ, the “god” that Jesus “became” after his death, and, perhaps, the notion of the human spirit deified, humans as God. Personally, I have no problem with considering humans to be divine, bearing the image of God. Jesus did teach our unity with God and exemplified it. But I also think he was a devout monotheist and find it dubious that he taught that we become gods. Speaking only for myself, I see no way to get around Jesus’ call for people to follow him. Perhaps the only way to do so was to turn the enlightened human Jesus who had disciples into the deified Christ who has worshippers?

 

i consider myself more a follower of what Jesus pointed to rather than his name.

 

As do I. There again, I suspect it comes down to what we think Jesus pointed to. Many Christians think Jesus pointed to a way to escape hell and to gain heaven. Other Christians think Jesus pointed continually to himself as the second Person of the Trinity who needs worship. Still other Christians think Jesus pointed to a way of access to God whereby God, through the mystical Christ, gives you everything you want or need, from financial resources to new homes, to new cars, to parking lot spaces, to winning sports teams.

 

For me, I think Jesus pointed to the kingdom of God. This was, imo, shorthand for God’s will being done on earth in communities of compassion, not ways of going to heaven after we die or ways of getting God to do what we want.

 

Therefore i personally prefer the word Christian or follower of Christ regardless of its nebulous and diverse definitions given my others.

 

For reasons I’ve stated, I’m not altogether comfortable with the label Christian. Yes, it has become very nebulous and diverse in its many definitions, so much so that it means almost nothing. Yet, if Christians consider Christ to be God, then the next logical step is for Christians to think of themselves as “little gods” who seek to reign over all of their own little kingdoms. I’m too much of a monotheist for that line of thinking and, besides, despite the empirical language of Pauline Christianity, I find Jesus’ notions of serving one another to be more inspiring and beneficial to humanity.

 

Perhaps we each create in our minds and theologies the kinds of “Jesuses” and Christs that we feel we need? We have had 2000 years of the kind of Christianity where Christians have acted like little gods, little Christs who want on some level to be worship and served, who want to rule and reign over their little kingdoms. Would it really harm Christianity or our world for people to act more like the human Jesus, serving others, sacrificing for one another, rather than like mystical/mythological Christ who came, not to serve, but to be served?

[Nick the Nevermet]

I’m too much of a monotheist for that line of thinking and, besides, despite the empirical language of Pauline Christianity, I find Jesus’ notions of serving one another to be more inspiring and beneficial to humanity.

 

This is horribly off topic, but could you elaborate what you mean by the empirical language of Pauline Christianity?

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

Yes, I understand that view. I suspect this is what the apostle Paul advocated also, leaving behind the human Jesus in order to embrace the cosmic or mystical Christ, the “god” that Jesus “became” after his death, and, perhaps, the notion of the human spirit deified, humans as God. Personally, I have no problem with considering humans to be divine, bearing the image of God. Jesus did teach our unity with God and exemplified it. But I also think he was a devout monotheist and find it dubious that he taught that we become gods. Speaking only for myself, I see no way to get around Jesus’ call for people to follow him. Perhaps the only way to do so was to turn the enlightened human Jesus who had disciples into the deified Christ who has worshippers?

 

No, i think you are well aware that is not my view. I do not embrace the “god” that Jesus “became” after his death". I embrace the Christ Jesus manifested while he was alive.

 

For me, I think Jesus pointed to the kingdom of God. This was, imo, shorthand for God’s will being done on earth in communities of compassion, not ways of going to heaven after we die or ways of getting God to do what we want.

 

I certainly would agree and that kingdom, i would suggest is in Christ.

 

Perhaps we each create in our minds and theologies the kinds of “Jesuses” and Christs that we feel we need? We have had 2000 years of the kind of Christianity where Christians have acted like little gods, little Christs who want on some level to be worship and served, who want to rule and reign over their little kingdoms. Would it really harm Christianity or our world for people to act more like the human Jesus, serving others, sacrificing for one another, rather than like mystical/mythological Christ who came, not to serve, but to be served?

 

Perhaps. Yes, each to his/her own way of looking at things. Bill, i am certainly not opposed to your way or your label or your beliefs. May they serve you well is my wish.

 

Joseph

[BillM]

This is horribly off topic, but could you elaborate what you mean by the empirical language of Pauline Christianity?

 

Sure, Nick. All I mean, simply put, is that though sometimes Paul uses the language of serving one another, he doesn’t shy away from using the language of domination and empire. A few examples of this is telling wives to submit to their husbands, telling women to keep silent in the church, advocating that Onesimus remain a slave to Titus, describing the Christian life as warfare, describing Christians as conquerors, claiming that his gospel is the only gospel and that anyone who has a different understanding of Jesus is accursed.

 

Granted, Paul was a product of his time, even though he claimed that what he knew and taught came directly from Christ. So I think we have to allow for that. But I think there is little doubt that Pauline Christianity was not behind our better social movements. It did not push for the abolition of slavery or for women’s rights. This is going to sound harsh, but, imo, Pauline Christianity is a patriarchal interpretation of “Christ” that Paul used to set up all of his little kingdoms (called churches) that he ruled and reigned over, trying to keep them doctrinally pure and exclusionary in nature.

 

Some might counter that the letters which support this more empirical side of Paul are not genuine, that they are forgeries. Perhaps so. Who is to say? Nevertheless, they are part of the Christian canon and Christians have held to these letters and doctrines as “coming from Christ” for ages.

 

As always, just my opinion.

[Nick the Nevermet]

Gotcha.

The idea that Paul/readings of Paul can be extremely problematic is hardly an unusual idea among Progressive Christians. Put another way, just because a claim is harsh doesn't mean it's wrong.

[BillM]

Bill, i am certainly not opposed to your way or your label or your beliefs. May they serve you well is my wish. Joseph

 

(Said with humor but with a subtle point)

 

My beliefs, Joseph, are not intended to serve me. My beliefs, faulty though I’m sure many of them are, call me to serve others, to look out for the welfare and betterment of others, to make this world at least a little bit better for my having been here. That’s what I see in Jesus. He touched people, he fed people, he forgave people, he healed people, he met people where they were, he made a difference. People believed they saw something of God in him and his life. I think Christianity is at its best when it is most like Jesus. That's all I was really trying to say. But you and I are both correct that this is just my way of looking at things.

[JenellYB]

Problems with labels is they stick, often long after the content of the jar has been changed. Then there's the matter of mis-labeling, even deliberate false labeling.

 

And then there's the incomplete nature of a label. I have jar labled "pickles". Now to me pickles are the veggie, salt, and vinegar. But the fine print on the lable reveals other stuff I can't even pronounce.

 

"Christian" is a good example. We can't even agree on the content of the package the label "Christian" is stuck onto.

 

Jenell

[GeorgeW]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that labels can be useful (EDIT: and often unavoidable). But one needs to remember labels are just a tool for discussion and not reality itself. They're never perfect, and should be revised & double checked often.

I agree. With the same caveats, I will go farther out on that limb to suggest that without labels (names) there could be no meaningful communication.

 

George

[BillM]

Then there's the matter of mis-labeling, even deliberate false labeling.

 

Jenell, this made me think of my Gramma's canning hobby. She could can most anything. And we grand-children could eat most anything. My favorite, when I was a kid, was applesauce made from fresh apples. Gramma would can them in the fall and store them in the cellar for the upcoming winter months. But my two cousins and I would often sneak down into the cellar after bedtime, look for Gramma's applesauce with our flashlight, and finish off a jar or two - well before the onset of winter. Gramma didn't seem to mind too much...until we got a bit older.

 

One year, we snuck down into the cellar, looked for the jars marked "Applesauce", turned off our flashlight, fumbled in the dark with the lids, dipped our spoons into the jars, and eagerly shoved the "applesauce" into our mouths.

 

Turns out it was squash.

 

Blecch!

 

Whether she mislabed them on purpose or by mistake, we didn't know. Neither she nor we ever spoke of the squash in the applesauce jars, but it cured us of our midnight forays into the cellar. That applesauce label certainly did not reflect the reality of what was in the jar.

 

I certainly don't think our labels should be exhaustive. We don't need to know (or maybe even want to know) everything that is in our jars down to the last ingredient. But folks should be allowed (or forewarned) of whether to expect applesauce or squash...unless one really likes canned squash.

[JenellYB]

Canned squash, yeah, blech, lol! My elders gardened and canned, and for close to 30 yrs while raising my own family, I did canning and all the other 'country homestead life' stuff. Squash was something I gave up trying to preserve by canning or freezing, its awful! Love it fresh, not worth canning.

 

Another big issue with labels is it disregards the entire rest of a person, they 'become' the label, not only in estimation of others, but in their own self image and self esteemination. The label 'defines' them I learned how critically important that is while studying psychology, and worked an internship in a program doing therapy with young children diagnosed with autism. Whether austism, schizoprenia, mood disorders, anything, or for that matter, same for physical conditions, whether diabetis or cancer or whatever. That, too was reinforced when I went with my sister through many years of her treatment for cancer.

 

When we call someone, or even ourselves, autisitc, schizophrenic, diabetic, cancer patient, and yes even Christian, Muslim, conservative, liberal, whatever, we are defining that person or a group of people by that term, and entiirely disregarding that is not what/who they are at all! They may be a PERSON with autism, schizophrenia, diabetis, cancer, but they are a PERSON.

 

The subtle psychogical implication of that is profound. When some one or few things about us, our conditions, our life, are applied to us as a 'label', we become that label and that label becomes us. If that thing labeled IS us, we also tend to 'defend' it as part of us. When someone attacks "Christians" because of difference with Christian beliefs/practices, it gets lost that it is the beleifs/practices being attacked...it becomes an attack on the person. Attack homosexuality, and its an attack on a PERSON that is being entirely defined for their being gay,without regard to any othher feature or quality of who/what they are.

 

Jenell

[GeorgeW]

When we call someone, or even ourselves, autisitc, schizophrenic, diabetic, cancer patient, and yes even Christian, Muslim, conservative, liberal, whatever, we are defining that person or a group of people by that term, and entiirely disregarding that is not what/who they are at all! They may be a PERSON with autism, schizophrenia, diabetis, cancer, but they are a PERSON.

The problem is not with labels per se - it is how we think about people or things with these labels. Doing away with labels for medical conditions, as an example, would do nothing to change these conditions but only make diagnosis and treatment infinitely more complicated.

 

I would add that any ambiguity about what comprises some group (like Christian) is only on the edges. As an example, most of us have no difficulty differentiating a Christian from an Shinto. I would further suggest it is an issue in this forum because some PCs are on the fuzzy edge of Christianity (as it is commonly characterized).

 

This labeling issue is, IMO, not a problem of labels, but one of attitudes. The solution is not in banning labels (which is not even possible anyway); it is in changing attitudes about people in the various categories.

 

George

[JosephM]

George,

 

I don't think anyone here mentioned or advocated doing away with labels. I think there are those who are merely saying that labels have their limitations and that it might be beneficial to be aware of the limitations so as not to put people in a box or assume we really know something or someone completely just because we have applied a label to it or them. I think you might agree, there is perhaps a middle road we can all agree on without going to extremes either way concerning labels.

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

Joseph,

 

Yes, I think 'banning' was a poor choice of words, maybe 'refraining from' would be more appropriate.

 

Of course 'labels' have limitations but they are also very useful. Without names for things, communication would be very difficult if even possible.

 

I see nothing wrong with someone identifying themselves or someone else as a Muslim, Christian or whatever. A rose by any other label (or no label) is still a rose. What we think about that person is another matter, and this is to a large degree independent of the label. This is what needs to be changed, if it is inappropriately negative.

 

George

[JosephM]

George,

I for one agree and concur with you that labels (especially the label Christian that is the subject of this thread) are useful as long as we understand and are aware of the limitations in linguistic interpretation and definition which includes how a person by his/her conditioning and experience thinks about that label.

 

Joseph

[BillM]

Here's a bit of humor to, perhaps, illustrate the dangers/limits of labels:

 

 

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

 

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

 

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

 

"Like what?"

 

"Well ... are you religious or atheist?"

 

"Religious."

 

"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"

 

"Christian."

 

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

 

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

 

"Baptist."

 

"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

 

"Baptist Church of God."

 

"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of

God?"

 

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

 

"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed

Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

 

"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

 

To which I said, "Die, you heretic scumbag!" and pushed him off.

 

:)

 

Maybe the more pointed we make our labels, the more prone they are to be used as weapons?

[JosephM]

While we are on humor and labels. Don't forget we have ethnic limitations with labels also that we must be aware of.....

 

 

Boudreaux lived across the bayou from Clarence, who Boudreaux did not like. There was no bridge or other easy way to cross the bayou so the two would argue by yelling across the bayou.

Boudreaux would often yell across the bayou to Clarence, "Clarence, if I had a way to cross dat bayou, I would come beat you up!".

The threats continued for many years.

One day the state built a bridge across the Bayou.

Soon after the bridge was built, Boudreaux's wife, Clotile, says "Boudreaux, you've been talking about going across dat bayou to beat up Clarence all dese years. Now that they have dat bridge, what are you waiting for?"

So Boudreaux decided it was time to go see Clarence, so he started walking down to the bridge.

Just as he was getting ready to cross the bridge, he looks up at the sign on the bridge, reads it, and goes back home.

When Boudreaux gets home, Clotile asks "Mais, Boudreaux, did you go beat up Clarence?" Boudreaux said, "Mais no Clotile, dat sign on dat bridge says 'Clearance 13 feet 3 inches'. Mais, Clotile, Clarence don't look dat big from across de bayou!"

 

[NORM]

 

Maybe the more pointed we make our labels, the more prone they are to be used as weapons?

 

Excellent point.

 

NORM

[Yvonne]

Can someone explain to me where the idea of the mystic Christ comes from, or suggest some books? I think if I understood the idea better, I could not only find a place for Christ in my Christianity, but perhaps I might also embrace the label of "Christian".

[BillM]

To me, Yvonne, the mystic Christ began with the resurrection and was codified by the apostle Paul. Up until then, the Jews considered the messiah to be God's liberating king, a human being. But that human being, Jesus of Nazareth, had been killed, which, to the Jews, meant that he wasn't the true messiah. Nevertheless, the gospels say that the disciples experienced "something" after Jesus' death that sometimes seemed to be Jesus and sometimes didn't seem to be Jesus. Whatever this "something" was, it was no longer physically human, but this "something" also claimed that it was not a spirit. Forty days after Jesus' death, this "something" flew through the sky to sit on a throne next to God's that alledgedly was above the clouds over the city of Jerusalem. So, imo, this "something" is the mystical Christ who wants to be worshipped as king. Ever since then, most Christians have claimed that Christ not only sits on a throne in "heaven" but that this Christ also lives in their hearts.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, it seems to me, is a notion of the mystical Christ which has nothing to do with the person of Jesus except that Jesus was a "housing" for this entity. In this view, it is like Jesus was posessed by the Christ and some Christians say that Christ left Jesus when Jesus became sin on the cross but re-entered Jesus at the resurrection.

 

Personally, I find much of this confusing and non-sensical in that it doesn't make sense to me. That's why I'm more drawn to the teachings of the historical Jesus than to this "being" that wasn't or isn't human. I experience Jesus through his teachings, not because I sense that I am posessed by some entity inside me.

[JosephM]

sbnr1 said...

At the other end of the spectrum, it seems to me, is a notion of the mystical Christ which has nothing to do with the person of Jesus except that Jesus was a "housing" for this entity. In this view, it is like Jesus was posessed by the Christ and some Christians say that Christ left Jesus when Jesus became sin on the cross but re-entered Jesus at the resurrection.

 

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.

 

Just a little different notion that doesn't seem confusing or nonsensical to me,

Joseph

 

PS It also seems to me that other religions while they use different words speak of that same thing and perhaps there were others who appeared and who manifested this connectivity to the same degree.

[BillM]

Yvonne, to me, traditional Christianity is, for the most part, centered on and around this mystical Christ. We can see this reflected in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds which have served as statements of what, according to the Church(es), “true Christians” have believed for centuries. In those Creeds, we find little of Jesus’ teachings (from the Sermon on the Mount/Plain or from his parables or his one-liners). Instead, the Creeds tell us that what is important about Christ is his virgin birth, then his death, resurrection, ascension, and future return in judgment – all proofs that Christ was/is God. Why? Because though the church has asserted that Christ was fully human, we all know that humans aren’t born from virgins, that human blood cannot remove sin, that we don’t come back from the dead three days later, that we don’t fly through the air unassisted. Only “gods” can do these things. Humans can’t. So despite Christianity’s claim, Christ was not human, he only appeared to be so, sort of like Superman. And to what end? According to the Creeds, so that this Superman-Christ can give us everlasting life in heaven, as opposed to what Jesus said about God’s kingdom being on earth (messianic notions).

 

In turning Jesus into the Christ, the church effectively muted Jesus of Nazareth. Robin Meyers, in his book called, “Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshipping Christ and Start Following Jesus”, does a good job of showing, as the title suggests, how Christianity stopped following the Way of Jesus of Nazareth and, instead, set up institutions for worshipping Christ as God. Ironically, Jesus of Nazareth said that he would have problems with people who called him ‘Lord’ but who had no use for his teachings.

 

Now, I have to admit that many traditional Christians (whom I define as those who hold to the Creeds that view Christ as God) are good, kind, and loving people. I don’t at all assert that worshipping Christ as God is harmful to oneself or to society. This view has nourished Christians for centuries. What I do assert is that doing so 1) neglects the teachings and life of Jesus of Nazareth, 2) doesn’t make much sense given what we know about the nature of reality, and 3) is relatively powerless to bring God’s kingdom to earth (because the focus is on leaving the earth for a mythological heaven).

 

I left traditional Christianity because I found the Christ there to be unbelievable. For whatever reason, I just didn’t have the faith to believe in things that not only didn’t make sense, but that went against the way I think the universe works. Nevertheless, I still embrace many of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth because I think they are sensible (though counter-cultural) and are/could be life-transforming, both personally and socially. Will the Church(es) ever un-mute the mouth of Jesus and allow him to speak? Or will they simply continue to worship Christ as God and sing songs about flying away? We’ll see.

[Nick the Nevermet]

Can someone explain to me where the idea of the mystic Christ comes from, or suggest some books? I think if I understood the idea better, I could not only find a place for Christ in my Christianity, but perhaps I might also embrace the label of "Christian".

 

It depends on what one means my "mystic" obviously, but generally speaking, Christianity picked up its mystical element from its interaction with Neoplatonism, the Greek philosophy/religion (those 2 do not have a clean boundary). Whenever you see a mind/body split, especially with the body (or more generally the material world) being seen as horribly broken or sinful, we're talking about something that was more Greek than Hebrew. That doesn't inherently make it better or worse, of course.

 

To be honest, I haven't read much directly on this topic, though it's in the background of a lot I read. The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels points out how many groups often associated with Gnosticism weren't exactly embracing a "Jewish" understanding of Jesus. NT Wright has many books on Paul, and is part of an academic movement called the "new perspectives on Paul," which is very interested in historically situating Paul in the context of 1st Century Judaism (especially the versions associated with the Pharisees, since Paul was one). Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid McColluch is a wonderful history book and reference guide to solid & more specific academic work, and its first 2 chapters are about the different heritage Christianity gets from Jerusalem and Athens. "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?" was a question that an early church father asked, and it has come back time and time again in western thought.

 

Thought I haven't read it, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys by Andrew Louth is apparently a seminal work on this subject. Perhaps it would be a good candidate for the reading group idea I suggested and then semi-abandoned.