What is the non-negotiable element of being a "Christian?"

[Selwynn]

I address this post primarily to other people who label themselves "Christian" rather than those of other faiths or no faiths. Not to exclude you, but because I am particularly interested in the response from this one group.

It a simple question really: what are the things a person must do or be to be properly called a "Christian?" In other words, what is the essential definition of being a "Christian?" There is a lot of freedom and diversity in Christian tradition. A lot of people who call themselves Christian have some very different beliefs from one another. But in order for the term to have any meaning at all, it must have some agreed upon definition.

What is it?

The Dogmatic School
Explanation as to my motives in asking: as I see it there as very loosely speaking two schools of thought on the answer to this question. The first school which I will call the "dogmatic absolute" school, answers that ultimate there is one more more core doctrinal assertions/statements of belief that must be held in order to be appropriately called a Christian.

For example, some might say that while there may be a lot of disagreement on various points of theology, one must believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God in order to appropriately be called a Christian. So the divinity of Christ becomes a "deal-breaker" by some people's definition of Christianity: you must accept that doctrine or your can't really call yourself a Christian.

Now naturally, there are many who believe you must affirm all kinds of doctrinal positions to call yourself a Christian -- immaculate conception, original sin, trinitarian doctrine. Are any of you familiar with the Nicene Creed? There are many who would say that the definition of being a "Christian" is affirming by faith one's believe in those creedal confessions. If you don't hold those basic doctrines, you cannot be appropriately called a "Christian."

So that's one perspective. Note that many atheists define Christianity in this way, which is why so many consider Christianity so authoritarian. Is this the right perspective?

The Relational School
There is another school of thought on the question of defining what it means to call oneself a "Christian." This would be the "relational" school of thought. This school answers that we have in the words written about and attributed to Jesus our answer for what the non-negotiable definition of "Christ-like" belief actually is, when Jesus says that the greatest command is to "love the lord your god with all your heart, soul mind and strength. And the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commands hangs all the law and the prophets."

According to the gospel writers, Jesus himself says that the entire point of all the law and all the prophets hinges on the simple command to love god with your whole heart and love others with your whole heart. In other words, the greatest point and purpose in Jesus' mind was healthy, responsible, joyful relationships with ourselves, God and those around us.

The relational school would argue that, insofar as a person looks at the written stories of Jesus and sees them as often instructional and inspiring to ones life, insofar as a person has a deeply held desire to emulate those characteristics of compassion and empathy, and insofar as a person accepts that the ultimate highest aim of living should be the striving to live in healthy right relationship with God and neighbor (the love with all heart, soul, mind and strength) - then one is appropriately called a "Christian" - one who follows after the teachings of Jesus.

Notice that there is no mention of adherence to any particularly doctrinal creed. The issue of Jesus' divinity is not relevant to a definition of Christianity to this school. Nor is the issue of biblical literalism, immaculate conception, trinitarian doctrine, resurrection, etc. etc. For the relational school, discussions on these subjects may be valuable, but to define being a "Christian" simply has have the "right" answer on any of these things fundamentally misses the point. Being a "Christian" means patterning ones life after what Jesus stated as the two greatest commands, and seeing the written accounts of Jesus' life and teachings as often informative and valuable for daily living.

So I ask you: which school is right?

[Inland]

1. The essential Christian Belief: The Nicene Creed

Bottom line for Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and most protestant denominations. Good since 381 CE.



I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Selwynn]

3. So, you belong to the Dogmaic school, then...

And I assume you would reject the arguments of the relational school?

I can tell you didn't actually read my post, becuase I mention the nicene creed not too far down. But that's ok, I don't mind.

My question to you know, I ask not to disparage your point of view, but just to learn. I assume you would believe that somone who did not affirm an element of the Nicene Creed could not be appropriately labeled a "Christian?" That's what I took from your post, anyway.

How do you respond to the argument made from the relational school of thought on the matter? Jesus never teaches to affirm the dogmas of the Nicene Creed - he simply teaches us to love god with all our heart and love our neighbor as ourselves - why isn't that the essence of "Christianity," not theological dogma?

Sel

[Inland]

5. No, you aren't a Christian. Indeed, you could be a Jew

since those commandments are actually two taken from Jewish scripture.

I guess if you are following the teachings of Christ, the real question is, why? If the answer is something along the tenets of the creed, they you are a Christian. If the answer is along the lines of, well, they seem like good ideas, then they don't have any divine provenance. In fact, they aren't even commandments unless there is a god there somewhere backing them up.

A christian would also think it is a good idea as well as being a commandment, but not every person who agrees it is a good idea is a christian.

[Selwynn]

6. Why?

EDIT - for the record, this is not a bout me. I'm not asking whether you or anyone here thinks I am a Christian or not. I'm asking about what the definition of being a Christain actually is and why.



A Christian would also think it is a good idea as well as being a commandment, but not every person who agrees it is a good idea is a Christian.


But why? I mean, I don't see Jesus saying "you must accept the tenants of the Nicene Creed" since there wasn't one until a bunch of men came together and made one up. Jesus spent his whole life helping others, acting compassionately, teaching lessons about mercy, and humility and sacrifice, and living in right relationships with other people. He said if you love me, feed my sheep which I have trouble taking to mean as anything other than saying "take care of those I love, your fellow human beings."

Jesus doesn't talk about points of dogma - he never once says "you know, you need to learn about this concept of the Trinity and believe in it." He doesn't say, "by the way, I was born of a virgin - you need to accept that to be saved." His teachings are consistently about a) the love of God and what that love is like and b) how we ought to act in love, compassion, peace and forgiveness to those around us.

Jesus' invitation to his future disciples to "come follow him" didn't include the requirement to affirm certain doctrinal creeds. It simply was the invitation to go with him on his healing, loving, teaching journey of being with the people and meeting their needs while teaching them about the kingdom of god and how to live well with their fellow man.

How did that get changed into a "creedal" religion? Don't take my questions confrontationally. It is because I respect your point of view that I treat you like an adult - and ask tough, pointed questions of you.

Thanks,
Sel

[Inland]

8. I think you are missing the point.

Jesus didn't set down any doctrinal requirements, but then again, if he were a mere mortal, he couldn't.

It isn't that Jesus required any doctrinal beliefs--except, of course, in God and the prophets, which were taken to be pretty much accepted in the crowd he was running with at the time.

If Jesus isn't God, or if his words aren't divinely inspired, then Jesus's promise--that doing such and such will lead you to salvation--hasn't any weight. If Jesus isn't God, then his death is just another poor bastard in the wrong place at the wrong time and doesn't have any cosmic significance in relieving us of sin. If Jesus didn't rise again, then death won. In other words, there isn't any transcendent meaning, which pretty much robs it of religious meaning.

Furthermore, you confuse what one has to believe in order to be a Christian with being saved. One doesn't compel the other.

Therefore to say "Jesus didn't say that belief in virgin birth is necessary to being saved" doesn't mean much. Jesus didn't say we had to believe in his divinity, either. Yet, without a belief in his divinity, you aren't a Christian, not because it is against the creed but because it makes Jesus another man with no difference from John the Baptist or Paul or other good talkers. Nobody is going to say Jesus wasn't a heck of a guy and a good talker. Even jews and muslims buy into that.

So you are left with being "christian" meaning very little except that you think that the Beatitudes sound like good ideas, for whatever reason. Rather than dilute the meaning of a perfectly good term like Christian, just call it The Good People Club. It is actually more descriptive and not already taken.

[Ando]

12. Yeah, what he said

You just saved me from writing my "essential" definition of a Christian. Well done and thanks for giving me 10 minutes of my life back! :headbang:

[Selwynn]

14. I don't think I can accept your reasoning.

If Jesus isn't God, or if his words aren't divinely inspired, then Jesus's promise--that doing such and such will lead you to salvation--hasn't any weight.


This seems to depend on what you mean by the word "salvation." I could see how, if you feel that the promise is of eternal life after death in heaven, that only the promise of one who has sovereignty over that heaven would carry much weight.

However, salvation - the root of which is salve, like a healing ointment, is not necessarily interpreted that way. There is a large amount of basis for the idea that "salvation" is really a "salving" healing restoration of hope and joy in this life. So that when Jesus says "I have come that you might have life - and life abundantly" it means just that. It requires no divine sanction to suggest that living one's life according to the the compassionate examples of Jesus and cultivating attitudes of love is indeed "saving." The alternative is a broken, dysfunctional life - that is the not ordered by the call to love and act in peaceful, humble compassion towards those around us. Living out that call is salvation.

No one argues that Paul is God, and yet to many if not mosts, Paul's words are usually considered authoritative. Apparently "divinity" is not a necessary precondition for finding validity in a scriptural text. Each of the following points you make reflect the dogmatic school of thinking. For example, your if statements always connect to further doctrinal "then" statements for support. If this doctrine is not necessary, then this doctrine is not necessary, then this doctrine is not necessary, etc. But the fact remains that one could argue that precisely none of this doctrinal assertions seem relevant to what Jesus actually taught (or at least what the gospel writers said).

According to the authors, Jesus did speak of "believing in me." But when I say "I believe in you" I neither mean simply that I acknowledge that you probably actually exist nor do I mean that I believe you have supernatural composition. What I do mean however is I believe in the quality of the kind of person you are, I believe the things you say, and I find them valuable and worth heeding.

Furthermore, you confuse what one has to believe in order to be a Christian with being saved. One doesn't compel the other.

This is a stunning and original claim. Let's take a little bit more.


Therefore to say "Jesus didn't say that belief in virgin birth is necessary to being saved" doesn't mean much. Jesus didn't say we had to believe in his divinity, either. Yet, without a belief in his divinity, you aren't a Christian, not because it is against the creed but because it makes Jesus another man with no difference from John the Baptist or Paul or other good talkers. Nobody is going to say Jesus wasn't a heck of a guy and a good talker. Even jews and muslims buy into that.


Who cares about being a Christian if it isn't directly connected to being "saved?" This is an amazing argument. You conceded that Jesus never sets the criteria for "salve-ation" as affirming x number of doctrinal creeds. Why should I care about anything else? It is almost as though you are placing the simple membership card as a "Christian" as separate from and more important than what is necessary for salvation, which if I read you correctly, seems to have no necessary connection to "Christianity" as you define it?

Further, it is not true that either one must accept every doctrinal assertion about Jesus or Jesus is "just another guy." It would be more convenient I'm sure if that were true, but of course it isn't. First of all, throughout centuries of Christian tradition, no one has consistently agreed about the nature of Jesus. If you have familiarity with First-Century Church history, you know that the debates (and I use that term loosely, because they were more like fights) over what doctrinal assertions about Jesus should be considered "orthodox" raged long and hard. If Pelagius had had a little more clout to match Augustine's "connections," we would have a very different "Christian" history.

Second of all, in the spirit of "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father," it is completely possible to interpret the symbol of Jesus as bearing witness to, revealing or reflecting the true nature of God. That makes him more important than just an "every man." It doesn't necessarily make a creedal commitment to his divinity necessary.


So you are left with being "Christian" meaning very little except that you think that the Beatitudes sound like good ideas, for whatever reason. Rather than dilute the meaning of a perfectly good term like Christian, just call it The Good People Club. It is actually more descriptive and not already taken.


I agree that if you see no necessary connection between Christianity and Salvation, then it is indeed not very meaningful. I would suggest instead however that perhaps you call it the "meaningless dogma club" if there is no necessary connection to salvation. However, on the other side of the fence, if someone believes that the fundamental moral imperative of human life is healthy relationships, then the account and example of Jesus's life and teachings becomes more than the mere story of a good person - it becomes intimately connected to the very meaning of full, responsible, right human existence. One could almost argue that such a position takes it infinitely more seriously than one that only see things in terms of a dogma checklist.

Theism, for the record, is the simple belief in the existence of a god or gods. Form that point, spiritual paths diverge. Seeing the account of Jesus as informative and valuable as a man who deeply, profoundly and vividly bore witness to the nature and character of God, as well as sharing with us a beautiful message of how we might live in fellowship with that God --

-- and recognizing that our understanding and awareness of that witness give us the tools to enjoy healing and restorative fulfillment of even our broken lives right here where we live, thereby living lives devoted to hunger and thirsting after greater compassion and relational concern, healthy attitudes and "good fruits"...

...well my friend, we may see it differently, but your attempts to disparage this as somehow trivial or meaningless fall flat.

[Inland]

19. And so now "salvation" also loses any transcendent meaning

Now, it is a happy life. That might be consistent with Jesus not being divine, but I keep trying to see how it is Christianity, or religion at all.

You are ending up with a profession that Jesus was a good person, with good things to say, that will lead to a good life. Maybe you think that is infinitely more important than a dogmatic checklist, and you may be right, but it is not Christianity, which holds that Jesus wasn't a self help publisher or an advice columist telling people how to be happier. I almost hesitate to ask if one can be a christian if Jesus's references to his heavenly father were metaphorical only--or just mistaken theism. I suspect that you would say they are, but it hardly matters.

Nor can arguments over dogma be used to argue that dogma doesn't matter. After all, an assertion that Jesus was not God is dogma, too. That's one of the things they were arguing about in the first century, and in a very dogmatic way.

What you are describing isn't christianity because it contains nothing transcedent of the material life of a person destined to die and rot. You include none of the aspects that connect Jesus to us, or us to God, or salvation, or anything. It isn't meaningless dogma. It is dogma, but to Christians Jesus's death wasn't just a horrible crime: it changed the relationship between God and man and made it possible for sinners to be saved. I guess by meaningless, you mean false. That's a fine belief. But it isn't Christianity.

In fact, if you were to take meaningless, your suggestion seems to be more devoid of any transcendent meaning. Jesus's life and death meant nothing more than mine. To you, Jesus is dead, and all he left us was a list of aphorisms--to not be taken seriously to the extent they bother with Judaic religious beliefs--that are nice, if vague. No redemption, no holy spirit, no continuing prescence. Jesus is just one of a million people who say and do nice things, including Bill who always helps with the bake sale and shovels everyone's sidewalks on the block, and in reality the only reason why His name comes up is because there are a bunch of dogmatists who publicized him under a misapprehension of divinity. Not a ton of meaning in THAT version of Jesus.

It is one thing to hold dogma in low esteem. But you are just choosing one dogma over the other, and it isn't Christianity.

[Selwynn]

21. Religion is only such if it points to an afterlife?

Is that what you are saying?


To you, Jesus is dead, and all he left us was a list of aphorisms--to not be taken seriously to the extent they bother with Judaic religious beliefs--that are nice, if vague. No redemption, no holy spirit, no continuing presence.


No, actually there can be very much redemption, very much spirit, and very much presence in my view. Your implication that what was left to us is a list of aphorism not to be taken seriously is simply a refusal to acknowledge my rejection of that claim and the grounds for it. You have not sufficiently made the case that either Jesus was divine or he is not to be taken seriously.

And as I said before, it is not true that Jesus must be necessarily considered non-unique and "one of a million" nice people. You keep saying that, without addressing the ways in which this absolute can be rejected. And I certainly don't think it takes "a bunch of dogmatists who publicized him under a misapprehension of divinity" to make his life and legacy relevant to human life. In fact I think that frequent gets in the way and detracts from the relevance.

It is one thing to hold dogma in low esteem. But you are just choosing one dogma over the other, and it isn't Christianity.


What dogma am I choosing? My personal view is neither to affirm nor deny the divinity of Jesus because I don't find the question relevant to anything that actually matters to spiritual faith. Whereas the value, meaning and significance you find in the life of Jesus is suddenly negated if in fact he was not literally "God's Son," it is not negated for me by either condition. Now, you may disagree with that point of view as is your right, but there's nothing dogmatic about it.

[Inland]

23. Christianity, at least, does. And all that stuff matters

In Christianity, the value, meaning and significance of Jesus is, in fact, that his existence, life and death have some transcendent meaning and effect. It is true that the value, meaning and significance of the life of Jesus is suddenly negated if in fact he is not "God's son". The reason why the value of Jesus to you is not negated if he is in fact entirely human is because you never put any other value on him at all; the reason why you don't find the nature of Jesus relevant to your spiritual faith is, simply, because you don't believe in any transcendent meaning in his life. That's fine. But it isn't Christianity.

Nor do I have to make a case for Jesus being divine. That was never my interest. My case is that a belief system isn't Christianity without attaching a transcendent, transformative value to his life and death. It is the difference between, "Jesus died for your sins" and "Jesus died", between a savior and a victim, between a guy who died and a guy who conquered death, between a guy who is still here and a guy who isn't. One's christianity, the other isn't.

I don't find the assertion that an only human nature of Jesus is somehow less dogmatic or irrelevant to be convincing. To say that the existence of divinity is not relevant to anything that matters in spiritual faith is a little disingenuous: it matters as much to one who wrongly believes as it does to one who wrongly does not, and one can be as dogmatic about the lack of divinity as one is about divinity. If the existence and identity of divinity aren't important, then the word of an omniscient, ominpotent God is worth no more than the word of Dear Amy. By defintion, that can't be.

A Christian would say that you are missing an awful lot by skipping all the part where Jesus redeems mankind with his death, and conquers death for all mankind in his resurrection, because to them, it isn't a metaphor, but a real, actual, this is the prerequisite to see an actual entity of God and never die sense. You can write that off as something that doesn't matter, but I can see a lot of difference between that and your position, in an objective sense.

[Selwynn]

26. Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view

I confess I don't see anything it it to make me feel that point of view is more convincing the the opinion of John Spong, John Cobb or any others who would call themselves Christian yet disagree entirely with your view. But at the same time, I see nothing concrete in their opinion that convinces me they can be said to be "right" and you "wrong" in defining what it means to be Christian.

And I guess that's really it in the end - its about what you believe.

It's been very interesting and I appreciate it.
Take care,
Sel

[Proud liberal Kat]

34. Just jumping in here to ask a question...

I was raised Catholic and now consider myself Unitarian Universalist...to me it seems there should be a middle ground where one would still be Christian. But being raised in the Dogmatic style, I do not EVER call myself Christian, seems blasphemous. I just can't do it, same as when I am in Catholic Church for a family mass (wedding, memorial etc) the same things like the Creed come out of my mouth unbidden LOL.

So anyways, I believe that Jesus' direct Words in the Bible are a good road map to life. I don't believe he was born of a Virgin birth, I don't believe he is the Only Son of God, nor do I believe he physically rose from the dead (but maybe on that one, definitely not on the first two). But I reject your point that those assertions make him only a self-help book type of good guy and makes you just belong to the feel good club. I believe he was a Son of God who actually realized it and was trying to teach us all that we were all the children of God. That the vengeful and separate God of Old was false and not the way. I believe that when he said anything I can do, so can you, that he meant it. I don't believe he died for our sins and gave us salvation in the way I was taught, I don't think God sent his ONLY son down here to be murdered and if he hadn't we would all be damned to Hell. I think Jesus realized his divinity (which we all have) realized that the Divine is nothing but love and forgiveness, he preached that and he was murdered. Yet he forgave those who knew not what they did, and he maintained faith in the human race. I believe the human race was saved by an actualized man keeping faith and forgiving others who were not where he was yet.

Wow was that a lot of babble. I just get confused over the whole issue that was raised about what makes a Christian. I think I have Christ more in my heart than many who profess to be born again through him, yet I give him no separateness or divinity different than my own if I just accepted it and lived it. Yet I would be relegated to seeing him as a self-help book author in your mind...isn't there some middle ground?
Kathy

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. A word on "salvation"

it comes from salvare, Latin for "to save". "Salve" comes from Old English, German and Dutch words salf, Salbe and zalf, meaning ointment. So if there is a relation, it's way back and pre-Christian.

Having butted in, can I give you a quick atheist perspective? I'd tend to the 'dogmatic' school - that a Christian has to believe Jesus was divine. As others have pointed out, just following his example and philosophy doesn't distinguish you from Jews or Muslims (or even other religions if you stretch the definition of 'God'). You would at least have to believe he was 'annointed' in some special way to get the title of 'Christ'.

And some of the words attributed to Jesus do seem to point to him as claiming divine status (at least more than any other man) - eg John 14, including "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I wouldn't say you need to believe the whole Nicene Creed, however. That was church politics as much as anything.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. As a liberal Christian, I disagree. The Nicene Creed does not a Christian

make.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2961/liberal.htm

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Inland]

11. I don't think your site contests the creed.

Some people don't emphasize knowing "for sure".

[T_i_B]

35. Nicene creed is the basics

beyond that, I prefer to not to define it too much.

[Taverner]

43. What about Gnostic Christians?

They are Christians, and the Nicene creed was what excommunicated them and labeled them as heretics...

[Rainbowreflect]

2. I guess I would narrow it down to believing in the teachings

of Christ.

[Selwynn]

4. So, I would say you fit into the relational school of thought ....

..would you agree?

So one could not believe in the immaculate conception or the doctrine of the Trinity but be appropriated called a "Christian" based on his or her desire to look to the teachings of Jesus as instructional and valuable?

[Rainbowreflect]

10. I guess I believe that much of the church dogma is not important.

I believe the teachings of love, compassion, caring for the least among us is what is important.
I believe striving to remember that even my enemy is a child of God and just as deserving of God's and my love and compassion is what I need to practice. Dogma just separates us.

[Selwynn]

17. Obviously its not possible for me to hide the fact that...

..I share your perspective. But thank you for your insights.

Despite the fact that I am going to ask serious questions of people who respond - I am interested in what I can learn from the responses of others. My motive is NOT to "win" an argument. I do have one motive, but it is a personal one I feel like sharing it might actually undercut the discussion.

But I am not just here to argue for the sake of arguing, and I'm not trying to win anything. And I don't think less of anyone who comes from the dogmatic school - I just want to discuss it a little bit.

Sel

[Stunster]

9. A couple of intuitions

My first intuition is to say that consciously believing in the divinity of Christ is not a necessary condition of being a Christian.

My second intuition is to say that consciously believing in the non-divinity of Christ is a sufficient condition of not being a Christian.

I think the first intuition is compatible with the relational idea you canvass. But I think the second intuition states a kind of boundary, beyond which one has passed from being a Christian.

There may be grey areas. Arianism held that Christ was a divine creature. Spirit Christology holds that Christ is divinized by the Spirit of God.

But a completely conscious rejection of Christ being in any uniqure sense divine is not, to my understanding, compatible with Christianity. On the other hand, not thinking about the issue at all, and just being 'a follower of Christ' may well be compatible with Christianity. I think, indeed, that some early Christians were passengers on that boat.

[Selwynn]

15. That is extremely interesting, and you've done something rare for me...

...you've presented an argument I hadn't already thought of.

I know that sounds like completely offensive. But I wanted to say it out loud because its so great to have something new to think about.

This idea of the boundaries is very fascinating. So - forgive me these are all new thoughts of the top of my head, not cached thoughts for arguments I new people would make - would it be possible to say that a person could be "agnostic" about the divinity of Christ - neither consiously believing nor consiously disbelieving it?

What would bring someone to such a place? Well, perhaps is a person had a hard time feeling like the question in and of itself had much relevance to actual "salvation" (in qutoes becuase this is a word that could have chapters written on its interpretation(s)). In which case, perhaps the entire question do you believe that Jesus was divine seems almost unanswerable (and in fact irrelevant?)

I don't fully understand the argument of Spirit Christology - is it that Jesus was born a man then "adopted" as God's son and essentially "made divine?

One other question - what if a person does not deny that Christ was unique, but does not consider him "divine" in the traditioanl literal sense? I'm thinking of someone like Paul Tillich who (this is a really really reduced explaination) basically believed that what the non-literal Symbol of Jesus as the Christ represents is what is significant to Christian faith, not whether in linteral historical fact a person named Jesus was actually a god-man or not. Thoughts?

[Stunster]

24. Some thoughts

in response, though I'm not sure if they fully or even partly address the questions you raise.

I suppose I've known people whose vocabulary doesn't include 'divinity'. In that sense, they might be considered agnostic about it. Yet they would regard Christ as 'Lord', or 'Savior', or 'Redeemer', and maybe even as 'Son of God'. I'd call them Christians, though what they mean by these titles might not be clear to them. That is, if you asked them, they couldn't give you a clear answer.

I think the idea behind Spirit Christology might be the theological articulation of the inarticulate Christians I'm imagining in the preceding paragraph. There was this guy, Jesus, and God bestowed the Holy Spirit upon him, and that's what enabled him to become Lord and Savior and so forth. The pre-existent Logos drops out of the picture. The Trinity = the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit. This is not the orthodox doctrine in which the Person of Jesus is the divine Word. Rather, it is the human person of Jesus, but with the Spirit filling his personality. But I think this is not the most common kind of belief among Christians. They are much more likely to be into a "He came down from heaven" story.

I suppose there are versions of Christianity in which Jesus gets replaced, for the purposes of faith, with the Meaning of Jesus, and that this Meaning is God's Meaning Communicated and Revealed to us---or something like that.

Whether this really counts as Christianity strikes me as a semantical question which would only be of interest to theology-bothering types. I think it's too abstract for the average believer. And I don't think it's what St Paul or St Peter or any of the early Christians were on about. As Jews, they didn't have the conceptual resources with which to spell out in precise detail answers to all our theological conundrums. I think that what happened was that they came, via experience, to the conviction that one could no longer talk adequately about God without reference to Jesus, and that whenever one talked about Jesus one was talking about God's definitive and uniquely salvific self-revelation to humanity. Fairly quickly, I think, it dawned upon Christians that only God could definitively and salvifically reveal Godself, and so if that's what Jesus had done, Jesus must be God in some sense. I think St Paul saw this pretty clearly. He is clearer than anybody that we do not save ourselves. What saves us a) is Jesus, and b) has to be God. St John's Gospel introduces new conceptual resources with which to express the same idea.

It's important to remember that the first Christian communities were not comprised of professional theologians. Yet it is remarkable how quickly they were able to formulate the trinitarianism strongly implicit in different parts of the New Testament.

[MemphisTiger]

13. Accept Jesus as your personal savior and Lord

[Selwynn]

16. What specifically does this mean?

What does accepting him as "Savior" mean to you, specifically?

And what does accepting him as "Lord" mean to you, specifically?

These are not intended to be loaded questions. I'm not puting your believes on trial - I'm attempting to learn from different perspectives. But you have too words that could be interpreted many different ways and I need you to clarify that ambiguity for me.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Have you read "The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus Borg?

It deals with the questions you are asking. :)

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[MemphisTiger]

20. My best way to explain...

Savior - to me means that Jesus is the Son of God and came to earth to wash away all of man's sin.
Lord - to me means that the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Also, you must do your best to glorify God in whatever you do.

This means that anyone who is saved must act like it and not say, if I'm saved I can screw all my employees out of their retirement, like Ken Lay. Many Christians are hippocrites, but you probably never hear from the one that are not.

This is my best, non-eloquent, way of explaining. Read the Bible, I know that is a tall order, but it is the only book you will need with question of being saved as it pertains to God and Jesus. I hope this helps. I'm sure there are others here that are more knowledgeable and eloquent when it comes to Christianity.

[More Than A Feeling]

22. Here is the way I see it.

The most important thing about being a Christian is "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself".

However, if someone did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God (whatever that means to the particular person), then why would that person want to identify themself as Christian? After all, many other people have said things which are the same or similar, so why identify with Jesus in particular if He wasn't the Son of God?

[kwassa]

25. Relational school wins, hands down

This would be the only way I could define myself as a Christian. Very well stated by you, I might add. I've been enjoying your extended posts, please keep writing them.

I find the Nicene Creed interesting, as well as the trinitarian concept of God, who I suspect has considerably more aspects than just three. Considering I was brought up a Unitarian, always a dubious basis for a Christian, I don't regard it as truth, more of an approximation of truth. I currently attend the Episcopal church.

I have also focused on those two commandments that you have, and regard them also as the foundation of the faith.

I am not sure that I would define it as "relational", because it is more of a core idea to simply love. Relational implies the other loves back, which is really not necessary, for part of the spiritual task is to love when it is not returned, to give love when it is spurned or rejected.

[Selwynn]

28. It should be called "relational" because--

It focuses on doing your part to offer healthy, loving, compassionate relationship to others.

Your doing your part is no guarantee that it will be well received, but of course that doesn't make it any less right.

This is the root of my moral philosophy: Insofar as I believe my choice in a given context will best amplify, nurture and sustain healthy, responsible, joyful relationships – I consider that decision to be morally/ethically justifiable.

How do I know what kinds of choices best amplify, nurture and sustain healthy relationships? One of the most important ways to me personally is through the gospel writings about the life and teachings of Jesus - it is not just that I believe his teachings reveal truths for healthy full living, I also believe that he was one of the few special figures in history God used to bear even deeper witness to his nature and character. It is through both the compassionate teachings of Jesus and through his greater revelation by example and witness of the deeper truths of the character of God that I find guidance for the kind of choices and life decisions that I make.

The accounts we have a Jesus are of the deepest seriousness and importance to my life, regardless of any doctrinal claims about him, for the very fact that they allow me to understand more deeply the kind of God I believe in and what relationship with that God is like.

But then again, I also believe all religion is language and is necessarily representational - our language about our experiences cannot and must not be confused with our experiences themselves. So that when I talk about the "character" of God or "relationship" with God or even when I say the word "God" - I use a language set of symbols, imagery and metaphor to paint a never-ending, always evolving picture of my experiences of the mysteries and complexities of life. They are non-literal symbols, not because they are cheap or weak, but because that it all they humanly can be - our ability to describe the infinite is limited by our own finitude.

It is utterly impossible to make a literally true claim about that which is beyond our finitude. Yet as the finite is inside, not outside, the infinite and penetrated by it, the infinite does course through every element of our finite existence, and we experience it without an objectively quantifying language to concretely express it.

We are all like poets writing about something real-yet-abstract like "Love" when it comes to our experiences of what we have come to call "God." We make a mistake when we try to dogmatically or authoritatively decree "this is what God literally is" when what we are really saying with our language and our lives is, "this is what my experiences, which I have come to describe as an experience of 'god' - this is what it feels like to have that experience."

The description of how religion - all religions, are really "language sets" that different people in different contexts use to attempt to quantify their finite experience of encountering the infinite - this is too abstract to some, and seems meaningless and hollow. That is why I don't ask anyone to share my point of view. I only tell you what my point of view is. <smiles>

Sel

[kwassa]

31. Nicely put

Sel:
"It is utterly impossible to make a literally true claim about that which is beyond our finitude. Yet as the finite is inside, not outside, the infinite and penetrated by it, the infinite does course through every element of our finite existence, and we experience it without an objectively quantifying language to concretely express it."

The mystical experience, and the essential realization that God, however concieved, is infinitely greater than our ability to know him renders all attempts to language him a failure quite automatically.

[Igel]

36. But that implies that a solitary life (whether by desire or

by change--the proverbial desert island scenario) renders one a non-Christian. By definition, there are no relations. So one cannot be Christian.

It leaves out love for God, and how that's expressed.

And, I'm not trinitarian. I deny the personhood of the holy spirit.

[shimmergal]

29. For myself, the bottom line comes from

Bishop John A. T. Robinson's definition in HONEST TO GOD: I take the leap of faith that at the core of the universe is love.

Selwynn, your opening pair of definitions are very perceptive. Obviously I fall on the "relational" side of the divide. Kwassa, I think my definition makes the two-way relationship with God possible, but obviously it involves a leap of faith, not anything one can prove.

For those of the Dogmatic school: just exactly what is "salvation?" What are we "saved" from? Is it simply being saved from death, or does it have some other, more ineffable meaning?

And for those who take the Nicene Creed as a base, do you actually understand what all those phrases mean? This question, like the above, is not meant as a put-down. Kathleen Norris says (and I tend to agree) that the Nicene Creed is valuable precisely because no contemporary person has the least grasp of what it's saying. Therefore reciting it can take us beyond logic to another level.

I find this discussion fascinating!

[TruthBeTold22]

30. See the Nicene or Apostles Creed

These two early creeds are pretty much the essential beliefs of Christianity.

[shawn703]

32. To repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior

That is the one and only non-negotiable condition for being saved. As for being a "Christian", that to me can define anyone who identifies themselves as such. Not all Christians are necessarily saved.

[supernova]

33. I'm of the Relational School

according to your categories.

I place a premium on how to act in this life, not on whether I'm "saved" or not. I figure that's God's job.

I think anyone who is a follower of Jesus can be called "xtian." I don't get hung up on lables or what I see as "lacking" in another.

[JVS]

37. BOTH

Here are some things which I think any Christian must believe in

1) Substitutional atonement. It is the basis of Christianity and is taught by both Christ himself and the writers of the scriptures.

2) Divinity of Christ. Once again taught by Christ and apostles.

3) Acknowlegment of God's Law. Commandments + teachings of Christ.

4) Acknowledgement and repentance of sin. Sin being the failure to obey Law


I think your relational school is as deeply flawed as the dogmatic school, because Christ teaches about his divinity as well as how one should conduct him/herself.

[Dervill Crow]

38. In a nutshell

To be a Christian is to believe that the only way to heaven is through faith that Jesus paid the penalty for your sins through his death on the cross. That's the only non-negotiable. All the rest is the results thereof. "For by grace you are saved through faith, not by works, that no man should boast." Hopefully along with that comes a willingness to learn to do god's will and not bomb the crap out of people that don't believe as you do.

[trotsky]

39. So if someone is born in a remote location

and never hears of Jesus, and dies, do they go to hell?

[Dervill Crow]

40. Loopholes

No, they only go to hell if they hear about Jesus and then rejects him. Or so I was taught.

Notice my avatar. I read the bible one too many times and noticed far too many discrepancies and contradictions to continue as a bible-thumping Christian. Guess I'm what you would call a panentheist; I don't discount all the teachings in the Bible but I definitely no longer believe that all the answers can be found there.

[trotsky]

41. Just wanted to clarify.

I assume that there would also be a loophole for someone who heard the story of Jesus, but heard it from an abusive priest or similar authority figure, and so rejected it due to the abuse they received from that person?

How about a loophole for someone who heard the story, accepted it, then by a process of reason and experience, came to reject it as ridiculous and unbelievable?

[Dervill Crow]

42. About that loophole

<<<I assume that there would also be a loophole for someone who heard the story of Jesus, but heard it from an abusive priest or similar authority figure, and so rejected it due to the abuse they received from that person?

How about a loophole for someone who heard the story, accepted it, then by a process of reason and experience, came to reject it as ridiculous and unbelievable?>>>

Good questions, both. I would think that in the first case it would be as though the person never heard the story of Jesus, since it was being delivered by such a noncredible source.

As for scenario #2, guess I'll be finding that out. There's an expression, "Once saved, always saved," but I won't be surprised either way.

[moobu2]

45. Thats why Christianity can be so twisted to do very evil things.

The concept that all that is required to be a Christian is simply having a belief "that Jesus is savior" and you wont get to heaven through your works or deeds but through him is why Christians have committed some of the most horrific acts mankind could ever devise against each other.

The evil acts of Christians comes from a belief that they are doing "Gods will". "Gods will" is simply what's in your heart or your conscience, so if you happen to be a very greedy person for instance, you might think it's Gods will that you become very wealthy even if achieving that wealth is at the expense of others. So what if you have to lie to get the wealth, it's "Gods will" and your a Christian because you believe Jesus is savior. More the better that the lie you told and the money you got was from a heathen, Jew or other group or nonbeliever. What if the Christian who believes Jesus is savior is a sociopath, psychotic, homicidal? The same logic applies to every atrocity Christians have committed throughout history. The crusades, the inquisition, which would of coarse include extreme forms of torture to extract confessions (to horrific and many to mention but you could goggle Christian torture+middle ages or inquisition or something for some examples), the burning alive of witches, persecution of Jews including Hitler's holocaust (the nazi movement was firmly rooted in Christianity), and the lynching of blacks by the KKK are some of the main Christian atrocities that come to mind but then there was obliteration of many cultures during colonial times, forced conversions through coercion even occurring today in Indonesia in the aftermath of the Tsunami and of coarse the current target -Homosexuals. Really, you could write pages and pages of hideous atrocities that were committed by Christians throughout history. Most people understand what I mean.

That's why Christians can be very dangerous people when the power of the government is fully behind them and their beliefs get government sanction.

When confronted by some hideous acts perpetrated by some Christian person or group, the good hearted "real Christians" are quick to say "well, they weren't "real Christians"", when that isn't true at all. What is required to be a "real Christian? to believe Jesus is savoir. Then all it takes is a belief your doing Gods will and they can do some awful stuff to their fellow man and even the earth itself isn't safe.

The idea that all you have to do is believe Jesus is savoir has done unimaginable harm to mankind throughout history.

Of coarse thats just my opinion.

[Rabrrrrrr]

44. A baseline in the dogmatic, with 99% in the relational

I would accept, at the barest minimum, that a person is a Christian if they believe in the divinity of Jesus as the savior.

The rest of the Nicene creed and others is just frosting. At the root, it's that Jesus was the Son of God - both fully divine and fully human, God on earth - come to show us the infinite love the Divine has for us.

So, it's dogmatic at the root - the divinity of Jesus - but for a relational reason: so God could show us how much we are loved, and call us to love one another in the same way. To say to us, "I know what you have suffered, I have gone through it; I understand your temptation, and your need to sin, and you are forgiven and you are loved. Don't worry about it. Stop freeting. I love you. That's it. Love. It's pure love, baby. You're forgiven. So, now that all that is out of the way and you don't need to fear my wrath or that I'm gonna strike you down for making a mistake or some such bullshit, or in case you might think I love you more than someone else, or someone else more than you, NOW! Go love one another the same way. Stop killing each other. Stop pissing on the poor. Stop kicking the downtrodden. You don't have to be an asshole any more. You can be loving. And if you make a mistake? Who cares. I don't. Unless you did it intentionally, in which case I'm really, really disappointed in you, but you're forgiven, so that you can stop worrying about it and start treating each other like the children of God you are. Oh, and stop killing each other. It makes me cry."

p.s. - "Stop voting republican. If this was 3000 years ago, before the Jesus thing, I'd have smitten every last one of the damned things. But it isn't, so let me say I'm sorry to the rest of you. But it's up to you all to sort it out."


Now, certainly some argue that you can only be saved if you are a Christian - I think that's crap. Jesus saved everyone, whether they believe in Jesus or not, becuase God loves everyone. Even Sean Hannity. Which says what a good thing it is that God is God, and not me.

And for those who don't find Jesus divine, but that his words were wonderful - I'd suggest we call them Jesus Followers. They aren't Christian, in my book, but they are better people than the rank and file self-styled Christians who get so caught up on defining people's state of salvation by their beliefs that they fail to feed the hungry.

[immoderate]

46. My definition growing up.

Anyone who wasn't Jewish was Christian.

I grew up in a predominantly Jewish section of New York. There were also blacks, Italians, Irish, and s sprinkling os others. They were all Christians to me. It didn't matter that some might have been atheist or agnostic, I treated Christianity as an ethnic label; assigned at birth. Didn't realize you could change it.

--IMM

[Dervill Crow]

47. Re: "My definition growing up."

Not Jewish = Christian was my definition growing up, too, and I think that is why I was easy pickin's for an evangelical. I thought I'd been handed a secret formula that nobody else knew about, since "believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" was so new to me. Took me over ten years to figure out that I really didn't need saving, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

[mojaverose]

48. Definitely In The #2 Column

I believe that Jesus was Divine - and that the purpose of his being here was to teach us of our own Divinity. Therefore, I grant him no special Status, except that of Teacher.

I also believe that God is not a lawyer. All the acceptance of Jesus as one's "Personal Savior", belief that He Died For Our Sins, or worshiping him as God, will contribute not one iota to one's "acceptance" by God, unless it translates into belief that all people are one's Neighbor, and Brother (Sister), combined with action that bears out that belief.