CULTURAL CHRISTIANITY

[William]

Exploring the distinction between cultural identification with Christianity and living according to the teachings of Christ .
viewtopic.php?p=1126768#p1126768
From the link.

otseng. - Do you regularly talk with God and speak the same language with God?
- Is there a difference between how you live and what the Bible commands?
- Do you attend church and in fellowship with a community of believers?
- Do you know anything intimate about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
- Is there any interaction with God and the church and reaching the lost?
- Do you hide your Christian convictions? Does anybody even know you're a Christian?
- Are you producing any godly fruit in your life?

____________
Reflecting on the Irony of the "Fraudulent Christian" Analogy

I appreciated the thoughtful comparison otseng made between the I-130 process for marriage-based immigration and the concept of being a "bona fide" Christian. It's a striking analogy, and it does bring to light the importance of authenticity, whether in the eyes of the state or within one's spiritual life.
However, as I reflected on this analogy, I found that it opened the door to a larger conversation about the irony inherent in such comparisons, especially when we consider the broader history of Christianity.
If we look at the history of Christianity, particularly in contexts like the founding and expansion of America, we see that many of the methods used by those who called themselves Christians were far from the teachings of Jesus. Christianity, as a political force, was often employed in ways that contradict the very values attributed to Christ—values like humility, peace, and love for one's neighbor.
The acquisition of land through violent conquest, the displacement of Native peoples, and the subsequent production of wealth are examples that don’t align with Jesus' message.

This raises an interesting question: How does one reconcile the analogy of a "fraudulent Christian" with the historical record of Christianity itself? It seems that the term "Christian" became more of a political label than a spiritual one, and in that sense, the use of analogies like this one becomes somewhat ironic. The very institution of Christianity, as history shows, has often acted in ways that could be deemed inauthentic when compared to the teachings of Christ.

Further, it’s worth considering that Jesus never referred to his followers as Christians, nor did he establish the religious identity that later developed around his name. In fact, one might argue that Christianity, as an organized religion, has drifted so far from its original message that those who genuinely wish to follow Jesus' teachings would be better off not identifying as Christians at all.

So while otsengs' analogy makes sense in the context of individual believers, it inadvertently highlights a larger, more complex irony: that the institution of Christianity itself, through its entanglements with power and politics, could be seen as the very definition of a "fraudulent" representation of Christ's message.

Perhaps it's worth reflecting on how these contradictions play out, not only in the history of Christianity but also in the way the faith is practiced today. Does the modern-day Christian identity align with the simplicity and integrity of Jesus' original teachings? Or has it been shaped more by political and cultural forces that, over time, have distorted its core message?

Question for debate.

Are the majority of people who identify as Christians actually 'Cultural Christians,' and if so, are they at risk of being judged as 'fraudulent' by the very standards outlined in Matthew 7:21-23?

[POI]

A) Are the majority of people who identify as Christians actually 'Cultural Christians,' and if so, B) are they at risk of being judged as 'fraudulent' by the very standards outlined in Matthew 7:21-23?

A) Yes. But I haven't been calling them "Cultural Christians", but instead 'Cafeteria Christians'. I guess it's the same thing, huh?

B) And once we iron out what Jesus' judgement actually reveals, is when we will know for sure? Care to take a stab at the answer to this question? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=39327 (i.e.):

Answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #2]

Thanks for your reply, and I appreciate your term "Cafeteria Christians." Yes, it does seem to align with the concept of "Cultural Christians"—both terms suggest that many who identify as Christians are only loosely adhering to the deeper, more challenging aspects of Jesus' teachings.

As for the question of Jesus' judgment, you raise an important point. The different answers you outlined—unconditional grace, faith, works, or a combination—each represent major strands of Christian thought, many of which have been shaped over time by cultural and political influences, rather than staying true to the simple teachings of Jesus.

To take a stab at the answer to this question: If we follow Jesus' core teachings, which emphasize love, humility, and following God’s will (without many of the later theological embellishments), it would seem that neither simple belief nor works alone would suffice if the heart behind them was not aligned with those values. In that sense, the "Cultural Christian" or "Cafeteria Christian"—who might do good works or express belief but in a shallow, self-serving way—could indeed be at risk of judgment as outlined in Matthew 7:21-23.

But then, considering that the institutionalization of Christianity has drifted from those original teachings, we have to ask: what standards are we really using to ascertain who is or isn’t "fraudulent"? The doctrine you mention—be it grace, faith, or works—is often more a reflection of "Cultural Christianity" itself rather than the simplicity of Jesus’ message. This brings us full circle to the real question: Can anyone, caught up in the complex and often contradictory systems of modern Christianity, genuinely live out the teachings of Christ, or is the system itself the problem?

I think that this is what is at the root of otseng's questions.

- Do you regularly talk with God and speak the same language with God?
- Is there a difference between how you live and what the Bible commands?
- Do you attend church and in fellowship with a community of believers?
- Do you know anything intimate about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
- Is there any interaction with God and the church and reaching the lost?
- Do you hide your Christian convictions? Does anybody even know you're a Christian?
- Are you producing any godly fruit in your life?

Are all those questions, like your own...influenced by the overall history of Cultural Christianity, or can they be sorted into "Genuine/Cultural"?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #2]

Thanks for your reply, and I appreciate your term "Cafeteria Christians." Yes, it does seem to align with the concept of "Cultural Christians"—both terms suggest that many who identify as Christians are only loosely adhering to the deeper, more challenging aspects of Jesus' teachings.

As for the question of Jesus' judgment, you raise an important point. The different answers you outlined—unconditional grace, faith, works, or a combination—each represent major strands of Christian thought, many of which have been shaped over time by cultural and political influences, rather than staying true to the simple teachings of Jesus.

To take a stab at the answer to this question: If we follow Jesus' core teachings, which emphasize love, humility, and following God’s will (without many of the later theological embellishments), it would seem that neither simple belief nor works alone would suffice if the heart behind them was not aligned with those values. In that sense, the "Cultural Christian" or "Cafeteria Christian"—who might do good works or express belief but in a shallow, self-serving way—could indeed be at risk of judgment as outlined in Matthew 7:21-23.

But then, considering that the institutionalization of Christianity has drifted from those original teachings, we have to ask: what standards are we really using to ascertain who is or isn’t "fraudulent"? The doctrine you mention—be it grace, faith, or works—is often more a reflection of "Cultural Christianity" itself rather than the simplicity of Jesus’ message. This brings us full circle to the real question: Can anyone, caught up in the complex and often contradictory systems of modern Christianity, genuinely live out the teachings of Christ, or is the system itself the problem?

I think that this is what is at the root of otseng's questions.

- Do you regularly talk with God and speak the same language with God?
- Is there a difference between how you live and what the Bible commands?
- Do you attend church and in fellowship with a community of believers?
- Do you know anything intimate about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
- Is there any interaction with God and the church and reaching the lost?
- Do you hide your Christian convictions? Does anybody even know you're a Christian?
- Are you producing any godly fruit in your life?

Are all those questions, like your own...influenced by the overall history of Cultural Christianity, or can they be sorted into "Genuine/Cultural"?

Thank you for your articulated response. But without truly knowing what IS Jesus's judgement, I cannot answer the second part of the debate question. And in all honestly, even if I were still a Christian, I do not think this question CAN be answered. All who have answered, thus far, I give the benefit of the doubt. Meaning, I first assume all who answered are well-meaning and earnest. And yet, answers do not align. Which begs the question.... If God has the ability to be crystal clear, why not be crystal clear about a topic with the highest stakes of them all? I reckon, in part, too many hands are in the proverbial cookie jar. Meaning, many NT authors set out to write THE Gospel. Why didn't Jesus self-author THE Gospel himself? That would be a good start. If Jesus has the ability to be clear and is not dumb, like humans are, at least we would know THE answer to the question, 'how does one achieve salvation'?

I also think the 'cultural' thing was already happening, when the Bible was formed; which included this Jesus character --> http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41818

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, and I appreciate the questions you’ve raised. You're right to point out that the answers about Jesus' judgment don’t always align, and that leads to the bigger question: Why wouldn’t God—or Jesus, if we take the Gospels at face value—be absolutely clear about something as critical as salvation?

This brings us to the heart of your point: too many hands in the "proverbial cookie jar" when the New Testament was formed. I think your observation about the "cultural" aspect already being in play during that time is key here. It’s possible that, from the outset, Christianity was shaped by the social, political, and religious forces of its era, even before it became an institutionalized religion. In that sense, the Jesus character we have in the New Testament could have been influenced by the expectations and agendas of various authors who, consciously or unconsciously, brought their own cultural lenses to their writings.

Your question, "Why didn’t Jesus self-author the Gospel?" is profound. If Jesus had done so, perhaps it would have given a more definitive answer to the question of how salvation is achieved. Instead, we have multiple interpretations, which may have muddied the waters. This, I think, is part of why the concept of "Cultural Christianity" has persisted and evolved. People interpret Jesus’ teachings in ways that align with their own culture and context, which is why we see such variation in how salvation, judgment, and Christian practice are understood.

With that realization, I think it also brings a responsibility: to disengage from arguments with Cultural Christians—regardless of their particular focus—because engaging only seems to play into their hands. By debating within those frameworks, we might inadvertently give more credence to their interpretations than is justifiable. The layers of cultural and institutional influence have led to a complex, often contradictory system, and entering those debates might only reinforce their views.

Would you agree that, given this complexity, it’s often better to take a step back rather than engage in debates that seem to go in circles?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #4]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, and I appreciate the questions you’ve raised. You're right to point out that the answers about Jesus' judgment don’t always align, and that leads to the bigger question: Why wouldn’t God—or Jesus, if we take the Gospels at face value—be absolutely clear about something as critical as salvation?

My conclusion is that this entire collection is nothing more than an amalgamation of human construct(s) alone, maybe because this Jesus character:

a) did not really exist?
b) was illiterate, (like most were in the day), and others wrote from their own perspectives long after he was gone? Maybe the Torah was taught verbally to him? We know little/nothing about Jesus' childhood. Which is ODD, being '3 Wise Men' spotted him at birth. And yet, no one thought to follow him and record much of anything prior to age 30?
c) other?

Who knows?

This brings us to the heart of your point: too many hands in the "proverbial cookie jar" when the New Testament was formed. I think your observation about the "cultural" aspect already being in play during that time is key here. It’s possible that, from the outset, Christianity was shaped by the social, political, and religious forces of its era, even before it became an institutionalized religion. In that sense, the Jesus character we have in the New Testament could have been influenced by the expectations and agendas of various authors who, consciously or unconsciously, brought their own cultural lenses to their writings.

Maybe.

Your question, "Why didn’t Jesus self-author the Gospel?" is profound. If Jesus had done so, perhaps it would have given a more definitive answer to the question of how salvation is achieved. Instead, we have multiple interpretations, which may have muddied the waters. This, I think, is part of why the concept of "Cultural Christianity" has persisted and evolved. People interpret Jesus’ teachings in ways that align with their own culture and context, which is why we see such variation in how salvation, judgment, and Christian practice are understood.

With that realization, I think it also brings a responsibility: to disengage from arguments with Cultural Christians—regardless of their particular focus—because engaging only seems to play into their hands. By debating within those frameworks, we might inadvertently give more credence to their interpretations than is justifiable. The layers of cultural and institutional influence have led to a complex, often contradictory system, and entering those debates might only reinforce their views.

Well, I take a differing approach here. I do not like living in an echo chamber. I enjoy debate and discourse with differing views and perspectives. I see it as a feather in my cap if I can get someone to see a differing viewpoint. And I also appreciate the ones who provide one for me as well. As I've told others, we all harbor cognitive dissonance(s). I, for one, will defend a certain a) political position, or b) 'justify' eating meat, and c) defend my spouse, regardless of some arguments placed on the other side in which hinder my current standing position. Meaning, I'm not going to switch teams with these (3) positions without a whole lot of coaxing. I reckon this is the case with many Christians. They will 'protect' their position, at all costs. As I will remain with the a) political affiliation I currently belong to, b) I will remain a carnivore, and I will c) remain married. I will protect these three positions in which I find close and dear to me.

Would you agree that, given this complexity, it’s often better to take a step back rather than engage in debates that seem to go in circles?

No. As I've told others, and maybe you as well, I come here for multiple reasons.

1) The topic of religion keeps my brain sharper, as it delves into many sub-topics.
2) Debate is fun, as it is boring to converse with people who always agree with me.
3) Stirring the proverbial pot is also fun, knowing you are getting others to think a bit.
4) I can think of much worse ways to use my time.
etc etc etc......................

***************************

But to get to the heart of this topic, my current stance is that, by definition, all Christians are 'cultural' or reside in a 'cafeteria.' This would include "Jesus".

P.S., I placed a portion of your response in the perpetual topic (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=39327)

[1213]

...
Are the majority of people who identify as Christians actually 'Cultural Christians,' and if so, are they at risk of being judged as 'fraudulent' by the very standards outlined in Matthew 7:21-23?

Bible tells a Christian means a disciple of Jesus. And a disciple of Jesus is a person who remain in word of Jesus. By what I see, many "Christians" don't do that. However, most of them probably don't even know the scriptures. That is why I wouldn't call them fraudulent, only ignorant. Obviously ignorance also is not good, but it is not intentional fraudulence.

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

[William]

[Replying to 1213 in post #7]

I wouldn't call them fraudulent, only ignorant.

My bad. I didn't realise that Jesus says that while not everyone who calls him "lord" really mean it, he welcomes them with open arms anyway, because they are simply "ignorant" rather than "fraudulent".

The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Not by Jesus, they weren't. But what has that to do with the thread topic?

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

What do cultural christians tell us this means? That christians are disciples of Jesus? That Jesus meant "The Bible" when he said "remain in my word" That having a relationship with a book is the way to God?

[TRANSPONDER]

A) Are the majority of people who identify as Christians actually 'Cultural Christians,' and if so, B) are they at risk of being judged as 'fraudulent' by the very standards outlined in Matthew 7:21-23?

A) Yes. But I haven't been calling them "Cultural Christians", but instead 'Cafeteria Christians'. I guess it's the same thing, huh?

B) And once we iron out what Jesus' judgement actually reveals, is when we will know for sure? Care to take a stab at the answer to this question? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=39327 (i.e.):

Answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

Different thing, I think. Cultural Christians are those who really don't believe it it but have absorbed the culture - the kind that go (they say) to church three times, when Christened, married and buried.

A Cafeteria Christian believes it but cherry picks the bits they like and ignore the bits they don't. Which in a way is all of them, even the Fundamentalists, or they'd all be poor, unmarried flat earthists.

[POI]

Different thing, I think. Cultural Christians are those who really don't believe

Couldn't your definition apply to any 'Christian'? Regardless of chosen doctrine, some may not really believe.