Christianity in your mind's eye

[historia]

Christianity is one of the world's largest and most diverse religious traditions.

And yet, for brevity's sake, it's convenient to make reference to 'Christianity' or 'Christians' on this forum without having to reel off a litany of qualifiers about which particular churches, beliefs, and practices we are describing. But do we all have the same thing in mind when we do this?

Consider these comments from a couple of our friendly neighborhood atheists:

Take mainstream Catholic teaching, remove Mary, mother of God stuff, remove Papal authority. That's my working assumption of what Christianity is

As far as I'm concerned, anyone that says they're Christian is Christian, but pretending that the Catholics are anything but the standard for orthodoxy is chutzpah.

Questions for debate:

When making reference to 'Christianity' in general terms, should we all have in mind Roman Catholicism (or something close to that)?

Is that, in fact, the expression of Christianity you have in your mind when you personally use the term 'Christianity'?

[Diagoras]

If we take that approach, we'd be calling a lot of folks 'Christian' who couldn't be further from the truth.

Well, as you say, it's an approach - and I would expect a self-identified Christian to take a different approach to defining Christianity than someone like myself who is 'outside the tent'.

I'm 'looking in' and trying to identify the common features of a disparate group of individuals as a way to give myself a 'shorthand' for identifying someone as Christian or not. For someone who believes themselves to be a Christian, it's possible that they will desire to ascribe a particular set of what they see as Christianity's positive attributes to themselves and the 'in-group' to which they belong. Their way of thinking about out-groups (those 'folks who couldn't be further from the truth'), will be different from mine. There's a vast Venn diagram of Christianity, with many smaller sub-sets and partially overlapping sets, making a clear definition almost impossible. And that Venn diagram looks different from different angles: either the 'non-theist' angle, the JW angle, Catholic angle, etc.

Part of the reason why I come here is to 'train' my way of thinking when it comes to that mental map of Christianity (and religion in general). I'm learning that there's a lot of subtlety to it, a lot of fascinating history and psychology, and a lot of beauty. At the same time, I've found plenty of uncritical thinking, denial and deflection. I feel that I still need that shorthand to help guide my mind's eye, but conversations like this remind me that I shouldn't be lazy and rely on it to the exclusion of genuine inquiry.

[cms]

Jesus is obviously the focus of Christianity, but it's rather strange to equate Jesus with Christianity.

But, in that case, it seems like you need a different word to describe your proposal, as 'Christianity' is already taken.

No. Christanity has been stolen. Jesus warns of this very thing when He said "Many will preach false things in My name."

historia, If Jesus is the focus of Christianity, then why is it strange to equate Jesus with Christianity since Christianity is named after Jesus Christ?

Did Hitler strongly believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus? I don't know, but if he did, then 'Christian' seems a reasonable label to apply to him. There are other labels that better apply to him though: dictator, maniac, vile racist, etc.

Diagoras, So in your mind's eye, everyone is a Christian.


The way I see it, as I said before there is one line drawn in the sand, one line of demarcation between Christian and non-Christian: that is, those who love others as themselves and those who don't. We are to look at the heart, and you should be able to tell as Scripture says " A tree is known by it's fruit."

The minute you add something to this, it becomes something else. It's no longer about the soul or spirit, but superficial beliefs.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #49]

In defense of Christ = Christianity, we have to remember that in biblical theology there is meant to be union and becoming one body under Christ. It's like marriage (which I would argue is the metaphor for how we join with Christ), where two literally become one flesh. As such, Christ does represent all members, or all of Christendom, since true Christians are literally one with Christ. The 'body of Christ' is Christendom (in a nutshell).

The problem with this relational is that it assumes such a thing as a "True Christian" can be identified in any member of Christendom.

Yet where is the evidence?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here or what kind of evidence you're looking for. Scriptural?

To be clear, there is no distinction in my mind between a true Christian and any member of Christendom. These are the same thing to me. But per all my previous posts on this topic, I think that a true Christian is a rare bird (Jesus himself was a miracle). It's also something that cuts across social lines (e.g., religion, race, gender, what have you).

(Christendom is not defined by a social institution you can belong to, like a specific church you can get baptized in. Rather it's defined by a participation in something much greater - the Spirit, the body of Christ, whatever you want to call it.)

[cms]

It's also something that cuts across social lines (e.g., religion, race, gender, what have you).

(Christendom is not defined by a social institution you can belong to, like a specific church you can get baptized in. Rather it's defined by a participation in something much greater - the Spirit, the body of Christ, whatever you want to call it.)

I agree.

As was pointed out - That ship has sailed. Christianity failed in that regard.

This is true.

A new Paradigm is rising whereby folk can drop the idea of being a 'true Christian' and simply be a True Human.

Good idea. Just as the name Israel was stolen, which is why it became Christianity, so it is with Christianity. History repeats itself.

[theophile]

If we take that approach, we'd be calling a lot of folks 'Christian' who couldn't be further from the truth.

Well, as you say, it's an approach - and I would expect a self-identified Christian to take a different approach to defining Christianity than someone like myself who is 'outside the tent'.

I don't identify as a Christian for the record. I don't meet the bar. But I'll champion the bible like no other.

I'm 'looking in' and trying to identify the common features of a disparate group of individuals as a way to give myself a 'shorthand' for identifying someone as Christian or not. For someone who believes themselves to be a Christian, it's possible that they will desire to ascribe a particular set of what they see as Christianity's positive attributes to themselves and the 'in-group' to which they belong. Their way of thinking about out-groups (those 'folks who couldn't be further from the truth'), will be different from mine. There's a vast Venn diagram of Christianity, with many smaller sub-sets and partially overlapping sets, making a clear definition almost impossible. And that Venn diagram looks different from different angles: either the 'non-theist' angle, the JW angle, Catholic angle, etc.

Sure. But somewhere on that Venn diagram (maybe the smallest circle, and maybe completely outside all the other circles even as it could encompass them all) should be those who are in the Spirit. That to me is the true mark of a Christian and why the bar is so high.

To look at it in a different way (in a way that scripture puts it), you're trying to analyze all those who have been baptized by water into the church (which is reasonable). I'm trying to be a lot stricter by focusing only on those who have been baptized by Spirit, and are true members of the body of Christ.

Part of the reason why I come here is to 'train' my way of thinking when it comes to that mental map of Christianity (and religion in general). I'm learning that there's a lot of subtlety to it, a lot of fascinating history and psychology, and a lot of beauty. At the same time, I've found plenty of uncritical thinking, denial and deflection. I feel that I still need that shorthand to help guide my mind's eye, but conversations like this remind me that I shouldn't be lazy and rely on it to the exclusion of genuine inquiry.

I think everything you say here is correct, and the right way to approach it. Separate the wheat from the chaff. Don't lose sight of the subtlety and beauty because of all that is dross. (I'm not saying cherry-pick, but only that there is a lot of crap that needs to be sorted through surrounding it all.)

For what it's worth, even if you land on a basic set of propositions (like, "Jesus saves us from sin"), my experience is still that the devil is in the details and you're no closer to the truth. I would give you a completely different version of how Jesus saves than, probably, anyone else on this board.

[Diagoras]

Diagoras, So in your mind's eye, everyone is a Christian.

I think there's a grave danger of a serious misunderstanding here. The term 'everyone' in this context needs to be handled very carefully.

What I'm saying, as a personal opinion, is that if someone tells me they or a third party believes in that 'basic set' of things about Jesus, then I'm going to be labelling them (in my mind) as a Christian.

What I'm not doing (or, at least, training myself out of doing) at that point, is 'adding on' further assumptions about them. "Oh, you must go to church then, or also believe X, Y Z and behave in these particular ways..."

The way I see it, as I said before there is one line drawn in the sand, one line of demarcation between Christian and non-Christian: that is, those who love others as themselves and those who don't. We are to look at the heart, and you should be able to tell as Scripture says " A tree is known by it's [sic] fruit."

The minute you add something to this, it becomes something else. It's no longer about the soul or spirit, but superficial beliefs.

<bolding mine>

Couldn't a Jew, Hindu or Muslim assert this line exists in regard to their own religion with equal conviction, based on something in their own holy book? Certainly a Jew could, since the Old Testament is used by both religions.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #53]


In defense of Christ = Christianity, we have to remember that in biblical theology there is meant to be union and becoming one body under Christ. It's like marriage (which I would argue is the metaphor for how we join with Christ), where two literally become one flesh. As such, Christ does represent all members, or all of Christendom, since true Christians are literally one with Christ. The 'body of Christ' is Christendom (in a nutshell).

The problem with this relational is that it assumes such a thing as a "True Christian" can be identified in any member of Christendom.

Yet where is the evidence?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here or what kind of evidence you're looking for. Scriptural?

No.

To be clear, there is no distinction in my mind between a true Christian and any member of Christendom. These are the same thing to me. But per all my previous posts on this topic, I think that a true Christian is a rare bird (Jesus himself was a miracle). It's also something that cuts across social lines (e.g., religion, race, gender, what have you).

So, name one personality alive today whom you would consider a 'true Christian' and what's more, make it a personality who is NOT a member of the Christian religion.

(Christendom is not defined by a social institution you can belong to, like a specific church you can get baptized in. Rather it's defined by a participation in something much greater - the Spirit, the body of Christ, whatever you want to call it.)

While this view is a refreshing change from the norm around here, most folk calling themselves Christians would have a real hard time agreeing with you. Why - at that rate I fit the criteria, but even so, have been accused of working for the devil.
Is it possibly that my accusers are NOT 'true Christians' at all, but call themselves that anyway?

*Expression of Astonishment*[/quote]

[William]

[Replying to cms in post #54]

A new Paradigm is rising whereby folk can drop the idea of being a 'true Christian' and simply be a True Human.

Good idea. Just as the name Israel was stolen, which is why it became Christianity, so it is with Christianity. History repeats itself.

What you are referring to as 'stolen' is taking over a role...but since the role has not been taken over from so much as it has been worked with and improved to a degree - and taking account of what theophile is arguing, we are looking for repetition of success rather than repetition of failure...

I myself do not believe that what failures there have obviously been in all branches of theism which are religious are indicative of failure of theism itself.

[historia]

Jesus is obviously the focus of Christianity, but it's rather strange to equate Jesus with Christianity. That's not the approach major encyclopedias (e.g., Britannica) take when defining Christianity, so this is a rather idiosyncratic view you hold.

Encyclopedias are for grade school research assignments.

Sure, encyclopedias provide a general, consensus description of various topics, so are good starting points for people (including children) learning about something.

That's my point: If you are using the term 'Christianity' in a way that runs completely contrary to the Encyclopedia Britannica, then other people are going to find your idiosyncratic description confusing. That doesn't facilitate better discussion on a forum like this.

[cms]

Couldn't a Jew, Hindu or Muslim assert this line exists in regard to their own religion with equal conviction, based on something in their own holy book? Certainly a Jew could, since the Old Testament is used by both religions.

Diagoras, In my mind's eye, Christianity encompasses a lot of people. However, it is minimally defined as love of others as self. That's it. It's not a big umbrella term. We don't all fall under the banner of Catholicism just because we share similar beliefs. All it takes is a difference of one belief and it becomes a different group. Catholics and Lutherans, for example share some beliefs, but they are two different groups, with different names. The NT has already defined Christianity as X, one word. So if you come along and say Christianity is now X plus Y then you've made a different group.