A post by Evan Wilson, along with the ensuing discussion on his website, raises several questions about how different "kinds" of professing Christians ought to relate to one another.
Operation World, the excellent guide to praying for the nations of the world, takes a "lowest common denominator" approach to defining a Christian. Because any other approach would involve them in too many complications, they include as "Christians" all groups that call themselves Christians. (They use the same strategy in categorizing Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) This means that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Seventh-day Adventists, syncretistic African and South Pacific churches, non-denominationals, and other groups are all lumped in together with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons under the umbrella term of "Christian." Detailed information is also given to help sort out all these groups so that readers can determine for themselves just how Christian each subgroup really is.
The opposite approach is taken by some in a variety of different denominational and theological traditions. These people hesitate to call anyone a real Christian except those who agree with them on all the key points of theology, or at least of the "Gospel." But depending on who you ask, the key points may be many: the Trinity, the nature of Christ as God-man, predestination and free will, justification by faith, the authority of the Bible, the weight of tradition, the Sacraments (whether or not by that name), the definition and seriousness of sin, the nature of the covenant(s), eschatology, and the list goes on.
Here's a first step toward resolving this problem: True Christian faith is ultimately defined not by what you believe, but in Whom. The Lord Jesus rejoices to answer the honest prayer, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24).
Monday, July 16, 2007
Christians and heretics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Jeff,
Thank you! This was an exceptional post. I think one can lean too far in either direction you mention. The most basic tenets of the faith should be our guide, neither too ecumenical in which one would embrace the JW or LDS beliefs which are not Biblical at all nor those who would say someone wasn't a believer if they didn't believe exactly the same as they, such as those who hold to that "variety of different denominational and theological traditions".
Your last paragraph says it all!
Here here.
Jeff, wie geht es? Mir gefallen deine worter hier. As I see it, the "in whom" is by no means a gimme, since our access to the "whom" is through the Scriptures and tradition. These are co-constitutive of one another: on the one hand, the Church establishes the canon, on the other hand the Creeds and doctrine that define the Church developed from Scripture in response to historical exigencies. The "whom" is in no way exempt from this interpretive and historical--in short, contingent--messiness. The identity of the "whom" and our access to Him are anything but a fait accompli.
Blessings,
Bret
Jeff,
I liked this post quite a bit.
Rose,
If I may, please note that Jeff's definition of Christian in no way excludes Catholics, but rather includes them. Read St. Francis, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis de Sales etc. and you find nothing but the man Jesus Christ. Again, I believe the martyr in his other post was Catholic (or perhaps Orthodox). If someone attacks Catholics, they are attacking Christians.
Perhaps my rhetoric is too harsh. I do find Evan's attacks on other Christians very repulsive, but if others were to attack him, I would find their attacks equally repellant, and defend him. As I have done (before he knew Evan save by reputation, and perhaps poorly) to Jeff himself.
That is, perhaps my defense was poor. Jeff knew Evan only by rumor at the time.
Jeff, excellent post, and the concluding thought is spot on, I believe. Bret Saunders appears to make an attempt at placing divisions based on what "the church" defines as canon, tradition, interpretation "messiness" and the like. In fine, Jesus, the "in Whom" one must believe to be a christian, is Who He is, despite, and separate from, anything I or anyone else might hold to be true of Him. To be sure, there ARE various understandings and interpretains of Him---e.g. the mormons, jw's, the present day postmodern evanjellyfish who think they can be some form of christian and moslem at the same time.....but HE is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. No shadow of turning in Him, nosir. And so it remains incumbent upon us, as believers, to seek out just who He is, and what He requires of us.
Perhaps the best approach would be, in the main, for each of us to not foment over who else might/might not be "in the fold", but seek, each of us, to be there ourselves, persuing a living relationship with the Author and Finisher of our faith, given as free gift through His sacrifice. Remember, in past times, men have been murdered for such things as working to provide the scriptures to the common man, in their own common tongue, or for baptising in a certain way at a certain time..and these by others who claim to be followers of that same Shepherd. How might I judge the servant of Another? Unless it is blatant, best not. Better to work out one's own salvationn in fear and trembling...and leave that of others to them. Oh sure, encourage, build up provoke to love and good works....but remember, the head of every man is......
Nick,
Wonderful perspective! Thank you.
Matthew,
I am not discounting all Catholics as not being of the faith. I personally know many who are wonderful, born-again Christians, and, on the other hand, I also know many who are just relying on the RCC as an entity for their "ticket". One friend whom I dearly love is one such. He is involved in everything Catholic, but his life is not a reflection of Christ. Far from it including foul language, filthy humor, an unforgiving spirit. From those fruits what would one conclude? But he is a KC, involved in all their functions, takes sacrament, practices Lent, and says he believes the creeds.
I appreciate your comment and it's graciousness.
"Rose"
Bret, it's good to see you here!
As I see it, the "in whom" is by no means a gimme, since our access to the "whom" is through the Scriptures and tradition.
Yes, it's true that we come to know Christ through the Scriptures and tradition, but greater than either of these is the Spirit of God. Jesus promised that the Spirit would be in His disciples (John 14:17) and would testify of Him (15:26) and glorify Him (16:14). It was the Spirit who impelled Paul to testify that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 18:5), and it is He who joins with our own human spirits in testifying that we are children of God and joint heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17). Whoever does not have the Spirit does not belong to Christ (8:9).
One must accept the Word of God and the Creeds and other trustworthy church traditions in order to know Christ truly. However, these are not to be believed just because they are holy texts, but because they are given by the Holy Spirit. Once again, at the heart of the matter is not a thing, but a Person.
The Spirit of Christ is in perfect agreement with Christ. As Christ reveals the Father to us, so the Spirit reveals Christ.
Rose
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. A comment in defense of him, and a comment arguing it is perhaps far worse for him than it seems.
First the bad. I think every Christian agrees that what saves is Christ. We are saved by becomming friends of Christ. But at least one close friend of Christ, a man from whom God Himself picked up certian typical expressions, sold Christ for thirty pieces of silver.
Second, I agree that your friend is doing horrible things. Perhaps he's just receiving the Sacrament because he wants certian cultural things, or something like that. But, on my reading, he is still with Christ, and thus Christ is acting on him. He is bad now, perhaps he is too familiar (in the bad sense) with God. But then Emma Woodehouse was too familiar with Mr. Knightly. Yet she still loved him, and was converted by him. (The allusion is to Emma.) Or maybe his attitude toward is like Miss Bennett's toward Mr. Darcy. If Mr. Darcy is completely gone, there is no hope of him affecting her. But so long as she disdains him, she is drawing toward him. (This allusion is to Pride and Prejudice.)
And also, looking at myself, I really don't love much at all.
I read the other day a story about a man who approached an Orthodox priest asking if they could pray together for his friend who had lieukemia (sp?) The priest said "Ok, I'll pray that I get half the cancer, you pray you get the other half." That way we will take it from him.
This is how we as Christians are called to love. Imitate Christ. But Christ took all our griefs and sorrows, all our miseries upon himself. So our love should be "my friend has terminal cancer. God, give it to me, not to him. Let my family suffer, not his (for the Father and the Spirit certianly did not remain allouf from Christ). Let me have a long drawn agony, not him. Let me be abandoned by God, not him."
And I know full well I am not at all willing to do that. If we think we are all that different from your friend, it is only because we forget how high we are called to rise.
Matt
Matthew, excellent description of the height to which we are called...as Jesus commanded: be ye perfect, even as I am perfect. Ouch. But Lord (we protest, rightly) then WHO can attain? Ah, without the Spirit of God, none shall. Good job He is the one who authors, and finishes (perfects) our faith, eh?
As to the example of the RC chap who does it all by rote but appears far from God...yes, this is typical. My Father, having done all "by the book" for 55 years, was brought to the end of himself when his wife, my Mum, left him. He had to face the reality that "something was missing". God met Him, and Dad is now a solid, born again follower of Jesus, and his many years since that day (I was there) bear unassailable testimony to the inner change. HOWEVER (yes, there is usually one of those lurking somewhere near) I have also known many in my life, in many different churches, denominations, etc, who simply go through the motions, learn the right things to do/say, but whose hearts are so far from God I would rather they stop giving lip service to being
"christian". I have come to the conclusion that there is something deep within man's fallen character that simply desires to have someone either do it for us, or tell us what we must do. The RCC do a great job of answering to this desire...just as did the pharisees of Jesus' day, and so many other churches today. It seems not much has changed since that day in the garden, when the two looked to eating that forbidden fruit to answer their felt need, rather than remain in a dependent relationship with their Creator. Some churches do a better job of pandering to this character deficit.
Matthew,
I agree that only through Christ can my friend be saved and my prayer is that God will draw him.
Thank you!
Nick,
Thank you! You are a great encouragement. I went through a similar experience with my father as well. He, too, became a believer and is now with the Lord.
I also have known many in different denominations/churches who are just going through the motions and I do sometimes wish they would stop because they bring a blemish to what nonbelievers perceive the church to be. But I know that if they are going to a Bible believing/preaching church, at least they are hearing the gospel.
Post a Comment