Drunkentune’s Christianty Questions
January 12th, 2007 by 
soulster
Drunkentune and I (soulster) thought we’d like to send each other some questions via email and share the answers with the readers of this blog. Here are three questions by drunkentune concerning my understanding of Christianity:
Drunkentune: Dominionism [wiki] is in part control of all parts of being: the control of the mind within congregation, the control of the dominionist’s body and the bodies of those that violate the dominionist’s rules of conduct, be them homosexual or abortionist, and ultimately, control over the environment. Calvinism [wiki] is the requisition of control to a higher power and absolving all responsibility. I see that all classes of Christianity have different interpretations of scripture that seem to pull from different worldviews existing independently of the Bible or their belief. A Christian may find any message he chooses in the Bible to fit his worldview, or a verse may reinforce such a worldview that had only begun to grow. Is it possible to learn what Jesus meant, or is it that, since Jesus’ words have been used historically for any purpose, is it worth it to even attempt such an endeavor?
soulster: I would like to answer in a couple of ways, so please bear with me. First, you have pointed out a key problem with Christianity in the modern Era. It’s much worse than just Dominionism of various flavors or Calvinism. There are tens of thousands of sects and branches to the Christian faith, each division wrought over some differing view of this or that. I would point out a couple of things from church history, however. First, ecclesiology [wiki] is more often the cause of division than Christology [wiki]. In other words, those who claim to be Christians have fought more often on how church as an institution and event is done than on the meaning of the teachings of Jesus. With the exception of the early councils (which attempted to formalize doctrines on God and Christ’s nature as the faith encountered Hellenism [wiki]), most condemnation of others of the faith is on the grounds of church politics, power plays, and absolutized preferences. A skewed reading of Jesus might follow, but more because Jesus is then used to justify the institution or the key tenant upon which the new institution is build. He becomes a mascot of affirmation, but is incompletely used or ignored otherwise.
I consider myself post-denominational [a blogger def.]. I deny the validity of divisions of the faith based on certain cherished propositions, dogmas or doctrines. I cannot do away with large groups of people systemically. Jesus is the center, and to the extent that I and any human follow him, we may be close to each other, regardless of our view of the margins. But I am not universalistic. I do not view those who have agenda’s other than Jesus as my partners, while they are still humans. We may dialogue, we may be friends, but it is unlikely we will be brothers. But my concern is more about orthodoxy bred by direct interaction with Jesus in the context of life, and orthopraxy in all the arising implications.
Second, you point out another considerable problem with the faith: people read Jesus in a variety of ways. This is true. But I think this is less of a problem if we understand what revelation is all about, and, by implication, what Jesus is all about since it is claimed he is the incarnated revelation of God. Revelation happens only in the context of relationship. In order for me to show you who I am, I must relate to you in some way. In that case, the accuracy and value of revelation depends upon whether it is interactive. Monologue is an extremely ineffective way to show who people are. A preachy parent is not known by the child like a conversant one.
Much of our problems reading Jesus, and all of revelation for that matter, are that we assume that we are discovering a divine monologue, when a dialogue is actually the point. We have over-applied our modernistic methods of truth gathering in this case, I think (for example in the problematic methodology of the Jesus Seminar). Modernism was wrapped up in the astounding opening of the natural world to the human mind. We discovered there a monologue of the universe. We had only to decipher the language of the cosmos left for us. There was no back-and-forth with the data, just beautiful information.
But this hardly works in relationships. You cannot dissect them or experiment on them with great success. Therefore, since revelation is dialogue, at times messy, and we should expect to hear it differently and must work to have a healthy relationship in which to have effective communication. Rules for good conversations should be applied. A good conversation seldom has an end. If we maintain such relationship and communication, especially with each other, we would not be having as much of a problem in this matter. Jesus taught as much, everyone agrees (even many non-believers). If only we would live out his teaching.
Third, of course I think it is worth seeking what Jesus meant. As a disciple of Jesus, I wish to know him, and not just generally. But in order to be this kind of Friend, I must learn to listen, I must learn to be humble, I must practice the teaching that I receive – much more about living than thinking right things. So, metaphorically speaking, there are three Christs I am seeking: the historical Jesus of Nazareth, the theological Jesus of the Cross learned in discipleship, and the Risen Jesus known in the shared experience of common missional narrative.
DT: What do you believe is a Christian?
S: The term ‘Christian’ was applied from outside the faith, at first as a label, and eventually as a pejorative term. People in the ancient world would say “little Christs†with a sort of sneer at the presumption and arrogance of people identifying with a supposed Messiah of the world. I do not like to think of the faith through the term Christian. It seems less descriptive than I want. It has come to refer to a set of doctrines more than a way of life, and I do not like that. But I think it reasonable that anyone who holds Christ to be an important figure in their lives, with some sort of significant influence, can use the term to self identify. I use it often with this meaning since it holds much popular significance.
I prefer the older self-label of “disciple†or “faithfulâ€. One means “learner,†the other refers to efforts to maintain trustworthiness in relationship. These are better terms. I will often ask people if they consider themselves a life-long-learner after Jesus or to be faithfully living after him rather than ask if they are a Christian. It is much more meaningful because it allows people to present themselves in some kind of action or quality, not simply adherence to a system. I attempt to avoid making judgments for people as to whether or not they are or are not a disciple or faithful. Most people are capably of a quick inventory in this regard. It also allows me to respond to the person missionally with compassion based on their response.
Now, on a broad scale, I see the faith as having a center who is Jesus. People are arranged around that center at various distances and with various trajectories. Which of those are true followers, I don’t really know. I can see no line or boundary myself, though there might be one, but it is perhaps better that I can’t. For me, my goal is always to listen to a person’s own impression of their orientation to the center and then to see how we might cooperate to help each other move closer to Jesus.
DT: Is it acts, belief in the divinity of Jesus, or is it another tenant exclusive to a certain sect that makes one a Christian?
S: There are perhaps as many things that could contribute to one being considered a Christian as one being considered an American, so this question is somewhat hard to answer. I would like to answer what I think makes a person a disciple of Jesus at the core. First, it is a willingness to encounter and learn from Jesus. This grows into a lifestyle oriented towards his mission in the world. This mission is very difficult, so it must be sustained by belief as relational trust and belief in Jesus’ power as the source of strength for mission. And yet, even this feels too simple for something so organic and complex. So, perhaps it is belief though action and action powered by belief that separates disciples from armchair religionists and nominalists.
Posted in belief, definitions and descriptions, how to dialogue, scripture, spectrum of belief, why believers believe | 
January 12th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
First, I want to say I was pleasantly surprised at drunkentune’s questions. They pointed to a key issue of the credibility of Christianity (even Jesus knew this would be an issue: see John 17), but did not resort to stereotyping or cheap tricks and demonstrated honest listening. Kudos to drunkentune.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Thanks. I can’t wait to hear any questions you may have.
If anyone has any questions, our emails are available to everyone on the Authors page. I’d be willing to answer as truthfully as I can, and hopefully as well as soulster has.
January 12th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
“I deny the validity of divisions of the faith based on certain cherished propositions, dogmas or doctrines.”
But those divisions say radically different things about what Jesus wanted. Compare the Christologies of a Methodist with a Mormon and you will get very very different answers.
You seem to disdain dogma, but would you consider it dogmatic of me to say “Christ is Lord”? Is that a mere cherished proposition? Or that he, along with the Father and the Holy Spirt, form the Trinity, which is three persons in one being? Because that’s a dogmatic statement as well. Or that his words to us are communicated in the Bible? Again, that’s dogma. Now, tell me about your way of life… well, that is your dogma.
“First, it is a willingness to encounter and learn from Jesus.”
Absolutely right. But what did he intend to teach?
Dogma and doctrines, far from being some kind of barrier or obstacle to “authentic” Christian life, are in fact its sinews and bones. A perfect understanding of Christian dogma isn’t necessary for each and every single Christian, but certainly some things are true, others aren’t, and someone has to know the difference, someone who has been granted the authority to lead and to teach in the Master’s name.
“There are tens of thousands of sects and branches to the Christian faith, each division wrought over some differing view of this or that. I would point out a couple of things from church history, however.”
There aren’t ten-thousand Christianities– there’s one, because there is only one Christ. Deviations from that one faith more or less cease to be the faith given to us by Christ. Let’s look at history. What was the understanding of Christ by the Early Church Fathers? Why do we consider some people to be Early Church Fathers and not, say, Mani? Or any of the Gnostics? Because we both recognize some to be the faithful apostolic decendants of Christ, and Gnostics et al to be a different faith entirely.
You are correct in asserting that the divisions were often about ecclesiology, but you are incorrect about it being the main cause of division. Yes, the Western Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox were divided along ecclesial lines–and yet they hold the same faith– but the Protestant schism and its ten thousand subsequent sub-schisms were not ecclesiology at all–unless you count as ecclesiology the radically new theology that had personal subjectivity as its sole authority.
“So, perhaps it is belief though action and action powered by belief that separates disciples from armchair religionists and nominalists.”
Amen. But belief in what? What actions? Disciples of whom? What makes your theory of the Trinity true and the Mormon’s theory of three seperate gods not true? By what authority have you made the claims that you have made? (Many of which, to be clear, I agree with, especially those about Christianity being fundamentally a relationship.)
My overall point is this: To disparage dogma is to saw off the branch on which you sit.
January 12th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
ben:
I say, “I deny the validity of divisions of the faith based on certain cherished propositions, dogmas or doctrines.” Notice the word ‘certain’, which does not mean all. And again, I am no universalist, so I do see distinctions, but they are in how you or I follow, and work themsleves out in relationship without all the need for definition and demarcation of making everything in the faith based upon an idea. Now, going any deeper into particulars would likely be too messy and prolonged for this space, but we could continue elsewhere.
Also, the wiki on dogma states: “While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being “established” only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation.” I was using “dogma” mostly with the connotation that would be familiar to drunkentune and general readers, but the term can be used positively in theology. I appologixe for any confusion.
Still, I am not enamoured with the concept of dogma itself as it is a belief that cannot be questioned and must be confessed for fellowship. That to me smacks of enforced truth through social control. I think, using that definition, I find dogmata perhaps dangerous and definitely unattractive. I do not agree that there is no foundation to faith without dogma of the usual sort — indisputable and conditional for fellowship. People may fellowship based on what they agree is true without legalizing or formalizing. If they cannot agree, they will not fellowship.
Just because someone makes an assertion or truth statement (like ‘Jesus is Lord’) doesn’t mean it’s a dogma. Not all truth must become dogmata. It’s only dogmata when it is formalized and legalized as the standard of faith and certain parties make it conditional for fellowship. Truth claim + standardized + socially enforced.
Well, of course I can’t go into that here for space. You can see some of what I think about that by reviewing a writing project of mine.
I agree that there is one faith and one Christ theologically and ideally. But who is it? The Roman Catholics? Then what about liberal Catholics and Charismatic Catholics? One of the 40,000 odd denominations in America? I see the boundaries of the Kingdom as less clean, and quite frankly, far beyond my vision. All I can do is ask others how they encounter Jesus and partner with them as far as our theology and committment will allow to carry out his mission. That is enough for the rest of my life, and I do not think I’ll get around to deciding who the one true church is or the one offical creed, council, or statement of faith. People have been arguing that for ages. Call me an intentional simpleton in this regard.
Many people, including myself, read the 95 Theses to be a primarily ecclesiological document, and the responding condemnations of Exsurge Domine and Decet Romanum Pontificem to be about errors concerning the church and authority of the pope (ecclesiology, thought, as is common, they call it theology in the text). Several of Luther’s major theological differences only appeared later, but as a whole his theology was mirrored in things said by Catholic theologians here and there. (Calvin differed to a greater degree under his French legal and theological education.) The arguement goes that Luther would still have been Catholic otherwise.
As to what modern divisions are about, I worked for several years in college with the Clanton Pepper Center for Church Growth’s conflict resolution group that determined that more than 75% of divisions are about church issues, the remainder theology.
If dogma is the branch upon which I sit, that’s news to me. The narrative of Jesus in the Gospel and my working it out in life is my branch. It is active, not passive, so there need be no body of offical authority upon which I stand. I encounter Jesus and his direct authority over my life is foundational enough. Once I have mastered that influence, I may consider the authority of churches, creeds, and theologians.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:23 am
“…without all the need for definition and demarcation of making everything in the faith based upon an idea”
Even as you say that you are doing it. You are demarcating based on an idea. There’s no way to avoid it.
“Just because someone makes an assertion or truth statement (like ‘Jesus is Lord’) doesn’t mean it’s a dogma.”
Well, yes, it does. It’s a creedal statement, a profession of belief in a certain dogma.
“The arguement goes that Luther would still have been Catholic otherwise.”
You confuse the stated reasons for a breakup with the actual. Luther felt himself competent to revise the teachings of the Church based on his own authority. He would not have remained Catholic under any circumstances. His later innovations prove this. The later multi-schismatic history of Protestantism is a further confirmation of the basic idea behind the movement–subjective personal authority.
“I agree that there is one faith and one Christ theologically and ideally. But who is it? The Roman Catholics?”
Why not? They, along with the Eastern Orthodox, are the oldest churches, together comprising the Universal (”Catholic”) Church and they largely agree on nearly every single point of dogma, to the point that talks towards reconciliation are stopped mainly by petty personal tiffs. It is the later sects that have the major disagreements.
“Then what about liberal Catholics and Charismatic Catholics?”
Insofar as they believe the teachings of the Church and hold union with the Church they are members of the Church. Insofar as they create their own dogma upon their own authority they cease to be members of the Church.
“One of the 40,000 odd denominations in America?”
I would guess that they will continue to divide and sub-divide as they have been doing.
“That is enough for the rest of my life, and I do not think I’ll get around to deciding who the one true church is or the one offical creed, council, or statement of faith.”
If you are on a search for the truth, then why not?
“People have been arguing that for ages. Call me an intentional simpleton in this regard.”
I don’t see how it is useful to intentionally not search for the truth as far as you can follow it, or, I should say, follow him.
“If dogma is the branch upon which I sit, that’s news to me. The narrative of Jesus in the Gospel and my working it out in life is my branch.”
That’s dogma. We’re talking as Christian to Christian here. “Dogma” doesn’t mean “bad stuff I disagree with.” It means the things that Christ taught to be true.
“It is active, not passive, so there need be no body of offical authority upon which I stand.”
How does the activity of your faith obviate you from the need of a teacher? I would argue that an active faith is all-the-more in need of an authority.
“I encounter Jesus and his direct authority over my life is foundational enough.”
And Christ, in his authority, appointed teachers over us. “Those who reject you reject me, and those who reject me reject the Father who sent me.”
“Once I have mastered that influence, I may consider the authority of churches, creeds, and theologians.”
You will never “master” that influence. The authority of the Church is an authority given by that Master, and it is an authority given not to dominate or be abused but given for one reason alone, “that they may be one.” Those groups who have rejected in princple this authority are now 40,000 and counting.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, I realize it’s a bit long.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:35 am
You’ve made a tautology missing the final piece: …because the Catholic Church says so.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:58 am
“You’ve made a tautology missing the final piece: …because the Catholic Church says so.”
No, because Christ says so, biblically. Though, in a sense, you are correct, in that we only know what books do or do not belong in the Bible because the Church has said so.
The same criticism can be made of Christ–to parody us: “We believe he is God because he says he is, therefore, since he’s God, he must be telling the truth.” (I don’t think, ultimately, that this is the whole story, but it is a criticism that can be fairly made.)
January 13th, 2007 at 10:21 am
ben,
I didn’t involve the ‘Peter = rock’ reference because as it stands, that tautology can apply to any Christian demonation. I wonder what your response to it is, besides faith that it is true?
January 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I don’t quite understand what you’re asking. Could you rephrase?
January 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
‘Peter = rock’
‘And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18)’
Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church, even when the Church helped shape the contents of the early Bible, giving veracity to their claim that ‘[t]he authority of the Church is an authority given by that Master…’?
Whiew! That’s a mouthful!
January 13th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
ben:
I think this is an effective example to our readers of some differences in Christianity. I self-identify with the emerging church and missional church as a postdenominational, postfundamental Christian who prefers narrative, incarnational, process, and open theology (the last in only some respects), and even some liberation theology. Believers who pratice an emerging theology confess many things that outsiders say is this or that like your saying I’m still using dogma though I say that’s not true (and even sometimes to each other). You’ll just have to trust me on this one (or not). My theological construct is based on centered set rather than bounded set, so that is the key difference and why it may appear that I use dogma when I do not depending on what set type is assumed.
I would take it that you, on the other hand, are not uncomfortable with Catholicism and what is called “Orthodoxy” in general. You might see the Catholic and Orthodox pretty much it as far as the authentic and historical faith. But you may further inform me of your views because I can only piece them together from your comments when mine have been much more explicit since I’m posting.
These differences mean we have a very different understanding of certain parts of church history and perhaps the Christian narrative altogether and certain theological concepts and especially on ecclesiological concerns. In fact, we might be showing our readers two expressions of the same faith that are very different. That much is helpful for this blog, but our continued exploration of matters of our faith would likely be better done in another venue since they have to due with Christian particulars and theology (like my blog on faith at thetruthtree.com).
What might be on topic would be for you to email me your answers to drunkentunes’ questions and I will post them separately here to show the diversity of faith.
January 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Yes.
Objectively speaking, the Catholic Church as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and perhaps the Oriental Orthodox Churches) are the Churches that the apostles and their disciples built.
Now, did Christ give them the authority to do so? According to the Bible(New Testament), yes. But, as you have pointed out, that’s circular, in that the apostles themselves were the ones who wrote and compiled the New Testament. If that makes it untrustworthy to you, then so be it, but in that case there is nothing that we can trustworthily know about what Christ said–Christ having left no writings himself.
In other words, if Christianity is true at all, then the historical Church is the true one.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
ben,
The Catholic Church was not comprised of the first followers of Jesus; Jews were. Jesus wasn’t a Christian; he was a Jew, and his followers were Jews. As Susannah Heschel says, ‘…the more Jewish Jesus was shown to be, the less original and unique he was. If Jesus had simply preached the ordinary Judaism of his day, the foundation of Christianity as a distinctive and unparalleled religion was shattered… As strongly as nineteenth-century Jews tried to show an identity between Jesus and Judaism, Christians tried to demonstrate a difference.’ (S. Heschel, Abraham Geiger, p. 11)
The sects fought over the direction of the faith, and the Catholic Church was born. That does not make the Church wrong, but it certainly don’t make it right.
January 13th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I don’t know who Susannah Herschel is, but she doesn’t seem to know what she’s talking about.
Indeed, you can show an identity between Jesus and Judaism, but that doesn’t mitigate the big big “originality”: Jesus claimed to be God. That’s pretty unique. His apostles claimed the same, and their disciples and so on. You can see objectively and historically that Christianity was seen by Jews of the time to be a heretical offshoot of Judaism–i.e. they saw it as different in a big way.
“The Catholic Church was not comprised of the first followers of Jesus; Jews were.”
Jews who saw themselves as following the new Messiah, the completion and fulfillment of Judaism–in the same way, the Church sees itself as being theologically continuous with the Judaism of the time.
“The sects fought over the direction of the faith, and the Catholic Church was born. ”
One sect that was continuous with the apostles, and many many sects that were not. Again, this isn’t a point of faith, it’s simply historically true, look at the earliest writings of the disciples of the apostles, compare them to the writings of the Gnostics–a radically different belief system.
“That does not make the Church wrong, but it certainly don’t make it right.”
I’m not really arguing here for the truth of the Church overall, what I am trying to establish here is the objective continuity of the Church with the apostles, to the exclusion of other sects at the time.
From that I think that it can be seen that if Christianity is true at all, then it is these objectively continuous Churches (R.C. and E.O.) that are truly reflective of what Christ taught.
If Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are somehow a corruption of what Christ taught, then they immediately became corrupted–before the writing of the Gospels even.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
ben,
There’s three ways to look at Jesus, and there’s plenty of overlap between them: (1) messiah, (2) the son of God, (3) a God.
(1) Within Jewish history there are numerous Jews claiming to be the messiah.
(2) There’s Krishna, Horus, Mercury, the Buddha and Hercules: all sons of gods.
(3) Jesus’ claim of divinity may be unique to first century Judaism, but Imhotep, Caesar, Caligula and Commodus were considered gods as well.
Perhaps if you saw it in a different light: there were no the Jews in the first century. There were Jews in power, and Jews not in power. There were Jews in the Temple and Jews not in the Temple. There were several Jewish sects: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes - the Nazarene Jews developing after Jesus’ death (now modern Messianic Jews).
If you’re looking for the earliest continuous followers of Jesus, then I wish you good luck. The Jewish-Christian schisms of the first century and 325 A.D. come to mind. There’s so many schisms, I can’t keep them straight. You could be correct that the Catholic Church is the continuous Church, but it’s too muddled for me to tell.