Harmony
I was reading the campus paper this afternoon and in it was an article about conflict in the church. Its basic message was that it's really sad how divided the church is, and that we should have more dialogue within the Church. "When we get baptized, do we sign up for something that is bigger than our personal tastes and political affiliations?"
The core sentiment of the article is a very pure and noble and good sentiment. It desires unity, fellowship, understanding... which is certainly laudable. But it has felt to me, in this Reformed place that is so focused on the invasive effects of human fallenness, that people seem to sit and mourn that the Church isn't the one big body we want it to be without considering how important denominations actually are. Maybe I'm too acutely aware of this because I've never felt that I've belonged in a denomination or in the church I grew up in, but without denominations, there would be unbelievable amounts of conflict within the church, and that's why it split up. But what about if there were no conflict? Then we'd never make any progress, we'd never have reason to fight for better understanding, we would live as automatrons, we'd be boring as hell... I value the diversity in our world. It is stupid that we demonize other faiths. But I don't necessarily see the difference between respecting people of other denominations and wanting to make the Christian Church a body and wanting to make all people of faith - or all people of belief - or all people, period - one cohesive body. It's not like everyone (in or out of the church) will ever comply completely, it's not like they'll even all read the passage people site to motivate their desire for unity in the same way. We can learn things from all people, not just other Christians. We should promote unity and understanding between all worldviews. I don't see why we, as the "Christian Church," which really has no rigid boundaries, have to pretend that we agree more with each other than we might agree with people outside the Church. My strongest disagreements have come from inside.
The core sentiment of the article is a very pure and noble and good sentiment. It desires unity, fellowship, understanding... which is certainly laudable. But it has felt to me, in this Reformed place that is so focused on the invasive effects of human fallenness, that people seem to sit and mourn that the Church isn't the one big body we want it to be without considering how important denominations actually are. Maybe I'm too acutely aware of this because I've never felt that I've belonged in a denomination or in the church I grew up in, but without denominations, there would be unbelievable amounts of conflict within the church, and that's why it split up. But what about if there were no conflict? Then we'd never make any progress, we'd never have reason to fight for better understanding, we would live as automatrons, we'd be boring as hell... I value the diversity in our world. It is stupid that we demonize other faiths. But I don't necessarily see the difference between respecting people of other denominations and wanting to make the Christian Church a body and wanting to make all people of faith - or all people of belief - or all people, period - one cohesive body. It's not like everyone (in or out of the church) will ever comply completely, it's not like they'll even all read the passage people site to motivate their desire for unity in the same way. We can learn things from all people, not just other Christians. We should promote unity and understanding between all worldviews. I don't see why we, as the "Christian Church," which really has no rigid boundaries, have to pretend that we agree more with each other than we might agree with people outside the Church. My strongest disagreements have come from inside.
Reading through this, I had two issues:
ReplyDelete1 "It is stupid that we demonize other faiths." I wouldn't say we necessarily demonize other faiths, more that we recognize that those faiths are wrong, and for good reason.
2 "the 'Christian Church,' which really has no rigid boundaries" The "Christian Church" has dogmas (like for example, God made the world. or, We are sinful by nature and this separates us from God) which are rigid boundaries. Unless you mean something else?
I would respond as such:
Delete1) I didn't mean just other religions with the word "faith," I meant other denominations of Christianity as well. And I'm perfectly okay with openly disagreeing with other people. That's a healthy part of any personal faith - understanding what it is one believes and doesn't believe is what defines a worldview.
2) Who decides what is dogma and what isn't, and what dogma actually does? Those are pretty general dogmas - I've heard other people say that the theology of substitutionary atonement is dogmatic. Most Christians still believe in that theology, but there are people that call themselves "Christian" that don't. Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian? They call themselves Christian. Do they deserve to be called by their own label, or do we claim authority over their own self-identification?
1) Agreed
Delete2) The Bible determines dogma, doesn't it? So no, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, because the Mormons (though they claim to believe the Bible) follow a bunch of anti-Biblical teachings, like "God isn't eternal" or "there are multiple Gods," while Jehovah's witnesses have similarly anti-Biblical teachings, like "Satan rules the world."
I also find it more than likely that you question the reliability of the Bible, so I figure I probably ought to address that as well. Basically, from what I understand, the Bible was assembled by some council of early Christians who essentially decided what books would or wouldn't be in it. (I'm sure there was more to the process than just that, but I don't feel like doing a bunch of research right now). I'm going to stop talking right now, because I just realized I haven't the foggiest idea why I believe the Bible to be true, and THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT. ;) Actually, I was surprised by my blind faith in the Bible (no thanks, Sunday School teachers), and think I might find myself agreeing with you. Dang. We'll see. I'll respond with what I find as soon as I actually know what I'm talking about.
2A) Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that their teachings are anti-Biblical. They would have responses to your accusations.
Delete2B) I question everything. I've been called to do so since I was a tiny child. To question does not necessarily mean to doubt, and to doubt does not necessarily mean to lose faith; even to lose faith is only to put faith in something else, or to lose the name for a faith that has always been a different thing.
2C) My case in point here is that the moment a bit of inquiry is pumped into the system, there open many different ways to resolve the existing conflict. And depending on individual convictions and experiences, people fall to different sides of any given argument. Why distance ourselves from them if they got there through the same process by which we arrived here? I'm all for dialogue, but I'm not an evangelical. It's not my job to claim the title of Universal Conscience. God may do that, if he so please.
2A) Im just curious and a different anon than the one before, but do you personally think their teachings are anti-biblical? and aren't those difference what distinguish them as from their particular denomination (if youre jehovah's witness) or religion (if you think they aren't christian)?
ReplyDeleteTheir teachings are not anti-biblical, because as far as I know, they teach the authority of Scripture. I might say that my personal convictions have lead me to believe that their assertions about what the Bible actually says are pretty askew - I am certainly neither Mormon nor Jehovah's Witness - but I'd even think twice about calling their beliefs "unbiblical." What does it mean for a belief to be unbiblical? For it not to be supported by the Bible? But they do believe that it's supported by the Bible. Am I going to say that transubstantiation is an unbiblical way of understanding communion? Sure, but hesitantly, because it's only unbiblical from my perspective, and I run the risk of deeply insulting people for no good reason if I phrase my expression of disagreement that way.
DeleteAh, so this is where you’re wrong (first anon here, I figured I'd reply here, as it makes no difference where I respond, except that this is a better segway) After this boring (and grossly simplified) but necessary history lesson, you'll see what I mean.
DeleteOnce upon a time.... (300 ADish)
There were a bunch of Church councils (like Council of Nicaea) that disputed the meanings of scriptures, what should be in the scriptures, and what is/isn't dogma. Those early Christians took into account everything they possibly could in order to be certain that they discovered the truth on these issues whenever possible. These are the guys who determined the dogmas Christians hold to today. Anyone who wants to challenge the dogmas laid down by these scholars has the burden of proof to show that they somehow got it wrong.
Here's where the Mormons (I'm deciding to address them first, I'll get to the Jehovah's witnesses in a moment) come in. They believe that through special revelation (John Smith) the New Testament is still growing, and new doctrines are still being discovered, for lack of a better term. So they say that they are actually following the Bible, when in fact they follow the Book of Mormon, which is, in essence, an unfounded (I'll defend this in a moment) extension of the New Testament. So, the Mormons have three little syllogisms going: "1 Book of Mormon is special revelation from God, special revelation from God ought to be/is Biblical, therefore Book of Mormon ought to be/is Biblical (as extension to New Testament) 2 Book of Mormon is Biblical extension, we follow Book of Mormon (and Bible whenever they agree, because the Book of Mormon is more recent, we can remove the parts of the Bible), therefore we follow the Bible 3 People who follow the Bible are Christians, we follow the Bible, therefore we are Christians" The Mormons just follow a different Bible, and though they have the burden of proof they cannot prove John Adam's special revelation (the entire foundation of their faith). Weak, at best. Because they cannot prove it, they put their trust in the special revelation of one man over the ethos of the entire Christian Church that existed over a thousand years closer to the time of Jesus.
Jehovah's witnesses, on a similar note, also follow a different “Bible.” The difference between the Christian Bible and the Jehovah’s Witness’ “Bible” is not an extension, but more of a different translation of the Greek. (If necessary, I can point out the specific places they mistranslated/misinterpreted, but for the sake of brevity, I shall remain from doing so at this time) In a gross simplification of the beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses, it’s basically a repeat of the Arian controversy (Jesus is the highest created being...) which, incidentally, was dealt with by those early church councils I mentioned earlier. They deemed it to be a heresy, even though it was the favored side to win going into the debate (this just goes to show there was no conspiracy within the church and that they fact-checked like no other to maintain as much objectivity as is possible for humans)
I also would start a debate on why you think transubstantiation is unbiblical "from your perspective" but I'm not sure now would be a good time, as we're already in the middle of a different one.
Just to get this straight...you're a different person from the first Anonymous? Why y'all just give names, or pseudonyms, or something? lol
DeleteYou say that one of the Mormons' premises is: "People who follow the Bible are Christians, we follow the Bible, therefore we are Christians." I think that's a rather mainstream-centric way of putting it. Mormons aren't wannabe Christians; they're obsessed with Jesus. Read this and tell me that you wouldn't call the people that write it "Christian." They're certainly a very distinct branch of Christianity, since they do have a whole different Scripture added on, but if a Christian is "someone that follows Christ" - even "someone that follows Christ as their divine lord and savior" - then Mormons fit the bill. I imagine that telling a Mormon they don't care about the Bible is like telling a Christian they don't care about the Old Testament. Why not use the label they prefer for self-identification? It doesn't make us disagree any less, it just minimizes conflict.
You say Church councils preserved "as much to objectivity as is possible as is possible for humans." I would say that that's not a whole lot of objectivity, and that the fact that people still disagreed afterwards proves that it wasn't indisputably objective. Once again, if a man named Spaghetti lived in 30AD and amassed followers, and then some of those followers decided at 200 or 300 or 500AD that another group of followers were "heretics," does that honestly make the second group any less Spaghettian? Perhaps they think it's good to eat kimchi on their spaghetti and you think that's nasty and unnatural. You might very well be right. But you're both Spaghettian if you're both obsessed with Spaghetti.
A couple edits:
Delete*why don't y'all
I forgot the link after "Read this": http://www.mormonbeliefs.org/
Well, I'm not 100% sure why you feel the need to know who is who, but I guess I'll clear this up... There has only been two Anons, I am the anon who has been doing the arguing - the other only other anon was that other person who asked:
ReplyDelete"2A) I’m just curious and a different anon than the one before, but do you personally think their teachings are anti-biblical?. . . . "
I have written all of the other comments. I do hope you like my new pseudonym;)
Anyway - First off, I wouldn't go around citing evidence in an argument from websites like "Mormon beliefs dot org," but, I haven't actually cited evidence for anything I've said, so... touché. Next, I would like to point out that though you have claimed that the Christian church "has no rigid boundaries," you implied that Christianity is defined by basically loving/being obsessed with Jesus - "Mormons aren't wannabe Christians; they're obsessed with Jesus." So unless you can somehow prove that your definition (essentially the dogma) of Christianity is superior to the one given by the Councils, we use the Council's definition (under which, I might add, Mormons are not Christians).
I skimmed the article, and it took me very little time to find "Mormons believe the Church of Jesus Christ was restored to its fullness through Joseph Smith in 1820." Honestly, I may just be griping about word choice, but you can't "restore" anything to something it never was. That's called modification, but "modified" doesn't sound as nice in the sentence as "restored," now does it? It is basically the biggest giveaway that Mormons aren't Christians. I would argue that modifying the church from what it was when Jesus was alive is more perversion than anything else.
Okay, the argument against the objectivity of the council is really unnecessary - they did everything within human capability to obtain Truth, and while that is not absolutely certain, it’s good enough for me - until someone can come up with some rational reason that they were wrong. And the whole Spaghettian analogy was more silly than anything else, because all you did was change the word "Christ" to "Spaghetti" and then you started talking about eating him, YOU CANNIBAL. But it basically comes down to the definition of "Spaghettian," to continue your analogy.
"Why not use the label they prefer for self-identification? It doesn't make us disagree any less, it just minimizes conflict." If minimizing conflict is your goal in life, any further argumentation would be a waste of both your time and mine. My goal in life is to know Truth and follow God to the best of my ability, so arguing with each other would make no sense. So unless you want to argue about what is and isn’t, don’t bother even responding.
I. Maybe I should phrase it this way: my definition of "Christian" hinges on linguistic authenticity instead of theological particularities. I couldn't call someone "vegetarian" if they refused to eat any vegetables, because vegetarians....eat vegetables. Likewise, anyone that call themselves "follower of Christ" is free to call themselves "Christian," because I respect people's self-identification and the "fact" of someone's Christianity makes no difference to me whatsoever. I have no right to judge, and I feel no need to put people in either box - I'd treat them no differently regardless of the answer. So in response to your last point... I believe that it is important (not my goal in life) to eliminate unnecessary or detrimental conflict. And putting specific and exclusive labels on people so I feel more comfortable judging them is both unnecessary and detrimental (for me and for the labeled individual), so I try not to do that.
ReplyDeleteII. About the link to mormonbeliefs.org and the word "restore":
1) Blog comments aren't like essays. The reason I used that site is because it's written by a Mormon and seems like a relatively popular site, such that it might represent a decent chunk of Mormons' beliefs.
2) Perfectly "orthodox" protestants and catholics frequently say that Martin Luther and Vatican II (respectively) "restored" the Church... for example: (http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/10/the_story_of_martin_luther_the.php), (http://vatican2voice.org/6unity/restore_unity.htm). The modern Church is very different from the pre-Reformation Church. Was Martin Luther a perverter of the Christian faith?
III. I'm willing to concede that they did everything within human capacity to obtain Truth. But I also believe human capacity to obtain Truth is pretty freaking limited. Do with that as you wish. There are gazillions of people in this world that believe sound reasons have been found to support that the counsels were mistaken. You probably call them "heretics" and "non-Christians."
Right, so instead of accepting the dogmatic definition of Christianity laid down by the councils, you're using a linguistic definition. You can't just do that - the word "Christian" encompasses so much more meaning than just the etymological. Consider this, if Christianity had any other name (Like what if we were all called Horps - I’m tired, I made up a name), you wouldn't be able to use the etymology of the word as your definition, and you'd be forced to come up with a real definition for us. What's in a name? Nothing. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And you wouldn't be able to define a rose as "rosy" anymore - you would actually have to describe it: red, flower, thorns on the stem… In other words, you would have to define the traits that actually constitute a rose. That's what the councils did, and unless you want to give me any specific "sound reasons have been found to support that the counsels were mistaken," I'm afraid I will have to dismiss that argument. I wouldn't try to argue that the councils were infallible, though, that would be foolish. Regardless, they are "innocent until proven guilty" - we assume they got it right unless someone can prove otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI think I may already have guessed your objection to this, so I might as well add this: The simplest way for early non-Christians to distinguish between Christians and Jews - one of them followed Christ, hence the name. But that’s the problem with using that definition - it oversimplifies Christianity - in that time may have been fine, if there was no schism within the Christian (by your definition) community, but by no means is it acceptable now.
Yeah, I knew I was just being finicky about word choice, and the difference between Luther and Mormons is what specifically each perverted. Luther only perverted the secondary doctrine of the Catholic Church; he didn't touch the dogma given by the early church councils unlike the Mormons. So he didn't pervert Christian faith, only the parts that weren't made explicitly clear by the councils.
Okay. I totally get where you’re coming from. Where I’m at right now is that I believe the councils got it right, the Mormons are not Christians, but I agree that the fact that they are not Christian doesn’t really matter to me. What matters to me is that the councils got it right, so I’d rather this argument shift in that direction rather than continue as is.
So yeah, this whole dispute comes down to whether or not the councils got it right... and (contrary to what I may have implied) I'm open to believing that they got it wrong - I was really uneasy at first (when I did my research a week ago) about accepting that they got it right. So prove me wrong. Give me an example of a specific thing they got wrong, and reason it through for me. I might find myself agreeing with you. We'll see.
"You can't just do that - the word "Christian" encompasses so much more meaning than just the etymological." I'm saying that it's unnecessarily exclusive and insulting to impose a specific, disputed personal interpretation of a certain term on another person in such a way as to cause conflict. It doesn't seem to achieve any real goal, so I see no reason to label people either "Christian" or "nonChristian." The reason we're able to label a rose a rose is because it is easy and noncontroversial to group species into genuses into classes, etc., and the lines between different things are relatively hard. We're not able to label metaphysical things - like happiness or love - because they don't have clearly defined edges. What is love? What is happiness? Give me genus and species, and I'll concede that it's possible to contain the boundaries of Christianity in a creed or dogma. I have no idea why you seem to think that a lack of belief in that dogma takes the burden of proof; default is a lack of belief (mind, not a counter belief). If the councils want us to think they're credible, they've got to prove it, and not everyone will be convinced.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Why is a specific definition necessary?
I love that you've assumed that I believe the counsels were hocus pocus. I happen to be pretty satisfied with the Biblical cannon as it is, but not necessarily because I believe the scriptures are "inspired" (though I'm really very much interested in that idea's validity, because of all the crazy prophesies and all the random ways stuff in it is in good accord with reality in ways it doesn't seem like it would be normally) or because I believe the counsels were inerrantly guided by the Spirit of God. As I see it, the counsels recognized something that existed in the text already. There's nothing magical about the scriptures, and nothing magical about the people that compiled them. But their work was good and laudable, and it shouldn't just be cast aside.
First off, I would like for you to learn the difference between "council" and "counsel" - we are talking about "councils," "counsel" is advice.
ReplyDeleteClearly, we define the term "Christianity" differently. Since neither of us is willing to accept the other's definition, I have decided that arguing that issue is a waste of my time, and I'm not one for wasting time.
Instead, I'll address the issue you had with the credibility of the councils. "default is lack of belief" - I absolutely agree. However, the councils have sufficiently proven themselves to be credible, so the burden now falls on anyone who objects to them.
I know you're going to object to my statement about the councils already fulfilling their burden, but unfortunately, I have no time right now (I haven't had any in a long while, hence my late response) so I'll just have to outline it later.
If I may, it seems to me you hold a belief that contradicts one (maybe two?) of dogmas laid down by the councils. I would be more interested in hearing what that belief is, rather than argue this council stuff. Of course, I could be absolutely wrong about this, but everything you have written strongly implies it.
One closing word about the scriptures - the councils didn't really decide biblical cannon; all but like 3 books had already been accepted as doctrine for nearly 200 years prior to Nicaea. And it really makes no difference whether or not you believe the scriptures are "inspired," as long as you believe they are good... otherwise, we aren't arguing about the councils anymore - we're arguing the Bible
I apologize for the egregious misspelling. I think you got the point, though.
DeleteWhat does it mean to "sufficiently prove" something?
I'm willing to disagree with the councils on a couple things. That doesn't mean they didn't do good work.
For the sake of the argument, we can expand "council" to mean "the process of people deciding what's inspired and what's not in the first couple hundred years after Christ."
Before I answer what it means to sufficiently prove something, I would like to ask you, Is the law of universal gravitation sufficiently proven (by your definition)?
DeleteOkay, this time I'll ask my question explicitly, What is it that you disagree with the councils on? (I nearly accused you of copping out of the implied question, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, though I have my doubts that someone as clear-minded as yourself missed my fairly conspicuous question)