@The_Riv, ok. I might be wrong to 'steer things in a log/speck' direction in my interpretation of what you seem to be saying.
I'm afraid though, that this appeared, to me at least and perhaps I'm pilot the only one, to be the trajectory you were heading in.
How do I know whether anyone in the pews is a 'worshipper' rather a 'follower'?
I don't see them in the workplace, at home with their family, what they do the rest of the week. For all I know they might be taking up their cross and following Christ in ways I can only guess at.
I don't know how we can make those kind of judgements about individuals, groups or congregations, churches, denominations ... unless we have some kind of all-seeing eye or are behaving better ourselves.
I'm in no position to judge anyone.
That might not be the point you are making but it sounds like it. Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
I’m afraid I fail to see how seeing Jesus as a unique embodiment of the divine becomes a convenient substitute for Christians failing to do what he said to do.
I think it's the fairly simple idea that what we nowadays refer to as having faith in Jesus is a substitute for the active discipleship of following him.
Nowadays? Isn’t that precisely what Jesus was talking about with the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25?
I don't see it that way. As The_Riv pointed out, this passage isn't about what people believe - it's about what people do or don't do for those in need.
I see it as being about both. Jesus describes the “goats” as calling him “Lord,” which in the Jewish context of Jesus’s culture is definitely a statement of belief—specifically, belief in the divine nature of Jesus’s authority. Compare Matt. 7:21: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”
Compare the use of the same word in the passage immediately preceding the Sheep and the Goats. In Mt 25:24 "Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter." Or Mt 25:26 "But his lord answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter.'" It looks to me as that the word "Lord" indicates acknowledgement or acceptance of one person's right to judge another. In the Parable of the Talents: a non-divine master and his servants; in the Judgment of the Nations: the divine King sitting on his throne.
There seems to be some debate as to whether "nations" here refers primarily to foreign nations (ie gentiles), but either way, "all nations" includes many people who aren't Jews. I read the passage as relating to the judgment of all those people who didn't (or don't) recognise the divine nature of Jesus' authority during their lives on earth.
In many respects, "following" doesn't require a lot of thought about what you believe, beyond believing in someone sufficiently to want to follow them. In this regard, "following Jesus" has been transformed from active discipleship into a set of beliefs about the One being followed.
By some people. That is my problem with this argument; it may be accurate in some cases, but it’s a massive overgeneralization to state it as a given. It’s confusing correlation with causation. That many focus on belief that Jesus is God Incarnate and ignore following Jesus and living in the way he taught doesn’t mean that believing in Jesus as God Incarnate results in ignoring following him and living as he taught.
Indeed. Why would it?
The “worshippers” vs “followers” categorizations is, in my opinion and my experience, a false dichotomy.
I don't see how you can be a worshipper without being a follower (if those are the terms we're going to use to designate those who hold to his deity and those who try to do what he tells us to to). It doesn't even make sense for someone to say "I worship Jesus" and then ignore his commands. How is that worship?
That's the irony. As you say, it makes absolutely no sense. And it made no sense at all to me during my time as a church-goer.
If you mean that simple assent to a set of doctrines has replaced obedience to his commands, I think you'd have a hard time proving this. I mean, can you bring studies or citations or statistics or something? Mere assertion can be done by anybody. And the other side--that is, those who contend that you can be both a worshipper and a follower (and in fact, most people are both, not substituting one for the other)--well, we CAN bring that evidence. Because if you look at the major works of Christian humanitarianism, they are historically done and being done by people who overwhelmingly hold to the orthodox teachings AND put their faith into practice. Every Christian-founded clinic, hospital, school or university, refugee resettlement agency, etc. etc. etc. stands as a witness to this.
Is that including the ones founded by owners or traders of enslaved people? Or by those who used force to extract their profits from foreign lands? Does it matter how they accumulated their wealth? Or what their personal motives were for their largess?
Is it possible for someone to merely assent to doctrines and do no more? Well, for a short while, I suppose so. But faith without works is dead, and someone in that position would doubtless lose what little faith they had left pretty quickly.
Is it possible to do the works without assent to doctrine? Well, for a short while there, too. But the corresponding danger here is that of being overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the need. My own experience suggests that, if Christ's Spirit isn't working through you (okay, me), you're likely to burn out quickly.
But I digress. Where is the proof that large numbers, or even a majority, of Christians have replaced obeying Jesus with mere belief in teachings about him? Give me something more than mere assertions.
I am quite happy for you to bring your own assertions and overgeneralisations to the table. And as much as you're speaking from your experience, my arguments are what my experiences suggest to me.
PS Whether God's Spirit (aka the Holy Spirit, cf Christ's Spirit) was working through me was a question I used to ponder.
I’m afraid I fail to see how seeing Jesus as a unique embodiment of the divine becomes a convenient substitute for Christians failing to do what he said to do.
I think it's the fairly simple idea that what we nowadays refer to as having faith in Jesus is a substitute for the active discipleship of following him.
Nowadays? Isn’t that precisely what Jesus was talking about with the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25?
I don't see it that way. As The_Riv pointed out, this passage isn't about what people believe - it's about what people do or don't do for those in need.
I see it as being about both. Jesus describes the “goats” as calling him “Lord,” which in the Jewish context of Jesus’s culture is definitely a statement of belief—specifically, belief in the divine nature of Jesus’s authority. Compare Matt. 7:21: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”
Compare the use of the same word in the passage immediately preceding the Sheep and the Goats. In Mt 25:24 "Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter." Or Mt 25:26 "But his lord answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter.'" It looks to me as that the word "Lord" indicates acknowledgement or acceptance of one person's right to judge another. In the Parable of the Talents: a non-divine master and his servants; in the Judgment of the Nations: the divine King sitting on his throne.
Well, they are parables, and we are clearly meant to see the “lords” in them as having authority, not just the right to judge. Perhaps it’s worth noting that the Greek word translated as “servant” in that passage actually means “slave.” The resulting implication is that the “master” owns and has complete authority over the “servant.”
In many respects, "following" doesn't require a lot of thought about what you believe, beyond believing in someone sufficiently to want to follow them. In this regard, "following Jesus" has been transformed from active discipleship into a set of beliefs about the One being followed.
By some people. That is my problem with this argument; it may be accurate in some cases, but it’s a massive overgeneralization to state it as a given. It’s confusing correlation with causation. That many focus on belief that Jesus is God Incarnate and ignore following Jesus and living in the way he taught doesn’t mean that believing in Jesus as God Incarnate results in ignoring following him and living as he taught.
Indeed. Why would it?
The “worshippers” vs “followers” categorizations is, in my opinion and my experience, a false dichotomy.
That is not Christocentric - it's collectively egocentric, and this is my rather controversial point, I think. In terms of looking at this question, I think I would exclude John's gospel as a guide of what Jesus thought of himself, and the organised series of I am statements is the evidence as to why. It is a presentation of a later-formed Christology. I don't have a bible to hand, but my memory is that there are a striking number of statements in the synoptic gospel to the effect that Jesus saw himself as being neither a unique expression of the divine nature, nor even especially good. That figure's mission, it seems to me, is to show people how to find God, not to express uniquely the nature of God. He also was looking for followers - people who would do what he was doing - not worshippers. He was looking for God, and invites us to do the same, and to use the evidence he offers in our search. But the search is for God, not for Christ. To that extent, my contention is that most Christians are far more Christocentric than originally intended, as an alternative to the terror of doing the real work themselves.
I understood this, particularly the last sentence, to be contending that the idea that Jesus is in some way divine of central is not what Jesus himself and his earliest disciples thought (and even if John is excluded, I think that contention requires selective reading of the synoptic Gospels), and that emphasis on the divine and/or central nature of Christ happens in order to avoid focus on doing the work Jesus called us to do.
Well, I'm not sure what to say. I don't know how many times @Lamb Chopped & others have reminded me (that's not a complaint or criticism) that as a human institution the Church couldn't possibly be free of all of the foibles of humanity, and yet it seems too be impossible for some, even the same people, to comprehend that human beings could claim Jesus, but neglect the harder things he instructed them to do. Jesus alluded to that in his parable of the two sons, at least tangentially. "Well some Christians may do that, but you can't make that sweeping generalization about the whole Church." Well, what kind of Christianity are we talking about, then? I find myself back on my hobby horse: what is Christian? Anything? "Faith Alone in Christ Alone" is a hell of a lot easier than doing even the few examples Jesus cited for "the least of these." Deathbed conversions for unspeakably bad people having borne exactly zero spiritual fruit for others? Fine. A whole secular life spent in selfless service to others in the most dire need: damned. Fine? Make it make sense. What's the necessary ration between "believing in" Jesus and doing what Jesus instructed? Is there one at all? (These are rhetorical questions I've asked in a number of threads. Please don't feel as if they need addressing yet again here.)
Institutionally, the Church seems to have been designed to produce worshippers rather than followers. It's clearly possible to do both, but for much of the past 2000 years, it appears that the Church has focused its resources on creating and running places of worship.
And Fellowship. How many Christians rely solely on the vehicles of Church ministries to do the tasks of Jesus? I'd guess most. How many of those same ministries' annual budgets absolutely pale in comparison to the operating costs of the Churches that house them? I'd guess most again. Throw in a corporate jet. It's Joel Osteen all over again. We're gonna quibble over definitions, but ISTM that 'worship' today is largely a question of music, hearing scripture read and exposed upon, corporate prayer, corporate almsgiving, and sometimes the sacrament of communion. It's doing, or having church on Sundays. Wednesdays, too, if you're in the Deep South.
I worked for a couple of years at a 'historic' downtown, "flagship" church. Nothing was more celebrated, it seemed to me, than the Homeless Ministry that featured a weekly morning outreach. The local homeless came once each week for a meal, but only after a worship service preceded by a Homeless Choir rehearsal of all things. Nearly exactly the same population of homeless people came to this event week in, week out the whole time I was there, and I was met with consternation when I asked about this seeming maintenance of homelessness as opposed to actively reducing it. Full(-er) disclosure, there were a couple of part-time custodians who were brought on via the Homeless Ministry, but those individuals were still ministry participants, and they never advanced beyond part-time, at least during my two years. This church was wealthy, though, by any standard. Still is. Does that pass? The Good Samaritan didn't require religious observance for care of the wounded traveler. How many religious missions can claim as much? Perhaps more today than in times past, but those times, past... oof.
Missed the edit window. Here, @Lamb Chopped, is some semi-recent 'involvement' data. Can you extrapolate anything from it? If many Christians aren't "plugged-in" to their own churches, how engaged are they likely to be outside of their own churches? What subset of the involved portion should we grant are privately engaged in efforts on behalf of the least of these? We can safely say it isn't all of them.
Well, I'm not sure what to say. I don't know how many times @Lamb Chopped & others have reminded me (that's not a complaint or criticism) that as a human institution the Church couldn't possibly be free of all of the foibles of humanity, and yet it seems too be impossible for some, even the same people, to comprehend that human beings could claim Jesus, but neglect the harder things he instructed them to do.
Who in this thread has said that’s impossible to imagine?
The one and only thing I'm arguing against is the idea that the majority of Christians have substituted the worship of Christ for obedience to Christ. Note that word "majority." You can find idiots anywhere. I am arguing that the idiots do NOT form a majority of the Christian church. Got it?
Much of the Christian church is, I believe HarryCH. Blame it on those who constructed the Canon.
Except that those who constructed the Canon wouldn't have understood the Pauline epistles in the same way as post-Reformation Protestant Christians did in Western Europe.
Of course there were precursors of all that. We can draw a line from Augustine to Anselm to Aquinas to the Reformers.
But surprise, surprise, the Christian East doesn't understand the Pauline corpus in exactly the same way as Protestants do, or RCs come to that ...
Who in this thread has said that’s impossible to imagine?
Someone other than me started up about 'worshippers vs. followers,' but that's not the idea I was suggesting earlier. @Lamb Chopped started to serve my point when she shared:
...imposing some kind of super-belief about Jesus of Nazareth has been a convenient substitute for emulating the example of Jesus of Nazareth...
And if that passes for Christianity, I think it's way more Paul-y than Jesus-y, but no one seems to be able to say (whether super-belief passes muster), so I dunno.
I’m not clear what you mean by “serve my point.” And I’m beginning to think I’m wasting my time. If you or anyone want to say that worshipping Jesus is a convenient substitute for obeying him, there is absolutely nothing I can do but get on with disproving your point by living the opposite. I will therefore leave this argument and go do both things at once, as I’ve always done—that is, both worship him and serve him by obeying what he told us to do.
Fantastic! But look, @Lamb Chopped, before you disappear, please make sure you understand that for some reason you keep substituting "worshipping / obeying" for what I've said, and reacting against that, at least in part. I can't be responsible for that. What I've said, for a third time, now is:
...imposing some kind of super-belief about Jesus of Nazareth has been a convenient substitute for emulating the example of Jesus of Nazareth...
Thing is, @The_Riv it seems to me that we can't avoid veering into judgmental or Pharisaical territory if we take your assertion to its logical conclusion.
Rather than point the finger at anyone else we should all be thinking what we can do to follow Christ, if we are among those who profess to do so.
To use a secular example, and I'm not having a go at the UK's Labour Party here, but someone was telling me the other day about a Labour activist friend for whom nothing the Party or his local branch did was ever socialist or 'Labour' enough.
Whatever they said or did fell short as far as he was concerned.
That may or may not be the case. I can't possibly be the judge of that.
I'd suggest though, that in some ways his chosen political party operates consistently with its stated ideals, in other ways less so.
The same with religious faith convictions.
Christ sets the bar pretty highly. And then some.
'Who is equal to these things?'
I'm not. @Lamb Chopped isn't. @Nick Tamen isn't. Nor is any one else on this thread. Neither would they claim to be.
As an Orthodox Christian I look forward to our Easter Vigil. Yes, it's a 'worshipping' thing but it also meant to be a 'following' thing (both/and, right?), insofar as there will have been fasting, almsgiving and so on.
It was ruined this time by rowdy and inappropriate behaviour by loud and lairy revellers, some drunk and abusive, who turned up for cultural or whatever other reasons. Does that invalidate the Vigil itself or the intentionality (to use a more RC term) of those who sought to participate in it sincerely and devoutly?
I have no idea how wonky or otherwise the churches you've been involved with have been.
I'd suggest though, that if they hadn't fallen short in the ways you've outlined, they'd have fallen short in other respects.
Other churches elsewhere may not mirror the mistakes or foibles you highlight from your own experience but as sure as eggs are eggs they will have fallen short in some other way.
You are clearly someone who has become disillusioned with church life and with faith. Ok. That's unfortunate but there it is. These things happen.
But I don't recognise all the features you highlight. I know Christians who would celebrate and applaud good stuff done through secular agencies or individuals who operate outside a faith context the same as anyone else would.
Whether they do or don't it doesn't invalidate whatever those secular agencies or individuals do.
Why all these false dichotomies?
If someone does someone else a favour, they do someone else a favour.
The only people I come across who sit in judgement on that sort of thing are extreme fundamentalists of whatever type. Heck, even hyper-Calvinists, for instance, have a concept of 'common grace'.
Even extreme sacramental types will concede that God isn't limited to particular forms and ceremonial.
And if that passes for Christianity, I think it's way more Paul-y than Jesus-y, but no one seems to be able to say (whether super-belief passes muster), so I dunno.
Plenty of people have been able to say. They just haven't accepted your premises. You're talking like the chess-playing pigeon.
I'm sorry that's an unfamiliar reference to me, but it sounds tedious. I can, also, like @Lamb Chopped, take my leave and carry on. I don't have any piety to flash as a parting shot, but at least I can know I'm decluttering the thread.
Thing is, @The_Riv it seems to me that we can't avoid veering into judgmental or Pharisaical territory if we take your assertion to its logical conclusion.
Rather than point the finger at anyone else we should all be thinking what we can do to follow Christ, if we are among those who profess to do so.
Christ sets the bar pretty highly. And then some.
'Who is equal to these things?'
I'm not. @Lamb Chopped isn't. @Nick Tamen isn't. Nor is any one else on this thread. Neither would they claim to be.
The thing is, there are some Christians who are perfectly comfortable with pointing out issues among their fellow faithful. Layperson accountability is part of Christianity, and is not limited to top-down authority structures. Are there not scriptural warnings against false prophets and false doctrines? Are they not judgmental? Too often I read along the lines that judgement/accountability/correction is to be avoided altogether, or left to an individual and God. No, no one on this thread has said that explicitly, but the friendly warnings against "Pharisaical territory" always seem to me to be more than casual reminders of virtue.
I have no idea how wonky or otherwise the churches you've been involved with have been.
I'd suggest though, that if they hadn't fallen short in the ways you've outlined, they'd have fallen short in other respects.
Other churches elsewhere may not mirror the mistakes or foibles you highlight from your own experience but as sure as eggs are eggs they will have fallen short in some other way.
Two of them endured significant crises during my tenure. Others have been typically 'human.' "Falling short" is one thing, but I've been a part of churches in which damage has been done intentionally, or risked (and realized) intentionally. Should we not, identify and acknowledge mistakes and foibles? In both institutions and individuals, particularly when harm is occurring? Of course we should.[/quote]
You are clearly someone who has become disillusioned with church life and with faith. Ok. That's unfortunate but there it is. These things happen.
Indeed, but we need not discuss that again here.
But I don't recognise all the features you highlight. I know Christians who would celebrate and applaud good stuff done through secular agencies or individuals who operate outside a faith context the same as anyone else would.
Whether they do or don't it doesn't invalidate whatever those secular agencies or individuals do.
Why all these false dichotomies?
I posited one thing in this thread: that a super-belief in Jesus has conveniently replaced doing the things Jesus instructed. "All these false dichotomies" seems a bit much. Others here have mis-stated or misconstrued my statement, and if that's the way the thread wants to go that's the way the thread wants to go, but I don't think I was vague, or controversial. Plenty of people take a path of least resistance when available. Faith pursuits aren't necessarily different in that regard. but I seem to have suggested some kind of Christian chimera, or at least planted the seed of one. Maybe I should have leaned toward 'cultural Christian' or some such thing. At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand if a simple claim of belief alone is, in fact, enough, or legitimate, or correct. The correct part matters to me, even as one backslidden & lapsed.
I posited one thing in this thread: that a super-belief in Jesus has conveniently replaced doing the things Jesus instructed.
I will admit that I have a bit of trouble making sense of this, unless I’m completely misunderstanding what you’re saying. I would think a “super-belief” about Jesus would naturally need to a stronger inclination to do the things he instructed. I would think that one is more likely to think they must do what Jesus said if they believe Jesus is God than they would be if they think he was nothing more than human, even if a very wise and “good” human.
It has seemed to me that what is being described is people who say they believe something, but whose actions give no evidence of that belief, or at least suggest that it’s not a belief that really matters to them.
Maybe I should have leaned toward 'cultural Christian' or some such thing.
Perhaps, or perhaps “hypocrite.”
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand if a simple claim of belief alone is, in fact, enough, or legitimate, or correct.
Nobody is saying that 'false prophets' shouldn't be called out nor that church leaders shouldn't be accountable, still less that Christians can't be hypocrites.
It seems to me that if anyone even attempts to provide a more nuanced view than your 'It's all a load of rubbish, Christianity doesn't work' one, then you'll either accuse them of parading their piety or ignoring the shitty stuff that churches can and do get up to.
I don't see anyone here denying that churches can be abusive or hypocritical.
I'm sorry that's an unfamiliar reference to me, but it sounds tedious.
The point is, you're not responding to the responses. You're just telling us that they haven't answered your question - without showing any signs that you've tried to understand them.
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand if a simple claim of belief alone is, in fact, enough, or legitimate, or correct. The correct part matters to me, even as one backslidden & lapsed.
As Nick Tamen says, enough for what? Legitimate according to which law code and for what purposes?
(Presumably those of us on this thread who are believers in the Nicene Creed would believe that simpler claims implied by the Nicene Creed are also correct. If one believes that the Nicene Creed is true then it would be odd to think that subpropositions within the Creed aren't also true.)
As far as we know, its earliest recorded expression came in a March 2005 user-submitted review of the book Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction on Amazon.com, which applied the imagery to a debate between the two camps referenced in the book's title:
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
...
Well, they are parables, and we are clearly meant to see the “lords” in them as having authority, not just the right to judge. Perhaps it’s worth noting that the Greek word translated as “servant” in that passage actually means “slave.” The resulting implication is that the “master” owns and has complete authority over the “servant.”
Yes - although I think the nature of that ownership varied across the regional cultures. My understanding is that the Greek word carried a range of meanings, even at the time (in addition to modern connotations) and can be translated in various ways. I tend to think of it as being "bondslave" or "bondservant".
... Jesus saw himself as being neither a unique expression of the divine nature, nor even especially good. That figure's mission, it seems to me, is to show people how to find God, not to express uniquely the nature of God. He also was looking for followers - people who would do what he was doing - not worshippers. He was looking for God, and invites us to do the same, and to use the evidence he offers in our search. But the search is for God, not for Christ. To that extent, my contention is that most Christians are far more Christocentric than originally intended, as an alternative to the terror of doing the real work themselves.
I understood this, particularly the last sentence, to be contending that the idea that Jesus is in some way divine of central is not what Jesus himself and his earliest disciples thought (and even if John is excluded, I think that contention requires selective reading of the synoptic Gospels), and that emphasis on the divine and/or central nature of Christ happens in order to avoid focus on doing the work Jesus called us to do.
I don't know about Thunderbunk, but I don't subscribe to the contention about this being in order to avoid the real work, which makes it sound intentional.
Regarding Jesus' divinity, my understanding is that the early followers struggled to come to terms with Jesus' non-reappearance after his departure. For those that were expecting him return within their own lifetimes, the longer that he remained away, the more the pressure to find an explanation, or to give up. We don't know how many gave up - all we know about are the ones who kept their faith alive by finding a way to continue believing in him, those beliefs becoming embedded in the faith that they passed on to their own and future generations.
For me, there is less causality about a corresponding shift from following to worshipping (compared to some who have posted on this thread). I see it more as a consequence or a side-effect of the way that belief in Jesus developed. As to how this relates to divinity, I suggest someone's divinity is rather more tightly bound up with the obligation to worship them than with the obligation to follow in their footsteps.
I'm also not sure what a super-belief is. I think it could be a meta-belief - that is, a belief about belief (in Jesus).
I posited one thing in this thread: that a super-belief in Jesus has conveniently replaced doing the things Jesus instructed.
I will admit that I have a bit of trouble making sense of this, unless I’m completely misunderstanding what you’re saying. I would think a “super-belief” about Jesus would naturally need to a stronger inclination to do the things he instructed. I would think that one is more likely to think they must do what Jesus said if they believe Jesus is God than they would be if they think he was nothing more than human, even if a very wise and “good” human.
It has seemed to me that what is being described is people who say they believe something, but whose actions give no evidence of that belief, or at least suggest that it’s not a belief that really matters to them.
Maybe I should have leaned toward 'cultural Christian' or some such thing.
Perhaps, or perhaps “hypocrite.”
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand if a simple claim of belief alone is, in fact, enough, or legitimate, or correct.
Enough for what?
Enough to merit the atoning death of Jesus. Enough to gain eternal bliss in heaven with God. Is merely claiming a belief in the divinity, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus enough all by itself? Can I avoid church, not pray, hoard my wealth, hate my neighbor, strike the cheek of one who strikes mine, refuse to forgive, go and fail to do likewise, covet, lust, yadda yadda yadda, and get past the pearly gates?
I'm sure I didn't coin 'super-belief,' but what I've meant by it is holding the belief that one's belief in Jesus is the primary and only thing necessary for Christian salvation.
The point is, you're not responding to the responses. You're just telling us that they haven't answered your question - without showing any signs that you've tried to understand them.
Well, I'll try harder.
As Nick Tamen says, enough for what? Legitimate according to which law code and for what purposes?
(Presumably those of us on this thread who are believers in the Nicene Creed would believe that simpler claims implied by the Nicene Creed are also correct. If one believes that the Nicene Creed is true then it would be odd to think that subpropositions within the Creed aren't also true.)
We're still only talking about belief, though. Draw out the subpropositional outline as deeply as you like -- there's no doing in the Creeds. No scripture study. No church attendance. No almsgiving. No caring for the widow, orphan, or stranger. No suffering the little children. Why care about any doing if I can just believe?
What law code, indeed. What standard? Can we just agree there is no real standard? Because @Gamma Gamaliel has already shared that
the Christian East doesn't understand the Pauline corpus in exactly the same way as Protestants do, or RCs come to that...
so the baseline is one of disagreement. Carry forward 971 years from The Great Schism -- how are we doing?
It seems to me that if anyone even attempts to provide a more nuanced view than your 'It's all a load of rubbish, Christianity doesn't work' one, then you'll either accuse them of parading their piety or ignoring the shitty stuff that churches can and do get up to.
I don't see anyone here denying that churches can be abusive or hypocritical.
I think that's a pretty harsh reduction of my struggles and inquiries here, however poorly attempted. But when bold-faced piety enters the chat, I'm absolutely gonna call it that. I invite you to do the same.
And it's far less about saying Christianity doesn't work as much as it is asking how to make all of the Christianities work. Are we sure everybody is getting it right? Are there even any real consequences for getting it wrong, or is a "A for effort" as @Lamb Chopped might explain, all we should expect or hope for?
I posited one thing in this thread: that a super-belief in Jesus has conveniently replaced doing the things Jesus instructed.
I will admit that I have a bit of trouble making sense of this, unless I’m completely misunderstanding what you’re saying. I would think a “super-belief” about Jesus would naturally need to a stronger inclination to do the things he instructed. I would think that one is more likely to think they must do what Jesus said if they believe Jesus is God than they would be if they think he was nothing more than human, even if a very wise and “good” human.
It has seemed to me that what is being described is people who say they believe something, but whose actions give no evidence of that belief, or at least suggest that it’s not a belief that really matters to them.
Maybe I should have leaned toward 'cultural Christian' or some such thing.
Perhaps, or perhaps “hypocrite.”
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand if a simple claim of belief alone is, in fact, enough, or legitimate, or correct.
Enough for what?
Enough to merit the atoning death of Jesus. Enough to gain eternal bliss in heaven with God.
Ah, well, if that’s what we’re talking about, I come from a tradition that says nothing at all we can do is ever enough for that. We can’t ever merit the atoning death of Jesus. And yet, it’s a done deal, a fait accompli. We can never do enough to gain eternal bliss in heaven with God. That is God’s gracious gift, which we can never earn.
Is merely claiming a belief in the divinity, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus enough all by itself? Can I avoid church, not pray, hoard my wealth, hate my neighbor, strike the cheek of one who strikes mine, refuse to forgive, go and fail to do likewise, covet, lust, yadda yadda yadda, and get past the pearly gates?
Well, again, I think that that if one avoids church, doesn’t pray, hoards wealth, hates neighbor, strikes the cheek of one who strikes theirs, refuses to forgive, goes and fails to do likewise, covets, lusts, yadda yadda yadda, then there is a reasonable doubt as to whether they really believe in the divinity, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. Yes, this may verge on No True Scotsman territory, but if a claimed belief isn’t born out in action, then it seems reasonable to question whether it’s a sincere belief to start with. Action speak louder, and all of that.
But again, I come from a tradition that says doing all of those things that Christ taught aren’t at all about “meriting the atoning death of Jesus” or “gaining eternal bliss in heaven with God.” Rather, they’re about thankful responses to what God has already done in Christ, about growth into our full humanity (and Christ showed us what that full humanity looks like) and about doing our bit to bring about the Kingdom of God. They’re more, “you’ve been given this gift, what are you going to do with it?”
Are we sure everybody is getting it right? Are there even any real consequences for getting it wrong, or is a "A for effort" as @Lamb Chopped might explain, all we should expect or hope for?
I’m generally convinced that while we all get close to right from time to time, there’s no one (and no tradition) who always gets it right. And yes, I think doing our best, but doing so with some humility, is being faithful.
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand if a simple claim of belief alone is, in fact, enough, or legitimate, or correct.
Enough for what?
Enough to merit the atoning death of Jesus. Enough to gain eternal bliss in heaven with God. Is merely claiming a belief in the divinity, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus enough all by itself? Can I avoid church, not pray, hoard my wealth, hate my neighbor, strike the cheek of one who strikes mine, refuse to forgive, go and fail to do likewise, covet, lust, yadda yadda yadda, and get past the pearly gates?
I'm sure I didn't coin 'super-belief,' but what I've meant by it is holding the belief that one's belief in Jesus is the primary and only thing necessary for Christian salvation.
You were up until now asking what was sufficient belief to count as being a Christian, which seems to me an entirely different question. 'Christian' and 'saved' are different words with different meanings. Even if someone - incoherently in my view - thought that the set of Christians and the set of saved people had identical denotations and referents they would still have different senses and connotations.
I'm a universalist, as was Paul (in my opinion), so I rather reject the premise.
Furthermore, I don't believe any official Christian theology has it that intellectual assent to some checklist of doctrinal propositions is either necessary or sufficient for salvation. I think every official Christian theology holds that repentance is important and that faith implies some disposition to respond.
As Nick Tamen says, enough for what? Legitimate according to which law code and for what purposes?
(Presumably those of us on this thread who are believers in the Nicene Creed would believe that simpler claims implied by the Nicene Creed are also correct. If one believes that the Nicene Creed is true then it would be odd to think that subpropositions within the Creed aren't also true.)
We're still only talking about belief, though. Draw out the subpropositional outline as deeply as you like -- there's no doing in the Creeds. No scripture study. No church attendance. No almsgiving. No caring for the widow, orphan, or stranger. No suffering the little children. Why care about any doing if I can just believe?
I was responding to your question about what is correct, not to your question about what is enough. 'Enough' and 'correct' are not synonyms. Neither is 'legitimate' a synonym for either 'enough' or 'correct'.
If we're drilling down into the Nicene Creed where does it say that any of the propositions in the Nicene Creed are either necessary or sufficient for salvation? Where in the Nicene Creed did you get 'I can just believe' from? The Nicene Creed is about belief because it arose out of a controversy about belief - it's just not about what one ought to do.
(Christianity certainly offers motivations for acting well - it's just that 'so I can be saved' is not one of them in any orthodox theology.)
Comments
I'm afraid though, that this appeared, to me at least and perhaps I'm pilot the only one, to be the trajectory you were heading in.
How do I know whether anyone in the pews is a 'worshipper' rather a 'follower'?
I don't see them in the workplace, at home with their family, what they do the rest of the week. For all I know they might be taking up their cross and following Christ in ways I can only guess at.
I don't know how we can make those kind of judgements about individuals, groups or congregations, churches, denominations ... unless we have some kind of all-seeing eye or are behaving better ourselves.
I'm in no position to judge anyone.
That might not be the point you are making but it sounds like it. Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
There seems to be some debate as to whether "nations" here refers primarily to foreign nations (ie gentiles), but either way, "all nations" includes many people who aren't Jews. I read the passage as relating to the judgment of all those people who didn't (or don't) recognise the divine nature of Jesus' authority during their lives on earth.
Indeed. Why would it?
As I wrote,
Or Paul-centric as read through a particular hyper-Protestant lens (present Protestant company excluded).
Is that including the ones founded by owners or traders of enslaved people? Or by those who used force to extract their profits from foreign lands? Does it matter how they accumulated their wealth? Or what their personal motives were for their largess?
I am quite happy for you to bring your own assertions and overgeneralisations to the table. And as much as you're speaking from your experience, my arguments are what my experiences suggest to me.
PS Whether God's Spirit (aka the Holy Spirit, cf Christ's Spirit) was working through me was a question I used to ponder.
Yes, but you are not the only person who has been participating in this conversation. Early on in this particular part of the conversation was this:
I understood this, particularly the last sentence, to be contending that the idea that Jesus is in some way divine of central is not what Jesus himself and his earliest disciples thought (and even if John is excluded, I think that contention requires selective reading of the synoptic Gospels), and that emphasis on the divine and/or central nature of Christ happens in order to avoid focus on doing the work Jesus called us to do.
And Fellowship. How many Christians rely solely on the vehicles of Church ministries to do the tasks of Jesus? I'd guess most. How many of those same ministries' annual budgets absolutely pale in comparison to the operating costs of the Churches that house them? I'd guess most again. Throw in a corporate jet. It's Joel Osteen all over again. We're gonna quibble over definitions, but ISTM that 'worship' today is largely a question of music, hearing scripture read and exposed upon, corporate prayer, corporate almsgiving, and sometimes the sacrament of communion. It's doing, or having church on Sundays. Wednesdays, too, if you're in the Deep South.
I worked for a couple of years at a 'historic' downtown, "flagship" church. Nothing was more celebrated, it seemed to me, than the Homeless Ministry that featured a weekly morning outreach. The local homeless came once each week for a meal, but only after a worship service preceded by a Homeless Choir rehearsal of all things. Nearly exactly the same population of homeless people came to this event week in, week out the whole time I was there, and I was met with consternation when I asked about this seeming maintenance of homelessness as opposed to actively reducing it. Full(-er) disclosure, there were a couple of part-time custodians who were brought on via the Homeless Ministry, but those individuals were still ministry participants, and they never advanced beyond part-time, at least during my two years. This church was wealthy, though, by any standard. Still is. Does that pass? The Good Samaritan didn't require religious observance for care of the wounded traveler. How many religious missions can claim as much? Perhaps more today than in times past, but those times, past... oof.
Except that those who constructed the Canon wouldn't have understood the Pauline epistles in the same way as post-Reformation Protestant Christians did in Western Europe.
Of course there were precursors of all that. We can draw a line from Augustine to Anselm to Aquinas to the Reformers.
But surprise, surprise, the Christian East doesn't understand the Pauline corpus in exactly the same way as Protestants do, or RCs come to that ...
Which in your closest words was: Coupled with this from a bit later in the same post: I happen to think it's possible for a very long while. The length of a whole so-called Good Christian life, even.
Rather than point the finger at anyone else we should all be thinking what we can do to follow Christ, if we are among those who profess to do so.
To use a secular example, and I'm not having a go at the UK's Labour Party here, but someone was telling me the other day about a Labour activist friend for whom nothing the Party or his local branch did was ever socialist or 'Labour' enough.
Whatever they said or did fell short as far as he was concerned.
That may or may not be the case. I can't possibly be the judge of that.
I'd suggest though, that in some ways his chosen political party operates consistently with its stated ideals, in other ways less so.
The same with religious faith convictions.
Christ sets the bar pretty highly. And then some.
'Who is equal to these things?'
I'm not. @Lamb Chopped isn't. @Nick Tamen isn't. Nor is any one else on this thread. Neither would they claim to be.
As an Orthodox Christian I look forward to our Easter Vigil. Yes, it's a 'worshipping' thing but it also meant to be a 'following' thing (both/and, right?), insofar as there will have been fasting, almsgiving and so on.
It was ruined this time by rowdy and inappropriate behaviour by loud and lairy revellers, some drunk and abusive, who turned up for cultural or whatever other reasons. Does that invalidate the Vigil itself or the intentionality (to use a more RC term) of those who sought to participate in it sincerely and devoutly?
I have no idea how wonky or otherwise the churches you've been involved with have been.
I'd suggest though, that if they hadn't fallen short in the ways you've outlined, they'd have fallen short in other respects.
Other churches elsewhere may not mirror the mistakes or foibles you highlight from your own experience but as sure as eggs are eggs they will have fallen short in some other way.
You are clearly someone who has become disillusioned with church life and with faith. Ok. That's unfortunate but there it is. These things happen.
But I don't recognise all the features you highlight. I know Christians who would celebrate and applaud good stuff done through secular agencies or individuals who operate outside a faith context the same as anyone else would.
Whether they do or don't it doesn't invalidate whatever those secular agencies or individuals do.
Why all these false dichotomies?
If someone does someone else a favour, they do someone else a favour.
The only people I come across who sit in judgement on that sort of thing are extreme fundamentalists of whatever type. Heck, even hyper-Calvinists, for instance, have a concept of 'common grace'.
Even extreme sacramental types will concede that God isn't limited to particular forms and ceremonial.
Enough of this already.
The thing is, there are some Christians who are perfectly comfortable with pointing out issues among their fellow faithful. Layperson accountability is part of Christianity, and is not limited to top-down authority structures. Are there not scriptural warnings against false prophets and false doctrines? Are they not judgmental? Too often I read along the lines that judgement/accountability/correction is to be avoided altogether, or left to an individual and God. No, no one on this thread has said that explicitly, but the friendly warnings against "Pharisaical territory" always seem to me to be more than casual reminders of virtue.
Two of them endured significant crises during my tenure. Others have been typically 'human.' "Falling short" is one thing, but I've been a part of churches in which damage has been done intentionally, or risked (and realized) intentionally. Should we not, identify and acknowledge mistakes and foibles? In both institutions and individuals, particularly when harm is occurring? Of course we should.[/quote]
Indeed, but we need not discuss that again here.
I posited one thing in this thread: that a super-belief in Jesus has conveniently replaced doing the things Jesus instructed. "All these false dichotomies" seems a bit much. Others here have mis-stated or misconstrued my statement, and if that's the way the thread wants to go that's the way the thread wants to go, but I don't think I was vague, or controversial. Plenty of people take a path of least resistance when available. Faith pursuits aren't necessarily different in that regard. but I seem to have suggested some kind of Christian chimera, or at least planted the seed of one. Maybe I should have leaned toward 'cultural Christian' or some such thing. At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand if a simple claim of belief alone is, in fact, enough, or legitimate, or correct. The correct part matters to me, even as one backslidden & lapsed.
Anyway, I do thank all of you for your responses.
It has seemed to me that what is being described is people who say they believe something, but whose actions give no evidence of that belief, or at least suggest that it’s not a belief that really matters to them.
Perhaps, or perhaps “hypocrite.”
Enough for what?
Nobody is saying that 'false prophets' shouldn't be called out nor that church leaders shouldn't be accountable, still less that Christians can't be hypocrites.
It seems to me that if anyone even attempts to provide a more nuanced view than your 'It's all a load of rubbish, Christianity doesn't work' one, then you'll either accuse them of parading their piety or ignoring the shitty stuff that churches can and do get up to.
I don't see anyone here denying that churches can be abusive or hypocritical.
The point is, you're not responding to the responses. You're just telling us that they haven't answered your question - without showing any signs that you've tried to understand them.
As Nick Tamen says, enough for what? Legitimate according to which law code and for what purposes?
(Presumably those of us on this thread who are believers in the Nicene Creed would believe that simpler claims implied by the Nicene Creed are also correct. If one believes that the Nicene Creed is true then it would be odd to think that subpropositions within the Creed aren't also true.)
I don't know about Thunderbunk, but I don't subscribe to the contention about this being in order to avoid the real work, which makes it sound intentional.
Regarding Jesus' divinity, my understanding is that the early followers struggled to come to terms with Jesus' non-reappearance after his departure. For those that were expecting him return within their own lifetimes, the longer that he remained away, the more the pressure to find an explanation, or to give up. We don't know how many gave up - all we know about are the ones who kept their faith alive by finding a way to continue believing in him, those beliefs becoming embedded in the faith that they passed on to their own and future generations.
For me, there is less causality about a corresponding shift from following to worshipping (compared to some who have posted on this thread). I see it more as a consequence or a side-effect of the way that belief in Jesus developed. As to how this relates to divinity, I suggest someone's divinity is rather more tightly bound up with the obligation to worship them than with the obligation to follow in their footsteps.
I'm also not sure what a super-belief is. I think it could be a meta-belief - that is, a belief about belief (in Jesus).
I'm sure I didn't coin 'super-belief,' but what I've meant by it is holding the belief that one's belief in Jesus is the primary and only thing necessary for Christian salvation.
Well, I'll try harder.
We're still only talking about belief, though. Draw out the subpropositional outline as deeply as you like -- there's no doing in the Creeds. No scripture study. No church attendance. No almsgiving. No caring for the widow, orphan, or stranger. No suffering the little children. Why care about any doing if I can just believe?
What law code, indeed. What standard? Can we just agree there is no real standard? Because @Gamma Gamaliel has already shared that
so the baseline is one of disagreement. Carry forward 971 years from The Great Schism -- how are we doing?
I think that's a pretty harsh reduction of my struggles and inquiries here, however poorly attempted. But when bold-faced piety enters the chat, I'm absolutely gonna call it that. I invite you to do the same.
And it's far less about saying Christianity doesn't work as much as it is asking how to make all of the Christianities work. Are we sure everybody is getting it right? Are there even any real consequences for getting it wrong, or is a "A for effort" as @Lamb Chopped might explain, all we should expect or hope for?
Well, again, I think that that if one avoids church, doesn’t pray, hoards wealth, hates neighbor, strikes the cheek of one who strikes theirs, refuses to forgive, goes and fails to do likewise, covets, lusts, yadda yadda yadda, then there is a reasonable doubt as to whether they really believe in the divinity, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. Yes, this may verge on No True Scotsman territory, but if a claimed belief isn’t born out in action, then it seems reasonable to question whether it’s a sincere belief to start with. Action speak louder, and all of that.
But again, I come from a tradition that says doing all of those things that Christ taught aren’t at all about “meriting the atoning death of Jesus” or “gaining eternal bliss in heaven with God.” Rather, they’re about thankful responses to what God has already done in Christ, about growth into our full humanity (and Christ showed us what that full humanity looks like) and about doing our bit to bring about the Kingdom of God. They’re more, “you’ve been given this gift, what are you going to do with it?”
I’m generally convinced that while we all get close to right from time to time, there’s no one (and no tradition) who always gets it right. And yes, I think doing our best, but doing so with some humility, is being faithful.
I'm a universalist, as was Paul (in my opinion), so I rather reject the premise.
Furthermore, I don't believe any official Christian theology has it that intellectual assent to some checklist of doctrinal propositions is either necessary or sufficient for salvation. I think every official Christian theology holds that repentance is important and that faith implies some disposition to respond.
I was responding to your question about what is correct, not to your question about what is enough. 'Enough' and 'correct' are not synonyms. Neither is 'legitimate' a synonym for either 'enough' or 'correct'.
If we're drilling down into the Nicene Creed where does it say that any of the propositions in the Nicene Creed are either necessary or sufficient for salvation? Where in the Nicene Creed did you get 'I can just believe' from? The Nicene Creed is about belief because it arose out of a controversy about belief - it's just not about what one ought to do.
(Christianity certainly offers motivations for acting well - it's just that 'so I can be saved' is not one of them in any orthodox theology.)