Subject:
|
Re: What does it take to be a true Christian?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 Oct 2001 14:49:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
436 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > How's that? I'd call Koresh a Christian, just not a mainstream one. What
> > does it take to be a 'true' Christian?
>
> I'm very interested in some answers to this, actually-- particularly from a
> Christian perspective. I think I've tried to define Christianity a couple
> times as certain sets of philosophical/moral beliefs combined with
> supernatural beliefs, however, those have seemed to prove "holy" (as in
> hole-filled :).
>
> So. Really, there's two issues behind the "what does it take to be a true
> Christian", I think:
> 1. What are your beliefs?
> 2. How closely have you adhered to those beliefs?
>
> I mean, I don't think Christianity endorses murder, but yet Crusaders in the
> 1000's AD probably saw themselves as Christian when killing Muslims. Or when
> killing Protestants during the Reformation. Or killing Jews in WWII. Or
> enslaving blacks in the south. Were they all true Christians? Honestly, I
> think they were-- though I just think their interpretation of the Bible just
> wasn't in sync with what the "common" view of Christianity is today.
> *OR* their knowledge base was off. After all, back then, some of the
> oppressed were viewed as "sub-human"; and I don't think there's anything
> about killing/enslaving animals in the Bible. So perhaps if they viewed the
> oppressed as "human" they wouldn't have acted so? Not in all cases, though,
> since clearly (I think) the Reformation doesn't fall under that category...
>
> Hence, does the measure of being a true Christian necessarily include how
> well you've adhered to your own beliefs? Or is it merely what principles you
> believe in, regardless of how well you've followed them?
To be a true Christian, I'd say that one must be first squarely in agreement
with the essentials of the faith--the clearest and most basic beliefs that
the early believers held regarding the person of Christ, and have which been
a bedrock of belief amongst the "body of piety" since. Paul writes to the
church in Corinth: "For what I received, I passed on to you as of first
importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that
he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve." This
passage, i think, encompasses the most basic Christology required of a
believer: i.e., that Christ suffered a death that was meant by God to
somehow expiate our guilt, that he actually died, was actually resurrected
by God, and that his resurrection was reliably verified. Such a basic
belief is what Christian scholars call a kerygma. Kerygma (Greek for
"proclamation," "announcement," "teaching" is "the initial gospel
proclamation designed to introduce a person to Christ, and to appeal for
conversion... [it is that which] appears to contain the preaching thrust of
the church in a nutshell" (Williams). Now, one may disagree with these
assertions, but the defense of these assertions is another matter; my
purpose is to lay out what I think most Christians within historic
Christianity would agree with. Others would no doubt add to my assertion,
and indeed the kernel of the nut may be larger than what i have offered, but
it, cannot, I believe, be smaller.
Now, the problem is that the kernel i have offered does not cover rules of
behavior. This is because Christians believe that no amount of good
behavior, in and of itself, is sufficient for salvation; nor is any bad
behavior, in and of itself, so vile as to prevent God from exercising mercy.
Thus, behavior is not *the* absolute bedrock foundation of the
faith(although, as I will explain, behavior is a layer that tightly
encompasses the core.) Can one disregard behavior, whilst holding to the
core, kill a few infidels, have a few slaves, and generally eat, drink, and
be merry while so doing? Herein we have the paradox: while one cannot be a
Christian without proper assent to a basic declaration of faith-content
(i.e., Christ sacrificed and risen, etc.), one must also become obedient to
behaviors that will make one like Christ; thus, discipleship is a journey
which culminates in salvation. In still other words, you can not be a
disciple without accepting the basic kerygma, but you must then accept the
cost of personal discipleship (following in the footsteps of the Twelve.
The requirements of discipleship's journey are called, again by Christian
scholars, the didache. Didache (Greek for "doctrine" or "teaching") refers
to the doctrinal and ethical teaching of the church into which a person
needs to be grounded once they become a Christian" (Williams). The kerygma
are didache--the beliefs and ethics--are intertwined. One cannot become a
Christain from mere Christian ethics--salvation requires basic belief--but
one cannot remain a Christian without the adoption of certain ethics which
are a factor of obedience to becoming like God.
I'd offer that we can thank the writer of the Epistle of James for his
contributions regarding our understanding of the dichotomy of faith and
belief with Christianity. James (not to be confused with the Apostle James)
writes:
"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no
deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without
clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well;
keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what
good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
action, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.'
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
Paul adds to the mystery of the faith/action dichotoomy when he writes to
the Phillipians, admonishing them to "continue to work out your salvation
with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act
according to his good purpose."
Faith at its most basic level is assent to a belief, but the proof of that
assent is in actual working obedience to the belief. Belief is what brings
one to salvation; action is what sustains that belief, and in so doing
sustains the salvation. The Christian experience is a great flowing,
changing, many-faceted thing; it is like a fractal which is always changing
directions back upon itself. My answers will no doubt fail to satisfy the
person who demands of Christianity simple precepts. Christianity can lead
one in a thousand different directions --just as all great philosophical
matters tend to do--but I personally find comfort in this, as I would have
reason to suspect Christianity did it too easily yield answers to the great
questions which have plagued humans and have proven to be, if nothing else,
difficult.
> Lemme try my hand at it. Correct me, please.
>
> In order to be a true Christian, you need to:
> 1. Believe that the New Testament is divinely inspired. Perhaps not directly
> (I.E. perhaps parts are flawed as it was written by people), but at least
> that some sort of divinity inspired its authoring.
If you cannot have reaonable confidence in the source, then you are lame
from the beginning. I'd say that one must believe that God had his hand in
things. This belief necessitates trust in the reliable authority of the New
Testament writers, for they are our source.
>
> 2. Believe that Jesus was similarly divinely inspired, if not actually
> perfect. Again, maybe there are those out there who would deem themselves
> Christian (whom I might agree with, dunno) who think that Jesus was more of
> a 'direct link' to God, rather than God in human form... I'll leave that
> open for the moment.
Believe as the first disciples did: that Jesus is the Son of God. What does
that mean? Quite a lot, but at kernel it at least means that he was sent
from God.
> 3. Believe that (obviously inferred from above) some sort of supernatural &
> universal being is out there "somewhere", and that this being's intents
> towards humanity, or at least 'creation' in general are good, even if not
> *perfectly* good (I'll leave that open too).
Belief in God is essential, for nothing else follows if that is not present.
> 4. Believe in a moral system derived from the New & Old Testaments, more
> closely following those from the New Testament, particularly where the two
> conflict on the matter.
Yes. Believe that God is the sort of being who values set XYZ of behavior,
and believe that he is the sort of being to whom obedience is owed.
> Now, with #4, perhaps we can expand that moral system's definitions a bit
> more? Does every morality derived from the Bible necessarily share certain
> traits, or even a single one? For example, can you be Christian and somehow
> derive an ethic of "rape is great" out of the Bible? Why or why not? To what
> extent can we generalize these derived moralities?
"There is nothing new under the sun." Neither the Old or New Testaments
introduced any new elements of morality that did not previously exist. Can
you imagine an entirely different moral ethic? I mean an entirely different
ethic? I've often said this, but at the risk of being redundant, can you
conceive of an entirely different moral ethic that is the absolute flip side
of all that undergirds human societies? If I may quote a rather long
passage by C.S. Lewis from his boook Mere Christianity:
"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior
known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different
ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have
been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to
anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to
compare the moral teachings of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians,
HIndus, Chinese, Greek and Romans, what will really strike him will be how
very like they are to each other and to our own...I need only ask the reader
to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country
where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt
proud of doublecrossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You
might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.
Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be selfish to--whether
it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But
they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first.
Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you
should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not
simply have any woman you liked."
Christianity offers a refinement of certain moral principles, but it does
not offer paradigm-shifts in moral understanding that would lead to
assetions such as rape is great. Christianity refines and matures the
principle "do as has been done to you" and offers instead "do as you would
have done to you." In this regard, Christianity offers moral refinement and
moral improvement to a pre-existent and pre-understood law of human
relations--i.e., that there is a certain set of one's fellows to whom
charity is due. On one level, the New Testament is really a refinement of
the moral sensibilities of Old Testament man. The person of Jesus Christ
acts as a lens through which we view and understand with sharpened
perceptions the spectrum of human conduct as it applies to moral obligations.
I still have not addressed the issues of jihads and slavery, and such.
While I am confident that I can make a robust case that these are not
"Christian" behavior, and thus, a true Christian cannot practice them, I can
only offer a meager response to a question that yet remains which asks
whether an "untrueChristian" can behave thusly. In other words, can a man
who, through ignorance or insufficient faculties for understanding right and
wrong, rob, murder, kill and destroy, yet somehow, through God's mercy,
remain in the fold? I'd say that God's mercy is unfathomably wide, and it
is entirely possible that a man will be welcomed into the presence of God at
the end, but that we, who know better, dare not put this mercy to the test.
We are here venturing into Christian concepts of judgement, which is beyond
the scope of our discussion at the present, I think. To the beattitude
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God," C.S. Lewis adds "For
they shall want to." And again, C.S. Lewis remarks (paraphrased) that "In
the end there will be only two types of people: Those who say to God "Thy
will be done," and to those whom God says "Thy will be done." Anyone who
wants to see God will, but the danger is that we shall so darken our hearts
by vile actions such that we no longer want to see him, though he is ready
to forgive our vilest transgressions.
I hope my comments have been of some help.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What does it take to be a true Christian?
|
| (...) I wonder if C.S. Lewis examined the Mayan belief system? The Mesoamerican system of gods is pretty alien. They are neither good, nor bad, taken as a whole, just more powerful. Further, I have to wonder if the ethos of "be willing to sacrifice (...) (23 years ago, 27-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | What does it take to be a true Christian?
|
| (...) I'm very interested in some answers to this, actually-- particularly from a Christian perspective. I think I've tried to define Christianity a couple times as certain sets of philosophical/moral beliefs combined with supernatural beliefs, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
