mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/10/84)
> Christians tend to look back in retrospect and, if they don't approve > of another Christian individual or group, assert that 'they' are not > really Christians. Even currently, some Christians assert that the > snakehandling groups are not Christians. And the holiness Christian > groups insist that others are not Christians. The facts are that > those outside of Christianity need to follow the adage 'if it looks > like a duck', etc. The internal squabbling of 'I am and you're not' > is irrelevant in my opinion. What is generally accepted as Christian > today could be disavowed tomorrow if it turns out to be convenient. > The Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, and, yes, Hitler are examples of > this. As a minimalist definition of a Christian, I offer the following: A Christian believes in (A) the sinfulness of man, (B) the reality of the incarnation, and (C) salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. A Christian also attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus as best he can. Jesus said that "Not all who say to me Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven." (My apologies for sloppy quotations, but I do not have a bible with me.) Saying that you are a Christian is not sufficient proof. Plenty of evil has been committed in the name of Jesus, to be sure; so also with any majority religion. Are you prepared to argue that evil has not been done in the name of Allah, or YHWH, or Shiva, or...? This internal squabbling that +++ so condemns really falls into several classes. To start at the extremes, there are condemnations of groups which claim the name of Jesus but which pay no attention to his teaching or his resurrection. In my view, these are totally justified. On the other end of the scale there are purely political squabbles of no real doctrinal consequence. Between the two there are all ranges of arguement ranging from arguements concerning difference of usage (i.e. how to conduct worship; these are a favorite within the Episcopal Church) up to serious differences of theology (e.g. adoration of the Virgin). Obviously the former are of little consequence, while the latter are worth really worrying about to any extent. Being a Whiskypalian, I generally divide Religiondom into three groups: obvious non-Christians, borderline Christians whose theology is suspect, and Christians where the theological differences are sufficiently trivial. I would put Hitler in the first group, the snake handlers in the second, and most protestant and orthodox groups in the third. C. G. Wingate