[soc.religion.christian] "People of the Book"

djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (03/16/90)

In article <Mar.13.03.25.49.1990.13844@athos.rutgers.edu> CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg (William de Corbie)) writes:

>I strongly hold that it is possible to examine Christianity
>as a historical, religious phenomenon, in a neutral and
>scholarly fashion, and to arrive at some sort of definition
>of what Christianity, scientifically speaking, is. There 
>must be some essential elements without which a belief cannot
>rightly be called Christian.

I have to agree with this.  While it's useless for various "flavors" of
Christian to beat each other about the heads and shoulders with doctrines
and dogmas and try to "prove" that each other are not *real* Christians
("Real Christians don't drink wine"), it's equally useless to refuse to
set *any* boundary around the meaning of the word "Christian."  That is
simply to make the word meaningless.

C.S. Lewis deplored a trend common in his day, which was to use the word
"Christian" to mean "honorable," "moral," "ethical," "good," or as a general
term of approbation.  While you may or may not like Lewis, this is certainly
a legitimate beef.

For my own purposes:  I use the Apostolic creed as a "litmus test" for
Christianity.  I don't insist that all the words in it must mean to the
testee what they mean to me:  e.g., an R.C. believer may mean "the Roman
church," while a believer more liberal than I may mean "the fellowship of
good people."  But I want an indication of belief in the three-personed
God, the Incarnation of the second Person, the salvation through the second
Person, etc., etc.

>Let me exemplify: The other night, I spoke with a guy who said
>he was a Christian. However, it soon turned out that he was a
>follower of a Hindu guru named "Sei-Baba". The guru had told 
>him that since he had been born in a Christian family, he should
>continue to be a Christian...
>
>This shows how Hindu mission works: it tries to put Hindu teachings
>as a meta-level over Christianity. It never denies any teaching of
>any religion. It says yes to everything, but carefully molds its
>followers in Hindu ways of thought, such as reincarnation and 
>many other ideas which are incompatible with historical Christianity...
>
>For me, this is a question of honesty. 

In charity, let me point out that this is a somewhat parochial point of view.
It may help to understand the peculiar problem Christian missionaries have
faced in Hindu countries.  A typical conversation might go like this.
	"Jesus is God."
	"So?  Who isn't?"

As difficult for novices to understand as is our concept of the Trinity, so is 
the Hindu concept of Godhead.  To a Hindu, everyone really *IS* God.  Those who 
believe that Hinduism is polytheistic have missed the point; all these gods are 
but aspects of the one God.  What we might call a saint is merely someone more
aware of their own divine nature.  Jesus, or Sri Krshna, is completely aware of
his God-nature.  (I may be somewhat conflating Buddhist teachings here, but I
think not.  The "return to Godhead" is fundamental to Hinduism.)

Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for a Hindu to believe that he is also a
Christian.  

I do not believe that he is a Christian (he does not pass my litmus test... I
*think*.  There may be some not-too-twisted meaning of the Creed with which a
sincere Hindu believer can sincerely agree...), but from his point of view, the 
two belief-systems are not mutually incompatible.  In this sense, Hinduism is 
more "inclusive" than Christianity.  From my point of view, of course, it is
*too* inclusive; it allows false beliefs in with the true ones:  but I suspect
that if I really understood, and believed, Hinduism I should have a rather
different point of view as to just what Truth was.

("What is Truth?"  I think I've heard that question somewhere before...)

>I respect Hindus and Mormons
>and other non-Christians as long as they sail under their own flag.
>But when they present themselves as "christians", while teaching
>things that are totally opposed to virtually every central idea in
>historical Christianity, I believe it is important to expose and
>reveal this fraud. 

And I regard your attitude as unnecessarily intolerant.  A Mormon can
certainly meet my Christianity litmus-test.  Though what he means by a few
of the key phrases of the Creed are going to be *radically* different from
what I mean by them, they are legitimate meanings of the received text.

>What if I name my dog "Jesus Christ" and claim to be a Christian
>because I worship a Golden Retreiver? Should I be accepted as a
>Christian just because I claim it? I don't think so,

Hoom.  "Conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under
Pontius Pilate, crucified, died, and was buried."  And so forth.  If you 
believed all this of your dog, I would acknowledge that you were indeed a
legitimate Christian, but a serious nutcase.  Insanity and Christianity are
not mutually exclusive...


			If I may interject a small piece of personal
			philosophy, I think that Man has ruled this
			world as a stumbling, demented child-king long
			enough... And as his empire crumbles about him,
			my precious black widow will rise as his most
			fitting successor!
				--Vincent Price, in Alice Cooper's
				  "Welcome to my Nightmare"

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (03/16/90)

	I agree with Pastor Eldberg that there is some usefulness in a
formal definition of who is Xtian, and who not - specifically in
questions of ecumenism and open communion.
	For the last century, the Anglican Communion has had a formal
definition of what constitutes being Christian - at least, being
Christian enough to be in communion with Canterbury. It is called the
Lambeth Quadrilateral, and was adopted in the form of Resolution 11 of
the Lambeth Conference of 1888. I quote:

	That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles
	supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made
	towards Home Reunion:

	(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as
	"containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being
	the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

	(b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene
	Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

	(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself - Baptism and
	the Supper of the Lord - ministered with unfailing use of
	Christ's words of institution, and of the elements ordained by 
	Him.

	(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of
	its administration to the varying needs of the nations and
	peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

	In practice, my idea of "Christian" is a little broader than
this; however, I wouldn't want to merge with or get seriously involved
with a community that rejected any of these.
	On the other hand, I have no time or energy for bashing of
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unity members, SDAs, or any of the other
groups whose unorthodox theology puts them in the "gray area" of
Christianity.

	Jeff Carroll
	carroll@atc.boeing.com