As Gaudere pointed out, Christians already use two broad categories to describe themselves: “real Christians” and “not real Christians”.
These are not particularly helpful to non-christains however, because anyone you are talking to is a “real Christian” and anyone whose actions you are questioning is “not a real Christian”. It is very convenient for the “real Christians” since they cannot be expected to discuss the beliefs or actions of “not real Christians”.
As Gaudere pointed out, Christians already use two broad categories to describe themselves: “real Christians” and “not real Christians”.
These are not particularly helpful to non-christians however, because anyone you are talking to is a “real Christian” and anyone whose actions you are questioning is “not a real Christian”. It is very convenient for the “real Christians” since they cannot be expected to discuss the beliefs or actions of “not real Christians”.
I think the creed in question already pretty much settled this issue internally. First in a series of prolonged and rather longwinded debates and political farces which proceeded into an extensive and devastating series of wars.
And the winners were:
Orthodox Christians
Catholic Christians
Protestant Christians
The Dualists and some other weirdoes unfortunately bit the dust in the process (they were fun :D).
If that wasn’t already internal quibbling the rest definitely was, at least IMHO. The protestants are the only ones that still go on about it, and what do they go on about? Well the one thing that separates them from the other two arms; ‘the time and form of the coming of the King’. The others kind of opted out on that one since both Orthodoxy and Catholicism play down eschatological teaching pretty heavily. But, since this is central to protestant belief and rather a major difference you could argue that they have become separate religions along those lines, but IMHO that is still splitting hairs.
In essence previous posts have nailed it… they all believe in the Christian Mystery, i.e. the immaculate conception, the son of god amongst men, his suffering and death on the cross for ‘our’ sins and his subsequent resurrection to sit in judgment at ‘our’/his father’s side.
That makes it one religion and everything else is a subdivision into sects, ergo, the term Christian still makes sense.
Sparculees, I would respectfully disagree with your comment on the “time and form of the coming of the King” being central to Protestantism. If I were trying to list defining features of Protestantism, that wouldn’t have come to mind - I’m not even sure what it means. I would have stated that things like the “priesthood of all believers,” faith over works, and emphasis on the Bible over hierarchical traditions as defining features of Protestantism.
Second, the immaculate conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine, definitely not shared by most Protestant churches; not sure where the Orthodox stand on it.
Hmmm…you mean, labels like Arminian, Baptist, Charismatic, Dominionist, Evangelical, Full Gospel, Greek Catholic, Hutterite, Independent, Jehovah’s Witness, Korean Presbyterian, Lutheran, Mormon, Nazarene, Orthodox, Protestant, Quaker, Roman Catholic, Seventh-Day Adventist, Trinitarian, United Church of Christ, Vineyard Christian Fellowship, Wesleyan, or A.M.E. Zion?
The problem is, all the Christians are going to claim to be “Agapist” (“no, we’re the hateful Christians”–hell, even Fred Phelps would claim to be acting in accordance with “true” love; certainly all mainstream evangelicals and fundamentalists would), and “Salvationist” (the First Christian Church of Universal Doom and Despair is gonna be a non-starter), and the vast majority will proclaim their teachings are truly in accord with those of the Apostle Paul (as rightly interpreted, of course).
In one of the Web’s small convergences, I’m reading this thread at the same time I’m reading a pageabout the Troubles. A situation where certain Christians are determinedly blowing up other Christians with no compunctions.
The label of Christian is not automatically invalidated by conflicting beliefs or even actual violence. A person or a group can claim heritage to a system of beliefs, but humans have an incredible gift for rationalizing loopholes in their commandments. The Ten are no exception.
That said, labels for any group serve one very important social purpose: they define who is “in” and who is “out” Their use is context- and speaker-dependent. As a “recovering” RC, I am more likely to use the term “Christian” to refer to all people who use that term to describe themselves. Jerry Fallwell, however, specifically excludes large groups who call themselves “Christians.” When I use the term, I am saying “all those people over there.” When Jerry uses the term, he is saying “all of us true believers.” Same word, different sociological uses and different meanings.
Using a label with inherent “authority” to define your group is one way of borrowing legitimacy. But this also causes confusion, because the receiver of the communication has to parse the definition. Changing the label used, as the OP suggests, is one way of removing the confusion, but there are two reasons this is not generally done:
As MEBuckner points out, there are a variety of existing terms to sub-divide Christians on doctrinal lines. These are terms used to define some-one as being “in” the group. The terms proposed by Homebrew would immediately identify the speaker as being in the “out” group. In an academic or political discussion, such new terms, or even Esprix’s may have meaning, but in normal social discourse, they are not as useful.
[nitpick]Sparculees, I think you’ve made a mistake here. If you’re referring to the immaculate conception of Mary, which is what Catholics mean by this term*, then it’s definitely not something that all or most Christians agree on. If you’re referring to Jesus’ conception, I think you used the wrong term. [/nitpick]
*IANACatholic, so apologies if I’ve made any mistakes here.
Yeah, I think he’s just looking for “virgin birth.” The only term I can think of for Jesus’s conception is “The Annunciation of Mary” (is that the right name?) but I’m not sure a lot of denominations would use that term.
I stand correccted, in my defense it was early, early in the morning and I half of me was already sleeping. The annunciation or immaculate conception of Mary should of course have been thrown into the mix of subtle differences between the main branches of Christianity as c_carol correctly points out. BTW I beleieve that both terms are correct.
There’s an old joke that goes “There are two types of people in this world; those who divide people into two types, and those that don’t.” Similarly, there are two types of Christians; those who believe their doctrine is exclusively correct and only they are “true” Christians, and those who take the “judge not” bit seriously and allow that other people’s faith is between them and God.
If you’re taking the latter view - which, in my better moments, I aspire to - you have to accept that other people can call themselves Christian whose actual religious practice is wildly different from yours. Everyone’s personal experience of God is different; everyone has a different knowledge of, and interpretation of, Scripture - given that God made us all unique individuals, how could it be otherwise? Of course, we can learn from others, and debate points of faith, so we get denominations within the Church as a whole - bodies of people who are broadly in agreement on matters of faith important to them. But, if we take the non-judgemental path, we have to accept all of them as Christian, if they claim to follow Christ … because only Christ Himself knows the truth of that claim.
Let’s take the standard extreme example, Fred Phelps. Now, I happen to disagree with Phelps on just about every matter of faith he’s spoken on publicly; I would feel perfectly justified in condemning his actions, and I could legitimately ask him how he feels his beliefs can possibly be reconciled with Christ’s message of love… but I cannot say that he is “not a true Christian”, because that is not for me to judge. That is between him and God. Now, Fred Phelps, as far as I know, does not subscribe to a non-judgemental viewpoint, and I’m pretty sure he would have no hesitation in saying I’m “not a true Christian”… and that’s all right, in my view, because God knows whether I am or not, and it’s His opinion on the matter that counts. (Hell, Phelps might well be right. I mean, I’m big in the Sloth and Gluttony departments, and I don’t even know how to look upon a woman without lust in my heart… these may be more socially acceptable than Phelps’ brand of hatred, but they’re still Deadly Sins…)
It’s tempting, I must admit, to accept the Agapist(-Christian) label… but a) I don’t deserve it, and b) it’s exclusionary, and I don’t want that. I want a Christian Church that includes and accepts everybody, even those that don’t want that. God’s love and mercy, after all, are infinite; He will accept everyone who truly wants to come to Him. Even Fred Phelps; even, I hope and pray, me.
I see your point and I could agree, but you see I wasn’t trying to define Protestantism from a format point of view, but content. The features you list, and such things as how communion is taken, confession, absolution, order of mass and liturgy and so on do define Protestantism in a way. They were no doubt central parts of the reformation, although I would maintain your two and absolution through morality and ethical behavior rather than through piety and repentance were the points. But this is the how, not the what and hence does not set Protestantism as such apart, out of a theological stand point. However, two of your defining features helped bring about a change that eventually would, namely the ‘priesthood of all believers’ and the Bible over hierarchical traditions.
Before we go there, it is important to understand that Roman Catholic speculation in the Apocalypse more or less ended by the acceptance of Augustine’s proposals in his work ‘Civitas Dei’ (City of God) - early 5th c. Responding to a series of heretical interpretations of scripture that led to a belief in the Imminent End and social unrest within the Christian community, Augustine here proposes a view of history that sets the world in a perpetual division between the ‘City of the World’ (Satan) and the ‘City of God’ (The Church). Interpreting Apocalypse allegorically he goes on to claim that the “Thousand Year Kingdom’ is now. Being in somewhat of gloomy mood he also rejects the idea of a perfect world, now or in the future. Hence no need for an End Time. Therby the Church comes to mean immediate salvation and judgment will be upon your head the day you die. Obviously this didn’t end Catholic eschatology altogether, but it did become (and still is) the Roman Catholic Church’s official position on the Apocalypse. That they got away with this is due to that the Gospel of St. John was never fully accepted as an authentic part of the Catholic canon.
With the reformation this all changes. First of all, there is some contentious evidence that Luther, Calvin and the boys were convinced that the End was nigh. It is more reasonable to accept that they went no further than to more or less accept Augustine’s teaching with the tiny but somewhat central reversal that the Pope was now St. John’s Antichrist and Roman Catholicism the ‘City of the World’. The Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican churches eventually adopted a slightly more millenarian view in as much as that the second coming and Judgment Day became real dates in some undefined future time. Considering that these were state sanctioned churches this made a lot of sense - no government is all too happy about having its imminent demise proclaimed right and left, if nothing less it usually results in some pretty troublesome behavior in the general population.
But it was still a foundation which together with making the Bible available for interpretation to everyman and the ‘priesthood of all believers’ sets the stage for some more fundamental change. Literal interpretation of the bible becomes fashionable. St’ John comes back in full force. People get pretty sticky about it. Some of them get on the Mayflower. Others perished at each other’s and the Catholic’s steel. Before you know it you have Jerry Fallwel’s all over the place (some modern scholars even use the Protestant eschatological tradition to draw a straight line of development from Luther to Hitler…somewhat provocative indeed, but they make a hell of a good case for it).
End effect? Well Rome stayed Rome and the protestants are still quibbling about whether the moderate ‘sometime in the future’ of the Lutherans or the more extreme, and in hindsight obviously bogus time span March 21st 1843 to March 21st 1844 of the Millerites marks Rapture and the Second Coming.
Now I might be splitting hairs as well, but I’d say that this is almost big enough a difference to come close to a division worthy of calling it two religions, while I don’t think that who gives the sermon, how much you fullfill the ideals and morals,what songs you sing at service or who gets to interpret the Bible do.
I still maintain that it’s one faith though, just like I do Buddhism with all its fractions.
If you want more of an in depth view on the whole thing here’s a buncha books to read.
I propose the term “True Scotsmen.”
Steve, I thought you should know that your beautiful post meant a lot to me. You’re right, and I have no business judging the actions of Fred Phelps in the context of his morality. I can view the actions themselves — picketing funerals, recruiting children to carry signs, laughing at tragedy — as obscene, and react accordingly. But I have no idea what God’s purpose is for that man, nor of Phelps’s deepest moral judgments. He is brain damaged, for all I know. Maybe he lies awake at night hating himself and wishing he could change … I don’t know.
What’s important from my perspective is not any judgment about his spirit, but rather I should concern myself with my own moral decisions and how they might affect the world around me. Even though I’ve stated so many times that God is Love and that love is the measure of holiness in a man, I’ve not been very loving even on these boards. I must learn to live my faith, and exhibit patience and kindness and all the other attributes that, if I truly loved, would come out of me naturally and without effort.
Thanks for your reminder about what love is.
::: puts on plaid, kilt, and sporran :::
::: hangs pipes over shoulder :::
::: picks up dish of oatmeal and carefully spoons large quantity of sugar thereon :::
What was that you were saying about “No true Christian…”? 
No true Christian is as arrogant as I.
Poly:
Wouldn’t that be porridge?
No, that’s the Mormon interpretation of the passage!! 
sugar on porridge?? already you’re displaying the Great Schism - it’s salt, salt, I tell you!
In Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Biship John Shelby Spong talks about “Believers in Exile”. In the book he likens the current state of Christianity to the state of Judiasm during the Babylonian Exile. The old ways of thinking and believing were just not applicable anymore and had to change. He argues that Jewish religious practice changed significantly following the return from Babylon because of the experiences they went through.
The similarity, he says, is that science has taught us so much about the world that much of the traditional beliefs about God are no longer relevant or believable. We’ve come to understand the truth of evolution (please on hijacks on this topic), germ theory of disease as opposed to punishment for sin, knowledge about weather patterns, etc. These changes have led many, including me, to a crisis of faith, on the verge of rejecting even the existance of God. We can no longer believe in the idea of God as a great white-bearded judge on a throne somewhere in the sky.
Our new understanding of God will be radically different. And I think Lib has certainly gotten a good idea of what the new God is going to be (even if his self-avowed arrogance keeps him from living up to his ideal): God is Love. And not the emotional idea most people think of when they say Love. But Love as the active, positive effort to treat everyone with kindness and understanding. To accept there is part of the divine within us all, whether we identify it as God or just part of being a living creature on this planet.
Some people will go through this Exile and emerge with a belief, although radically altered, in God intact. Should these people choose a different name for themselves other than Christian?
In Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Bishop John Shelby Spong talks about “Believers in Exile”. In the book he likens the current state of Christianity to the state of Judiasm during the Babylonian Exile. The old ways of thinking and believing were just not applicable anymore and had to change. He argues that Jewish religious practice changed significantly following the return from Babylon because of the experiences they went through.
The similarity, he says, is that science has taught us so much about the world that much of the traditional beliefs about God are no longer relevant or believable. We’ve come to understand the truth of evolution (please on hijacks on this topic), germ theory of disease as opposed to punishment for sin, knowledge about weather patterns, etc. These changes have led many, including me, to a crisis of faith, on the verge of rejecting even the existance of God. We can no longer believe in the idea of God as a great white-bearded judge on a throne somewhere in the sky.
Our new understanding of God will be radically different. And I think Lib has certainly gotten a good idea of what the new God is going to be (even if his self-avowed arrogance keeps him from living up to his ideal): God is Love. And not the emotional idea most people think of when they say Love. But Love as the active, positive effort to treat everyone with kindness and understanding. To accept there is part of the divine within us all, whether we identify it as God or just part of being a living creature on this planet.
Some people will go through this Exile and emerge with a belief, although radically altered, in God intact. Should these people choose a different name for themselves other than Christian?