I’ve known a wide variety of Unitarian Universalist ministers over the last 30+ years, and some would agree with me, and many not. But as a whole I believe nearly all of us would not argue with anyone calling themselves Christian, no matter their beliefs.
[sub]at least not until it’s been thoroughly discussed in committee, presented to the congregation, meditated over, checked to see if it conflicted with the bylaws, then had a few cups of coffee over the whole matter[/sub]
No ‘belief’ seems to be essential to quakers.
And I say that as someone who had quaker relatives and knows quakers as friends. And one who would have tried to ambush George Fox as a fucking pest back in the day.
As for the poor old C of E, I attended a couple of drearily written — the modernists really did a number on Anglican prose — services over Christmas ( although not a christian myself ), and the Creed is now called Affirmation.
How are the mighty fallen…
Personally, I don’t consider myself entitled to hold an opinion on the Christian-ness of anyone who identifies himself or herself as one.
Unitarian Universalist who identifies as Christian here. I try to follow Jesus’ teachings as I understand them. I realize exactly what they are is a bit hard to know since nothing was written down anywhere close to his lifetime.
Philadelphia yearly meeting’s procedures are here: Membership
You talk with a committee and they make a recommendation to the meeting. So no, no oath, but they do care about what you think and will tell you to piss off if they don’t feel you fit in. Although you’re generally still welcome to attend. And the barriers between members and just attenders get a little thin. I was on the committee for ministry and oversight for a meeting where I was not a member, which I found a little odd. I think they were hard up for members.
Browsing the entire PYM faith and practice (which is sort of manual for the yearly meeting), there is very little use of the words jesus or christ. And plenty of quakers wouldn’t call themselves christians. But most do. I posted in another thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16344323):
That Jesus is the Son of God, that He died to redeem our sins, and was resurrected.
I don’t get this whole “Lord” thing. If you think He’s God, then “Lord” is a sort of demotion. People can be Lords.
What if one believes that Jesus was the Son of God, died to redeem our sins…but that he didn’t rise from the dead, but was merely buried like anybody else?
It would be an heretical form of Christianity…but can you really be sure it isn’t Christianity at all?
I’m willing to include the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they’re almost as weird. I’m certainly going to include those who deny the pre-existence of Jesus. (I’m blanking on the name of the heresy. Isaac Newton followed it.)
Also non-Trinitarians in general. And preterists: I definitely want to include them.
It’s a really big tent. Some sects are “bulges in the sides of the tent,” but are still covered.
I get all Wittgensteinian about it. If we can’t come up with a clear single definition for a chair, how the hell can we hope to do so for a Christian? We don’t need a definition, we need a heuristic.
Here are some things that I’ll generally accept as sufficient for considering someone a Christian:
-They believe Jesus is uniquely divine (some Trinity or Nicene Creed or whatnot); or
-They believe Jesus was uniquely wise and attempt to follow his teachings above those of other figures of wisdom; or
-They sincerely consider themselves to be a Christian.
Here are some things that I’ll generally accept as sufficient for considering someone a non-Christian:
-They believe Jesus was neither divine nor uniquely wise; or
-They deny that they are Christian.
But obviously there can be contradictory conditions. What about someone who considers themselves a Christian but denies that Jesus was divine or uniquely wise? WHat about someone who denies that they are Christian but believes Jesus was the wisest leader in human history and attempts to follow his teachings? And then what about a non-contradiction but weird-ass case like the person who thinks that Jesus was uniquely divine because he was an avatar of Nyarolathotep the Crawling Chaos?
Case by case, man, in those rare cases.
Good point. I guess the whole “rose from the dead” thing is tied up with being God. You don’t kill God.
I wrote a fantasy story once where someone did…
And the latest “Lucifer” series from Vertigo comics opens with the premise that someone did!
But I guess that’s just blasphemy, not really heresy.
(Anybody reading the “Darkness Unbound” books by Keri Arthur?)
To me at least, the significance is that a Christian will say (or at least mean) “Jesus is my Lord,” implying a relationship in which Jesus has authority over me, which further implies that I am committed to at least trying to obey his commands/follow his teachings.
Well, yeah. But “Jesus is my God” seems a lot more powerful and meaningful. Like I said, I don’t get the whole “Lord” thing. He’s God. Why would he need to be a lowly “Lord”?
And I just gave you one. That is the minimum requirement that I have ever heard of, and I accept it as a legitimate standard for the circumstances described…
The last time I offered a “personal opinion” in the IMHO subforum, someone demanded a “cite thingy”.
It’s interesting that the OP asked about calling oneself a Christian, as opposed to calling/considering someone else a Christian.
I suppose you could interpret the thread as asking “What is it that, if you were to stop/start believing and/or doing it, you would then stop/start calling yourself a Christian?”
What do you think the minimum requirements for a person to call her/himself a Christian are?
What is the minimum requirement, in your eyes?
Do you think Christians have to believe this to be a Christian?
Well, that’s pretty much my take on it. But I only claim that my disqualification criteria apply to ME; I won’t presume to judge whether some self-identified Christian is meeting his or her own (or even my own) disqualification conditions.
I don’t have the time or inclination to involve myself in anyone else’s metaphysical experience to that degree.
Is it possible to call yourself a vegetarian and eat a hamburger everyday for lunch? (What is the difference between what you say and what you do).
To paraphrase the .sig line of RikWriter (IIRC): “Anyone can call himself a vegetarian. It’s when OTHER people call you a vegetarian, that you’re a vegetarian.”
what?
That’s well and good, but for myself, I identify as a Christian. And when I relate to another person who identifies as a Christian, I want to ensure that we have a common ground, a shared experience of our faith. If we do, I’m going to be more open to relationship than if we don’t. So I define some boundaries for what I consider to be a Christian and I choose ones that the Christian church has generally agreed upon for 17 centuries. I would not judge or be critical of someone who self-identifies as a Christian who is outside those boundaries - I am well aware that that is not my call to make. But I probably wouldn’t engage as deeply as I would with someone who does share the same boundaries as I do.
And there is a lot of room within those boundaries - I can share them with young earth fundamentalists (whom I profoundly disagree with on that point) and wide open liberal Christians. We will pray together and worship together and share communion.
I wouldn’t share my life in the same way with someone who denied the physical resurrection or divinity of Jesus, for example.
Just my opinion, obviously.