What Must a Christian Believe?

Great Debates
41

—Persons interested in, or inspired by, what is to them the “legend” of Jesus, but who have no tendency to think there really was a person behind the name, do not seem to me to be fishing in waters even close to the consensus meaning of “Christian.”—

Why? Almost certainly because you wouldn’t buy their theology. But that’s okay: they don’t buy yours. But don’t pretend that their agnosticism on a historical Jesus is born out of apathy. It’s born out of honesty, combined with a sense that the metaphorical can sometimes be far more important insight into the mind of god than the historical. Some people don’t believe that god speaks through history: that his messages are entirely spiritual, and the Bible is a collection of many people’s attempt to understand these ideas.

—Do you mean “humanistic” in the sense in which it is linked to agnosticism/atheism?—

No, I mean, as in human. As in, Christ was human, with faults, fears, and passions. That he had an actual character instead of simply being a dull collection of intrinsic maximums: a perception which largely became popular only in the modern age (but now, apparently, is so prevalent that people cannot seem to concieve of it being any other way).

—It is clearer to express this in reverse. A Christian can NOT believe that Jesus was just a wise teacher and one heck of a great guy.)—

Why not? A great teacher, and a heck of a guy who saw the mind of god, and whom at the end god chose to make known his grace and mercy through. Not all Christians buy the specific pagan sacrifice story that some do that requires that Christ be perfect and sinless (as if that somehow made any sense of how killing him accomplishes anything).

—Not familiar with the views of Spong.—

You don’t seem very familiar with much of Christianity beyond a rather small spectrum of modern ideas. I would really suggest you read some books by Shelby Spong, or at least Paul Tillich.

—If your objection is to “person-to-person,” sans the mediation of the Church and its priesthood—

That is exactly my objection. The idea that each individual can commune directly with god on a personal level is a Protestant idea. There are substantive theological differences in the sort of relationship one has with Christ, and even if you massage the meaning a bit, “person-to-person” simply doesn’t fit Catholic theology very well at all.

42

—I was referring to Christians in the modern sense of the word.—

Must a Christian believe the Bible is the means by which God makes known his teachings?

—So, even tho the Bible (in its modern sense) didn’t exist then, Jesus’s teaching did (probably in oral form). So yes, they’re Christians, tho I’m not sure what word they’d used to identify themselves.—

Christians. But no: there wasn’t one single body of “Christ’s teachings” that every sect held to, or even teachings at all that defined one as a Christian. Look at even Paul: there is almost nothing in any of his letters about “Christ’s teachings,” or even much about the life story recorded in the Gospels decades later. What’s important to Paul is the kerygma: the dying and rebirth, the atoning for sin (which in Paul’s case is primarily focused on purifying the gentiles)

—My definition was meant to show what are the minimum requirements for being a Christian and is very inclusive. If these groups you’re talking about accept at a mimimum what is generally accepted as Jesus’s teachings, then yes, they’re Christian.—

But you’re assuming that there was any agreed upon idea what Christ’s teachings were (there’s even some evidence of this in the Bible, with Paul, who was writing far earlier than everyone else), as you can find hints of by looking through apochrypha, but best from later Christians condemning past heresies. Until the Catholic unification and domination, and certainly not before the Gospel of Mark appeared, there was an incredible diversity of creative and divergent thought that held Christ as it’s center, but often not in the same way, or with even remotely the same theology.

43

I have a friend who says he believes in Jesus. He is a bit vague on just what Jesus is. He’s pretty sure that Jesus goes to church, though. He likes church. Mostly he likes the singing. He also likes the nice people there.

He doesn’t read the Bible, and falls asleep if you read it to him. He seems uninterested in the matter of the intercession of saints or the efficacy of petition by prayer. He has never even considered the matter of transubstantiation. He seldom takes communion anyway, although he has done so, a time or two, in churches of different sects, when invited to by their membership. He didn’t like the wine. He doesn’t ask Jesus for forgiveness, as far as I know. Although he will ask me to forgive him if he thinks I feel he has done something wrong. He has, thus far never failed to forgive me, for the things I have done wrong to him. His forgiveness by the way is absolute. He doesn’t even remember the thing, after that.

My friend is a spiritual role model for me. He is unfailingly kind, and generous, in his absolute poverty. He reveres his mother, and scrupulously follows the rules she gave him to live by. He fondly remembers his father, who was a carpenter. He believes that his father and mother are in Heaven. I doubt that he even considers the possibility that they must wait for the day of resurrection for that to happen, or if they are there now, waiting for him. He never hurts anyone, ever.

My friend is one of those stupid Christians that Dag was talking about. Dag can feel absolutely confident that he is smarter than my friend is. He can feel proud of his obvious superiority over my friend in that aspect. And my friend would not even hold it against him that he feels so superior. He might notice that Dag “Needs to be nice, sometimes.” But he would not hold it against him if he did notice it.

I those who feel that scripturally sound belief is essential to being a true Christian will surely feel that my friend is not one. He doesn’t even know for sure if Jesus should do what His mother said, or what His Father said if they should disagree. But he is sure that he himself would do as his own mother said, quite aside from the opinions of God or Jesus. I knew his mother, and I am certain that this is not a problem, for my friend, or for God, or for Jesus.

People who tell me of the theological failings of this man, or any other living saint, cannot begin to understand how little I value their insight into holiness. I see God in my friend. I try so very hard to be like him. I can’t help it that I too, am so very much smarter than my friend is. But I can keep in mind how little that matters. I put my intelligence into service to these children of God, because it is the only safe place I know.

So, there is a minimum set of beliefs for you to consider. Certainly it is not a minimum of faith, or a minimum of goodness, or kindness, or charity, or strength of convictions, or common decency, but definitely a minimum of theology.

I could not love Christ if I were not sure that He loved my friend.

Tris

44

**Apos wrote:

Must a Christian believe the Bible is the means by which God makes known his teachings? **

IMO, yes. Somewhere in the body of literature we know today as the Bible, there are the teachings and lore of Jesus of Nazareth. I’ll leave it to those so interested to pick out what is and what isn’t.

**Christians. But no: there wasn’t one single body of “Christ’s teachings” that every sect held to, or even teachings at all that defined one as a Christian. Look at even Paul: there is almost nothing in any of his letters about “Christ’s teachings,” or even much about the life story recorded in the Gospels decades later. What’s important to Paul is the kerygma: the dying and rebirth, the atoning for sin (which in Paul’s case is primarily focused on purifying the gentiles) **

Which is very interesting if we’re discussing what Christians believed or how they defined themselves in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the Common Era. But we’re not. We’re talking about definitions of modern Christianity. At least that’s the idea I got from Poly’s OP.

But you’re assuming that there was any agreed upon idea what Christ’s teachings were (there’s even some evidence of this in the Bible, with Paul, who was writing far earlier than everyone else), as you can find hints of by looking through apochrypha, but best from later Christians condemning past heresies. Until the Catholic unification and domination, and certainly not before the Gospel of Mark appeared, there was an incredible diversity of creative and divergent thought that held Christ as it’s center, but often not in the same way, or with even remotely the same theology.

Again, if we’re defining beliefs of Christians from that era, I’d agree. But is that what we’re doing? Or has the definition changed from the 1st and 2nd century to present day? I think it has. Just as Christian practice has changed from that time to present day, so has the definition of what is a Christian.

Do you have a better definition than the one I’ve put forth?

45

—IMO, yes. Somewhere in the body of literature we know today as the Bible, there are the teachings and lore of Jesus of Nazareth. I’ll leave it to those so interested to pick out what is and what isn’t.—

I don’t see how Christianity, which implies only that Christ is central, means that one must believe the Bible is the only, the authoritative or even an accurate source for information about Christ. Especially not when some people feel they have a personal relationship with Him directly, a conscience and a guidance.

—Which is very interesting if we’re discussing what Christians believed or how they defined themselves in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the Common Era. But we’re not. We’re talking about definitions of modern Christianity. At least that’s the idea I got from Poly’s OP.—

Christianity, being an ideology, can in a modern form be everything that was, and more.

—Do you have a better definition than the one I’ve put forth?—

I think I made myself fairly clear in my first post. If you’re looking for a way to exclude people you don’t like from being Christians, that’s your beef, but for me, Christianity only implies that someone claims to put some conception of Christ central to their religious convictions. Vague, but that’s what a general definition needs to be.

46

having read the above statements, I want to amend my answer -
when I say that someone or some group isn’t Christian, it doesn’t necessarily mean I think they’re bad people, or that I have nothing to gain or learn from them, or that I know what God thinks the beliefs. It is not a character judgment.

It does mean that from my point of view, their belief is sufficiently different than mine that I feel it is inaccurate to use the same descriptor for both.

47

—It does mean that from my point of view, their belief is sufficiently different than mine that I feel it is inaccurate to use the same descriptor for both.—

I don’t agree.
The various other Christians I’ve described fit the clear meaning of “Christian” and have as much claim to the description as anyone, be you as different from they as they are from you.

48

The second paragraph in my post touched upon this. You must have missed it.

I already did. You must have missed that, too.

Tris: :smiley: What a blessed path He has set your feet upon. You are a very rich man.

49

Sorry to come back so late, but thank you all for your clarifications on what a deist is. I do believe I am one. Of some sort.

50

—The second paragraph in my post touched upon this. You must have missed it. —

Which post: this one: “[shrug] I’d love to hear all of what He taught, not just what a Council deemed appropriate to include in the Bible.”

If so, then this doesn’t really address the issue at all. You’re still excluding people who have just as much claim to “Christian” as those who supressed their ideas.

51

Something has been bothering me about the direction of this thread, and I haven’t been able to put my finger on it until reading Triskadecamus’s eloquent post. Several others have also identified a vague uneasiness with the main question in the OP, saying that it was “missing something,” and this is the issue I would like to address. This post will not deal with what a Christian needs to believe, since I have little to contribute to that discussion beyond what others have already said. If you feel that this post is too far afield, please let me know, and I’ll open a new thread.

The premise of the OP is that being a Christian depends on believing a certain minimal set of metaphysical tenets, the content of which are under discussion. But I wonder about the soundness of the premise itself—is cognitive belief really the foundation of Christianity?

All religions have core beliefs, but the role and importance of belief varies from religion to religion; there are no atheist Christians, to be sure, but a Jew remains a Jew even if she does not believe in God. The OP does not explicitly state that belief is the central activity of Christian life, but that assumption seems to underlie most of the discussion here. Assuming for the moment a Christian God and a Christian metaphysic, my questions are these:[ol][li]Is belief alone sufficient to make one a Christian?[]If not, what else is required?[]Are specific beliefs truly necessary, or is the experience God’s grace enough, independent of any cognitive interpretation?[/ol]I would like to elaborate on these questions with a few examples that seem to live on the margins of the discussion in this thread.[/li]
Suppose that I intellectually believe all the necessary tenets of Christianity, whatever they are, but find them uninspiring, or worse, trivial. I may believe that Jesus died for my sins and was raised from the dead, but it doesn’t seem relevant to me in my daily life. I do not feel any particular obligation to love others, avoid evil, or cultivate a relationship with God. Although I do believe that God exists and that Jesus is his Son, I have never experienced his presence and have no desire to do so. Am I a Christian?

Toward the other end of the spectrum, Tris’s friend does not appear to believe much of what Christians typically say is necessary to be a Christian, yet he lives in a state of grace, loves others, and does what he thinks is right. He believes in God and says he believes in Jesus, though he doesn’t seem clear about what that means. No one on this thread has denied that he is a Christian.

And to further clarify (or confuse :D) the issue, what is the status of someone who actively practices another religion but who nonetheless experiences God. Assume for the moment that the Apostle’s Creed accurately describes the state of the universe—there is a Trinity, Jesus’ death and Resurrection saved humanity from sin, etc. If God were to find a worthy soul living in a non-Christian culture, and grant this person an experience of grace, wouldn’t this direct experience be more important than the subsequent interpretation given to it?

The reason I bring this up is that this very situation presented itself at the second Gethsemani Encounter at Gethsemani Abbey in Kentucky last April. The Gethsemani Encounter is a retreat for both Christian and Buddhist monks. At Mass one day during the retreat, an old Japanese Zen monk, not realizing that Communion was only for Catholics, lined up with everyone else and was given the host and wine by a confused priest who didn’t know what else to do. When the monk returned to his seat, he began weeping. A fellow Buddhist asked him what was wrong. After a while, he was able to say, “Intense experience of selfless love.”

It seems to me that in that moment, this Buddhist priest was more of a Christian than many of the baptized Christians in attendance. He did not give up Buddhism or acknowledge the divinity of Christ. He went on being a Buddhist monk who had a Christian experience. Would it have meant more if he had ascribed to it the traditional Christian interpretation?

It seems to me that an honest reading of the Gospels inevitably draws the conclusion that Christianity is more about doing and being than believing. I’m not suggesting that intellectual rigor in theology is not valuable or important. It just doesn’t seem like the indispensable requirement we’ve been assuming in this discussion.

52

Edlyn, Tris, and Savaka have expressed how I see it. Belief and understanding with the brain means little. It is from belief and understanding with the heart that people like Tris’s friend and the Zen monk intensely experience selfless love. I guess that when I say that I am a Christian, what I really mean is that a Christian is what I aspire to be.

53

Apos,

  1. re: Should agnostics/atheists call themselves Christian? “…don’t pretend that their agnosticism on a historical Jesus is born out of apathy.” I didn’t say it was; didn’t suggest it was; didn’t imply it was; and don’t believe it is. (Nor do I use these posts to “pretend.”) “It’s born out of honesty…” Of course it is. “…important insight into the mind of god …Some people don’t believe that god speaks through history: that his messages are entirely spiritual…” God? His messages? My item discussed agnostics and atheists. It is a flat contradiction to claim that atheists are seeking insights into the mind of, or messages from, an entity they deny exists. If an agnostic has arrived at a personal position on the mode by which God imparts his messages, has he not thereby ceased to be an agnostic?

  2. Re a “humanistic” concept of Jesus. “…Christ was human with faults, fears, and passions…instead of simply being a dull collection of intrinsic maximums…” The humanity of Jesus Christ, far from an extreme radical view, is all but universally acknowledged among those who call themselves Christian (unless there are pockets of Arianists hither and yon); I myself referred to some of his faults, fears, and passions. “…a perception which largely became popular only in the modern age…” If you mean the image of Jesus as a dull maxim (or “maximum”) spewer, I see no evidence that this image is more prevalent now than, say, 300 years ago; indeed, the modern tendency seems to me to have been to stress the human drama of the life and passion of Jesus. “…Why not? A great teacher, and a heck of a guy who saw the mind of god, and whom at the end god chose to make known his grace and mercy through. Not all Christians buy the specific pagan sacrifice story that some do that requires that Christ be perfect and sinless…” The fault is mine for trying and failing to express my idea through the machinery of colloquial poetic compression. I do NOT believe that a Christian must affirm that Jesus was perfect and sinless; only that he was both (a) more perfect and sinless than the average man on the street, and (b) that the “more” is of such degree that merely attaining such a state signifies (ie, can be taken to signify) some unique state of blessedness. My item makes no mention of, and has nothing to do with, the “specific pagan sacrifice story.”

  3. Re: Not familiar with the views of Spong. “You don’t seem very familiar with much of Christianity beyond a rather small spectrum of modern ideas.” I don’t claim to be a theologian. I do have some acquaintance with the writings of Eusebius, St. Anselm of Canterbury, St. Thomas Aquinas, the medievals (via “Philosophy and Theology in the Middle Ages” by G. R. Evans); as well as various volumes on philosophical theology by Thomas Morris, William Blackstone, and editors Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger. Plus the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphica, and five or six differing translations of the New Testament. This seems to me to be sufficient to make a contribution to this thread. “I would really suggest you read some books by Shelby Spong, or at least Paul Tillich.” Thanks.

  4. RE objection to “person-to-person” relationship with God. “…the idea that each individual can commune directly with god on a personal level is a Protestant idea…substantive theological differences…‘person-to-person’ simply doesn’t fit Catholic theology very well at all.” I admitted upfront that I wasn’t a Catholic, and upback that I wasn’t trying to tell Catholics what their doctrine really meant. Though I didn’t quite mean what you think I meant, I’ll drop the phrase in question. Indeed, I’ll rework my last item completely: What a Christian must believe is that one’s relationship to Christ, however conceived and brought-about, is not irrelevant to one’s condition “in Eternity.”

Now, addressing everybody–

The way I read the OP, we’re not trying to say what makes a good Christian, but rather: What must a person BELIEVE in order to meet the minimal DEFINITION of the word “Christian.” --Not the dictionary definition, which is too strict; not the “I call myself one, so I am” definition, which is too loose; but the cultural-consensus definition, the definition that seems the best overall fit considering how the term is actually used in those cultures in which its use is widespread. When I suggest that certain persons ought not describe themselves as “Christian,” I intend no aspersion upon their character–only clarification of word-use.

I myself had to, reluctantly, give up calling myself a Christian–because in all honesty I found my actual beliefs failed my own test.

54

Edlyn, Tris, Savaka,

I want to say a bit more.

I happen to believe that the essence of “salvation” is very much as you think it is, and that a person can achieve a state of blessedness, and approval by the “Lord” (however one wishes to conceive that entity) apart from giving intellectual assent to any particular list of beliefs.

The only issue here is whether you are being accurate and informative by calling yourself a “Christian” if your so-doing amounts to very little beyond a feeling of attachment to a word.

I wish there were a distinctive, commonly-understood term for those who try to: follow Christ’s teachings, “hope” that there was such a person, and yet cannot genuinely believe in the basics (eg, the resurrection) without stronger evidence. Jesusite? Christist? All I can say now is that I am a nonsectarian theist.

55

Apos:

How is it not addressed and whom have I excluded?

Savaca:

I enjoyed your post very much. Though I have never understood a church’s refusal of communion to anyone, that is best left to another thread. I had to smile when I read of the Buddest monk’s comment, but for one reason only; he felt the oneness with God and His Love. That is what matters from my view, not whether he remained a Buddest monk afterwards.

Scott:

So what is important to you is man’s definition of a Christian, not what Jesus said? I politely decline then.

Men find labels very useful in defining one another, but in the end, their opinions of another will rest on their shoulders only. What does matter in the end is whether you tried to follow Christ’s teachings of Love.

Then it isn’t an issue in our cases.

56

My apology to everyone for misspelling Buddhist. :smack:

57

It seems to me that the question of whether someone else is a Christian is not at all the same as whether I am a Christian. I have chosen to follow Jesus. I seek to be, as I believe He would have me be. When asked, I will always affirm that I am His. I am a Christian.

On the whole, I consider myself to be an average Christian. I am also a pride filled sinner, smug, and self centered, seeking to make myself seem more than I truly am or could ever be. I relentlessly apply my narrow judgments of the behavior of other people, and even speak out about it, as if my own opinions had some authority other than my desire. I am illogical, undereducated, prejudiced, and lazy. For anyone to consider me a role model of Christian behavior shows only that they do not know me very well.

But I will always answer the question of faith with complete assurance. I am a Christian. I have no credentials; I don’t even have much of a theology. I claim to have faith, but you can never know if that is true, and I have moments when I have trouble with that myself. But that doesn’t change the fact (and it is a fact) that I am a Christian. Other Christians may weep, and gnash their teeth as I say it, but still I say it. And that has consequences.

I cannot deny you that same thing. If you say you are a Christian, I will accept that you are a Christian. I might well refuse to have anything to do with your behavior, your words, or even your company. I might think that you are an perfect example of hatred and bigotry. I might spend a lot of time trying to have my society lock you into a small cell for the rest of your natural life. I might even try to have you executed, although I don’t like feeling that way. But I will not deny that you are a Christian.

Christians aren’t nice people, or good people, or smart people, or kind people, or any other particular type of people. Christians are people who want Christ to love them. And He does.

So, I won’t tell you who is a Christian, except one particular case. I am. I will take your word for what you are. Christ know us, and will judge us. And some who say, “But we did not know you!” will find that He knew them, anyway.

Tris

58

Triskadecamus

Your beautiful. Just beautiful. And as for your brutally honest post, Ditto.

59

I’m not denying any of you good people the right to call yourselves by the word “Christian” if you so desire.

The OP asked about minimal beliefs. I believe there are such beliefs. Some of you do not. And so the question is answered!

60

—His messages? My item discussed agnostics and atheists.—

All I mentioned were those Christians who were agnostic in regards to a historical Jesus: or who even dismiss the idea of a historical Jesus entirely, which would NOT make them atheists in any sense. Jesus doesn’t have to have historically lived as a man per the story in the Bible to still be a very real factor and presence in ones life, and the Bible story merely a metaphor for what he represents.

—It is a flat contradiction to claim that atheists are seeking insights into the mind of, or messages from, an entity they deny exists.—

What are you talking about? When did I ever say anything about atheists looking for godly insight? You must be confused by my use of “agnostic” to refer to a claim other than “god exists.”

And just a note: not all atheists “deny” that god exists. Some of us just don’t see any reason to believe IN that hypothesis as of now.

—If an agnostic has arrived at a personal position on the mode by which God imparts his messages, has he not thereby ceased to be an agnostic?—

Read again: agnostic IN REGARDS TO the existence of an actual historical personage known as Jesus who lived the Gospel stories. Not “an agnostic” period.

—This seems to me to be sufficient to make a contribution to this thread.—

Not if you are uninformed about several of the most influential Protestant theologians in this century, and indeed seem to have little appreciation of the incredibly diverse range of different Christian beliefs around today (including those of the biggest single Christian denomination on the planet).