As a matter of curiousity regarding public perception, who do you think speaks for Christianity? Is it the Pope? A former Pope? Billy Graham? Chuck Dobson? Someone else?

Secondly, (but only if you want) why?

George Bush & his policies.

Bush is seen by the rest of the world as representing much of what is wrong with western thought and ideology. I would propose this includes Christianity- remember the Crusades?

I think a more educated non-Christian person sees beyond Bush and America. There are extremists in all religions or non-religions that can really screw up the perception of their religion as well as how members of their religion perceives of religions.

Gene Edward Veith

One of the few who can accurately articulate what Christianity is really about.

Time to add Heretic and Blasphemer to my title of America-Hating Pinko Commie Liberal...

I could care less who speaks for Christianity. Its messenger won't affect my beliefs or make the religion any more credible or relevant. The same holds true for any religion. No one else can speak for my soul, nor should they. My soul is mine. Yours is yours. Period.

As for what I believe? I believe that my heart and my mind speak for my soul. The only interpretation of religion/spirituality/God necessary for me to follow is my own. I believe that God gave everyone a brain and heart of their own and that it would be an insult not to use them and find our own way to understanding the universe He created (billions of years ago - not 6,000).

Personally, I laugh at any claim that the only knowledge worth knowing was documented 2,000 years ago and is the Infallible Word of God. That's just me.

Thanks for sharing.

WOW BRIAN!!!!!You are on a roll today. I am imprest

Everytime I feel the need to vent (or to get a writing fix), here's where I end up. Doesn't everyone feel lucky!? Wait, don't answer...

speaking of christianity...how many of you saw that movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"???? Why is it that the only people getting possessed by demons are Catholics? When was the last time a Lutheran or a Jew was possesed?

Hey, possessed (or is it possesed) rhymes with imprest (and impressed!)!

It is a tie between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

I believe that God gave everyone a brain and heart of their own

Admitting that God is (good start).
If you are open to truth and knowledge,
He can show you great things (if you let Him)
The only thing that can stop Him is you.


Who do you think speaks for Christianity?

Whoever speaks for any group is apt to be wrong, we're all unique.
I bet my life on Jesus!

I've heard stories (though I have seen no written proof) that Pastor Kurt Thorne was run out of the Assembly of God Church here in MC because he refused to do an exorcism. Several people mentioned this while the Thorne's were still living here in MC.

"my hope is built on nothing less than church rumor and Bible press"

Heath H

ME SO SORRY ME NO CATCH THAT, THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT MY STUPIDITY.

[This message has been edited by Morhead (edited 4/14/2006).]

okay...so far I have
George Bush (as leader of the western (and therefore Christian)hemisphere
Gene Edward Veith
How dare you!!!! You can't speak for me!!!!
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell
Jesus

Any further additions?

A second question...
What, if any, is the core teaching of Christianity?

As an aside,
From what I understand, the subject of the movie the Exorcist was actually a Lutheran (LCMS). The parents and pastor asked the professors from Concordia Seminary (LCMS Lutheran) for assistance. The Jesuits (Roman Catholic Order) were asked to help, because the Catholic church had a service for exorcism.

"What, if any, is the core teaching of Christianity?"

The teaching of Christianity is as diverse as the people, each teaching according to his interpretation.

Definition of Christian: follower of the Christ, the Anointed One, Son of the living God.

Mission: obey God!

What, if any, is the core teaching of Christianity?

To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This is acomplished through the means of grace.

What are your answers??

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 4/18/2006).]

Guilt and manipulation.

Now there's something nihilistic for you.

Umm... the nihilistic view believes that there is no God and that life is a big comic accident. So any guilt or manipulation would be the result of your own moralistic relativism and would not be necessary.

I agree with you that there are some groups that are pietistic where guilt and manipulation are routinely used. They are not a part of orthodox Christianity.

Richard, did you mean "cosmic" accident? I do prefer "comic" accident, and I am still laughing

"I agree with you that there are some groups that are pietistic where guilt and manipulation are routinely used. They are not a part of orthodox Christianity"

Now that's not a nice thing to say about the Mennonites.

My point wasn't that I consider myself to be nihilistic (you implied that I was in another thread). My point was that my comment on here concerning the "true message of Christianity" would be perceived as nihilisitic. I believe very strongly in God. I also believe very strongly that the Bible was written by man (and is decidedly NOT the Word of God) and serves the purpose of its authors more than it serves as a road map that leads to salvation. As a whole, I perceive Christianity as a limited religion that uses guilt to manipulate its followers. I do not feel guilty in the least for feeling this way - I would if I wasn't following my heart and my mind (which is what I would have to do to embrace Christianity). I don't see any moral relativism in having this point of view. The religion's hypocrisy and contradictions make it irrelevant in my eyes.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 4/19/2006).]

Who speaks for Christianity?

I strongly believe that Christianity, or spirituality, is very capable of speaking for it self. There is no doubt that it has been led in many, sometimes terrible, directions; ex. The Crusades. I believe that there are two main reasons for this wayward path of Christianity. First, people have always tried to speak for it and always will, and second, people listen to the self-proclaimed voices of Christianity. As long as someone is asking "Who speaks for Christianity" we will have this problem of hearing people, instead of God. Perhaps the question should be "Who is listening to Christianity?"

Who do I think speaks for Christianity? I think that at this point, there is a general lack of leadership for what might be considered Orthodox Christianity. Benedict XVI might be such a spokesperson, but time will tell. In reflection of Remus's comment, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed would be both an Orthodox statement for Christianity and a summary of Orthodox Christianity. I do make a distinction between Orthodox and Unorthodox or Heretical Christianity. The distinction has traditionally been made, only in the recent past (150 years) has the distinction been slowly erased.

As an aside, Mennonites have traditionally been considered on the margin of Unorthodox.

Well said, Remus. I think Jesus and Saint Paul should speak for Christianity. Oh shoot they are dead. Christianity without Christ would be ianity or Judaism. It is odd how modern Christians have taken God out of the picture and now worship Jesus only.

Richard, "I agree with you that there are some groups that are pietistic where guilt and manipulation are routinely used. They are not a part of orthodox Christianity."??

What about Opus Dei- when they whip themselves to a bloddy pulp are they feeling guilty? The new Pope is a member of Opus Dei and so is a U.S. Senator. Is Opus Dei part of Orthodox Christianity?

I guess it all depends on the mennonite - I'm in a book recommending mood, so I'll recommend my favorite menno book: The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder

Take guilt away from Christianity and you're left with nothing. Minus guilt, there is no sin (original or otherwise). Minus sin, there's no need for redemption. Minus redemption, what's the need for Christ? What is the point of the celebration of Christ's death and resurrection other than to say, "He died for your sins, the least you can do is devote your life to him. Look at how much he suffered - he gave his body and life to you, can't you give your life and soul to him?" Guilt. Nothing but guilt. He Bible is nothing if not a collection of stories intended to be a chronicle of God's disappointment with his children. What is that but guilt?

so given all of that WHY do you need a God?? If in your world, there is no sin or guilt of what use is God? It also would seem that any moral judgement you make is relative based on your own self deduced code of ethics? How do you know when you have done something wrong?
What function does God have in your life.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 4/19/2006).]

Richard - When did I ever say I didn't believe in God? I believe that I stated that I believe very strongly in God. I may not have the same perspective of God as you, but that's not to say that I deny the Creator's existence. I just don't believe in the God that's portrayed in the the teachings of the Christian church. I believe that particular view of God is flawed and suggests a limited God, rather than the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent one that Christians proclaim to be theirs.

What I said was that I don't believe in Christianity - something very different from not believing in God. To me, Christianity is an interpretation of the Almighty to which I personally don't subscribe. I follow my heart and my mind (i.e. my soul), and it has led me elsewhere.

I refuse to believe that God set us up to fail. I refuse to believe that there is only one way to be in the presence of God. I refuse to believe that God gave us the gift of a mind but didn't want us to use it. Simply put, I refuse to believe that God hates what He's created.

If one needs the Christian God to tell him or her what's right and what's wrong, then not only have you reaffirmed my premise about the role of guilt in the Christian faith, but you've also reinforced my belief in the paucity of it. I don't need a book telling me what my conscience knows on its own. If you require someone telling you what's right and wrong, to me that's moral relativism.

Call me a deist and moral pluralist if you like, but leave nihilist and moral relativist out of the discussion.

There are a few people that I think could speak to Christianity and for Christianity at this point in history. C. S. Lewis has been a spokesperson for Christianity to the intellectual for the 20th century. He would be an example of a person that did not quit using his brain, but highlights that a Christian can be a thinking, intelligent person. He gives a fairly clear articulation of the basics of Christianity in Mere Christianity In many ways, to be articulate in the Christian faith, this book is a prerequisite.

Another person I would recommend as a spokesperson for and to Christianity would be Dietrech Bonhoeffer. His life is an example of living out his convictions, which he articulates in Cost of Discipleship .

Bridgier-- I would agree that it depends upon the Mennonite. Some of them have very good theology, but the bulk of the theology is on the margin.

Van--I am not entirely familiar with Opus Dei, aside from a brief class discussion. From what I understand, there are parts of the informal group that would use flagellation, but not all members. Some of the teachings do border on unorthodox; I would include the whipping as unorthodox. Overall, the group is trying to address the question, "what does it mean to be a christian?"

Guilt is part of Christianity, but is also part of any religion. In fact, it is part of human experience. Have you ever let a loved one down? Guilt is acknowledging that everything is not perfect.

In Mr. Reed's discussion he stated "Minus guilt, there is no sin (original or otherwise). " Is the starting point guilt, or having done something wrong? I would suggest that a better starting point is the idea of the perfection of God

Mr. Reed-- in an attempt to reach a common understanding, is the perfection of God part of your understanding of the divine?

Brian, Could you explain what you meant by this statement? In trying to understand your point of view, this kind of threw me.

I just don't believe in the God that's portrayed in the the teachings of the Christian church. I believe that particular view of God is flawed and suggests a limited God, rather than the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent one that Christians proclaim to be theirs.


Also, you might go back and read Richard's last post... He didn't say anything about you not believing in God. Rather, he asked "WHY do you need a God?? "

For the sake of understanding your point of view, I'm curious; What is the basis for your belief in God ("Almighty" & "Creator") if it is not the Bible?

Mr. Reed-- in an attempt to reach a common understanding, is the perfection of God part of your understanding of the divine?

Yes and no. It's my understanding that Christians perceive their God to be infallible. I do not. Do I personally believe that God (God - not the perspective of God others may have) is perfect? Yes. That said, I don't think that God cares about so many things that a lot of people seem to believe He'll condemn them for.

I believe God can only be diminsished by the constraints of an organized religion, not glorified as so many relgions claim to do. I see God in my own way. You see God in your own way. I'm not going to say anyone's viewpoint is wrong, but the only one that's right for me is mine.

I believe in God because Everything came from Somewhere.

Brian, Could you explain what you meant by this statement? In trying to understand your point of view, this kind of threw me.

I just don't believe in the God that's portrayed in the the teachings of the Christian church. I believe that particular view of God is flawed and suggests a limited God, rather than the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent one that Christians proclaim to be theirs.

I'll use the example of homosexuality. I ask you this - why would God care? The people who wrote the bible cared because homosexuality doesn't produce children. Fewer children equal fewer Christians. This was especially important in the early days of the church, when there weren't that many Christians around and conversion was a risky (and often deadly) proposition. Therefore, every effort was made to discourage anything that might limit the number of children that could be born. The highest form of discouragement isn't to say, "I don't like this," it's "GOD doesn't like this." What carries more weight - a person's opinion or the Word of God?

The list of things many Christians believe God hates (using his name in vain, masturbation, birth control, working on Sunday, reading Harry Potter, etc.) - why would he waste the time and effort hating? If he's perfect, wouldn't he be above all that? To me, it's just Christians taking themselves too seriously. God wouldn't set up the hoops to jump through if he was the loving God he's proclaimed to be by the Christian faithful.

Brian,

My advice to you would be to agree to disagree and just back away.....sloowlyy

LOL. I like stirring the pot. Besides, it's how I feel and it's true to my heart.

I suppose that I'm dragging up posts that people might like to see lost, but oh well.

Mr Reed, I have two questions about your answer to my question of the perfection of God.

You said..."Yes and no. It's my understanding that Christians perceive their God to be infallible. I do not. Do I personally believe that God (God - not the perspective of God others may have) is perfect? Yes. That said, I don't think that God cares about so many things that a lot of people seem to believe He'll condemn them for."

Typically, infallibility is not applied to God, but to what He might say, because of his perfection. (perfection is the ground for infallibility). You made a distinction between God being infallible and God being perfect. What do you understand that distinction to be?

Secondly, you have made a distinction between God and the perspective that others have of God. Classically, the character or nature of God "as he really is" is God "in se" Intellectually honest theologians have recognized that if God is transcendent (which I would assume that you would agree with, on the basis that God created everything), then we cannot speak of God "in se" because we have not access to God as he is. What then makes your perspective more convincing, more real than any other person's perspective? Or are we all stumbling around in the dark?

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the concept, but would your understanding of God be similar to Aristotle's unmoved mover?

Let us drink to the hard working people
Let us drink to the lowly of birth
Raise your glass to the good and the evil
Let us drink to the salt of the earth

Say a prayer for the common foot soldier
Spare a thought for his back breaking work
Say a prayer for his wife and his children
Who burn the fires and who still till the earth

And when I search a faceless crowd
A swirling mass of gray and
Black and white
They don't look real to me
In fact, they look so strange

Raise your glass to the hard working people
Let us drink to the uncounted heads
Let us think of the wavering millions
Who need leaders but get gamblers instead

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters
A choice of cancer or polio

And when I look in the faceless crowd
A swirling mass of grays and
Black and white
They don't look real to me
Or don't they look so strange

Let us drink to the hard working people
Let us think of the lowly of birth
Spare a thought for the rag taggy people
Let us drink to the salt of the earth

Let us drink to the hard working people
Let us drink to the salt of the earth
Let us drink to the two thousand million
Let us think of the humble of birth

Jon - I used the words 'infallible' and 'perfect' simply as synonyms. I didn't intend any distinction between the two terms. I just didn't want to use the word 'perfect' too often in the same sentence.

My perspective of God is more convincing to me because it is mine. To me, a person's relationship with God is deeply, deeply personal. I don't believe it can be accurately conveyed from one person (or group) to another, nor should it. Therefore, the only view of God or communication with God of relevant to me is my own. I would never say that my relationship with God is any more or any less real than anyone else's. It is, however, more real to me.

Yes, I suppose the "unmoved mover" philosophy is congruent with mine. If I would have to label my beliefs, I would have to say that they are very close to Deism.

Hail to the Rolling Stones

Jon: Since you brought this thread back up, I am a little confused by your original post and your subsequent answers. (Doesn't it warm your heart to know that in a few days you will be dealing with people like me. ):

"As a matter of curiousity regarding public perception, who do you think speaks for Christianity? Is it the Pope? A former Pope? Billy Graham? Chuck Dobson? Someone else?"

"There are a few people that I think could speak to Christianity and for Christianity at this point in history. C. S. Lewis has been a spokesperson for Christianity to the intellectual for the 20th century. He would be an example of a person that did not quit using his brain, but highlights that a Christian can be a thinking, intelligent person. He gives a fairly clear articulation of the basics of Christianity in Mere Christianity In many ways, to be articulate in the Christian faith, this book is a prerequisite.

Another person I would recommend as a spokesperson for and to Christianity would be Dietrech Bonhoeffer. His life is an example of living out his convictions, which he articulates in Cost of Discipleship"

From your original post I gathered that you were wondering who is perceived as speaking for Christianity today. I find it interesting that you listed people that are dead.

I don't disagree that C.S. Lewis and Dietrech Bonhoeffer are both great spokesmen for Christianity. But I would have thought that you would have listed those among the living. Perhaps your questions need to be restated as I suspect you did not really unearth the information you were after. I believe your questions are very important. (I agree with those who think Gene Edward Veith is the C.S. Lewis of our day. I would highly recommend his book Sprituality of the Cross.)

In an era when the average Christian's theology is no deeper than what is on the best seller shelf at WalMart, we need clear leadership. There are too many Christians with the "straw-dog" answers of "trust Jesus" and "we don't need any stinking theology". Historically speaking, those attitudes have lead to heresy.

It used to be that very few people doubted the truth of God's existance. The challenge of today is convincing people of the existence of immutable truth.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 4/24/2006).]

What is your definition of heresy, Richard?

Brian,

"My advice to you would be to agree to disagree and just back away.....sloowlyy"

Good advice

Van speaks on behalf of Dan Brown.

Personally, I find what Dan Brown has written to be just as plausible, if not more so, than scripture. This isn't to say that Mr. Brown is correct, but the plausibility is there.

Brian: The word orthodox is rooted in the greek language and means right teaching. I would define heresy as a radical divergent view from that which is orthodox.

Orthodoxy is not only true it is infinitly more interesting than heresy. Orthodoxy is alive, compelling and life changing. Heresies come and go by fashion. Truth is unchanged and unchangeable! On the otherhand we do owe a debt to heresy because error opens up discussions about the truth.

As to Dan Brown, let us not forget that his is an author of fiction. It is troubling to me that he hides behind the mantel of fiction and does not bother to offer any refutable specifics. This heresy too shall pass.

Van & J. Dyba: I am just a harmless bald fuzzball, not the big bad wolf. Lighten up!

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 4/25/2006).]

Richard - This is why I asked for your interpretation of heresy.

Your post is indicative of what I mean when I refer to the arrogance and condescension of Christianity. You call Dan Brown's books fiction. I call the Bible fiction. You'd call me a heretic. I'd say you exchanged your willingness to think for yourself for the security blanket of easy answers. You're certainly entitled to think and feel as you will. So am I. But here is a difference - you will never see me label my beliefs as Truth with a capital T. Christianity's standard theological brick wall - "Because the Bible tells me so" (i.e. Truth) - is an intellectual cop-out. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else is sufficiently authoritative to define a concept with a capital letter. Attempting to do so smacks not only of arrogance, but also of foolishness and a simplistic mindset.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 4/25/2006).]

Okay, so you think I am arrogant and have a security blanket. You are not the first on MC.com to make those observations. I am very comfortable with who I am and what I believe. I address life as it comes based on the bedrock principles found in my worldview.

I believe that part of what you don't understand is that Christianity is not understood completely from an intelectual point of view. Even the Bible says that about itself.

If my worldview is "fiction" no one should be threatened by it or feel the need to attack it.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 4/25/2006).]

Good for you.

"If my worldview is "fiction" no one should be threatened by it or feel the need to attack it. "


Thats not being attacked, at least from my perspective. I think what gets attacked is the incessant need of many Christians to try and force others to believe the same things that they do.

For the record, I'm a Christian. You'd never know it from pure discussion though since I tend to keep my faith as a thing between God and myself. When at all possible, especially in matters religious, I try to keep an objective viewpoint when discussing these sort of things.

Except for Dubya, then objectivity is out the door and I become a raving lunatic hell-bent on redemption, FIRE and BRIMSTONE!

J. - You just need to remember that there is an ongoing WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! Fox News, Focus on the Family and The 700 Club told me so. Christians are being oppressed and underrepresented everywhere - don't you have Justice Sunday on TiVo, J? You can see the smoke rising on the horizon from the boiling kettles of oil just waiting for an old fashioned Christian fondue party, can't you?

Damned heretics and blasphemers!

Good news Brian! We found something we can agree upon. I believe groups like Focus on the Family and The 700 Club are somewhat heretical. Unfortunatly, they are what most people think of when you ask "who speaks for Christianity".

Heretic seems a little harsh, I think they are more fanatical.

I finally have an answer from Brian regarding my first question! "You just need to remember that there is an ongoing WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! Fox News, Focus on the Family and The 700 Club told me so."

I would agree that those groups are both fanatical and heretical; fanatic in their approach and heretical in their teaching.

Brian has brought up another good point regarding an age old question...What is truth? (Pilate asked that question of Jesus) What standard do we use for understanding what we see, hear, what is thought? At some point, a person has to TRUST something. Do we trust our own experiences, and use our experiences as the measure for what is truth? Do we use someone else's word as an authority and use that as our measuring stick?

I can only speak for myself, but my experiences change too much to be a measure of much of anything. There are also too many contradictory voices out there for the measure to be another person. Instead of trusting anything of this imperfect world, I would rather trust someone or something from outside the world. In the hours before Jesus died, he prayed to God, saying "your word is truth" I would rather trust the word of God than the word of man. (the question is, how do you know which is the word of God and which is the word of man...)

Richard- I gave examples of dead people because as you said "we need clear leadership" I was asking the initial question to see who people looked to for leadership. In many ways, CS Lewis and D Bonhoeffer are able to still be a voice of leadership because they were very perceptive of the direction of Christianity and that the basic human condition hasn't changed. I still do selfish stuff that hurts other people, that I know I shouldn't do. Until that basic human nature changes, their message will be relevent. (the question is... when or how would the basic human nature change?)

Jon -

Interesting. The quaker position is that personal experience is the defining element of the christian faith.

Or to quote George Fox:

You will say Christ saith this, and the apostles say this,
but what canst thou say?

Art thou a child of Light and hast thou walked in the Light,
and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God?

Of course, we can argue for another 20 posts whether Quakers are orthodox or not

Better than arguing about whether the Quakers are orthodox is to ask "what is in man?" Again I can only speak for myself, but I do not want to trust in myself. I know what is within me.

There is no light within me, only corruption.

But by the grace of God, I am forgiven.

[This message has been edited by Jon Bonine (edited 4/26/2006).]

That's one of the points on which we differ, Jon. I can't believe in a God that would think of his children (in a manner of speaking) as being inherently unworthy of his love. What a sadistic and petty god that would be!

Good quote, Bridgier!

what can perfection and imperfection have in common?

God doesn't need to tell me that I'm corrupt, it is clear from my actions, words and thoughts.

The weird thing isn't that I'm corrupt, but that God did something to rescue me.

Good Everlast quote. Here's my personal fave:

When I die, don't bury me
Hang my balls from a cherry tree
Let 'em get ripe then take a bite
And if they don't taste right
Then don't blame me.

Santana played guitar on the song, but it was written and sung by Everlast.

NO, the real question is.......Why wouldn't Jesus like Rock and Roll

No, the real question is who says Jesus doesn't like rock and roll?

Rock and Roll is probably a "kingdom of the left" issue.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 4/26/2006).]

DAMM as this thread gets longer, and longer I agree more with the Bonine that said we need a "to the top button".

Consider the 1st Easter Sunday... that rock rolled!!

That pun gave me a headache and a stabbing pain in my side.

We all use our Home and End keys.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 4/26/2006).]

"OH MY LORD", you learn something new every day. Thank You. I never knew that, and you just made my life easier!!!!!!!