tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post3841971355207120854..comments2022-02-07T07:31:19.723-08:00Comments on Cognitive Disinhibition: How Many "Branches" of Christianity?Brad Belschnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00343484861202465030noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-32892867118239326982013-09-25T20:50:04.052-07:002013-09-25T20:50:04.052-07:00Now let me revamp that to make a) the universalist...Now let me revamp that to make a) the universalist point about (theistic) religion in general, and then b) the heterodox point about the Bible.<br /><br />a) "[I]f you believe that only one of these [creeds cited] above constitutes "the one true [religion]", then you believe the majority of [humans] got it wrong. No single [religion] contains the majority of [worshipers] in the world today. … If any of them makes an exclusivist claim, then that means they're categorically excluding the majority of their [fellow theists], which is a rather scary and prideful course of action. Woe to the majority of [well meaning theists], dead and alive, who apparently messed up and didn't join the true [religion]! …<br /><br />"The [worship of God] is NOT an institution. The [worship of God] is not defined and limited by any political structure or governmental body. The [worship of God] is much bigger than that and much messier. The [true religion] is the worldwide visible community of all [theistic] believers.<br /><br />"The [worship of God] can take an institutional form, but it doesn't have to necessarily, and it certainly doesn't have to take ONE institutional form (and it never has). This principle enables us to classify all the branches above as [theistic creeds]. … We don't have to figure out which [religion] is real and which [religions] are illusory. They're all real! Every branch has its own errors, but they are all [theistic] communities."<br /><br />b) "[I]f you believe that only one of these [versions] above constitutes "the one true [Bible]", then you believe the majority of Christians got it wrong. No single [Bible] contains the majority of [Christian texts] in the world today. … If any of them makes an exclusivist claim, then that means they're categorically excluding the majority of their brethren, which is a rather scary and prideful course of action. Woe to the majority of Christians, dead and alive, who apparently messed up and didn't [adhere to! the one true Bible]! …<br /><br />"The [Bible] is NOT [a canonically definite object]. The [Bible] is not defined and limited by any political structure or governmental body. The [Bible] is much bigger than that and much messier. The [Bible] is the worldwide visible community of all [Christian writings].<br /><br />"The [Bible] can take an institutional form, but it doesn't have to necessarily, and it certainly doesn't have to take ONE institutional form (and it never has). This principle enables us to classify all the [versions] above as Christian [Bibles]. … We don't have to figure out which [Bible] is real and which [Bibles] are illusory. They're all real! Every [Bible] has its own errors, but they are all Christian [scriptures]."Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-64878844926007645042013-09-25T20:48:49.304-07:002013-09-25T20:48:49.304-07:00This post's thesis is not logically different ...This post's thesis is not logically different from, and thus no more compelling than, the claims that "it is absurd to affirm the singular truth of Christianity among so many diverse world religions" and "it is absurd to affirm the singular authority of the orthodox biblical canon among so many diverse early Christian scriptures."<br /><br />Here's what I take to be the post's thesis:<br /><br />"[I]f you believe that only one of these branches above constitutes "the one true church", then you believe the majority of Christians got it wrong. No single branch contains the majority of Christians in the world today. … If any of them makes an exclusivist claim, then that means they're categorically excluding the majority of their brethren, which is a rather scary and prideful course of action. Woe to the majority of Christians, dead and alive, who apparently messed up and didn't join the true church! …<br /><br />"The church is NOT an institution. The church is not defined and limited by any political structure or governmental body. The church is much bigger than that and much messier. The Church is the worldwide visible community of all believers.<br /><br />"The church can take an institutional form, but it doesn't have to necessarily, and it certainly doesn't have to take ONE institutional form (and it never has). This principle enables us to classify all the branches above as Christian churches. … We don't have to figure out which church is real and which churches are illusory. They're all real! Every branch has its own errors, but they are all Christian communities."Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-17473760192178923902013-09-16T04:52:51.951-07:002013-09-16T04:52:51.951-07:00Brad,
"Nevertheless, I think my description ...Brad,<br /><br />"Nevertheless, I think my description above is as good an example of "futility" as any."<br /><br />The only example I can find above is your own example, of examining the evidence, and not finding "the true Church". You're treating that example as if it is an argument, in the way some people use the apparent insolubility of the abortion debate, to argue that there is no true answer to the question, and that the search for a true answer is futile. The same conclusion is often reached regarding the existence of God, again, on the very same basis. <br /><br />Consider each of your three reasons. Regarding (a), the number of options doesn't in any way show that the pursuit of the answer is futile. For every question, there are an infinite number of possible answers. Answers that remain open to you subjectively, should not therefore be assumed to indicate an objective condition of reality in which there is no one true answer. <br /><br />Likewise, regarding (b), that the marks of the one true Church are not "clear or self-evident" *to you* is a statement about your own epistemic condition. It doesn't follow from your own epistemic lack of clarity about those marks that there are no such marks, and no such Church. <br /><br />Regarding your "feeling," comment, (c), I completely agree. But again, from the fact that some people follow their feelings, it does not follow that there is no one true Church, or that this Church cannot be found.<br /><br />So, all three of these reasons, taken individually or conjunctively, are not good reasons to believe that there is no one true Church, or that it cannot be found, because from these three reasons taken individually or conjunctively, that conclusion does not follow.<br /><br />In the peace of Christ,<br /><br />- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-75024009425199822112013-09-15T21:11:14.817-07:002013-09-15T21:11:14.817-07:00Ah, interesting, good to know.
Regarding your fir...Ah, interesting, good to know.<br /><br />Regarding your first comment: I enthusiastically agree with literally every word you wrote, except where you said "As a Roman Catholic" (I would replace that with "As a Presbyterian" myself), and where you sad "To have an open ecclesiology, for me, is a dangerous concept, lending itself to individualistic and relativistic paradigms"<br /><br />I wouldn't say it's "individualistic." I would just say an open ecclesiology recognizes the capacity for corporate bodies and institutions to make mistakes and fail. Even ecumenical councils are fallible (although for the record, I don't believe a 100% "ecumenical" council has ever occurred, because there has always been *some* significant part of the Church absent, even if it's just those weird Christians in India in 325 AD). To Roman Catholic ears, I can understand why that would sound like individualism, but I would argue it's actually a healthy middle-ground, maintaining that both individuals and corporate bodies are fallible.<br /><br />I can also understand why it might sound "relativistic." But rest assured, I believe truth is ultimately objective, and very important. But I also believe that certain parts of our theology are less important than others, and they shouldn't be stumbling blocks preventing us from a unified communion. For example, I'm happy to commune with credo-baptists (though I disagree with them), but not with a group that denies the Trinity. The truth is certainly important, but not all truth is equally important.Brad Belschnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00343484861202465030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-83501739724750381092013-09-15T14:21:15.229-07:002013-09-15T14:21:15.229-07:00Let's just say I had a conversion of heart, mo...Let's just say I had a conversion of heart, more so than of faith. I'm currently a seminarian for the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City. I've been in seminary for 4 years, and will be ordained to the diaconate in June, with the intention of being ordained to the priesthood the following year (June 2015).christeaudinoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17229806139990974210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-34746846957888977372013-09-15T12:56:33.727-07:002013-09-15T12:56:33.727-07:00I admit it's difficult to PROVE that any activ...I admit it's difficult to PROVE that any activity is "futile", because the meaning of the word is so inherently slippery. Nevertheless, I think my description above is as good an example of "futility" as any. I believe this because (a) the options are so numerous and sometimes so similar--my list of 9 above is by no means a complete list, (b) the criteria by which one should judge whether a church is THE one true church are not at all clear or self-evident, and therefore people are essentially left to speculate about what those marks might be, and then compare those speculations to existing church bodies, (c) if a person joins a church simply because they have a "feeling" that it's true, this feeling does not guarantee they have chosen THE one true church; rather, such feelings are just another way of speculating, albeit in a non-rational manner. <br /><br />You said: "Similarly, you assert that the Church is not an institution. But that conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence you provide."<br /><br />You are correct. That's why in my comment above I said, "The historical details above are not my foundation for this ecclesiology, but they do help to make the issue clearer, I think. :-)"Brad Belschnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00343484861202465030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-76906650678555141032013-09-15T08:29:07.537-07:002013-09-15T08:29:07.537-07:00Aaron, good to hear from you. How are you? Looking...Aaron, good to hear from you. How are you? Looking on your Facebook profile, it seems you're becoming a priest---congratulations! Last I heard you were a Old Catholic who denied papal infallibility, or maybe just Vatican I or II. But in your comment above you mentioned Vatican II approvingly. Does that mean you changed your mind and you're now a Roman Catholic? Please forgive me for not keeping up with you better---if I had, then I wouldn't have to ask such a basic question! I expect this is probably very old news for you (assuming that you have "converted"). Brad Belschnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00343484861202465030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-36440398203097639742013-09-15T07:13:00.962-07:002013-09-15T07:13:00.962-07:00Brad,
You wrote, "Second, it's futile to...Brad,<br /><br />You wrote, "Second, it's futile to try and figure out which of these is THE one true church." How do you know this to be true? <br /><br />Similarly, you assert that the Church is not an institution. But that conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence you provide. Another possibility is that the Church is an institution, and yet also has a supernatural dimension that extends beyond her institutional lines.<br /><br />I've written about this question in "<a href="http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/branches-or-schisms/" rel="nofollow">Branches or Schisms?</a>"<br /><br />In the peace of Christ,<br /><br />- Bryan Bryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-48482335895309842802013-09-14T18:00:38.693-07:002013-09-14T18:00:38.693-07:00As a Roman Catholic, I am very much in favor of ec...As a Roman Catholic, I am very much in favor of ecumenical dialogue, so as to work toward a real unification. In fact, the Catholic Church recognizes the sacramental legitimacy of many of the Eastern Churches, and seeks reunification with many Protestant denominations (See Vatican II’s “Decree on Ecumenism” – a short but enlightening read).<br /><br />But the idea of unity is ultimately a teleological unity, based on truth. To have an open ecclesiology, for me, is a dangerous concept, lending itself to individualistic and relativistic paradigms inconsistent historically with the Christian religion.<br /> <br />Communion is central to the Christian claim for legitimacy; a communion in the Body of Christ. And while that unity can and should reflect the diversity of the human race, it must be founded on truth claims that, while organic in development, remain as true now as they were when they were initially professed (think the Trinity, for example).<br /><br />It’s great to hear your words on this topic, Brad. I think dialogue concerning the relevance of our (yours and mine) Christian Faith is what will evangelize the world, because it will first evangelize us. Peace<br /><br />Aaron Foshee<br />christeaudinoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17229806139990974210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8189413885846595252.post-77953030361721763442013-01-04T05:41:28.931-08:002013-01-04T05:41:28.931-08:00Disclaimer: I realize that some of my statements a...Disclaimer: I realize that some of my statements and claims above are controversial. I realize that I left out plenty of details. I realize I'm probably over-simplifying some stuff. What do you expect from a single blogpost that aims to summarize the whole institutional sweep of Christian history? If you want to nitpick minor details above, then okay, I guess that's alright...but please be gentle about it. If you want to point out huge factual errors, then please do so; I don't want to remain in error. <br /><br />What I care about most is the conclusion. I believe in an open ecclesiology and a not-necessarily-institutional Church. That's the heart of the matter. I believe the Bible teaches this (or at least, scriptural principle imply this: priesthood of all believers, love and communion with other Christians, etc). The historical details above are not my <i>foundation</i> for this ecclesiology, but they do help to make the issue clearer, I think. :-)Brad Belschnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00343484861202465030noreply@blogger.com