From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 12:55:02 GMT
Hi Matt, Wim, DMB,
I had a feeling this would provoke some debate :o)
> Sam said:
> The Nicene Creed, accepted by the vast majority of Christians - churches
> and people - explicitly denies this (Jesus is the 'only begotten'). If
> someone wants to call themself 'Christian' on this basis, then fine, but
> it will lead to confusion. Why not just use 'post-Christian' or
> 'semi-Christian' or something like that (or even 'follower of Jesus' etc)?
> In other words, why would someone who denies the central tenets of
> (historical) Christianity want to identify themselves with a group that
> they disagree with, on such a fundamental thing as the nature of Christ?
> Just seems odd to me. I would suspect that such a person is in a state of
> self-denial.
So let's get a bit more philosophical and put this in terms of some theses.
I say:
1. Historical Christianity asserts the uniqueness of Christ.
2. A person who denies the uniqueness of Christ but wishes to be called a
Christian is "taking an unusual position that may need some defending".
3. Such a person may be "in a state of self-denial".
Now, I don't think proposition 1 is controversial, so I don't propose to
spend any more time on it (it'll take us even further away from the MoQ for
a start).
Proposition 2, however, was disagreed with by Matt:
> Matt:
> Don't forget, though, Sam, that a person might identify themselves with a
> tradition, and then behave in strange ways like repudiating certain
> traditional doctrines, in order to _change_ that tradition. They do
> sincerely think of themselves as Christian, and they love that tradition,
> but they think the tradition has fallen from the best road. Their love of
> Christianity causes them to start behaving in strange ways. That's what
> Luther and Calvin were doing, after all: repudiating long standing
> traditional doctrines in order to remake the tradition.
<snip>
> But whether the person was revolutionary, or simply in self-denial, is
> only something future historians will be able to decide.
As a theoretical proposition I am happy to accept this. But I would say a)
the denial of the uniqueness of Christ is a change orders of magnitude
greater than what Luther and Calvin were arguing for, and b) Luther
understood the tradition he was wishing to "change" (don't know enough about
Calvin to judge). So often it seems to me that the rejection/change of
Christianity is based on a poor understanding of the tradition. So a person
might be a revolutionary, but if they don't know what they're talking about,
then I'm sceptical.
A better example would be Eckhart, who used language that seemed shocking,
in order to further awareness, and develop the tradition. He's a good
example of someone who was only properly appreciated in retrospect.
Wim wrote:
> As long as there is a (recognized) minority of Christians that doesn't
> agree
> that Christianity has central tenets one has to adhere to in order to call
> oneself "Christian", calling oneself "Christian" without adhering to any
> (which is not the same as disagreeing with them) doesn't imply
> self-denial.
> In several countries (e.g. the Netherlands) Quakers are member of the
> Council of Churches and as such recognized as "Christian" despite their
> refusal to subscribe to any creed.
I think if that happens then the word "Christian" is evacuated of
intellectual content.
> I doubt whether a majority of people calling themselves "Christian" (at
> least in the Netherlands) really subscribes to every aspect of the Nicene
> Creed in any meaningful and practical sense. Even my father, who is a
> (retired) Protestant pastor doesn't take Jesus being the only-begotten son
> of God literal. Has it ever been polled as far as you know?
I'd be pretty confident that most people attending a Sunday service in the
US or UK, who were regular attenders, would sign up to Jesus being unique.
Cashing that out in terms of explicit adherence to the Nicene creed is
superfluous in terms of the substance of what we're arguing about (ie it's
accepted by the 'hierarchy' as an explicit statement, whereas most people in
the pews wouldn't worry about the abstraction, only about the major sense,
ie uniqueness).
> dmb replies:
> I understand your urge to defend the label and if it weren't for the fact
> that we're talking about these things in a philosophical context I'd
> accept
> your answer without pressing any further. (Who was it that said we should
> respect a guys religion in the same way that we respect his theory that
> his
> wife is beautiful and his children are smart?) But in this context your
> answer really boils down to zip. Its the ultimate argument from authority
> and begs the question in the biggest way. I think that even you would
> admit
> that some doctrines are held and spread by FORCE of arms rather than the
> force of the ideas themselves. And it seems to me that in the long and
> bloody history of the church, denying the unique divinity of christ would
> get you killed. Interesting that you'd appeal to history. So do I...
Not true. Christianity spread in the first three hundred years without any
force of arms whatsoever. And the uniqueness of Christ was what they were
teaching.
> dmb says:
> Oh, this is delicious. First of all, you have to admit that I was already
> careful NOT to include myself within those disagreeable groups.
Who brought you into the equation? I was talking in general terms, and I
assumed that you were.
> And
> HISTORCALLY, Christianity has been many things. The standard version of
> history has carefully edited out those who would deny that very creed.
> That's why we find the Gnostic gospels in a dusty old jar instead of in
> the
> bible or in today's churches. (Not that they were all right either, but
> still.)
Nonsense. The New Testament scriptures, largely as we have them today, were
widely circulated within the first two or three generations after Christ.
The gnostic gospels are significantly later creations, and radically
different spiritually, textually and in terms of their literary qualities.
Whatever happened in later centuries, Christianity was built around
assertions of Christ's uniqueness from the very beginning.
> I agree with Matt to some extent on this. I'm not really fighting over who
> gets to wear the label. I'm trying to say that there is a better way to
> look
> at Christianity, one that is compatible with the MOQ's anti-theism amd its
> philosophical mysticism at the very same time. I don't expect you to like
> it, believe it or otherwise change your mind. At least not all at once.
> But
> that's my view and I'm sticking to it. And its not that I want to bend
> religion to make it fit Pirsig's gospel. Not at all. I just think the MOQ
> is
> a relatively clear and simple framework. His big picture, as I keep
> pointing
> out until you're sick of it, is based on the perennial philospophy and is
> far from unique. All my intellectuals heros are singing the same song, and
> bascially dealing with that basic framework. The view of christianity I'm
> pushing here is one that sings along, but yours is quite the sour note. It
> clashes with the rest of the picture.
Well, as we have discussed before, I don't think Christianity and the
'official' MoQ are compatible, no dispute. I'm interested in working out
ways of using some of Pirsig's insights in a way that harmonises with
Christianity. That's the particular furrow I'm ploughing.
But for the avoidance of ambiguity, if you were able to persuade me that the
'official' MoQ, taken as a whole, was of higher Quality (social and
intellectual) than Christianity, then I would abandon Christianity. Not
something I'm expecting though.
I'll reply to your point about sacraments etc when I reply to Wim.
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 06 2005 - 12:59:32 GMT