Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been or might become.Please, discuss. The context is here.
HOW I FEEL WHEN I’M TWO WEEKS OUT FROM QUALS
9 years ago
Friday, July 30, 2010
Truth Claim of the Day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I like what Rod Dreher had to say:
"I'm sorry, but this is weak, and makes me wonder what really happened. Surely a woman of her age and experience cannot possibly believe that the entirety of Christianity, current and past, can be reduced to the cultural politics of the United States of America in the 21st century. Does she really know no liberal Christians? Has she never picked up a copy of Commonweal? Does she really think that if she asked a Christian on the streets of Nairobi or Tegucigalpa what they, as Christians, thought of Nancy Pelosi, they would have the slightest idea what she was talking about? And Christianity, anti-science? Good grief. Has she not noticed that Catholic Church, to which she did belong until yesterday, has affirmed evolution, and embraces science? How can a woman of her putative sophistication really think that Christianity is nothing more than a section of the Republican Party at prayer?"
http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/blogs/rod-dreher/anne-rice-christianity-i-quit-you
The statement by itself is true, but as Dreher points out, Rice is being extremely narrow-minded.
In response to the Rod Dreher quote -- No, of course she's not being completely rational. Of course something else happened. Whatever that something else is, it happens all the time in this country. There are plenty of people of "her age and experience" who come to the same conclusion she has.
I don't think it's at all fair to pin this on Rice, to call her out for not being savvy enough, for not thinking it through. I think it's time to examine ourselves, both as a group and as individuals to see if there's something we should be doing that would keep more than just Anne Rice from giving up on the whole thing.
As for the truth claim itself, I tend to agree, although the implication is that it can just be you and Jesus under a tree and that's all you need. As much as I wish that were true sometimes, it's not. We need other Christians around us, so in that sense, Christianity is very important. But certainly not more important than Christ Himself.
nonesense. the claim is patently incoherent. if you believe Christ is who he says he is, then you're a christian, and you are a member of the same body as all the rest of us - including those who vote differently. i am sorry if that offends ms rice's other ideoogical commitments.
for all i know, there are some christians who have treated her badly. but it seems more likely from the link you posted that she's just upset about women's ordination and gay marriage.
There *are* Christians who have treated her badly -- many were those who don't know her personally, and many did so very publicly. She's new to this whole believing-in-Jesus thing, and from what I can tell, has been treated very poorly indeed, apparently because she was not magically orthodox and proper from the moment she started telling people she believes that Jesus is who He says He is.
So I think we should cut the poor woman some slack and maybe show her the love that has obviously been missing from her experience of fellow Christians thus far.
Jessie - then there is apparently some backstory that I am unaware of. I don't know much of anything about Ms. Rice, so if you say that she has been persecuted I believe you. That really sucks.
Her comments in Norman's link talked about Christians being "anti-gay" and "anti-feminist", which at least among the people I talk to generally means "believes what Scripture pretty obviously teaches about gays and women."
She also doesn't score a lot of sympathy points from me for talking about how rotten Christians are. I think that people who have been forgiven infinite wickedness ought to be a little slower to pass judgment on the rest of the body. Which, as you will probably point out, also applies to her meanspirited critics, and I agree with you: a plague on both houses. But that doesn't justify her. Apostasy is nobody else's fault.
I want to repeat that I know next to nothing about Ms. Rice, so I'm not really sure what kind of controversies there have been. As a Truth Claim of the Day, her statement falls flat on its face. But I am certainly sad to hear of Christians behaving like jerks.
although, come to think of it, I'm actually a little glad. The other sinners in the body are a brilliant testimony both to the legitimacy of my own often less-than-stellar participation, and to the eternal grace of Christ that is alone sufficient.
But yeah, harassing new possible converts is bad.
"the claim is patently incoherent. if you believe Christ is who he says he is, then you're a christian, and you are a member of the same body as all the rest of us - including those who vote differently. i am sorry if that offends ms rice's other ideoogical commitments."
Joel, I find it interesting that you refer here to Anne Rice's comments from the context, but not directly to the claim itself. Chris and Jessie, at least, seems to think the claim in itself is true. And I think we're all agreed that even if it is true it doesn't justify a total rejection of the church.
I don't know if she sees her "other ideological commitments" as Biblical or not. I could presume based on what I tend to expect, but it's just that, presumption. I personally think that conservative Christians are very often "“anti-gay,” “anti-feminist," “anti-science” and “anti-Democrat”" and patently unbiblical in being so. By this, of course, I mean taking an unloving and un-Christlike attitude toward some things God has declared sin and some things He hasn't; the attitude is wrong in either case.
But, given how little we know about the context, and following the rule of charity in interpretation, I think we are left with this dilemma: If the church all around you is deeply unbiblical and, to the quite limited understanding of your conscience, is anti-Christ, is it proper to distance yourself from "his followers" so as to better follow Christ? To what extent might Anne Rice merely be out-Luthering Martin Luther?
That was long. All of which was basically to say, I'm not sure you can dismiss the statement out of hand without returning to the Catholic church. If we accept Protestantism, we must accept that the statement bears some kernel of important truth (depending on how broadly we are using "Christianity"), regardless of possible other errors in doctrine on the part of the speaker.
Norman,
What I was trying to say is that the idea of Christ without Christianity doesn't make any sense. The moment one believes in Christ, one has, ipso facto, some kind of theology involving Christ, i.e. Christianity. One may have a screwy version of Christianity, but to act it's possible simply to have Christ without associated dogma is like self-declared pragmatists claiming they have no ideology.
Another possible interpretation of her words might be that Ms. Rice was seeking to have Christ without having to deal with other Christians. In which venture I wish her the best of luck, but entertains doubts about the probability of her success. Her pal Jesus felt pretty strongly about loving the brethren - which, unless you want to posit that her anonymous haters have passed the seventy-times-seven benchmark, would seem to include rude people who disagree with you politically. Which was the substance of my earlier point. Sauce for the goose - as I said to Jessie, I'm no more happy with the people who have apparently been mean to her. But that's beside the point - you don't get to hit Timmy because he hit you first.
Likewise, if you have some particular conservative Christians in mind who go beyond the biblical condemnations of homosexuality, and want to assume arguendo that Ms. Rice is talking about just them, I am happy to concede the point. Christians should not be "anti-gay" in the hateful sense of the word you are stipulating. At the same time, though, I think you should recognize that in a lot of this country that epithet is applied to the meekest and kindest opinions imaginable, so long as they bear any resemblance to the actual views expressed in Scripture. As I said before, that is how I read them based on my upbringing in the Northeast. I am sure there are other places where gays are meeting slightly more resistance, some of which, people being what they are, is no doubt sinful. (Which raises a dubious choice: better to err on the side of denouncing sin, or of accomodating it?)
As to your comparison of Rice to Luther, I have nothing like a well-thought-out response (you were expecting...), but here are two initial impressions.
1) Luther never left the church. He, like Calvin, fled for his life under a death sentence for calling the Church to repentance. They didn't just get fed up and move, they were run out of town on a rail. So that's a little different, and I don't think the historic practice of the Baptists in forming a new denomination every forty-five minutes is particularly to be emulated.
2) I think it largely depends on what the local expression of "his followers" are doing. If they believe and preach the gospel, then (I tend to think) you should stay with them and humbly call them on their unbiblical beliefs. If they don't, then you are probably not dealing with a group of actual followers, and you should by all means leave and join one of those. If you don't understand enough to know the difference... wait, what was it you said you believed to start with?
So yeah, I can imagine a case in which Rice's action would be justified. But she didn't say anything about the gospel - she said she was upset that Christians are anti-democrat and anti-science and a whole host of other superfluous issues. And I frankly don't have a category for Ms. Rice's sweeping denunciation of "Christianity".
As I say, those are just first impressions (however wordy), but yeah I do think I can maintain some kind of distinction between essential errors that might justify breaking fellowship, and non-essential problems that justify not judging the servant of Another - and all while standing on one foot and not taking the tonsure. I also expect other Christians to know the difference, because I think that's what Scripture expects. Not that any of us will do so perfectly, naturally enough...
Post a Comment