Archive

Monthly Archives: February 2012

“We should love the Lord as we do our friends. Many a time I have seen people bring grief to God, without being bothered about it, and I have seen these very same people resort to every device, plan, pressure, plea from themselves and their friends, and every gift, simply to restore an old relationship upset by some minor grievance.”

John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent.

Advertisements

Last week or so I posted on Facebook a question regarding whether or not one could simply be Christian apart from being rooted in a particular denomination/tradition.

It seemed to me that the overwhelming response was, “yes”. The general consensus was that there was some form of “Mere Christianity” that existed apart from denominational and traditional expressions. I understand the concern here but think it is ultimately misguided.

I would say instead, “no”, there is no “Mere Christianity” apart from particular denominations/traditions. The operative phrase here, I think, is “apart from”. To say one cannot be Christian apart from a particular tradition is not to say that there are not some Christian doctrines that we can all generally agree upon. It is simply to say that we do not nor can not believe in a vacuum. We all must believe “from somewhere”.

For starters, the Christian faith is Apostolic by nature. This means, basically, that our faith is passed on. We receive the faith and then pass it on to others. It does not simply drop out of the sky. If that were the case, the Christian faith would be ahistorical, but it is not. Instead, the Christian faith is rooted in human history, it depends upon human reception and passing on. So, if you are learning to be Christian then like it or not you are part of a tradition.

Because the Christian faith is rooted in human history and not ahistorical then it is impossible to imagine an expression of the Christian faith that is not embodied by real human communities. There is no such thing as a disembodied “Mere Christianity” that exists “out there”. All Christian expression is rooted in real flesh and blood human communities with real flesh and blood histories. This is undeniable.

If you are tracking with me thus far and are in agreement then it really is not that big of a jump to concede that there is no Christianity apart from particular denominations/traditions. I realize that it is the particularity of all of this that is what gets folks undergarments in a knot, but really think about it for a moment.

If Christianity is by nature Apostolic as I mentioned above then Christianity is by nature traditional. Just as there is no disembodied Christianity there is no disembodied tradition. There are only particular traditions. If you are a Christian, you are at least either Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. So, at the very least you must be able to say, “I am ______________” and fill in the blank with one of the options I have just mentioned. Then, of course, if you are Protestant you are not simply generally so, but particularly so. If you are Protestant you are a particular sort of Protestant, be it Baptist, Anglican, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, or even Non-Denominational (!).

I think one of the hinderances to people accepting this is the desire for Christian unity. This is good. Ecumenism is important. But Christian unity does not mean that Christians are simply one big indistinguishable monad. Christian unity does not require that we’re all the same. To think so would be to confuse “unity” with “identical”. Christian unity is a unity-in-distinction, a distinction-in-unity. Thus, any real ecumenical dialogue does not seek to do away with distinction but rather begins there.

I was reading some material lately (unrelated to this question) and came across the following:

“To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a “Mere Christian,” at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled.”

Feel free to replace “Anglican” with whatever tradition you are apart of. The point is that different denominations/traditions do not simply express “distinct versions of Christianity” (this would, admittedly be cause for concern) but rather “distinct ways of being a “Mere Christian”.

So, whatever your tradition is, embrace it. Be bold, Baptists. Be proud, Pentecostals. Be awesome, Anglicans. And, if you have never considered that our faith is traditioned and that you, by believing, are part of a particular tradition then I encourage you to enquire about that. Find out more about your tradition and what makes you, well, you.

More evidence that we need a community in which to learn to be Christian. From Hauerwas:

“What so often makes us liars is not what we do, but the justifications we offer for what we do. Our justifications become the way we try to defeat the contingencies of our lives by telling ourselves consoling stories that suggest we have done as well as possible…Being Christian means that I must try to make sense of my life in the light of the gospel, and so I do not get to determine the truthfulness of my story. Rather, those who live according to the gospel will be the ones to determine where I have been truthful and where I have deceived myself,” (Hannah’s Child, 159).

Am I a Christian? I don’t know. Ask those around me.

Robert Jenson on revelation and the promise of the Eucharistic meal:

“For the revelation to be revelation of God, it must pose the exclusive and exhaustive alternatives of faith and offense; it does so in that it comes as an object in the world; this object is Jesus of Nazareth and, in the situation of the church, the bread and wine; and in this connection, no distinction is made between Jesus and the bread and wine,” (Visible Words, 85).