I find it amazing that the discussion here is about assent to ( certain tenets of) a belief system being the characteristic of a good Christian.
I can see that, but I also picked up in seminary the notion that what you believe about God - if you are serious - will directly effect the way you act around people. So in a sense, your treatment of core dogmas of the church should very naturally flow into your ethical universe, and will directly influence your behavior.
For instance, if you think Jesus is going to destroy the world and hoover you up into a perfect paradise because you swore a loyalty oath to him, that's going to affect how you treat other people. At the very least, I think there's a kind of feedback loop amongst social ethics, piety, and theological beliefs.
Few of those I'd describe as 'good Christians' would apply such an epithet to themselves.
There's an old saying, '"Ask my neighbour,' said the Anabaptist.'
Not that the Anabaptists and 'Peace-Churches' have always had a better track-record than anyone else but it does embody a worthwhile intention I think.
I find it amazing that the discussion here is about assent to ( certain tenets of) a belief system being the characteristic of a good Christian.
I can see that, but I also picked up in seminary the notion that what you believe about God - if you are serious - will directly effect the way you act around people. So in a sense, your treatment of core dogmas of the church should very naturally flow into your ethical universe, and will directly influence your behavior.
For instance, if you think Jesus is going to destroy the world and hoover you up into a perfect paradise because you swore a loyalty oath to him, that's going to affect how you treat other people. At the very least, I think there's a kind of feedback loop amongst social ethics, piety, and theological beliefs.
I wonder if it's more that the sort of person you are dictates both the way you treat other people and what you end up believing about God.
"Good" feels like its too black and white for me. Who can really claim to be good? I might hope to be improving or developing as a christian, but I would hesitate to claim to be good. I like the image of the Church as a field hospital - we all have our own battles and wounds and the church should be the place where healing is found.
However as I said earlier "good christian" is just a slang way of describing someone who is kind. It has no theological content at all in common parlance.
In my first response to the OP, I said I would reply to the accusation: "I may not be good, but I am forgiven." As I recall, several people criticized the reply.
Let me explain where I am coming from:
Back in the Reformation days, Luther's friend, Melancthon, who actually wrote the Augsburg Confession, was struggling with living up to that he thought were Christian standards. He was quite afraid of committing a sin. Luther told him, "If you have to sin, sin greatly, but expect the grace of God just as greatly."
This saying is often seen on Lutheran college sweatshirts in the US.
I grew up with the saying Christians are saints and sinners at the same time. I know I will never reach my standard of being good, but it is comforting to know that really does not matter. I am forgiven.
I’ve also heard the glib view that, even if a Christian isn’t a very nice person, they would have been less nice without their faith. And I don’t think it’s universally true.
All of us have a lot of other background stuff besides Christianity that informs our attitudes and actions - personality traits, upbringing, positive and negative experiences, political views, education, etc. etc. And sometimes that can overlap with Christianity in a weird and dysfunctional way. If, for example, you have a tendency to be authoritarian in your approach to others, and don’t examine this, adding Christianity into the mix may just bolster your belief that God is on your side and make you even more toxic towards others.
I've seen that for sure. And I really hate trying to pick up after the mess that creates in the lives of others, who not surprisingly blame Christianity for the fucked-up-ness of the person who is being so toxic.
The trouble is that we can't measure spiritual progress--either compared to where a person was in the past, or between two people. And so in the end we're arguing about our personal impressions of other people. And usually we don't have a full view of their personalities even on that level--how do they behave at home? At work? Among friends? and etc.
Just as a side note, I would consider Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses to be extremely heretical Christians, but they are heretical Christians in my view, not heretical Hindus or Muslims or what have you. They’re aiming their faith at this guy named Jesus who died and rose again 2000 years ago, not as a prophet, but in some sense a sacrifice for sin. I do consider them to be as close to the line as possible, but still heretical Christians, not something else. If we were all together in ancient Rome, we’d be persecuted together as Christians. (And I’m sure many early Christians’ notions of how some of these theological matters “worked” were just as far off base—which is why we had to have ecumenical councils and such to sort out our precise theology, what was orthodox and what was not, in the first place.)
In my first response to the OP, I said I would reply to the accusation: "I may not be good, but I am forgiven." As I recall, several people criticized the reply.
Let me explain where I am coming from:
Back in the Reformation days, Luther's friend, Melancthon, who actually wrote the Augsburg Confession, was struggling with living up to that he thought were Christian standards. He was quite afraid of committing a sin. Luther told him, "If you have to sin, sin greatly, but expect the grace of God just as greatly."
This saying is often seen on Lutheran college sweatshirts in the US.
I grew up with the saying Christians are saints and sinners at the same time. I know I will never reach my standard of being good, but it is comforting to know that really does not matter. I am forgiven.
Yes, I know the background and guessed that's what you were trying to say.
It still sounds crass though.
By that, I mean no disrespect to Luther, Melanchthon nor your good self.
I know what you are trying to say but it would sound like special pleading if you said it to anyone who challenged you as to whether your walk matched your talk.
I know you didn't mean it to sound glib but that's how that kind of comment would come across to a potential interlocutor.
'It's alright for me. I'm forgiven. You aren't. I can do what I like because God's my big buddy.'
Sorry, but that's how it would sound, Luther or no Luther, Reformation or no Reformation.
I wonder if it's more that the sort of person you are dictates both the way you treat other people and what you end up believing about God.
I tend to think people evolve, and are somewhat trainable. But...yeah. I'm not sure if people fall into "sorts" like that but after a while there's a kind of accumulated sense of "self" that sets in.
And I do think there's a kind of feedback loop that people are drawn to theologies that appeal to how they understand themselves, the world.
One of his more appealing or less appealing traits depending on how you look at it.
I'm quite partial to fart gags so can be as coarse as anyone else in that respect.
The point I'm making though, is that without a great deal of background explanation the 'I'm forgiven, so there!' response isn't likely to win anyone over.
It's more likely to come across as arrogant, self-righteous and smug, even though it's not intended that way.
It isn't something that's restricted to Lutherans or particular types of Protestant, of course.
If I responded to a post here with, 'I don't care what you say, I'm a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and you aren't because you are a schismatic of some kind - so there!' I'd soon get my arse kicked.
And deservedly so.
It isn't that you are wrong or presumptuous to claim that you are forgiven, but if you 'weaponise' it to win an argument then you are in danger of losing the plot.
I wonder if it's more that the sort of person you are dictates both the way you treat other people and what you end up believing about God.
I tend to think people evolve, and are somewhat trainable. But...yeah. I'm not sure if people fall into "sorts" like that but after a while there's a kind of accumulated sense of "self" that sets in.
And I do think there's a kind of feedback loop that people are drawn to theologies that appeal to how they understand themselves, the world.
Then they read books and listen to stuff that reinforces that. Then get really cross if one of theirs says stuff that breaks the feedback loop. (Thinking of Steve Chalke, who was seen as a "good evangelical" for years until he broke ranks to say nice things about the LBGT+ community).
Whenever someone says "good Christian" I always assume that it's a way of deciding who they think is in or out. Kind of like "sound" or "unsound" to describe actions or behaviour.
Sub-Christian is how I've heard them described. Fits.
It seems unnecessarily offensive.
Don't conflate it with a pejorative use of subhuman. It's 'sub' as in 'branching from.'
I wonder if that is how a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness would hear it - what’s wrong with non-Trinitarian or non-mainstream as a qualification ?
I think it depends on whom I’m talking to. I don’t believe in mincing words about this level of profound heresy. I would try to be polite to a Mormon or JW, but these are extremely basic, fundamental doctrines for Christian belief.
Whenever someone says "good Christian" I always assume that it's a way of deciding who they think is in or out. Kind of like "sound" or "unsound" to describe actions or behaviour.
I rarely if ever hear “good Christian” as meaning anything other than “nice person.” Hearing it as having to do with doctrine, or as having to do with who’s “in” or “out” isn’t part of my experience.
Sub-Christian is how I've heard them described. Fits.
It seems unnecessarily offensive.
Don't conflate it with a pejorative use of subhuman. It's 'sub' as in 'branching from.'
I wonder if that is how a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness would hear it - what’s wrong with non-Trinitarian or non-mainstream as a qualification ?
I think it depends on whom I’m talking to. I don’t believe in mincing words about this level of profound heresy. I would try to be polite to a Mormon or JW, but these are extremely basic, fundamental doctrines for Christian belief.
I really can’t imagine a context in which I’d tell a Mormon or a JW who claim to be Christian—both of which can be found in my wife’s and my extended families—that they’re not really Christian, much less use a term like “sub-Christian” (which I equally can’t imagine anyone hearing as anything but pejorative).
Anything can be Christian if someone somewhere claims it is. That may be Christianity's greatest strength 2000 years later. It's endlessly inclusive. Poor Macron of Sinope. He just peaked too early.
Anything can be Christian if someone somewhere claims it is. That may be Christianity's greatest strength 2000 years later. It's endlessly inclusive. Poor Macron of Sinope. He just peaked too early.
Words have meanings because humans use them to mean things - specifically humans use words to mean 'close enough to what we've previously used this word for for present purposes'.
A Buddhist with no particular interest in the figure of Jesus isn't a Christian for any sensible human purpose, a doctrinally orthodox Roman Catholic or Baptist is for all purposes worthy of respect, and a Jehovah's Witness may be for some purposes and not for others.
Language also has various qualifiers that are used when a case is felt to be closer to some concept than any other but not quite close enough. Some of those qualifiers are heard as less pejorative than others.
Sub-Christian is how I've heard them described. Fits.
I think of that phrase more in terms of the old pagans, myself.
[TANGENT]
Speaking of pejoratives, I never heard the word "pagan" the same after a professor in seminary - a Catholic classics geek - pointed out that before Christians took over the empire, paganus was just the ancient Roman equivalent to more modern words like "bumpkin" or "hick." It meant "those unsophisticated, rustic buffoons who haven't caught up with the modern world."
The word was never meant as a specifically religious epithet, so I was told, until Christianity took over the empire as the new urbane religion and the only people left doing things the old way were...well...you know. Those ignorant people.
For someone who grew up on the edge of West Virginia and has a chip on his shoulder about the word "hick," that lesson sticks to me. I find it funny, especially since modern fundamentalists are now commonly associated with the same ancient stereotype.
Then they read books and listen to stuff that reinforces that. Then get really cross if one of theirs says stuff that breaks the feedback loop. (Thinking of Steve Chalke, who was seen as a "good evangelical" for years until he broke ranks to say nice things about the LBGT+ community).
Whenever someone says "good Christian" I always assume that it's a way of deciding who they think is in or out. Kind of like "sound" or "unsound" to describe actions or behaviour.
Somewhat bouncing off of @Nick Tamen , my older association was that it was usually a doctrinal thing. A good Christian was someone who had the right beliefs, which was in theory suppose to align with being an ethical person. Though I think that one might have varied by church. I don't think that the fundies had really taken over where I was growing up, though they were certainly a faction.
Though in fairly recent months I've noticed folks on the left finally reaching the same point where we realize that teaching and dogma matter and, yes, people who commit feats of spiritual, emotional, and physical abuse under the guise of "Christianity" might deserve some kind of censure from the church, if we understand ourselves to be such. I've been quipping occasionally that "I don't like the word 'blasphemy,' but I feel myself increasingly inclined to start using it." Because that's what's going on.
For someone who had to learn to accept that the church bore some responsibility for organizations like the KKK, that they are part of "us" too, this is an interesting development in one's life.
Whenever someone says "good Christian" I always assume that it's a way of deciding who they think is in or out. Kind of like "sound" or "unsound" to describe actions or behaviour.
I rarely if ever hear “good Christian” as meaning anything other than “nice person.” Hearing it as having to do with doctrine, or as having to do with who’s “in” or “out” isn’t part of my experience.
Sub-Christian is how I've heard them described. Fits.
It seems unnecessarily offensive.
Don't conflate it with a pejorative use of subhuman. It's 'sub' as in 'branching from.'
I wonder if that is how a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness would hear it - what’s wrong with non-Trinitarian or non-mainstream as a qualification ?
I think it depends on whom I’m talking to. I don’t believe in mincing words about this level of profound heresy. I would try to be polite to a Mormon or JW, but these are extremely basic, fundamental doctrines for Christian belief.
I really can’t imagine a context in which I’d tell a Mormon or a JW who claim to be Christian—both of which can be found in my wife’s and my extended families—that they’re not really Christian, much less use a term like “sub-Christian” (which I equally can’t imagine anyone hearing as anything but pejorative).
Which is why I say “it depends on who I’m talking to.” I also wouldn’t call Mormonism or JW “sub-Christian”—again, more the ancient pagans, at their best, not quite at the level of Christian stuff, but not necessarily anti-Christian.
I think I’d also be more inclined to call abstract things (beliefs, codes of ethics, etc.) “sub-Christian” rather than people. Like “Virgil’s worldview is sub-Christian,” not “Virgil was a sub-Christian.” Or “Don’t do to others what you would not like them to do to you” is sub-Christian compared with the more active “do unto others…”
I have just found out I'm a pagan, according to the definition above, 'they being, 'unsophisticated, rustic buffoons who haven't caught up with the modern world'.
Anything can be Christian if someone somewhere claims it is. That may be Christianity's greatest strength 2000 years later. It's endlessly inclusive. Poor Macron of Sinope. He just peaked too early.
Words have meanings because humans use them to mean things - specifically humans use words to mean 'close enough to what we've previously used this word for for present purposes'.
A Buddhist with no particular interest in the figure of Jesus isn't a Christian for any sensible human purpose, a doctrinally orthodox Roman Catholic or Baptist is for all purposes worthy of respect, and a Jehovah's Witness may be for some purposes and not for others.
Language also has various qualifiers that are used when a case is felt to be closer to some concept than any other but not quite close enough. Some of those qualifiers are heard as less pejorative than others.
It is also the case that words change meaning with time and changes of usage.
I had a professor once who described himself as a Buddhist Unitarian. I'm sure no one here would tell him he wasn't either of those things, or couldn't integrate them into a seamless whole for himself. @ChastMastr is willing to describe Mormons and/or JWs as "profoundly heretical," yet Christian. Marcion received none of that latitude.
How much heresy does not take to have one's Christianity card revoked these days? Is anyone able or willing to say?
Anything can be Christian if someone somewhere claims it is. That may be Christianity's greatest strength 2000 years later. It's endlessly inclusive. Poor Macron of Sinope. He just peaked too early.
Macron? I think you might mean Marcion...but yes, he peaked too early.
Anything can be Christian if someone somewhere claims it is. That may be Christianity's greatest strength 2000 years later. It's endlessly inclusive. Poor Macron of Sinope. He just peaked too early.
Macron? I think you might mean Marcion...but yes, he peaked too early.
LOL -- yes, Marcion -- I mentioned him in an earlier post.
Anything can be Christian if someone somewhere claims it is. That may be Christianity's greatest strength 2000 years later. It's endlessly inclusive. Poor Macron of Sinope. He just peaked too early.
Macron? I think you might mean Marcion...but yes, he peaked too early.
LOL -- yes, Marcion -- I mentioned him in an earlier post.
I'm willing to stick my head above the parapet and say, 'Yes, I'm prepared to use the H word.'
With the caveat that I've heard of a Greek Orthodox bishop who said he'd only met one heretic in his life.
He was referring to a colleague who had consciousl abandoned a Big O Orthodox position for a Nestorian one. And yes, I know, there are those who believe that Nestorius was misunderstood or misrepresented.
In practice, I'd reserve the H word for anything non-Trinitarian but without that implying anything detrimental about the moral character of non-Trinitarians.
But I'd certainly consider certain movements and emphases within the Trinitarian fold as heretical - such as the 'Word of Faith' thing and other prosperity gospel teachings.
I'd also be prepared to use it for extreme 'phyletism' and other distortions within my own Big O Orthodox Tradition at times.
I only the use heresy if referring to something where the term has historic grounding, such as in a usage like “many of the Early Church Fathers argued that Marcion was a heretic” or “the First Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople declared Arianism a heresy.”
That doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions about groups like the Mormons and the JWs, not does it mean I’m unaware of my own denomination’s position on things like whether Mormon or JW baptisms can be recognized as “valid,” such that someone coming from either of those traditions would not need to be baptized on coming to us. (Spoiler: Mormon and JW baptisms would not be accepted.)
But deciding whether something is or is not heresy per se isn’t part of my job responsibility, and I really don’t see any purpose in it.
It isn't me or you[/i] - Gamaliel or Nick - who decides what is or isn't heretical.
Besides, your Presbyterian tradition is clearly making a collective judgement call too, as per the example of whether they'd accept Mormon or JW baptism.
That doesn't mean that we don't have our own individual viewpoints within our respective paradigms.
When I said I'd be prepared to put my head above the parapet and take a stance on whether something is heretical or not, it doesn't mean that I'd go round snuffling it out like a bloodhound.
In my experience, 'Heresy Hunters' in any Christian tradition aren't particularly pleasant to be around, even if their motivations are well-intentioned.
Then they read books and listen to stuff that reinforces that. Then get really cross if one of theirs says stuff that breaks the feedback loop. (Thinking of Steve Chalke, who was seen as a "good evangelical" for years until he broke ranks to say nice things about the LBGT+ community).
Whenever someone says "good Christian" I always assume that it's a way of deciding who they think is in or out. Kind of like "sound" or "unsound" to describe actions or behaviour.
Somewhat bouncing off of @Nick Tamen , my older association was that it was usually a doctrinal thing. A good Christian was someone who had the right beliefs, which was in theory suppose to align with being an ethical person. Though I think that one might have varied by church. I don't think that the fundies had really taken over where I was growing up, though they were certainly a faction.
Though in fairly recent months I've noticed folks on the left finally reaching the same point where we realize that teaching and dogma matter and, yes, people who commit feats of spiritual, emotional, and physical abuse under the guise of "Christianity" might deserve some kind of censure from the church, if we understand ourselves to be such. I've been quipping occasionally that "I don't like the word 'blasphemy,' but I feel myself increasingly inclined to start using it." Because that's what's going on.
For someone who had to learn to accept that the church bore some responsibility for organizations like the KKK, that they are part of "us" too, this is an interesting development in one's life.
It might be a pond difference. Or the fact that I've only ever heard it that way says alot about the church circles I used to move in.
Nadia Bolz-Weber wrote a lovely piece about discovering a local woman who'd founded a church which did amazing community outreach work and was in total awe. Until she found out she was also a terrible racist (? Apologies, the book is upstairs). It's always a lot more complicated than I like to think it is. I like to think that God has it all worked out.
What I said, @Gamma Gamaliel, was that I don’t call others “heretical,” nor do I generally talk in terms of “heresy” except when referring to cases where the term has historic grounding—where decisions of church bodies with decision-making authority have declared something “heresy.”
FWIW, “heresy” isn’t a category my Presbyterian tradition generally uses, except in regard to the teachings officially condemned as heresies by early Church Fathers or Councils. We are much more likely to talk in terms like “comparing” what another group believes and teaches with what we believe and teach, or with what “orthodox Trinitarian Christianity has historically taught” or the like. Or, in extreme instances, a teaching or position from others within the Reformed tradition (such as the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa’s support of apartheid) may be denounced under the principle of status confessionis.
But again, I’ll say I think all the talk of heresy is a bit off-target in this thread. I think when someone levels a charge of “you’re not a good Christian” as per the OP, the charge has nothing at all to do with with claims of heresy or wrong belief. It’s about the person’s actions, and can generally be translated as “you’re not nice,” “you’re selfish,” “you’re not doing unto me what you’d want me to do unto you,” or the like.
How much heresy does not take to have one's Christianity card revoked these days? Is anyone able or willing to say?
There are Christianity cards? Nobody ever gave me one. Where do I get one?
Under the superficial facetiousness, my serious point is that Christianity cards are an entirely misleading metaphor. And if you ask questions using a misleading metaphor you're going to inevitably get unsatisfactory answers.
Heretical Christians are still Christians. Orthodox Christianity isn't a pleonasm. As for when someone stops being a heretical Christian and starts being not a Christian at all but something else, as I said, that depends on why you're asking the question.
Which is why I say “it depends on who I’m talking to.” I also wouldn’t call Mormonism or JW “sub-Christian”—again, more the ancient pagans, at their best, not quite at the level of Christian stuff, but not necessarily anti-Christian.
In seminary, they were raised academically as examples of the modern expression of ancient heresies. JW's are basically Arian and Mormons are basically Gnostic. I'm actually ok with calling them that. You could probably apply that to Islam too, which is less reasonable because they don't regard themselves as Christian in spite of revering Jesus Christ.
With an education, I'm actually more comfortable using "heresy" in the very technical sense of "teaches unorthodox ideas about the trinity as the orthodox church reckons it," granting some leeway with the sense that since we don't think in Koine, we're all probably getting it wrong in little ways.
Anything can be Christian if someone somewhere claims it is. That may be Christianity's greatest strength 2000 years later. It's endlessly inclusive. Poor Macron of Sinope. He just peaked too early.
Macron? I think you might mean Marcion...but yes, he peaked too early.
Wasn't he rather nastily anti-Semitic? I'm not sure I'd want to endorse him, even if his attitude may be more understandable in historical context.
My confrontational days are well past. Mrs RR and I have a rule: how they doing with the 'Fruits of the Spirit'?
I wouldn't know unless the "they" in question is myself. While I 've heard such things, I don't think I'm a fruit inspector though I will repudiate some horrible things as not Christian. (abuse say)
It might be a pond difference. Or the fact that I've only ever heard it that way says alot about the church circles I used to move in.
I think it may be about how much association with Evangelicals one has had. I definitely hear "good Christian" as a statement about how sound their doctrine is. If you say X is a good Christian in that context, I will think you are proclaiming them virtuous. But I will think you are saying they are virtuous based on their sound doctrine.
Anything can be Christian if someone somewhere claims it is. That may be Christianity's greatest strength 2000 years later. It's endlessly inclusive. Poor Macron of Sinope. He just peaked too early.
Macron? I think you might mean Marcion...but yes, he peaked too early.
Wasn't he rather nastily anti-Semitic? I'm not sure I'd want to endorse him, even if his attitude may be more understandable in historical context.
Not really, at least according to Wikipedia:
In contrast to other leaders of the nascent Christian Church, however, Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the scriptures of Judaism. Marcion did not claim that these were false. Instead, he asserted that they were entirely true, but were to be read in an absolutely literalistic manner, one which led him to develop an understanding that Yahweh was not the same God spoken of by Jesus.
Those who find the violent, vengeful, god of the Old Testament abhorrent may well sympathise with Marcion...
Could be another thread, but I think there's a range of judgment. Ironically it ties into a concept I learned...somewhere...that there are three kinds of rules:
1) Do not break this rule, ever. If you do you should immediately remove yourself from society until you can somehow gut-rehab yourself so that you can avoid doing this ever again.
2) Do not break this rule, but if you do (and you may because it's a tough one) then clean up as best you can, confess your mistake and accept the consequences. It'll be ok as long as you don't make a habit of it. And seriously, try not to do that.
3) Do not break this rule when authority figures are watching. This is a rule that you can safely ignore most of the time, because it's only there to flatter authority figures and there are more important rules to be following. Obsessing over this rule will probably cause you to screw up other more important rules. Or if you have a lot of spare time, then you can get around to this one, but you're not likely to have that much spare time in your life.
I think everyone has their own categorization for these kinds of rules. And maybe the "fruits" rule applies, you can measure the importance of a rule by its consequences.
Comments
I can see that, but I also picked up in seminary the notion that what you believe about God - if you are serious - will directly effect the way you act around people. So in a sense, your treatment of core dogmas of the church should very naturally flow into your ethical universe, and will directly influence your behavior.
For instance, if you think Jesus is going to destroy the world and hoover you up into a perfect paradise because you swore a loyalty oath to him, that's going to affect how you treat other people. At the very least, I think there's a kind of feedback loop amongst social ethics, piety, and theological beliefs.
There's an old saying, '"Ask my neighbour,' said the Anabaptist.'
Not that the Anabaptists and 'Peace-Churches' have always had a better track-record than anyone else but it does embody a worthwhile intention I think.
"I've been a Christian for over 40 years"
"How come you're still not very nice?"
"You didn't see what I was like 40 years ago"
I wonder if it's more that the sort of person you are dictates both the way you treat other people and what you end up believing about God.
However as I said earlier "good christian" is just a slang way of describing someone who is kind. It has no theological content at all in common parlance.
Let me explain where I am coming from:
Back in the Reformation days, Luther's friend, Melancthon, who actually wrote the Augsburg Confession, was struggling with living up to that he thought were Christian standards. He was quite afraid of committing a sin. Luther told him, "If you have to sin, sin greatly, but expect the grace of God just as greatly."
This saying is often seen on Lutheran college sweatshirts in the US.
I grew up with the saying Christians are saints and sinners at the same time. I know I will never reach my standard of being good, but it is comforting to know that really does not matter. I am forgiven.
All of us have a lot of other background stuff besides Christianity that informs our attitudes and actions - personality traits, upbringing, positive and negative experiences, political views, education, etc. etc. And sometimes that can overlap with Christianity in a weird and dysfunctional way. If, for example, you have a tendency to be authoritarian in your approach to others, and don’t examine this, adding Christianity into the mix may just bolster your belief that God is on your side and make you even more toxic towards others.
The trouble is that we can't measure spiritual progress--either compared to where a person was in the past, or between two people. And so in the end we're arguing about our personal impressions of other people. And usually we don't have a full view of their personalities even on that level--how do they behave at home? At work? Among friends? and etc.
Yes, I know the background and guessed that's what you were trying to say.
It still sounds crass though.
By that, I mean no disrespect to Luther, Melanchthon nor your good self.
I know what you are trying to say but it would sound like special pleading if you said it to anyone who challenged you as to whether your walk matched your talk.
I know you didn't mean it to sound glib but that's how that kind of comment would come across to a potential interlocutor.
'It's alright for me. I'm forgiven. You aren't. I can do what I like because God's my big buddy.'
Sorry, but that's how it would sound, Luther or no Luther, Reformation or no Reformation.
I'm not a fan of either group, but there are orthodox on paper conservative Christian groups that seem worse.
I tend to think people evolve, and are somewhat trainable. But...yeah. I'm not sure if people fall into "sorts" like that but after a while there's a kind of accumulated sense of "self" that sets in.
And I do think there's a kind of feedback loop that people are drawn to theologies that appeal to how they understand themselves, the world.
That's Luther. He was known to be crass.
It seems unnecessarily offensive.
I think of that phrase more in terms of the old pagans, myself.
Don't conflate it with a pejorative use of subhuman. It's 'sub' as in 'branching from.'
Indeed.
One of his more appealing or less appealing traits depending on how you look at it.
I'm quite partial to fart gags so can be as coarse as anyone else in that respect.
The point I'm making though, is that without a great deal of background explanation the 'I'm forgiven, so there!' response isn't likely to win anyone over.
It's more likely to come across as arrogant, self-righteous and smug, even though it's not intended that way.
It isn't something that's restricted to Lutherans or particular types of Protestant, of course.
If I responded to a post here with, 'I don't care what you say, I'm a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and you aren't because you are a schismatic of some kind - so there!' I'd soon get my arse kicked.
And deservedly so.
It isn't that you are wrong or presumptuous to claim that you are forgiven, but if you 'weaponise' it to win an argument then you are in danger of losing the plot.
I wonder if that is how a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness would hear it - what’s wrong with non-Trinitarian or non-mainstream as a qualification ?
How about Christian Derivative. Also fits.
Then they read books and listen to stuff that reinforces that. Then get really cross if one of theirs says stuff that breaks the feedback loop. (Thinking of Steve Chalke, who was seen as a "good evangelical" for years until he broke ranks to say nice things about the LBGT+ community).
Whenever someone says "good Christian" I always assume that it's a way of deciding who they think is in or out. Kind of like "sound" or "unsound" to describe actions or behaviour.
I think it depends on whom I’m talking to. I don’t believe in mincing words about this level of profound heresy. I would try to be polite to a Mormon or JW, but these are extremely basic, fundamental doctrines for Christian belief.
I really can’t imagine a context in which I’d tell a Mormon or a JW who claim to be Christian—both of which can be found in my wife’s and my extended families—that they’re not really Christian, much less use a term like “sub-Christian” (which I equally can’t imagine anyone hearing as anything but pejorative).
A Buddhist with no particular interest in the figure of Jesus isn't a Christian for any sensible human purpose, a doctrinally orthodox Roman Catholic or Baptist is for all purposes worthy of respect, and a Jehovah's Witness may be for some purposes and not for others.
Language also has various qualifiers that are used when a case is felt to be closer to some concept than any other but not quite close enough. Some of those qualifiers are heard as less pejorative than others.
[TANGENT]
Speaking of pejoratives, I never heard the word "pagan" the same after a professor in seminary - a Catholic classics geek - pointed out that before Christians took over the empire, paganus was just the ancient Roman equivalent to more modern words like "bumpkin" or "hick." It meant "those unsophisticated, rustic buffoons who haven't caught up with the modern world."
The word was never meant as a specifically religious epithet, so I was told, until Christianity took over the empire as the new urbane religion and the only people left doing things the old way were...well...you know. Those ignorant people.
For someone who grew up on the edge of West Virginia and has a chip on his shoulder about the word "hick," that lesson sticks to me. I find it funny, especially since modern fundamentalists are now commonly associated with the same ancient stereotype.
[/TANGENT]
Somewhat bouncing off of @Nick Tamen , my older association was that it was usually a doctrinal thing. A good Christian was someone who had the right beliefs, which was in theory suppose to align with being an ethical person. Though I think that one might have varied by church. I don't think that the fundies had really taken over where I was growing up, though they were certainly a faction.
Though in fairly recent months I've noticed folks on the left finally reaching the same point where we realize that teaching and dogma matter and, yes, people who commit feats of spiritual, emotional, and physical abuse under the guise of "Christianity" might deserve some kind of censure from the church, if we understand ourselves to be such. I've been quipping occasionally that "I don't like the word 'blasphemy,' but I feel myself increasingly inclined to start using it." Because that's what's going on.
For someone who had to learn to accept that the church bore some responsibility for organizations like the KKK, that they are part of "us" too, this is an interesting development in one's life.
Which is why I say “it depends on who I’m talking to.” I also wouldn’t call Mormonism or JW “sub-Christian”—again, more the ancient pagans, at their best, not quite at the level of Christian stuff, but not necessarily anti-Christian.
It is also the case that words change meaning with time and changes of usage.
How much heresy does not take to have one's Christianity card revoked these days? Is anyone able or willing to say?
Macron? I think you might mean Marcion...but yes, he peaked too early.
LOL -- yes, Marcion -- I mentioned him in an earlier post.
Thanks - I must have missed your earlier post!
With the caveat that I've heard of a Greek Orthodox bishop who said he'd only met one heretic in his life.
He was referring to a colleague who had consciousl abandoned a Big O Orthodox position for a Nestorian one. And yes, I know, there are those who believe that Nestorius was misunderstood or misrepresented.
In practice, I'd reserve the H word for anything non-Trinitarian but without that implying anything detrimental about the moral character of non-Trinitarians.
But I'd certainly consider certain movements and emphases within the Trinitarian fold as heretical - such as the 'Word of Faith' thing and other prosperity gospel teachings.
I'd also be prepared to use it for extreme 'phyletism' and other distortions within my own Big O Orthodox Tradition at times.
That doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions about groups like the Mormons and the JWs, not does it mean I’m unaware of my own denomination’s position on things like whether Mormon or JW baptisms can be recognized as “valid,” such that someone coming from either of those traditions would not need to be baptized on coming to us. (Spoiler: Mormon and JW baptisms would not be accepted.)
But deciding whether something is or is not heresy per se isn’t part of my job responsibility, and I really don’t see any purpose in it.
It isn't me or you[/i] - Gamaliel or Nick - who decides what is or isn't heretical.
Besides, your Presbyterian tradition is clearly making a collective judgement call too, as per the example of whether they'd accept Mormon or JW baptism.
That doesn't mean that we don't have our own individual viewpoints within our respective paradigms.
When I said I'd be prepared to put my head above the parapet and take a stance on whether something is heretical or not, it doesn't mean that I'd go round snuffling it out like a bloodhound.
In my experience, 'Heresy Hunters' in any Christian tradition aren't particularly pleasant to be around, even if their motivations are well-intentioned.
It might be a pond difference. Or the fact that I've only ever heard it that way says alot about the church circles I used to move in.
Nadia Bolz-Weber wrote a lovely piece about discovering a local woman who'd founded a church which did amazing community outreach work and was in total awe. Until she found out she was also a terrible racist (? Apologies, the book is upstairs). It's always a lot more complicated than I like to think it is. I like to think that God has it all worked out.
FWIW, “heresy” isn’t a category my Presbyterian tradition generally uses, except in regard to the teachings officially condemned as heresies by early Church Fathers or Councils. We are much more likely to talk in terms like “comparing” what another group believes and teaches with what we believe and teach, or with what “orthodox Trinitarian Christianity has historically taught” or the like. Or, in extreme instances, a teaching or position from others within the Reformed tradition (such as the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa’s support of apartheid) may be denounced under the principle of status confessionis.
But again, I’ll say I think all the talk of heresy is a bit off-target in this thread. I think when someone levels a charge of “you’re not a good Christian” as per the OP, the charge has nothing at all to do with with claims of heresy or wrong belief. It’s about the person’s actions, and can generally be translated as “you’re not nice,” “you’re selfish,” “you’re not doing unto me what you’d want me to do unto you,” or the like.
Under the superficial facetiousness, my serious point is that Christianity cards are an entirely misleading metaphor. And if you ask questions using a misleading metaphor you're going to inevitably get unsatisfactory answers.
Heretical Christians are still Christians. Orthodox Christianity isn't a pleonasm. As for when someone stops being a heretical Christian and starts being not a Christian at all but something else, as I said, that depends on why you're asking the question.
In seminary, they were raised academically as examples of the modern expression of ancient heresies. JW's are basically Arian and Mormons are basically Gnostic. I'm actually ok with calling them that. You could probably apply that to Islam too, which is less reasonable because they don't regard themselves as Christian in spite of revering Jesus Christ.
With an education, I'm actually more comfortable using "heresy" in the very technical sense of "teaches unorthodox ideas about the trinity as the orthodox church reckons it," granting some leeway with the sense that since we don't think in Koine, we're all probably getting it wrong in little ways.
Wasn't he rather nastily anti-Semitic? I'm not sure I'd want to endorse him, even if his attitude may be more understandable in historical context.
I think it may be about how much association with Evangelicals one has had. I definitely hear "good Christian" as a statement about how sound their doctrine is. If you say X is a good Christian in that context, I will think you are proclaiming them virtuous. But I will think you are saying they are virtuous based on their sound doctrine.
Not really, at least according to Wikipedia:
In contrast to other leaders of the nascent Christian Church, however, Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the scriptures of Judaism. Marcion did not claim that these were false. Instead, he asserted that they were entirely true, but were to be read in an absolutely literalistic manner, one which led him to develop an understanding that Yahweh was not the same God spoken of by Jesus.
Those who find the violent, vengeful, god of the Old Testament abhorrent may well sympathise with Marcion...
1) Do not break this rule, ever. If you do you should immediately remove yourself from society until you can somehow gut-rehab yourself so that you can avoid doing this ever again.
2) Do not break this rule, but if you do (and you may because it's a tough one) then clean up as best you can, confess your mistake and accept the consequences. It'll be ok as long as you don't make a habit of it. And seriously, try not to do that.
3) Do not break this rule when authority figures are watching. This is a rule that you can safely ignore most of the time, because it's only there to flatter authority figures and there are more important rules to be following. Obsessing over this rule will probably cause you to screw up other more important rules. Or if you have a lot of spare time, then you can get around to this one, but you're not likely to have that much spare time in your life.
I think everyone has their own categorization for these kinds of rules. And maybe the "fruits" rule applies, you can measure the importance of a rule by its consequences.