Mail me comments, suggestions, warnings, flames, whatever
At 02:16 PM 9/18/95 -0700, you wrote:
> It sounds as if you have chosen to 'liberate' the term by making it to include just about every form of 'spirituality' possible.
I choose not to limit it to what you refer to as "the old definition". While there are certainly timeless truths that are grasped in this approach, there are also a lot of elements that I think are ignored; elements that I believe are strongly biblical, and have been "reinterpreted" in light of the "preferences" of a more conservative outlook. It has happened throughout Christian history, and will continue to happen.
>As a Christian myself, maybe you would refer to me as a fundamentalist, I strongly believe that Christianity should limit itself to that which is said about it in the Bible.
Problem is, there are scores of "interpretations" of just whAt the Bible says, and what it claims were made within its pages as to what context it was speaking to.
> I believe that
>God is wholly in control of the world, the universe, and all of creation.
I would agree.
>Furthermore, I believe that faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is the only way to reach God.
I agree again. But again, there is a lot of severely limited conceptions about what "faith in Christ" consists of. I believe it must refer to the essence of Christ, his spirit, his person. I believe that his spirit pervades all of creation, and that the teachings of so-called "other religions" which are inspired by the same spirit, which is him, are inspired by him. If someone accepts that life-changing spirit and follows the way of love which is God's way, then they have believed and accepted Christ, regardless of the theological category into which their "system of theology" would fit.
The only legitimate theology is a working, living theology.
> Thus, I am
>not a proponent of the liberal mixing of religions that goes on in sects of spirituality that
>you describe, as in those of people like Matthew Fox, whom you refer to as one of your balcony
>people.
Neither am I a proponent of "mixing" Christianity with cultural forces that have shaped the American theological scene. What we have is very different from Biblical theology.
>Anyhow, I believe that Christianity is true because the one religion that I have found that seems to be run by God, rather than man. However, I do not wish to appear to be judgemental and critical of your beliefs. The one thing I am critical of, however, is your reference to what you believe as Christianity.
But I do firmly believe these to be what Christianity is about, and in fact, I object to a lot of what is out there on the Internet being labelled "Christian", and thus I have posted my "alternative" to what I consider simplistic and literalistic.
> I believe that by bending and reshaping a term that already
>has one solid defintion, that you may lead people who may be interested in learning more about 'old-fashioned' Christianity down a misleading path.
Actaully, what I propose to say is that my definition is actually more ancient than the so-called "old time religion", which is really only as old as the late 1800's -early 1900's. The so-called "old time religion that so many point to as being "our forefathers beliefs" were far more "deistic" and liberal than any who claim such things would ever accept.
> Since most people that I know as Christian would agree, I think that you have invaded our space by taking the term by which we refer to ourselves and possibly led others to believe falsely about us.
Sorry, but I think you are trying to put God in a box that I think is far too small.
>I guess what I am getting at is that I do not believe that it was your place to attempt to change the definition of Christianity, especially when there still exist countless people who adhere to the old definition.
The best definition of Christianity is the lives of its adherents. My definition is only my journey. My definition is only MY response to the question "What is a Christian?" I wrote it because I was embarassed by the brevity and the lack of complexity in the attempts that I saw.
> I would like to see your home page's name changed perhaps to 'What is religion?' or something similar, but I realize that this may be wishful thinking on my part.
It would also be inadequate, since I identify "religion" with the structures man builds around his attempts to understand the transcendent and the role of the community of followers who are on the same search.
So, I appreciate your question, and welcome any further response you may have. I have grown up in a world of conservatism and fundamentalism, and trained in a Southern Baptist Seminary (Louisville 1981), and served in ministry from 1977-85. I have grown up immersed in it, and have sought to continue to respond to what I sense God calling me to do at any given juncture in my life.
I also have seen a lot of bullcrap that is passed off as "Christianity", and how Christianity gets dressed in the clothes of culture that become a part of the "belief system" in the churches that were completely foreign to the earliest Christains, and much of causes a lot of the highest standards of the call to committed community in Christ to be compromised. I see a lot of that in both ultra-conservative approaches, and on the other end by "liberals".
Back to New Media Communications Home Page
Back to Internet Theological Seminary Table of Contents
Back to my "What is a Christian" page