I agree with a Christ centered approach to what we believe and practice but unless I missed it somewhere in this thread, it is only through the illumination of the Holy Spirit that we are even able to know the truth about Jesus and what it means to follow Him. I think this was one of the main points that early Anabaptists stressed.
One can know about what is written in the scriptures about Jesus and form some beliefs and practices but without knowing Jesus through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one will not know the truth about Jesus - John 16:13
Thus the need to seek to be Holy Spirit filled and guided. Our own intelligence will not get us to knowing Jesus.
New axis of tensions
-
Neto
Re: New axis of tensions
OK, if folks here don't like the term 'Biblicist', and the definition of that term has been sufficiently hashed, then maybe everyone should define what they mean by "Christocentric". For starters, concepts of even terms like "Christian", "Believer", Born-Again Christian", and probably "Bible-Believing Christian" may mean something different to the uninitiated, something different than you & I think.
I've mentioned this conversation before, but a co-worker once asked me if I was a "Born-Again Christian". I think it was the Holy Spirit that urged me to ask her what that meant. She explained that a "Christian" is a person who grew up in the church, and never left it. A "Born-Again Christian" was one who grew up in the church, left, then returned. A "Believer" was someone who didn't grow up exposed to church at all, then joined the church. (It would have been interesting to hear what she thought a "Spirit-Filled Christian" was....)
But personally the term "Bible-Believing" doesn't say enough (and maybe 'Biblicist' is just as bad), because it says nothing about what you DO about it. So maybe "Follower of Jesus" is better. EXCEPT - a HS friend of mine with whom I got into a FaceBook discussion about Christianity & homosexuality eventually told me that "God is not like the Bible; God is like Jesus, and Jesus is all about LOVE." So someone can "follow Jesus", but it isn't the Jesus of the Bible they are "following".
I'm not trying to be nasty by asking for people to think about what "Christocentric" might mean to someone who does not know Jesus. It isn't even an English word, really. I've had other experiences with the meaning of symbols. When I was in HS I made a wooden fish, about 3 to 4 inched long, which I wore on a leather cord around my neck. I thought everyone would know what it stood for. (This was, after all, in the 'Bible Belt'.) Not so. Someone asked me if I was a 'pisces'. When they explained what it meant to them, I explained it back, but also quit wearing it. Lots of people wear crosses, so I didn't think that would really communicate anything but that maybe I liked jewelry.
So, I did a google search.
Wikipedia:
I've mentioned this conversation before, but a co-worker once asked me if I was a "Born-Again Christian". I think it was the Holy Spirit that urged me to ask her what that meant. She explained that a "Christian" is a person who grew up in the church, and never left it. A "Born-Again Christian" was one who grew up in the church, left, then returned. A "Believer" was someone who didn't grow up exposed to church at all, then joined the church. (It would have been interesting to hear what she thought a "Spirit-Filled Christian" was....)
But personally the term "Bible-Believing" doesn't say enough (and maybe 'Biblicist' is just as bad), because it says nothing about what you DO about it. So maybe "Follower of Jesus" is better. EXCEPT - a HS friend of mine with whom I got into a FaceBook discussion about Christianity & homosexuality eventually told me that "God is not like the Bible; God is like Jesus, and Jesus is all about LOVE." So someone can "follow Jesus", but it isn't the Jesus of the Bible they are "following".
I'm not trying to be nasty by asking for people to think about what "Christocentric" might mean to someone who does not know Jesus. It isn't even an English word, really. I've had other experiences with the meaning of symbols. When I was in HS I made a wooden fish, about 3 to 4 inched long, which I wore on a leather cord around my neck. I thought everyone would know what it stood for. (This was, after all, in the 'Bible Belt'.) Not so. Someone asked me if I was a 'pisces'. When they explained what it meant to them, I explained it back, but also quit wearing it. Lots of people wear crosses, so I didn't think that would really communicate anything but that maybe I liked jewelry.
So, I did a google search.
Wikipedia:
Well, I do not care to leave the impression that I am Augustinian, and I do not want to leave my relationship with Jesus just at salvation. AND, you run into the same question I raised above - Which Jesus?Certain theological traditions within the Christian Church can be described as more heavily Christocentric. Notably, the teachings of Augustine of Hippo and Paul of Tarsus, which have been very influential in the West, place a great emphasis on the person of Jesus in the process of salvation.
....
Christocentrism is also a name given to a particular approach in interfaith and ecumenical dialogue. It teaches that Christianity is absolutely true, but the elements of truth in other religions are always in relation to the fullness of truth found in Christianity.
0 x
-
PetrChelcicky
Re: New axis of tensions
I don't buy completely into this classification of a Church Regnant and a Church Remnant.
I admit, that there is a rather clear cut difference in theological theory (mostly between Reformed and Anabaptist).
But practice is often more a matter of communication between the church and the surrounding society. For example, during the Red Decade, Evangelicals were the most perfect bogeyman for the publicising Left (attacks on Catholics or Jewish Orthodox would have alienated important parts of the Democratic Party). So they had to accept a role as a Church Remnant. But in WW2, Roosevelt discovered that he needed the support of the churches, which was the start of a very church-friendly climate after the war; even Evangelicals were now invited to give advice to politicians, they didn't fight for it (but in a sense did fight later on against losing this position). Thereafter the climate changed again into the Second Red Decade where we are living nowadays. Church Remnant models have been a rather typical by-product of Bolshevist surroundings - partly as a role that the society ascribes to the churches, partly as a role that the churches invent themselves in order to get accepted by state and society. "Church Remnant models" then often mean that the churches may keep services on Sundays, but otherwise are to care for those people who are not (or no more) relevant for the state (i.e. the old and the handicapped, but not the children).
As for Dalrymple's classification, there are some important flaws in its definitions. He defines the "Church Regnant" as a church that aspires "a world in which men and women are free to follow their faith". Is that really so??? I think that every church will aspire freedom of conduct for its believers. Also he hints that a "Church Remnant" would aspire all its members to "die in Christ", i.e. to become kind of martyrs, having themselves exploited and suffering patiently. Is that so??? There have been some early Christians and later on some Russian sects who positively strived for martyrdom. But there is a fine line beyond which acceptance of my exploition and my suffering becomes compliance with the man/the institution who exploits me and makes me suffer - and not every Christian would cross this line! With other words, the best solution may be situated between those extremes. I will try to treat this more systematically in a blog about "Are we allowed to defend us - and if so, how far?"
I admit, that there is a rather clear cut difference in theological theory (mostly between Reformed and Anabaptist).
But practice is often more a matter of communication between the church and the surrounding society. For example, during the Red Decade, Evangelicals were the most perfect bogeyman for the publicising Left (attacks on Catholics or Jewish Orthodox would have alienated important parts of the Democratic Party). So they had to accept a role as a Church Remnant. But in WW2, Roosevelt discovered that he needed the support of the churches, which was the start of a very church-friendly climate after the war; even Evangelicals were now invited to give advice to politicians, they didn't fight for it (but in a sense did fight later on against losing this position). Thereafter the climate changed again into the Second Red Decade where we are living nowadays. Church Remnant models have been a rather typical by-product of Bolshevist surroundings - partly as a role that the society ascribes to the churches, partly as a role that the churches invent themselves in order to get accepted by state and society. "Church Remnant models" then often mean that the churches may keep services on Sundays, but otherwise are to care for those people who are not (or no more) relevant for the state (i.e. the old and the handicapped, but not the children).
As for Dalrymple's classification, there are some important flaws in its definitions. He defines the "Church Regnant" as a church that aspires "a world in which men and women are free to follow their faith". Is that really so??? I think that every church will aspire freedom of conduct for its believers. Also he hints that a "Church Remnant" would aspire all its members to "die in Christ", i.e. to become kind of martyrs, having themselves exploited and suffering patiently. Is that so??? There have been some early Christians and later on some Russian sects who positively strived for martyrdom. But there is a fine line beyond which acceptance of my exploition and my suffering becomes compliance with the man/the institution who exploits me and makes me suffer - and not every Christian would cross this line! With other words, the best solution may be situated between those extremes. I will try to treat this more systematically in a blog about "Are we allowed to defend us - and if so, how far?"
0 x
-
PetrChelcicky
Re: New axis of tensions
For a test of Dalrymple's idea I propose a thought experiment:
The future state, as imagined by progressives, is a system where state and "civil society" are more and more identical, also the state has more and more a say how incomes are distributed.
Now Dalrymple proposes that the Church Remnant" "looks for the last and serves the least". But in that future state, the last and the least will be the people who are marked as undesirables, as enemies of state and society, as "domestic terrorists" etc. Does Dalrymple really think that the Church Remnant shall serve those people?
I'm fine with that.
But it will not help the church to avoid the power struggles and firing lines.
The future state, as imagined by progressives, is a system where state and "civil society" are more and more identical, also the state has more and more a say how incomes are distributed.
Now Dalrymple proposes that the Church Remnant" "looks for the last and serves the least". But in that future state, the last and the least will be the people who are marked as undesirables, as enemies of state and society, as "domestic terrorists" etc. Does Dalrymple really think that the Church Remnant shall serve those people?
I'm fine with that.
But it will not help the church to avoid the power struggles and firing lines.
0 x
-
Dan Z
Re: New axis of tensions
Thanks for thinking this through with us PetrChelicky. If I recall correctly, I think you bring to the discussion some perspective from your life as a student of European history and experience as well, particularly the threat of socialism/communism.
I think you raise some interesting points about the potential limitations of the Remnant approach. If I hear what you are saying, you are recognizing that, in part, the model people are led to choose may be a result of the context in which the church finds itself at any given time. Are you promoting kind of a contingency approach here - that the interface between the church and the state may be dependent on how best to respond to the needs of a given society and faith at a particular moment in history? More specifically, are you suspicious that the Church Remnant is ripe to be exploited by socialist regimes?
I think you raise some interesting points about the potential limitations of the Remnant approach. If I hear what you are saying, you are recognizing that, in part, the model people are led to choose may be a result of the context in which the church finds itself at any given time. Are you promoting kind of a contingency approach here - that the interface between the church and the state may be dependent on how best to respond to the needs of a given society and faith at a particular moment in history? More specifically, are you suspicious that the Church Remnant is ripe to be exploited by socialist regimes?
0 x
-
PetrChelcicky
Re: New axis of tensions
Just so. You bring it to the point. But I must admit - much of my suspicion relies on snippets, memories of what I have read over the years, books which I would have to read again. Like, for instance, Johannes Harder's book about the Russian Orthodox Church. For the moment, my general impression is: Under most Bolshevist governments the bigger churches had a particular pro-government subgroup, and these subgroups always promoted a Church Remnant model.Dan Z wrote:Are you suspicious that the Church Remnant is ripe to be exploited by socialist regimes?
0 x
-
Dan Z
Re: New axis of tensions
Interesting take Petr...and worth paying attention to. In 21st century America it seem that the Church Regnant, with its desire to maintain (wield) power seems to be the one that is most readily being co-opted for political purposes. But you are reminding us that either approach can be rendered ineffective for the Kingdom of God in the end - albeit through differing means: The Church Regnant enticed by carnal power, and The Church Remnant enticed by carnal comfort.PetrChelcicky wrote:Just so. You bring it to the point. But I must admit - much of my suspicion relies on snippets, memories of what I have read over the years, books which I would have to read again. Like, for instance, Johannes Harder's book about the Russian Orthodox Church. For the moment, my general impression is: Under most Bolshevist governments the bigger churches had a particular pro-government subgroup, and these subgroups always promoted a Church Remnant model.Dan Z wrote:Are you suspicious that the Church Remnant is ripe to be exploited by socialist regimes?
I believe strongly that the Remnant model is what Christ calls us to, but if we can be bought off and rendered complicit under the wing of worldly powers, then we are no longer Salt and Light as Christ calls us to be.
0 x
-
Josh
Re: New axis of tensions
Is this different from the prior 16 centuries?Dan Z wrote:Interesting take Petr...and worth paying attention to. In 21st century America it seem that the Church Regnant, with its desire to maintain (wield) power seems to be the one that is most readily being co-opted for political purposes.
Indeed. One of the temptations of the "Church Regnant" is to seek to be accepted and respected by worldly institutions. It's quite hard to find a balance of not doing this without ending up in the opposite ditch where someone is always anti-everything.But you are reminding us that either approach can be rendered ineffective for the Kingdom of God in the end - albeit through differing means: The Church Regnant enticed by carnal power, and The Church Remnant enticed by carnal comfort.
I believe strongly that the Remnant model is what Christ calls us to, but if we can be bought off and rendered complicit under the wing of worldly powers, then we are no longer Salt and Light as Christ calls us to be.
0 x
-
Bootstrap
Re: New axis of tensions
I suspect that there may be a third model: the Church Servant. It seems to love and to serve, not to reign, not to safely isolate itself, but to be good yeast.
0 x
-
Josh
Re: New axis of tensions
The vision I see in the New Testament is an apocalyptic one; one analogous to the days of Noah, where the few who will be saved know that all of those around them are perishing, and seek to win as many over as they can from these lost souls to join them on the Ark.
I do not see a vision to be "servants" to serve outside of exhibiting Christ's life in order to win more people over to salvation. This is an aspect of Christianity that is often very hard to accept for those who would prefer Christianity to just be another privately-practice religion, placed on the shelf alongside many others.
I do not see a vision to be "servants" to serve outside of exhibiting Christ's life in order to win more people over to salvation. This is an aspect of Christianity that is often very hard to accept for those who would prefer Christianity to just be another privately-practice religion, placed on the shelf alongside many others.
0 x