Christianity Message Board

I think it's a little interesting how Christianity as a stand-alone identifier tends to mean Protestantism, and I think that's happening on LT. This is certainly true of self-identification as a "Christian." A Protestant, often excluding mainline churches, is likely to speak readily and openly to being one, where a Catholic may be reticent. The Catholic knows the term is somewhat freighted, like the term "born again," a theology Catholics believe in, but an identifier with a much more specific connotation.

Tim said: 'I think it's a little interesting how Christianity as a stand-alone identifier tends to mean Protestantism...' I agree, and I think it's unfortunate. Though I'm Protestant myself, the idea of using Christian as if it didn't encompass Catholics, as an and/or term, is... both profoundly arrogant and... odd? But I don't think it's only Catholics who perceive the freight in, say 'born again.' Depends how blithely comfortable you are, perhaps. :)

I'm glad to see there's a fair (if not large) Chesterton section to our group library...

That's an interesting observation, Tim. Growing up I regularly met with the assertion from Christian (read: Protestant Baptist) friends that as a Mormon I wasn't, in fact, Christian. It's a different Jesus, they said. No, really, they said that.

I think what it amounts to is their association of the term Christianity with their own interpretations of acceptable doctrines and practices, to the exclusion of those perceived as theologically in error. So if somebody asks me, "Are you Christian?" I say, "Yes." If somebody asks me, "What religion are you?" I say, "LDS" or "Mormon", because "Christian" would mean just what you've pointed out.

So is Christianity a religion, or is it something other than that? Perhaps we should call Christianity a tendency, and call the different sects religions. :)

Do you know, it IS possible to be theologically in error. :)

Eurydice wrote: Do you know, it IS possible to be theologically in error. :)

We're in agreement on that. But that doesn't mean you have to impose your meaning of a word on others. A word means different things to different people, no?

Well - no. There can be many shades of appropriate definition, so long as one remains true to the essence - in language or in theology. But to let _any_ definition become acceptable ultimately results in confusion and LACK of meaning. (Though linguistically, you might come up with an application both wonderful and new.) If you actually believe in Christianity's truth, you can't stretch without restraint and still retain it.

I think one should allow for plenty of variation, with humility about many of one's own interpretations or beliefs. But there are also clear points, hallowed by many centuries's discussion, various forms of authority, and prayer, on which disagreement becomes heresy: the agreed essentials of orthodox belief. Without a few fixed clear points, we're not dealing with a clear and (remotely) definable entity, which IS 'Christianity,' but with some tissue of ideas we may shape and reshape and rend as we will. The trouble with something like that is that one can scarcely claim for it the one quality we most need in it: truth.

It can be attractive, infinitely variable, and interesting; but nothing without parameters, nothing which allows truly infinite interpretation, retains enough reality of its own to anchor trust.

And it must come down to dogma, deep in one's belief; never mere similarities of the surface.

- Which doesn't mean it isn't good to discuss. :)

Tim, aside from thanks for the wider message box (!), I'm curious about your post earlier. Did you mean to suggest Catholics feel that to be more neutral than 'Christian,' or that they're simply hesitant to use any of the relevant identifiers - or something else, which I've missed?

Ya'll might be interested in this blog post:
http://milefromthebeach.blogspot.com/2006/07/right-church.html

Is this mainly an American (US) thing? It's only really with the advent of the internet that I realised some people do not consider Roman Catholics to be Christians.

No, I'm not saying people don't consider Catholics to be Christian—although, of course a few narrow people do. I'm saying that, as an identifier, it's not the one Catholics choose first. It's acquired a certain Protestant connotation. When a Catholic—and here I will come out a bit—hears of a "Christian" club, he thinks "Oh, they mean Protestant." Of course, it's highly context-dependent, and I make no claims on non-US usage. Nor am I making any point whatsoever about the truth of the matter—just the names and how they're used.

As for Mormons, Catholics don't need to get into the whole Christian vs. Non-Christian debate. It's much too black and white. We're better than that. We don't want to be that way.

We have a much better term: heretics!

;)

rikker wrote: "I think what it amounts to is their association of the term Christianity with their own interpretations of acceptable doctrines and practices, to the exclusion of those perceived as theologically in error."

and "But that doesn't mean you have to impose your meaning of a word on others. A word means different things to different people, no?"

Words have to have content. Certainly, imposing an unneccessarily narrow definition can be an injustice, but so too is insisting on the expansion of a word's meaning to the point of meaninglessness. And frankly, if "Christian" is to mean something beyond having good feelings about Jesus, I don't know how Mormons can fit in. There is a radically different understanding of God, Christology and Soteriology in Mormonism compared to historic Christianity.

I say this not as a criticism of Mormonism- there is much to admire & respect, and I certainly don't wish to exclude you from this group. At the same time, however, I think Mormons ought to recognize that the theological differences separating them from historic Christianity are so broad that they should not attempt to claim the word.

Telling people not to call themselves something is a fruitless game, I must say. And it too easily shades into "voodoo naming"—trying to make something so by naming it. Again, I'm not speaking to the truth of the matter at all. I am completely against doing that, particularly here.

There really is something to a term like "heretic." In my experience, when many Protestants don't agree with someone they deny them the label "Christian" or call them a cult. These are not enough choices. It would be better to object with "you're wrong, completely wrong"! :)

Tim writes: "Telling people not to call themselves something is a fruitless game"

True. But all too often there is a positive plea or demand to be adjudged Christians by both Christians and society as a whole. And that is unreasonable- for society as a whole it erodes meaning of the term, and it implicitly asks Christians to remove theology from their definition of "Christian", which of course is a self-identifier.

On the use of "heretic": I too think it needs to be brought back. Perhaps useful would be the observation that you can be heretical and still Christian- witness the Donatists.

Well, I'm with Gabriel and Tim on the usefulness of 'heretic,' and much else; particularly Gabriel's comments on Mormonism.

Your expansion is roughly what I thought you meant, Tim - I'd just rather be SURE I knew what you'd had in mind! :)

Sorry to be terse; just interjecting while I have a second.

Given its connotations, I don't have any desire to claim the word Christian. In spite of historical issues, the basic Mormon position is that it's reasonable to call oneself Christian because one worships Jesus Christ (and Mormons do), but there is obviously so much baggage with the word that others object to what may appear to be an over-simplistic usage of the word.

There is a very interesting parallel to this debate going on within Mormondom, even. Since abolishing polygamy 100-odd years ago, various excommunicated and otherwise unaffiliated splinter groups (who are certainly "heretics" to orthodox Mormons) continue to practice it, despite its being illegal and pretty appalling as they conceive of it. But they pretty much all still call themselves Mormons, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is trying to own that term to their exclusion.

So in a parallel to my earlier statement, if you ask a Utah polygamist, "Are you Mormon?" They'll likely say, "Yes." But if you say, "Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church?" They would have to say, "No."

I think it's an interesting, anyhow. :)

When I say "claim," I mean own, possess, etc to the exclusion of mainstream Christianity. I call myself Christian, but as said, it's more like a higher-level classification containing my religion, and not my default answer to "What religion are you?", similar to Tim's observation about Catholics.

Sorry if I wasn't clear!

Unfortunately, yes.

(RC Theologian by training here...). I teach many students from particular church groups who grow up with the notion that RCs are, indeed, idolators, etc. and certainly not Christians.

It makes life... interesting at times.

It also makes teaching church history *really* interesting. Not to mention Biblical studies because of course I assign them the 14th Chapter of Daniel becauseI'm like that...

Unfortunately, yes.

(RC Theologian by training here...). I teach many students from particular church groups who grow up with the notion that RCs are, indeed, idolators, etc. and certainly not Christians.

It makes life... interesting at times.

It also makes teaching church history *really* interesting. Not to mention Biblical studies because of course I assign them the 14th Chapter of Daniel becauseI'm like that...

Interesting discussion. I'd say the majority of Protestants nowadays would consider that Roman Catholics are Christian (although there will always be fringe groups that equate the pope with the antichrist and other similar crazy beliefs) - but I agree that Catholics do often seem to describe themselves first as Catholics, whereas most Protestants will use "christian" as their first choice.

Going off-topic a little, I've created another group specifically relating to the "emerging church" - I've noticed a lot of LT users have books around this topic so if you thing you fit, come on over and join : http://www.librarything.com/groups/emergingchurch

How's this for defining a Christian: One who holds to the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, and the sole, inerrant authority of the Bible.

I'd say that's a nice way to put it, Kfiech...very to the point. :D That is, in fact, what a christian is...or, in other words, a follower of Christ. ;)

Interesting that the "Christianity" group immediately got into a discussion on who's in and who's out whereas the "Pagans inc" group was launched with the description: "an inclusive group for pagans of all persuasions" and seems to have the question of a logo as first topic!

Blessings,
Andrew B

If I might, I would like to gently turn the discussion from who may or may call themselves Christians to books. I would like to suggest that Dakota by Kathleen Norris has a lot offer to a broad range of readers.

I just picked up "Dakota" because I travel through that area frequently and was interested in the concept of "spiritual geography" (moreso than any particular Christian inspiration that the book may offer). I'm going to be reading that one soon.

timspalding wrote:
"I think it's a little interesting how Christianity as a stand-alone identifier tends to mean Protestantism, and I think that's happening on LT. This is certainly true of self-identification as a "Christian." A Protestant, often excluding mainline churches, is likely to speak readily and openly to being one, where a Catholic may be reticent. The Catholic knows the term is somewhat freighted, like the term "born again," a theology Catholics believe in, but an identifier with a much more specific connotation."

Yes, and what it's freighted with is the doctrine of the Security of the Believer (aka "Once saved, always saved") held by many (most? all?) Protestant churches, and popularly understood to mean that once you accept Jesus, then you are, with absolute certainty, permanently and once-and-for-all saved (unless, of course, you explicitly renounce it later).

Now in the Eastern Orthodox churches (& I think the RCs are the same on this issue, though I'm not as familiar with them) whether you're saved or not is not definitively determined until Judgement Day. So to go around confidently proclaiming yourself to be a Christian smacks of the "Security of the believer" doctrine and is, at the very least, bad form, and at worst a nearly-blasphemous presumption in the face of God.

An example of this attitude was expressed by an Orthodox monk (as reported in Mount Athos : the call from sleep):

"A short while age a Scot visited me, the representative of a circle of moralists that you doubtless know of--and I said to him, 'You believe that you have faith? Then, dear friend, you have certainly not got faith.' I for one would never dare such a thing, and probably few of us on the Holy Mountain would. If you tell me that you are possibly on the way to it, splendid, good! And I would say: I have hope, too. But beyond that I'd never go. Anti-Christ dwells in the midst of every certainty ... That seems to me to be the misfortune of the Reformation. No one should imagine that he can live according to the Gospels and be 'face to face with last things.' Oh no! Impossible! What arrogance! I would say this: when someone imagines he can, Anti-Christ is not merely in the corridor outside, but one can actually hear him coughing."

Even some Protestant writers have said similar things. Like Kierkegaard, in "Armed neutrality" (in The point of view):

"The question of whether I am a Christian is entirely a God-relationship. When I delcare that I am a Christian, I am really speaking with God, even if it is human beings who ask me ... I cannot speak of my being a Christian according to a merely human standard or within the sphere of human comparison. But then before God, would I dare to say: I am--a Christian? No, I would not dare to do this ... for suppose God thought otherwise and I had forgotten respectful deference to God, in my expression about myself I had forgotten to express that God is the judge ... Face-to-face with God I would have to use a much humbler expression: I trust to God that in his mercy he will receive me as a Christian."

I think a case can be made that in fact no no one should be running around claiming to be a Christian--you are judging yourself, violating "judge not, lest ye be judged," and are thereby practically begging others (including God) to judge you as well.

kfiech : even your brief definition of a Christian would still be exclusionary to some. Catholics may take exception to the word "sole" since they hold to other sources of authority in addition to scripture. Change "sole" to "primary" and you might have a more inclusive definition. Innerancy is such a loaded term as well - although most Christians would probably agree with it, they would interpret that word in a large variety of ways.

Looking at it again, although I wouldn't disagree with your definition, it's probably a better definition of an evangelical protestant christian specifically. In general I think trying to pin things down to exact definitions is a tricky and perhaps unwise thing to do.

I read Joshua by Joseph Girzone a few years ago. I just happened upon it at a garage sale. It was a really great read, just from an entertainment point of view. From a Christian point of view, I'd say - there may be some hesitation to have a main character that is "Jesus-like", but I think the book is a fiction work that talks about love and how to treat one another and be good people. I saw Joshua as more angel-like.

Another book I'm reading now is Beyond the Sacred Page by Jack Cavanaugh. So far, this book is very engaging. I like how he goes back and forth between a character that is set in his beliefs and another that is just starting to understand something deep and profound. It's also a really interesting look at the beliefs and traditions of a very strict form of Catholicism.

RE: "How's this for defining a Christian: One who holds to the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, and the sole, inerrant authority of the Bible."

Well, I disagree with 2/3 of that (numbers 2 and 3), nor would it be accurate to say ANY of them are true of the overwhelming majority of either historical or present Christians. As a three-part formulation of doctine, it would have never been expressed prior to the Reformation.

The first is probably the strongest, but while a "settled issue" today, was untrue or not fully worked out among many early Christians including, many would argue, some of the inspired authors of the NT. Number two takes sides on the faith/works question, surely one of the most contentious ever, as well as taking a very "Protestant" line toward salvation and certainty (see Proclus, above). I do not pretend to know what God will do with the ten-year old Indonesian buddhist, and I feel the same way about you and me, Plato or the Pope. As for the last of them, Christians understand the authority of the Bible in may different ways. Declaring the Bible the "sole" authority is certainly not something non-Protestants can agree to (and, given the fact that the NT post-dates people called Christians, logically impossible). As for "inerrancy," even if you give "the Bible" a lot of fluidity—there are lots of little differences between, say, the Ethiopian Orthodox and the Protestant Bibles—Christians understand its authority in lots of different ways.

I completely agree with the point about the Pagans group. And I'm sorry to have started it :) . I am, of course, a fan of Mere Christianity. I have recently been reading C. S. Lewis and Catholic Church, but left it off in annoyance. After an interesting, highly-perceptive chapter on The Great Divorce, Pearce's take on Mere Christianity turned me off—stepping away from analysis, to wah-wah-wah about the exclusion of Mary.

"RE: "How's this for defining a Christian: One who holds to the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, and the sole, inerrant authority of the Bible."

Well, I disagree with 2/3 of that (numbers 2 and 3), nor would it be accurate to say ANY of them are true of the overwhelming majority of either historical or present Christians. As a three-part formulation of doctine, it would have never been expressed prior to the Reformation."

I'd have to agree.

In long discussions with students, we've come to the idea that the declaration, "Jesus Christ is Lord" is a reasonable signifier - but even then...

Which leads to the question of authority - who has the authority to say to someone, "You are not a Christian"?

Not something I'd take on.

And I will hereby confess to disliking almost everything I've read of Lewis', other than Screwtape.

I know.

Burn me now ;)

Though I'm a Lewis fan, I shan't burn you- so long as you're a Chestertonian!

On the question of definition (I know, I know, but it's too interesting to let go!), I think a defintion ought to have substantial content (the difficulty with the use of the declaration "Jesus Christ is Lord" as definition) , while encompassing all wings of historic Christianity.

I'd suggest instead that the historic creeds actually provide probably the most useful definitions out there.

Well, what should our logo be? We are still pitifully without one!

Also, even if it's not about books, I enjoy the discussion taking place.

"I'd suggest instead that the historic creeds actually provide probably the most useful definitions out there."

Yess.... except for some of the newer groups :}

And those not part of groups...

(And I'm not keen on Chesterton, either - shall I get the kindling??). :}

It's an auto-da-fe!

As for the creeds- perhaps they aren't perfect, but I think they are decidedly the best things available.

I suppose part of the difficulty is whether we are using "Christian" as a sociological identifier- those who hold to a recognizable form of Christianity, or whether we are using it to identify those whose theology allows them to be saved through Christ. (A third definition, those who are in fact saved I think most Christians would recognize to be beyond our capacity for personal knowledge.)

The first is the useful one in a public forum, I think. The second, while the more important of the two can't generate a lot of shared meaning, even within a lot of denominations. There are still a lot of Christians who wouldn't include Catholics within their second category (witness this column in today's WSJ), while I would probably include a fair number of groups I wouldn't consider Christian otherwise.

One of the more interesting chapters in "The Brothers Karamazov" is "The Grand Inquisitor," who goes into the dungeon to interview a man condemed to be burned for heresy. In the dungeon, the man is reavealed to be Jesus Christ. This puts the Inquisitor in a quandry- does he stay with his church, which mandates the death of this man for opposing orthodoxy, or does he align himself with his personal saviour? Stay with his religion, or stay with his belief? I think many Christians have similar problems today, when they don't don't align themselves with Crhist, or align themselves with a church where they may not agree with the tenets of the church.
In any case, it is an interesting chapter, and almost makes up for the dullness of the rest of the book.

Speaking of the need for an auto-da-fe -- The Brothers Karamazov? Dull? Blasphemer!

I jest, of course.

I'm glad to see there is at least one other person who does not care for Lewis. I'm fond of Till We Have Faces, but otherwise... we'll burn together, tole lege.

A few observations R. C. Sproul has an interesting section in Getting the Gospel Right : the Tie That Binds Evangelicals Together on the evolution of references to the group of believers in Christ. He discuss how the various terms (catholic, protestant, Christian, evangelical) are used a monopolized by various groups throughout history.
Protestants could feel the same way about the use of evangelical, it’s monopolized by non-protestant churches, even though you have evangelical protestant churches (ie Evangelical Lutheran Church).
Catholics have a monopoly on the word catholic (meaning universal), Lutherans are comfortable confessing they believe in the holy catholic church, meaning the holy universal church but to use the term around evangelicals causes problems because the Catholic church monopolizes the word.

It may also be important to note that many 'christians' want to exlude groups from using the term.

kfiech – you offer a good definition but it’s a bit Lutheran for wide spread use.

I don't think that the Catholic church does monopolise the word 'catholic', if by 'Catholic church' you mean 'Roman Catholic church' - which is not at all the same thing.

In the Church of England, which is certainly Protestant, the creed recited at Morning and Evening Prayer includes: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; The holy Catholick Church; The Communion of Saints; ..." (from the Book of Common Prayer - hence the spelling!)

To quote from Griffith Thomas's The Principles of Theology: "The word 'Protestant' is not opposed to what is Catholic, but to what is distinctively Roman Catholic, that is, to the perversion of Catholic truth and departure from true Catholicity." Not a RC textbook, methinks, but the point as regards usage is a good one.

I agree that Protestant and catholic aren't opposed. But I would argue that among post-protestant groups (radical reformers, evangelicals, emergent’s et al) the word catholic is associated with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church. This comes from a lack of universality of the post-protestant groups, unlike protestant groups (especially COE, Lutherans and some others) which confirm the catholic part of the church. Post-protestants aren’t likely to discuss being universal in nature they see the word catholic as a measure of liturgy and tradition.
So, yes protestant use catholic but in the view of post-protestant groups there is a monopoly on the word which is as much a label of anything liturgical as anything ecclesiological.

Trying to turn the bus a little: What books are there that "most" Christians can agree on? (Let's leave out the Bible.) Mere Christianity is surely up there. Anything else?

Mere Christianity, I should say. (Touchstones are being twitchy.)

Mere Christianity. Fixed the problem.

Aren't children precocious these days :)

Tim - I would assume you want theology books.

So I would have to say Who Needs Theology?: An Invitation to study God would get a good amount of agreement for readers who entertain the thesis, so would life together.

Would there be any wisdom in starting a "Historical Bible/Christianity" group separate from this one? I'd like to discuss books by Bart Ehrman, Karen King, Elaine Pagels, John Dominic Crossan, etc., (in addition to Biblical Archaeology finds, etc) but I'm not sure that sort of discussion is germaine to this exact forum.

Good. What would be a good name? I think "The Historical Jesus" is too apt to be misunderstood. Frankly, I'm more interested in that subject–which ties into my ancient history background and which I taught an adult-ed course in—than I am in the wiggle-waggle of Christian theology per se. After all, being a Catholic, I don't need to make up my own mine ;)

Toss in Meier! Did you notice he's rate the top LT author? (Yes, it's a somewhat odd calculation.)

There I go again--John P. Meier, author of A Marginal Jew. I'm also fond of E.P. Sanders.

There I go again--John P. Meier, author of A Marginal Jew. I'm also fond of E.P. Sanders.

OK, I'm gonna go with "Biblical History"; that way it covers old and new testaments.

Question to the group:

how do you decide what to tag a book? for instance, I decided to tag the Philokalia and the Theologia Germanica as "spirituality" and On Liturgical Theology as "liturgy" even though all three are arguably simply "theology." (and plenty of Kierkegaard gets filed under philosophy.) I grant you this is hardly the sort of questionupon which hangs the salvation of souls (though who knows?) but it is a book-question.

IMHO, tagging is about what YOU want, not about community good. Forgive me for speaking against altuism here, but I believe strong that the community good--if there is any--arises from the action of self-interested people.

Tag it how you think of it—how you will remember it. There is no right answer, only a cloud of meaning which, over time, will resemble how everyone sees it, enhancing connections, findability, etc.

Atomic. I'm a little leery about using OT/NT in a scholarly, or anyway in an evidence- rather than God- facing discussion. I'd prefer "Hebrew Bible." But I'll swallow this objection. I've quibbled about terms enough ;)

Gotcha, the error is mine. You get what I mean, though. So get on over to the "Biblical History" group and let's quibble, absolutely. That's (hopefully) how we learn things. It's all good... :)

Oh dear ... I'll tiptoe reluctantly onto this thread to say a broad amen to all Tim has said above. And I would add an amen to all the Meatloaf replies to the definition of "christian" supplied by kfiech. Although I am a priest and I guess a theologian, whatever that might be, I baulk at the word as defined. In fact I may not be a welcome guest in this group, for I am a liberal, out there on the fringes of Christianity, a hairy-tick and a seeker. But perhaps I should shut up now?

I've only just discovered this discussion board thingie - I'm not very internet-literate. Or maybe it's a new thing? I'm interested by the statement somewhere above that Roman Catholics don't automatically choose "Christian" as an identifier for themselves. Does that make me an exception? I'm a Roman Catholic and I do automatically choose "Christian" as an identifier. In my library I also use it as a tag for all books related to Christianity and churches, of whatever denomination. I have another tag, "spirituality", which covers a much broader spectrum of faith traditions but not necessarily every topic within a tradition.

Like at least one previous contributor, I'm intrigued that this discussion topic put so much emphasis on defining "Christian". While I agree with those who say that not everything can be Christian, is it really so important to define and label? Like Zappa, I suppose I'm a liberal (a label I don't choose for myself) and I know I'm a seeker (a label I do). I'm an ex-priest (but what does "ex-" mean?). What is important for me is not the labels and definitions but the Christian spirituality which leads to both contemplation and action (as, of course, do the spiritualities of most major faith traditions).

Thus I value books by some of the great mystics, including modern proponents such as Thomas Merton and Anthony de Mello. I'm also interested in the "historical Jesus" (although I take the point made above about the difficulties of that label) and by some of the theologies of vulnerability which I think are connected (Dorothy Soelle is excellent). But I don't let things get out of proportion - I still have more books on my hobby (railways) than I do on Christianity!

I think the idea was more that "Christian" is not a Catholic's automatic first choice. For example, if someone asked you, "What religion are you?", would you first respond, "Christian" or "Catholic", or something else entirely? Obviously you're entitled to self-label however you choose, but as we see, others may take issue with it. :)

For those of you who were discussing The Grand Inquisitor chapter of "Karamozov," I'd like to ask what you think of Dostoevsky's "case for the prosecution," so to speak, and about the same case in Lewis' Till we have Faces. It has always realy struck me that the first part of this novel is about three times as long as the second. Is it so much easier, in some sense, to make the case that life is a meaningless or cruel joke than to show that Love is stronger than death? Or is this a function of narative art, which is somehow not the best medium for the latter?

For those of you who were discussing The Grand Inquisitor chapter of "Karamozov," I'd like to ask what you think of Dostoevsky's "case for the prosecution," so to speak, and about the same case in Lewis' Till we have Faces. It has always realy struck me that the first part of this novel is about three times as long as the second. Is it so much easier, in some sense, to make the case that life is a meaningless or cruel joke than to show that Love is stronger than death? Or is this a function of narative art, which is somehow not the best medium for the latter?

oops, sorry for the double post. and for mis-spelling "narrative" and "really."

I note that we seem to be inexorably climbing up the groups list. Watch out Librarians!

May I recommend Darwin's Cathedral to all and sundry ? It's not about Darwin vs ID or anything like that, it's about looking at organized groups as one looks at multicellular organisms, and observes that they both evolve over time in analogous ways. Has a lot of interesting observations about the evolution of the Catholic Church, but also spends time on Protestantism in general and Calvinism in particular.

I haven't read Darwin's cathedral, but Daniel Dennett in Breaking the spell criticized this idea that groups evolve in much the same way as individual organisms.

You mean the anti-religious book that got slammed in the most anti-religious newspaper in the country?

"In addition, his approach to religion is so clearly an outsider's that he is unlikely to win many converts. Adaptive-mechanistic explanations of forgiveness and altruism may be intriguing to the atheist in the ivory tower, but they are likely to elicit little more than a bemused and passing interest from believers. --Eric de Place, editorial review from Amazon.com on Darwin's Cathedral."

I would have to echo Mr. dePlace's comments. Why would we want to spend time discussing a book by an atheist whose basic presupposition about reality (There is a God) is faulty? Most, if not all, subsequent propositions and conclusions would therefore be estranged from the truth.

>

In which country?

In response to 'Robertgreaves' I can assure him that the perception that Roman Catholics are not Christians is also alive and well in Canada.

I had a personal dose of this when applying for a vacant charge when during my interview I was asked that question directly. And not only that, I was made to understand that if I became their pastor I would not be seen to associate with "them". This happened within the last 8 years.

Needless to say I moved on to look at another and more pleasant pasture!

kfiech: you undermine yourself when you pass judgement on a book you haven't read. If you feel Darwin's Cathedral contains fallacies, please cite them and refute them. The book is by no means flawless, but if one is interested in the history of Christianity, and of historical variations of belief and observance within Christendom, I again suggest that it's very much worth reading.

And just to clairify the preceding exchange: gabriel was referring to Breaking the Spell as antireligious. I haven't read it.

Eric: People make hundreds of decisions/judgments everyday on how they spend their time, and rightly so. Christians especially are to "redeem the time" i.e. not waste it. (Ephesians 5:16)

As there exists more books than we have time to read, we often have to make judgments on what we read based on others' analysis. I don't think you have the case for me (or any other Christian) to spend time reading that book.

kfiech: Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that it the book was inevitably unworthy because its author is not a Christian.

kfiech: Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that it the book was inevitably unworthy because its author is not a Christian.

Eric: I believe all books have some worth because every author is made in the image of God.

An important criterion for judging a book should be: How will this book help me with my walk with God? Based on the background of the author, reviews by others, and lack of any supportive reasoning other than it has a "lot of interesting observations" about subjects from a skewed/damaged point of view (atheism) etc., it would be save to say Christians could pass on this book and be none worst for wear.

"Good. What would be a good name? I think "The Historical Jesus" is too apt to be misunderstood. Frankly, I'm more interested in that subject–which ties into my ancient history background and which I taught an adult-ed course in—than I am in the wiggle-waggle of Christian theology per se. After all, being a Catholic, I don't need to make up my own mine ;)"

Grinning - please, no, not "the historical Jesus"!

I, too, teach theology to adults and for my sins will be teaching something on the whole Holy Blood Holy Grail phenomena (which is NOT theology) next year.

(And I know the thing about not needing to make up your mind was tongue in cheek but I lose students every year because I expect them to do just that and won't tell them what to think!) (Other than the due date of the essay. On that, their views must be congruent with mine...). ;)

Holy Blood Holy Grail phenomena (which is NOT theology)

Nor is it history, nor even mythology.

I too have seen Protestants who were very dubious about Catholics, but I've been really shocked by the depths of the hostility shown to the Roman Catholic church on the part of certain sectors of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

A prime example is the story of Esphigmenou Monastery on Mt. Athos in Greece (which has not gotten much, if any, media coverage in the US). This monastery ceased communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch (and therefore with the other 19 monasteries on Athos) shorty after the meeting of the Patriarch with the Pope in 1964, in which the mutual excommunications of 1054 were finally lifted. Any dialogue with the RCC is regarded as a heretical "ecumenism." The dispute was left simmering for awhile, but then a new (and apprently even more strident) abbot was elected in 2000. The Patriarch finally got fed up enough to excommunicate the entire brotherhood--and so, according the charter of Athos (which is a semi-autonomous region), they were no longer permitted to live there. The monastery appealed to the Greek supreme court, which however ruled that the civil courts had no jurisdiction in the matter. So, legal options (both civil and ecclesiastical) are now exhausted. But they are still refusing to leave the monastery. Storming the monastery with troops and killing a bunch of monks certainly wouldn't look good, so the Greek police have the monastery under a seige of sorts. All this largely over the question of whether Roman Catholics are actually Christians or not.

Here's a site by some of the monastery's suppoters:
http://www.esphigmenou.com/

Someone recommended a book today... A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt... but I'm a little put off by the Amazon,com reviews. I'm Protestant, but I have Catholic friends and am really not into the whole Catholic bashing thing that seems to be happening recently from Da Vinci Code backlash.

Anyone read this? Thoughts?

I invite Utah residents or those with an interest in all things Utahn to join me in the Utah Thing group:

http://www.librarything.com/groups/utahthing

Hey Waiting. I'm unfamiliar with Dave Hunt, but it looks like he's published by Jack Chick- so it's a sure bet to be Catholic-bashing of the worst sort.

Of course, I'm a Catholic myself. That said, I'm perfectly happy with disagreement- just not vilification.

rikker said, "Perhaps we should call Christianity a tendency, and call the different sects religions." What a wonderfully whimsical idea! It's something like linguists deciding to call every language a dialect, or lect for short.

To my mind, a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, and who tries to live life according to what Jesus taught. Using that definition, Mormons don't qualify as Christians.

LilyHarvester: "a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity" -- this excludes not only Unitarians, but many of Christ's early followers.

But I agree with you that a Christian "tries to live life according to what Jesus taught," even though that excludes, well, almost everybody.

As for books on this subject, a good one to read is "The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Reformation and Protestantism" by James S. Bell & Tracy Macon Sumner. I just finished it, and I learned a lot. In fact, it greatly helped me to read the discussions on this board, knowing well, now, what defines the different denominations.

Ooops, late to the discussion as usual. I think it's worth pointing out, though, that Dave Hunt and A Woman Rides the Beast are both notoriously anti-Catholic and the last place you'd want to go if you want a realistic or unbiased look at the Catholic Church. The title alone is a declaration of Hunt's anti-Catholic premise.

There's a good deconstruction -- demolishing, really -- of his argument here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp

I am new here, but after reading the above posts, here are my thoughts on the name game. I am paraphrasing (probably poorly) some thoughts read in C. H. MacKintosh's works. The church, as an institution of man has been a failure from the beginning because it is filled with sin-tainted humans (who insist on names and boxes to identify themselves). The miracle is that with all its failures, God still uses it to spread the light of His salvation to the world. That speaks loads for the loving-kindness and long-suffering of God. Are we allowed to quote the Bible here? "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:36
Methinks we need to work on that before we worry about our names :)

Also, I am reading Les Miserables right now. I think Victor Hugo has some very interesting things to say in it that touch on correct belief and faith. I don't want to put the texts here, due to space, but if you go to my reviews and read, I have typed them there. It is to the effect that we must always examine our beliefs to guard against superstitions and prejudices creeping in. Then to fight those things, we move carefully. Do not carry a torch where a light will do. So often, if we find an error or a drift we are ready to burn someone (like those who don't like C.S. Lewis :D), when a gentle light for them would be better.

interesting point... I've haven't put any of my Bibles into my LT collection. The thought never crossed my mind. I just skipped over that shelf. I guess I never added it because I use my library as a reminder to what I have when trying to research and generally don't need a reminder of the Bible.

Although Bibles are entered from my library, many of the titles are not listed as Holy Bible.

I was somewhat lazy when listing my Bible. I didn't pay attention to the binding or color, just tried to find a NKJV, which I am currently using, although we have at least eight in our home. We pared them down one year when a mission in Nigeria was asking for Bibles. We decided if we each had one and a couple from our ancestors, that was more than enough.

>>Message 92

Library records for all titles are specific by necessity. They contain descriptions of unique content in meaningful detail. Recording characteristics permits one item to be distinguished from another. When the detail is accessed again, the unique features can be used.

Records for the Bible are especially difficult. There are many versions, they can easily be confused, and users want precision. Many titles contain editorial content that is valuable for its own use. In LibraryThing, one tag, "bible," is used 11,335 times by 1,671 users. Many of those volumes are titled Holy Bible. Some are linked to the Touchstone title. Others currently list editors as authors because of available space for entries in the software. That may eventually change.

Please hesitate before you leap to conclusions on the basis of superficial data.

I don't know MrKris, seems to me tags are an individual matter of taste. If one wishes to tag everything pertaining to the Holy Bible under the tag bible, that is their privilege. Tags are for the individual owners to catagorize their collection in a way they will remember it. At least that is how I use them.

I agree with MrsLee. Perhaps it's cop-out to you, MrKris, books containing the Scripture are tagged "Bible" in my library.

edited for clarity

Excuse me, it's late. The possibilities of your username(s) are not of interest to me. I'll exercise some discipline and refrain from saying the obvious.

A word means different things to different people, no?
---
No. For those of us who make truth claims, the definitions of words and the grammar used to present them is vital to the discussion.
If the meanings of words change depending on who is using them, then we can NEVER understand each other or come to agreements on anything such as "orthodox," "Christian," or even something as simple as "right," "wrong," or "sin."
No. Words mean what they mean, and the definitions cannot change.
If you still think so, ask your banker how much is in your checking account, and why they can't add a couple of zeros at the end of the current balance; or ask your pharmacist what it matters whither your doctor said 10mg or 100mg, after all, it "means different things to different people, no?"

A word does and can mean different things to different people. Words don't have fixed meanings but usages. What determines a words usage is its context.

An Example:

The word "run"

I can "run" down the street (My legs' rapid movement propels me in a direction)
My nose can "run" (though it does not have legs)
A person can "run" for an office (even if they have no legs)
My computer can "run" (but only when it is operational, regardless of legs)

The usage of a word changes based on the context, even though it is the same word being used.

Also, a word's usage can change over time. The word "gay" is an example of this phenomenon. Words are nothing more than carriers of thought, they are static and always changing.

Speaking of Protestants, Catholics and books ,I've noticed that most all of the "Christian" book stores are Protestant or Evangelical. Do Protestants read that much more than Catholics? It looks like they do. This Evangelical can only conclude that our Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ are hiding their bookstores where I can't see them.

The Catholics whom I know personally, read more mainstream literature. Sci-fi and history for my particular Catholics :) They also like spiritual literature....with titles which I can not come up with at the moment, but things with visions and apparitions in them. They will shop at the "Christian" bookstore, for mementoes more than literature. I've never thought to ask them if they have a Catholic book source, but there must be somewhere. I'll ask.

There's a chain of Catholic bookshops called St Paul's, run by an order of Catholic nuns (who also run Pauline Publications). The London one is (or used to be - it's a while since I've spent much time in London) in Kensington, the Nairobi one is next to the Catholic cathedral in the city centre. Westminster Cathedral also has a good bookshop. When I lived in the USA I bought books at a Catholic university bookstore. All of these type of bookshops are first class, with a wide selection of theology, scripture, spirituality, etc.

Many churches and cathedrals have small bookshops, although they are usually not so comprehensive. A few months back I tried my luck for a new compendium of the social teaching of the Catholic church at the Catholic bookshop in Gulu, northern Uganda, but I was out of luck, although they did have some very good catechetical books in local languages.

So they do exist, but I think wScott is right that there aren't as many of them as there are Protestant and Evangelical ones, and they might be a bit more hidden away. Here in Pretoria I can find Protestant bookshops in most of the big (and many of the smaller) shopping malls, but I haven't yet found a good Catholic one. And of course it might be different in so-called "Catholic countries" such as Italy or Spain - I don't know.

There are two bookstores that sell materials for Catholics just in the immediate area of the metropolitan U.S. city where I live. One is retail, the other is associated with one of the churches. Both also sell music that isn't stocked elsewhere, a local source for Taize.

I don't know if there is a difference in reading as much as it is a difference in advertising, marketing by the different publishers' associations. The trade associations for Evangelicals may be more active. Catholics, though, have their own library association with a greater publishing history. (The library associations representing Protestants haven't existed as long.)

Have you seen the Catholic Tradition group here on LT?

I agree entirely MrsLee (#96). I use tags in a way which means something to me although I'm making changes as I go through cataloguing my books. I sometimes, though not very often, use tags that will be meaningless to others. The 'Bible' tag I have used for fictional works based on bible stories (eg The Last Temptation) because I regard the bible as being their inspiration not because I think of them as having the same significance or authority. I realize some may think that is a wrong use of the tag but so be it.
And as far as the Catholic/Christian distinction is concerned (which was discussed in the earliest posts in this thread) I have to say that as a nominal Anglican my response would be conditioned by listeners' expectations. Although I consider myself 'catholic' though not Roman Catholic I am aware that in this country to say one is 'Catholic' will to most listeners imply "Roman Catholic". And in today's world most people are not interested in all the nuances.

I asked my mother-in-law about (Roman) Catholic reading habits and bookstores. She got a good laugh. She says of course they have stores for their books, figurines, rosaries and all their other idols (her words, not mine, she has a well developed sense of humor). My first thought was that Protestant bookstores were too stuffy for the Catholics I know. Too serious. My MIL said if they served liquor instead of coffee, maybe more Catholics would come in. Then she got even sillier and I won't repeat it here, thinking I've probably gone farther than enough. :) My MIL loves Jesus and loves to laugh and scandalize folks, both Protestants and RC. I love her dearly.

There are several RC-centric bookstores in my area of the U.S. The historic immigration pattern for the region is highly Catholic, so there is a population base that can sustain them, even if only for "milestone" gifts like baptism, first communion or confirmation. If anyone is curious, it's all the same schmaltzy "insprirational" crud that the Protestants carry.

But, to address wScott's comment in #104, I believe there are more Protestant bookstores for cultural reasons that do not relate to reading habits. In the U.S. at least there have always been strong ties (a la Max Weber) between Protestants and business interests. When you couple this with the Evangelical movement, you're bound to have people with the means to open bookstores who feel it's a way to spread their message. Oddly enough, has anyone who has both RC and P bookstores in their area noticed the Protestant ones tend to fold quickly? Or is it just a local phenomenon?

I think that the phenomenon is just that small religious bookstores are not sustainable unless they have a good customer base and that it is hard to get that at the start. So new ones fold easily.

I guess my observation
about Protestant/Catholic book stores is dated. Today local Christian book stores are too expensive. Discount book sellers like Christianbook.com can sell new books cheaper than the books you'll find at used book stores. For example:The Expositors Bible Commentary Complete Set (12 vols) is only $119.99. Brand new! Amazon.com has a huge selection of Christian books new and used,sometimes cheaper than Christianbook.com.

Very late to the discussion.

re: 1, 11> I'm both a Roman Catholic and proud to admit to being a Christian, and have no problem calling myself a Christian (actually, I proudly proclaim myself a Christian). Oh and "it's not the one Catholics choose first" I think of myself first as: Christian, then second as a Catholic, and then remember third Roman Catholic, as there is more than one Catholic church. I'm sure there are other identifiers that I use. ("What are you?" "A Christian", "What kind?" "Catholic", "What, you were supposed to mention that first . . .")

"When a Catholic—and here I will come out a bit—hears of a "Christian" club, he thinks "Oh, they mean Protestant." - interesting, I never thought of that until I saw the thread about noting what you are and not seeing any Catholics in there, and wondering if I was wrong about what this group was about.

MikeBriggs,

Growing up in the Christian Family Movement gave me the same approach.

Fred

Most of my mother and father's side of the family are Roman Catholic. I call myself Christian, my aunt calls herself Catholic first though. I think of all the denominations of the Protestant churches and the Catholic church as variations of the Christian faith, but that we are all Christians.

MikeBriggs, There is not more than one Catholic Church, there is one Catholic (Universal) Church, there are many different Churches within Catholicism (Coptic, Ukrainian, etc).

ocianain (#117) I think you are being a little unfair there. I for one took MikeBriggs's statement (#113) (I think of myself first as: Christian, then second as a Catholic, and then remember third Roman Catholic, as there is more than one Catholic church.) as implying more or less what you say. I assumed he was thinking (sorry Mike if I'm misrepresenting you) of Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and so on as well as the ones you have added. Possibly even us poor Anglicans.

Possman, Catholic means Universal, there is only one Universal Church. Orthodox rock! But, they're not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Regarding being Anglican, come on home, we need you!

ocianain (119)
Yes, I know what 'Catholic' means. I just suspect that lots of people who believe in this 'Universal' Church also believe that it excludes many Churches that call themselves 'Catholic'.

Aren't we getting catholic and Catholic confused?

kurtabeard: I don't think so. I do use 'catholic' at times, for example if saying that someone has 'catholic' tastes (= roughly eclectic or diverse or , indeed, universal) but if referring to the Church of England (Anglican) I would say it is part of the Catholic Church. When we recite the creeds we affirm our faith in the 'Holy Catholic Church'. I imagine that followers of Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic, and many others would do the same. Saying a church was 'catholic' would I think have slightly different overtones although I have to admit I cannot clearly explain just how except that by using 'Catholic' there is perhaps an implication that the Church in question has historical roots in the ancient church - perhaps shown in the apostolic succession - and shares a common faith with the others and should share full communion with them. If these claims are rejected by the others than perhaps they would indicate that by using 'catholic' as a weak adjective. I'm aware I haven't expressed that very well but it's late and I'm off to bed.

In the Lutheran Church we use a lower case c for catholic church in the creed. I was taught that catholic (little c) meant universal and Catholic big C referred to the Catholic church (Roman et al).
That aside my opinion in this matter is that many protestants don't believe that the Catholics are part of the catholic (universal) church. Many evangelicals wince at the thought of even using the word catholic (universal) when describing themselves. Of course I've met a fair number of Catholics who don't think protestants are part of the catholic (universal) church.
In modern times Christian and the church have come to mean about what catholic meant 30 some years ago. I think r.c. sproul covers this in Getting the Gospel Right, he goes on to say the new word for what catholic, orthodox, Christian and the church has meant in the past is evangelical.

Possman, Didn't the C of E imagine itself the Via Media? Neither Catholic or Protestant but, the Middle Way?

Kurtbeard, You're correct of course regarding many Protestant/Evangelical perceptions of who is Catholic, as a Catholic I see Protestants trying to determine who is Catholic as the height of irony!

#123: he goes on to say the new word for what catholic, orthodox, Christian and the church has meant in the past is evangelical.
Well, the RCC is catholic (universal), orthodox (true), Christian (follow Christ), and evangelical (follow the Gospels).

By the way, there's also the Old Catholics and the Independent Catholics, neither in communion with Rome.

Fred

#125 and I think he (and I) mean to say that the generic term that means "catholic (universal), orthodox (true), Christian (follow Christ), and evangelical (follow the Gospels)" has changed from catholic, orthodox, Christian and evangelical. I'm not wanting to say catholics, protestants or evangelicals aren't encompassed by that phrase.
And thank you for sharing some other forms of Catholic I wondered what other Catholic groups there were.

Kurtabeard,
I didn't mean to make a particular claim here, just to observe that the main Christian groups all tend to define themselves by terms that the others also see as pertaining to themselves.

kurtabeard (#123). Yes I understand that. Perhaps what we could agree on is that the use of 'C'/'c' in this church context is often people making a religious point as to how they see the standing of their (or someone else's) Church. That is why I would say the Church of England is the Catholic (big 'C') Church in England — to place it within the mainspring tradition (but see below).

ocianain (#124) Yes — I think that expression (Via Media) was used a lot during the nineteenth century with the Oxford (High Church) Movement but I don't know enough about that. It sounds like a paradox but I've also heard that phrase (NEITHER Catholic or Protestant) changed to "BOTH Catholic and Protestant. Very many years ago someone explained it by saying the opposite of a Catholic was heretic and the opposite of a Protestant was a Papist but I hasten to add that is not my view now if it ever was.

On a personal note I should say I am a lapsed member of the Anglican communion but retain a great affection for it and read about its present troubles with great sadness.

Possman, Sorry to hear about your lapse of practice in the Anglican Church, She is having a lot of trouble now, the orthodox Christians within Her seem to have had enough! Some are even talking of re-uniting under the pope!

Some are even talking of re-uniting under the pope!
Yes — I can understand that. There is a lack of leadership and direction both with the C of E itself and also the Anglican Communion as a whole. Via Media has become "anything goes".

I watched Question Time on BBC TV last night - quite an interesting discussion about whether we should apologize for past events (slavery) and a question about a House of Lords vote on super-casinos which was against the Government. Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury was among the panel. Queries from the floor as to why only three bishops were present on such a big moral (according to some) issue and queries from other sections as to why bishops sit in the Lords at all (it's actually not every bishop that has this right - just those from the more ancient sees). Carey was saying that if you started off designing a House of Lords from scratch he would like to see some religious representation from bodies other than C of E and said "......I'd like to see the Catholics in there." So that gives a hint as to how one major churchman uses the term (obviously I don't know whether he would have used a big/small 'c' had he written it).

April 23, 2009

The Great Storm

A massive storm is soon coming to Southern California. The storm is going to be very big with high winds, pouring rain, massive lightning bolts, and thunder so loud it will knock you out of your chair. But this isn't just any storm, this storm represents something very deep. It represents the destruction and defeat of the "Evil God's" that have devoured and destroyed innocent life. These evil God's have inflicted intense and tremendous evil and pain among innocent life. They have inflicted as much harm imaginable. There are several of these evil God's. The name of this massive storm is "The Great Storm."

The plan is that when The Great Storm comes, to light a Jesus candle in a dark room, and keep it lit during the storm. The defeat of these evil God's is dedicated to the Goddesses and Jesus, as they are one. The way to dedicate their defeat to Jesus and the Goddesses is to tie a "purple ribbon" around the Jesus candle, as the color purple represents the Goddesses.

The Great Storm of intense energy will only last for about one hour, so make sure that you are prepared before the storm comes. Listen to your weekly weather forcasts of any possible major storms in the Los Angeles, CA and surrounding areas as far north as Mojave.

Sorry if this sounds irreverent, but all I can think of when I read post >132 is the famous 'end of the world' sketch in one of the "Secret Policeman's Ball" benefit performances on behalf of Amnesty International. Peter Cook and Rowan Atkinson lead the whole cast. "Will this wind be so mighty...?" It's somewhere on YouTube if anyone wants to have a butcher's, but I'm currently on a slow internet connection so I can't connect to give you the link.

I don't think Jesus likes being associated with magic.

Are there 24 other "Jesus is King"'s?

I think I'll skip the weather report. Jesus is King, even over the "evil God's" (Psalm 82.1)

And you know where I'm going to spend eturnity how? By the way, partial urls don't work. Give us the full url.

It wasn't until a year after I left the Navy that I found out God was real, I was 31 years old. Up to that time all I thought about was drinking and smoking and the night life, it usually started about 6 PM every night. My life was like that from about the 10th grade of High School. I never thought I would live past 21 years of age and almost didn't because of a head-on-collision in 1957 a year after graduating. After finding out God was real, then you look back and think, "what if." My autobiography can be found. http://www.google.com/profiles/109344174867490513201