This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I just don't think the creeds are a good basis for defining Christianity. Most Christians do not understand the creeds; many who think they do actually believe in one heresy or another. I say they're still Christian. "Ask him, he knows" is a pretty good start to justifying why these people may remain Christian, but I say extend that further to God himself. God's nature, his physical characteristics, the precise meaning of the term "omnipotence", are not all that important to me compared to other aspects of God. If you asked me what Jesus' resurrected body were made of I'd say "pray to him, he knows."
Someone with this attitude and an extremely primitive idea of who Christ is is still Christian. Thus the thief on the cross is Christian even if he hasn't yet found a church, even if he's been an atheist for 40 years and just stepped foot into an LDS church for the first time because it was the closest to his house. Thus LDS people are Christian even if our doctrine is wholly incompatible with the creeds, because the creeds are not actually the authority regarding the definition of "Christian."
"Christians believe X, Mormons believe Y, and these are not compatible" is itself not incompatible with Mormons being Christians. There are doctrinal disagreements that are not heresies, there are heresies that do not exclude one from Christianity. The question is how big of a disagreement is big enough. We believe all the core things about Christ--we believe he is divine, he is God, he performed the atonement for us, his teachings are correct, he is the only way we can be justified and saved. The only thing we don't believe is that he's consubstantial in essence with the Father. I just don't think this last thing is a core part of Christianity. If it were, if creedalists were to be trusted that this question is so important that getting it right is vital to salvation, I think he simply would have been clearer about that in his sermons. All of that hogwash about grace and charity and the sermon on the mount is of no importance at all compared to ensuring everyone knows the nature of the Trinity, since a proper understanding of grace is not necessary for salvation, but a proper understanding of the Trinity apparently is.
We can keep discussing very esoteric principles and fine-tuning our definitions of belief systems vs. believers vs. believing communities, but in the end what it boils down to is that you believe God will damn me and my family for eternity because, while we accept his divinity and worship him, and accept his Son as our Savior, we don't have the nature of the relationship between them quite right, and unlike others with those same misunderstandings we're not part of a creedal Christian community. Does this not strike you as obviously wrong?
What is the utility of the creeds if not to define who is Christian? Again, that is what they are for. They were created for that specific purpose - to clearly mark orthodox Christians apart from heretics. You could, I suppose, take one of two views. You could suggest that this purpose is laudable but the actually-existing creeds do it wrongly, and instead lock in heresy or error. (I understand this to be the historical Mormon position.) The creeds are in the wrong place or cement the wrong views. Alternatively, you could suggest that this whole endeavour is a mistake. That seems like it would have pretty big implications to me - should Christians not seek to delineate Christianity from heresy?
I interpret your position to be that a basic, perhaps creedal, definition of Christianity is reasonable, but that the actually-existing creeds are too narrow. Perhaps a more minimal creed, one that encompasses not only Nicene orthodoxy but even the likes of Arianism or perhaps even some Gnostic belief systems, would have been better, in your view?
As regards Mormon beliefs - well, I would say that the early church seems to have believed that Christ being one in substance with the Father was a core part of Christianity. They believed that enough to put it into the creeds, and to exclude people who denied it. Presumably you take the view that they were wrong, and you can do that, but I don't think it's absurd or uncharitable of me to suggest that, by doing so, you have removed yourself from community with the people who believed that.
As a final note:
I previously said, twice, that I don't think that Christianity is coextensive with the community of the saved. "You are not Christian" does not mean "you are damned to hell for eternity". I also said "I don't claim that no Mormons are saved or anything like that".
Personally I consider it usually inappropriate to speculate on who is saved or not saved. That is a matter for God. What I do in life is hope for the salvation of all peoples - as in the Nunc Dimittis: "for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared for all nations". That is the part given to me.
I therefore, at least, knowing that God desires to save everyone, hope for the salvation of all who earnestly seek God, and who show proof of that desire in their love of neighbour. This does, for what it's worth, put me in company with the Catholics, who teach (para. 15-16, and at more length here) that though all salvation comes from God through Christ, this is possible for those of other religions. If I have given you reason in this conversation to think that I don't sincerely hope for your salvation as well, then I apologise.
Sorry, I shouldn't have levelled that accusation. This whole discussion is intrinsically tied to the whole "different Jesus" debate--which is that, due to my more esoteric and less meaningful beliefs about the nature of Christ, I actually believe in a whole different (and nonexistent) person and my faith in "that Christ" is of no effect. I should not have associated you with that argument.
Honestly if you're just using "Christian" as a group identifier then define it how you will. What I care about is the underlying implication that frequently accompanies this identifier--that those unworthy of the label are consequently unworthy of salvation. You've been clear that this is not your belief so I don't think we meaningfully disagree on this.
I don't see what the word 'Christian' can be other than a group identifier, really. What else is the word for? I suppose my feeling is that the Christian community, in a historical process whose most visible products were the ecumenical creeds, established and defined its own boundaries. Some people around the edges disagree, but I would defend the community's right to do that.
It is correct to say that in itself this process does not establish anything about salvation, or about who's theologically correct, or what have you. At that point we would presumably need to have a discussion about the doctrine of the Trinity itself, or about Christology, or about the basis of Mormon theology, on their own merits, and that's something we can't really get into now.
Thank you for the productive conversation, though, and I wish you all the best for the future!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link