We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.
For today:
What are some of the similarities and differences between non-Christians and Christians?
27 comments:
Francis Schaeffer's words for fallen humans as
"glorious ruins" resonates with me, and is
applicable to non-Christians and Christians.
We are all glorious ruins. That's a similarity.
We bear in our faces and bodies, the image
of God, and his glory...as well as the destruction
of the fall.
Angela,
Thanks. Sounds like these would be pertinent similarities - any differences come to mind?
One difference would be that Christians
have connection to God, relationship
through Christ. They are on a journey of
sanctification, empowered through the
Spirit to be able to live abundantly and do
that which fallen humans cannot do on
their own.
Can non-Christians have abundant lives
and do powerful things? Yes, I would think
so. But it is a disconnected abundance.
Disconnected from the One who is
Abundance...abundantly more than what
we could ask or imagine.
sorry, that anon was me....I forget
to mark my name sometimes.
Angela,
This is a helpful way of putting it.
It's not a really helpful distinction. Christians for the most part have some identification with the Church, non-Christians don't.
Joshua,
Thanks. Why is it not a helpful distinction? True, it seems your distinction is valid, but rather limited.
It seems as though when we make the distinction of "Christian" and "non-Christian," we are separating first and then looking for similarities. I think that a helpful way to view the question would be to see us all as human beings first, and then move toward distinctions. When we acknowledge our humanity first, there is a sense of solidarity and commonality that should eclipse any sense of divide that may come when one calls oneself a Christian. I guess it also seems that labels tend to create and "us" and "them" divide.
With that said, I do think this is a good question, especially the "similarities" part. I have received so much acceptance and love from friends (and strangers) who do not identify with Christ overtly that I sometimes wonder if they do identify with him in the way that Gandhi did: give my your Christ but not your Christianity. I'm curious to hear what others think about this idea.
Robynn,
Thanks. I agree that the best starting place is being human and that this is one of the similarities.
Christ is always, and it seems forever will be, separate from Christianity.
Non-Christians do may good and virtuous things that in some way does identify with Christ, yet there are the things that do not identify with him that become problematic and awaiting personal redemption.
And I'd prefer to keep it that way. What the distinction is used for is a blank check to ascribe whatever meaning people in their delusional abilities wish to deceive themselves with. I've merely never seen anyone ever go somewhere with that distinction that wasn't either strategically self-affirming (either positively or not), theologically oblivious to Scriptural reference to what they're saying, or so abstractly irrelevant that while it might be good for them, describing their insights as "helpful" would be stretching it beyond recognition. For instance, Angela states that "Christians" have this special relationship, fine. But Scriptures seem to indicate that what we'd label as Christians includes both those who do and don't with the most superficial of reads, and reading a little deeper it isn't hard to see that some non-Christians have precisely this relationship that many Christians lack. Of course we could ad hoc it so that it's by definition, but what then? As for sanctification, this clearly includes unbelievers, whereas where's the evidence of all the "empowered" Christians?
The only thing I particularly like about it is that it creates an us/them mentality. It draws a line in the sand. But the tendencies is to obscure rather than help us make honest assessments of either camp. And once we have camps, it becomes easier to say... so this is how people in the Christian camp are going to start acting, as opposed to since your a Christian, this is how you act.
Robynn, call me cynical, but it seems that most of the time all the talk of solidarity and commonality, ensues cause of deep divisions and diversity. That sense is little more than wishfully thinking, and its more than petty differences which divide.
All of the talk of anti-us/them is really a mask favoring some sort of enlightened despotism that results in tyranny of conformity. I don't particularly mind as long as their relying on manipulative forms of social control, but I'm not about to play the fool that I buy into any of that. If you want to see evidence, just look at the facebook status updates of those who use that language and how they reference anybody who disagrees with their agenda. I have a feeling that my own limited experience on this point is not so particular.
Gandhi might of accepted Christ, but he sure wasn't about to follow him. Then again, neither are most Christians. In a much less generalized way than my earlier comments, "much" of our culture which so desperately craves love and acceptance, settles for a cheap substitute to the point that I'm not sure they can recognize the real deal. I personally have a hard time discerning the two, and am by far too overly "suspicious" as Greg likes to harp on. I guess I have no problem with rejecting much of Christianity, but to treat rejecting all of it as insignificant is to trivialize some profound differences. On this point, I also find a lot of confusing points being made, which I don't have a problem with it, but it does mean I pay attention more to what's really be said.
As far as our commonality of being human is concerned, it's safe to say that thus far it's our nature to form into camps, whether we recognize and acknowledge it.
Let me put it another way Robynn. I think there's a lot of sloppy thinking that goes on which while recognizing a problem, proposes resolution by rejecting any legitimacy to the perceived source of the problem. Then according to the wishful logic, the problem will go away. So while there might wrll indeed be needless bickering and divisiveness based on meaningless distinctions, the point is not to erase all distinctions, but to address the false ones and possibilities for interacting with real ones. The other logic is naive, simplistic, and immature really (not really any more immature, naive and simplistic than mine which is to drink but that's a different issue), the real task for seriously minded folks is to seek to reform and respect others (substantively) without falling into a disparaging trap.
Joshua,
While not denying and then reversing distinction, you seem to say both.
I agree with you that the distinctions can be used for the inappropriate purposes you mention, but that shouldn't mean there are no distinctions. What something might be used for does not fully account for its existence.
Would you mind referencing some of those Scriptures that you interpret saying that non-Christians have this kind of specific relation to God and that sanctification clearly includes unbelievers? Thanks.
I think the us/them mentality is much too narrow and I prefer relation/distinction. And the notion of "camps" is also already too divisive and not necessarily concerned for the other like us.
Joshua,
Seems to me that the solidarity/commonality perspective can be naive, but that it isn't necessarily so. Idealism and realism, sometimes cynicism, are equally problematic and fail to be real options.
I think I agree with your general cultural analysis about not being able to recognize the "real deal."
Here are two previous posts.
Engaging a post-trust culture means meeting people where they are in their suspicions and re-directing them to an ontology of revised trust. Empty appeals made to institutions, politics, or churches, no longer has traction, whereas personal encounter and investment carry significant weight. Sacrificing time and energy therefore should be a mark of Christian love and charity towards others. Hammering out together the validity, or lack thereof, concerning plausible explanations of reality has to take place one step at a time. There are no fast and easy solutions to complex issues. Starting with being human and living in the world is as good a place as any to begin the journey, which leads to Creator and Christ.
Overdoing suspicion will take a challenge as a threat. The reception of the other in hospitality marks a trust in oneself to have a capacity to welcome that which is not one’s own. The fear of violence being done to oneself by the other, while a legitimate concern, all too often initiates a surplus of suspicion that ironically damages the one so desperately seeking protection. A self – other configuration that carefully takes both into consideration leaves us in a tensional perspective, having to work out the dynamics between trust and suspicion; life and death.
Joshua,
Your third comment states "the point is not to erase all distinctions, but to address the false ones and possibilities for interacting with real ones." I agree with this, but am still looking forward to some backup for your first comment of the three.
I agree it's not necessarily so, and wanted to sort of situate my cynicism about it in the middle between love/acceptance which I'm "least" cynical to "us/them" language which I'm most. Still, when it's not necessarily so, we're either in the midst of building a real solidarity (so that solidarity isn't taken for granted, there's a realism embedded) or it's reminding others of concrete similarities which might not even be universal. There are other, but these two are the main kind of moments when I'm not cynical about the language, although still critical about the possibilities.
In regards to the non-Christian/Christian, I'm not trying to deny the distinction, but that doesn't mean I truly understand what it means. I would suggest though I'm pretty confident in what it doesn't mean. But whereas I'm confident that others are wrong, it's precisely their faith in their understanding of the meaning of the distinction that stems their confidence in the "helpfulness" of this distinction. There's an important ideological component necessarily there, but the ideology that surrounds it is mostly false. Maybe if I had a better understanding of it, I might see the "helpfulness" of it, but as it is it's primarily not. And I'd love to hear your take on it in positive terms.
To suggest that the camps mentality is necessarily too narrow, is to take it for granted itself. The Church's role is to minster to the other camps; however, it's not the Church's role to make the other camps look just like them. That might be surprising consequence of the camps mentality, but it seems embedded within the NT, although even the ministering is slightly muted. The divisiveness primariliy stems from the Church trying to make the "thems" an "us". So is Yoder to divisive? Or Hauerwas? Maybe, but these are important counterexamples to the general divisive trend of the Church, and while one may strongly disagree with these two fellows, I'm not sure one can understand them and marginalize them as sectarians. There's much ado about say Jesus' ministry to the Gentiles or Pauls lack of concern about unbeliever's practice. Yes, it needs to be qualified, but it can't be dismissed. And a closely related issue is Jesus' mission of divisiveness, so divisiveness is not all bad (Matt 10.32-42). With both of these issues, there needs to be a tension here that throwing out the camps mentality tends to go to one extreme, while the perverted forms which we most recognize are the others. I'll try and quickly get back to you on santifying and redemptive salvation in Scripture later (but soon), but fyi my comments are contextualized in a more corporate understanding of salvation that wishes avoids the extra Ecclesiam nulla salus view. In that case though, I'm not sure it's as limiting a restriction on the distinction as it might cursorily appear. And so God's relationship is tied up into the distinction, but it's a lot more messy in the real world than how the distinction typically plays out and primarily mediated through God's relation to the Church.
Joshua,
Appreciate your input on this blog.
Seems to me that the 'positive' aspects of distinctions veer away from the false type that you are rightly concerned to bury. From my optique, the positive would include truer selfhood, sufficient explanations for what seems to be, having a referent for grace, love, and forgiveness outside of oneself or another human. These types of distinctions would seek to be attractive and not primarily divisive, yet the scandal of the cross and how it brings distinction cannot be underplayed. That is not to say, of course, that Christian speech and action is somehow protected from hypocrisy. It is not, but there should be desire to be transformed oneself, and for others to participate in that same trajectory.
Keep in mind, I did say you have to read deeper for the special relation to non-Christians; however, the clear reference I had off the top of my head when I wrote that was 1 Corinthians 7.14. That said, while I believe one has to read deeper, it is a major theme of the Gospels and a minor one throughout the texts.
So it's not so much as referencing a few verses, as applying an over-abundance of them to this distinction.
Who are the children of God? We can insist that they're definitionally Christian, but we're going to be hit by some theoretical issues as well as our inconsistencies. And as for the inconsistencies, at this point let me suggest that this is one of the chief temptation of the narrowness of orthodoxy. Or we can say Christians are the people who identify with that label, how we practically use the term, and understand who the faithful are based on a Scriptural understanding that doesn't systematically force these two together. Basically, I'm affirming the mystery over theological speculation.
We've come full circle; we are at a point which uncannily parallels Israel. Then religious leaders excluded God's children from the religious establishment both Jews and Gentiles. The attitude was that Isreal is God's exclusively favored people. While Israel is related and distinct from the Church, the Church is related and distinct from the KoG. To suggest that only those who identify with the religious establishment are the faithful, is to make the same error as the religious leaders who claimed Abraham as their father. The point Jesus made was: the one who does the will of the Father is a child of Abraham. So who is doing the will of the Father? The point was not those who were outwardly conforming to the Scriptural indicators. The surprising polemic was that it was those who were "lost", excluded, etc. I'm not exactly sure what you meant by "reversing" the distinction, but how I am (if I am), it's something along this line of expectation. If I'm overstating my case, it's only in response to a perceived doctrinaire view of the Christian/non-Christian distinction that parallels the erroneous assumptions of 1st century Palestine which the NT challenged. The logic is the same: We are God's favored people with a special relationship because we are Christians.
It's the Israelite arrogance which blinded them both to God's rejection and their failure to do God's will. Now I'm skipping over some important details obviously, but the question is not where does Scripture say that God has a special relationship with Christians, the question is what does Scripture say about God's relationship with the believer, and consequently, what does Scripture say about the relationship of the believer to His recognized religious establishment. This is the "level" of depthness which I'm arguing that Scripture states God has a salvific relationship with those who we place in the catagory of non-Christian. I think we do use the term Christian and non-Christian properly in common usage, I simply think we ignore the underlying Scriptural insights that should form the backdrop, and is directly relevant to the question of the significance of the distinction.
So while the parables need to be understood in light of their historical context, many of the insights are cross-contextual, especially say of the parable of the two sons.
(Apparently this post is too long for the comment allowance.)
The only possibility out is to systematically force the term Christian to definitionally apply to those with a "special relationship". These are not Scriptural, but an independent theological category which has emerged.
A) It ignores the Scriptural perspective of the issue.
B) It ignores the practical affairs of our usage.
The actual theoretical issues are of secondary importance, because they merely function to resolve the distress of the orthodox minded, who realizes that not everyone who is saved is recognized as such. Of course the desire to theological make sense of everything is their chief temptation, whether we're discussing who is a child of Abraham or the problem of evil. But the chief difference is that if they're astute enough, they have to acknowledge that they "can't" as a matter of doctrine, only God knows. In my view, it's explanatory impotent, and of dubious necessity for any other service it might provide. It creates a theoretical space where someone is a "Christian" who none would call a Christian, whereas those whom everyone calls Christian is not a Christian. I believe the text has direct relevance and there's more than semantics going on, i.e. it's obscuring a type of misappropriation of the significance of the term, and we can safely say that some non-Christians have a special relationship with God. And so to me personally, the statement that "We can't know who really is a Christian and who isn't is nonsensical, what's really meant is we can't formulaically know who the faithful are and who isn't, we can't know who has a special relationship with God and who can't. Except to say we have strong hints that they are both within and without the Church.
How can I know if I'm saved, and how can we know who the others are? The answer to the latter is that we can't, it's an answer which will be revealed in time. As for the former, I'm not really going to address that, but I do believe it's the primary question of 1 John. So in seeking to strongly attach the term Christian with salvation, we not only beg the question but fall prey to the narrowness of orthodoxy, which is always going to be problematic with faith. I'm not bashing orthodoxy here, but I'm alluding to its particular temptation theologically. And indeed this subversion of categories, particularly who God has a relationship with is a major them throughout the Gospels. The continuity and distinctness between the Chosen People, the Church, and the KoG. But redemptive salvation mainly alludes to the KoG. Christian alludes to the Church or at least to Christianity, this might be overly simplistic, but it's definitely the gist. The evangelical formula of "be a Christian" to get into "heaven" is false. Does being a Christian mean having faith in God? Well while there's that background ideal sense, that's not how we label, despite thinking it is. We label believers and non-believers Christian, and arguably don't label some believers Christian when they don't fit into our idea of what a Christian should be. And indeed, a conversation about the similarities and differences between both sides of this distinction is precisely a conversation about our idea of what a Christian and non-Christian is. The distinction is a miscategorization of what we're trying to differentiate. It's also a fundamental miscategorization of the faithful/believers. Again, I think we already have categories for this conversation, that retain the significance. And these are the Scriptures I'm referring to.
Generally those who identify with the label Christian are Christians and those who don't, aren't. And it's the attempt to make the distinction more than this, where it begins to become to theoretical and in turn has less significance than it sounds. I'm open to differing usages of the term Christian, but I'm going to be comparing it to how these usages are applied and there's always a disconnect. So who "does the will of the Father". A theme of these parables is that there is unorthodox surprise at who actually is performing the Father's will. The burden however, remains on those to demonstrate it, a task gladly taken up by some. However, remaining in the spirit of those who are critical to religious trappings, they're going to have a critical hurdle to jump. These sorts of systematic expansion of the term to cover a theoretical basis leads to absurd notions like the "invisible church". Here it's imposed on the texts and distorts the actual message. While not fully accounting for the term, it was basically a name that people threw out for practitioners. It was a disparaging label for practitioners in the Church of Antioch.
Can someone reject that label and the Church and still have a relationship with God? *Shrug*, they have in the past, and in a post-Christian society, it'd be hard not to imagine that it's a common occurrence today. I might disagree that they're on solid ground; however, I'm not going to force that label upon them, nor do I feel that is appropriate or correct. I'm not opposed mind you to forcing labels on people per se, but I'm relatively sure that people can make up their own minds whether they're a Christian or not. One isn't going to stand before the judgment throne and say, "Well, gee, I guess I am a Christian after-all" or "Wow, I thought I was a Christian but apparently not." I'm not saying they're not going to be surprised by the outcome, but this won't be in the bundle. One could compartmentalize, and so for "my purposes" view them as Christian and on the other hand not; however, I'm not sure of the reason why? The only reason is for some hidden desire, but I just don't have that desire; nor is the desire for universalism.
The decision to follow God is not captured by the term "Christian", a Christian is a practitioner of the Christian religion. So while practicing the Christian religion is an important aspect of following God, it's by no means all inclusive. While terms can be synonymous and equivocal even among their different meanings within a text, they're not all really the same thing. Christian is not a substitute for righteous, godly, holy, etc. Indeed, these might be more helpful distinctions than that of Christian/non-Christian. We can suggest the meaning of this cluster with greater clarity than the catch-all term of Christian. Obviously, there's going to be a ton of disagreement; that's inevitable, but it's a very different conversation with a more promising richness of possibility. Treating them interchangeability, while not necessarily nuanced, is best left to folks exhibiting understanding. To substitute a Christian/non-Christian distinction for say a faithful/non-faithful distinction is to allow for confusion by a linguistic creation encouraging the same Israelite arrogance. The Scriptural message is unequivocal in regards to the Jewish framework, there's a gap that the substitution can't overcome. The faith/non-faith distinction is distinct from the recognized/non-recognized distinction. They're related true, but they are not collapsible.
Sorry, this is poorly written and not what you asked for, but I hope it helps with where I'm coming from.
Bonsoir ZigZag Cafe,
[I might not be able to access the Internet for the next two days in case someone responds]
the world opposed to the kingdom of God seems to be a theoretical configuration which transcends the labels Christian/non-christian. The ideal state of the kingdom of God is expressed in metaphorical passages like Revelation 21/22.
I guess in concentrating on the kingdom of God in general (what it means) we might be able to see that every human being is always in a tension between the world and the kingdom of God instead focusing on the alleged representatives of the world (nonChristians) and God (Christians)
One more thing: "Christian" used to be much more precise when it meant: White, male, racial, nationalistic and objective knowledge [irony (I dislike smileys)] but so many facets have been added, the word has been used so much that it is difficult (and meaningless) to use unless you use it more in a cultural way: the Western Christian world (not very precise - what about the atheists?) but everyone kind of gets the attempt to form a term including the Christian roots of the Western (?) world.
[Words cant capture reality but we need to diverse our words more and more to come closer to what the world is: an intrinsicable, interrelated concoction]
Keep in mind, I did say you have to read deeper for the special relation to non-Christians; however, the clear reference I had off the top of my head when I wrote that was 1 Corinthians 7.14. That said, while I believe one has to read deeper, it is a major theme of the Gospels and a minor one throughout the texts.
So it's not so much as referencing a few verses, as applying an over-abundance of them to this distinction.
Who are the children of God? We can insist that they're definitionally Christian, but we're going to be hit by some theoretical issues as well as our inconsistencies. And as for the inconsistencies, at this point let me suggest that this is one of the chief temptation of the narrowness of orthodoxy. Or we can say Christians are the people who identify with that label, how we practically use the term, and understand who the faithful are based on a Scriptural understanding that doesn't systematically force these two together. Basically, I'm affirming the mystery over theological speculation.
We've come full circle; we are at a point which uncannily parallels Israel. Then religious leaders excluded God's children from the religious establishment both Jews and Gentiles. The attitude was that Isreal is God's exclusively favored people. While Israel is related and distinct from the Church, the Church is related and distinct from the KoG. To suggest that only those who identify with the religious establishment are the faithful, is to make the same error as the religious leaders who claimed Abraham as their father. The point Jesus made was: the one who does the will of the Father is a child of Abraham. So who is doing the will of the Father? The point was not those who were outwardly conforming to the Scriptural indicators. The surprising polemic was that it was those who were "lost", excluded, etc. I'm not exactly sure what you meant by "reversing" the distinction, but how I am (if I am), it's something along this line of expectation. If I'm overstating my case, it's only in response to a perceived doctrinaire view of the Christian/non-Christian distinction that parallels the erroneous assumptions of 1st century Palestine which the NT challenged. The logic is the same: We are God's favored people with a special relationship because we are Christians.
It's the Israelite arrogance which blinded them both to God's rejection and their failure to do God's will. Now I'm skipping over some important details obviously, but the question is not where does Scripture say that God has a special relationship with Christians, the question is what does Scripture say about God's relationship with the believer, and consequently, what does Scripture say about the relationship of the believer to His recognized religious establishment. This is the "level" of depthness which I'm arguing that Scripture states God has a salvific relationship with those who we place in the catagory of non-Christian. I think we do use the term Christian and non-Christian properly in common usage, I simply think we ignore the underlying Scriptural insights that should form the backdrop, and is directly relevant to the question of the significance of the distinction.
So while the parables need to be understood in light of their historical context, many of the insights are cross-contextual, especially say of the parable of the two sons.
Joshua,
To take just one thing. Does being a Christian mean having faith in God? Well, yes and no. Jews who have faith in God may not be Christian. But all Christians have faith in God. Better to say, in addition, they are those who follow Christ. True, salvation is part of this, but it is only part of the larger notion of the KOG. Entering the KOG takes place through Jesus and he is the key. So, whether one is following Jesus is ultimately a matter for God to decide, yet I think there are some Scriptural markers that would tend to affirm some outsiders as insiders, and some that portray themselves as supposed insiders who are outsiders. Jesus' family may have seen themselves as inside, yet in the gospel of Mark, they are not. Those outside, however, do come in by a particular means. That is, following Jesus.
Sisyphos,
Thanks. I agree. There is that tension of world and KOG for all, yet if the KOG in some sense is inaugurated through the person, mission, and ministry of Jesus, then the access to it now and in the future is through him.
While the notions of Christian and non-Christian cannot be air tight, they do have some indicators that show they are related and distinct.
Joshua,
Seems that 1 Cor 7:14 is not a sanctification that means more than a setting apart. In the context, I think Paul is wanting to affirm that the unbeliever, as some in Corinth may have maintained, does not pollute the believer, but that it's actually the contrary in that the believer influences and shapes the unbeliever and therefore are set apart and will possibly come to be saved. Thus, setting apart cannot equate being saved.
In terms of relationality, I think God does have a relationship with humanity, but it is a creational, not necessarily a salvific one. This seems fixed on following the Crucified and Risen One, which is in some sense a scandal.
I couldn't agree more with your sensitivity to the arrogance and unloving attitude that sometimes Christians maintain, yet in spite of this, the focus should be on Christ. There is truth in the division he brings, though this needs to be formulated in ways of confidence and humility.
Hi
Yes, I agree that Jesus is the decisive iniciator of the KOG but the Christian/Nonchristian terminology brings up the notion in/out, the search for having the certainty of not being thrown in hell. Stepping outside this circle and living life outside the self-assurance of being saved brings about more tension.
I admit that some for some people the term "christian" might not be tainted with that add-on "in/out"; in this case "Christian" becomes the descriptive word of Christ, trying to grasp his attributes. If that is the meaning of the word Christian, I would still use it and think about it. I just dont like it when a human being is equated with Christ with the words: "He is a Christian"
I know that I push away the creed of becoming a child of God by grace but I cant accept that; not that I find it impossible or illogical or improper to imagine a graceful God but I dislike the tendency to nail this concept down: there is a difference between "He is saved by Grace, he is Christian" and "God is gradeful, let us (mankind) become Christlike".
Fuzzy thoughts ...
Sisyphos,
I'm not sure about the search for certainty, and would rather frame being an insider in the context of hope. The latter is a realistic possibility, while the former, in any modernist sense at least, is impossible.
I mentioned, in a previous comment above, some very brief thoughts about insiders and outsiders.
Post a Comment