simply Christian

[paarsurrey]

Since these people are no longer defining their faith in terms of Catholicism, it would seem to follow that they would also not be interested in defining it in terms of an opposition to Catholicism. Rather, they feel a freedom to look at some of the historical sources of piety, theology and worship and consider their relevance (for example Richard Foster’s Renovare movement as well as books by non-Catholics (non-Orthodox and non-Anglican as well) that address Mary, the church fathers and similar subjects for the “simply Christian” reader.

Hi

Definitely, in my opinion, there is a changed outlook in religion, more particaularly with Catholicism and Protestantism in the twentyfirst century. People want to have simple notions not notions immersed in mysteries unnecessarily. A change is imminent, so should the theologians, in my opinion. The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 had foretold this.

I respect your religion and I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[Non_Serviam]

One of the merits of your post, IMHO, is offering a window on the
complexity and multiplicity of the trend we are examining.
Are, eg, “churchless christians” really churchless or “parachurch” ?

That’s why I suggest a familiarization with Barna. While unfortunately his focus is on the US alone, he has studied the topic for a number of years and conducted much statistically valid research that sheds light on the self-perception and motivation of such persons. An additional scholar of interest might be Reginald Bibby, who has done similar work in Canada, although not to the same extent.

I could provide you with anecdotal observations and personal opinion, but Barna’s research would be much more substantial.

Do you see an opportunity for increased unity through atomization, or “para-atomization” ? One could say that reached the uttermost disunity, one can only get it better. That certainly would not be the whole of the picture ( I know that’s not your point).
Maybe we’re as the blind men around the elephant, perceiving it differently according to which part we happen to touch.

One of my presuppositions (I feel almost Reformed in saying that ) is that Jesus is working to bring his church into unity. I don’t feel qualified to enumerate all the means He is using to do this, but don’t most chemical reactions occur when weaker bonds are broken and new, stronger bonds are formed.

I believe that a reconfiguration is taking place and many individuals are leaving denominational bonds for other opportunities to express their faith. I think this bodes well in terms of them being more open to explore and consider what has been produced in the diversity of theological and worship traditions that make up Christianity. I also believe that these new "communities of belief and practice (for lack of a better term) are received more commitment and participation from many of these individuals.

Having said that I believe that there will also be individuals who will separate from denominational bonds who will not form new bonds for a long time or possibly at all, just as a chemical reaction can result in stray ions being produced.

What appears clear is that much is changing and will change. I wonder eg about inter-church relations, ecumenical progress…

What if the Catholic Church should eventually remain without institutional subjects to deal with ?
We’d probably better think less about quotations by Luther ( with due respect for lutheran brothers ) and more about how addressing " just christians" , parachurch and churchless christians, doing so for what those brothers are and believe.

What is your personal opinion about the “logical extreme” ( of protestantism) view about the trend de quo ? Any merits in it ?

I thank you.

The idea of that Catholicism’s ecumenical dance might end because of a lack of partners hasn’t occurred to me before-it’s a most interesting concept.

I will be most interested in seeing how the Catholic church’s approach to apologetics and ecumenism adapts to address this emerging trend. I will also be be interested in seeing how the current and future holders of the papal office respond to it: will they permit a more flexible view of their authority and primacy-another trend that I have noticed is the emergence of a sort of “authority of honour” among many Christians who feel a tremendous respect for John Paul II and Benedict XVI, while not feeling a need to offer submission to them in the traditional sense.

It would be interesting to see who would follow a Pope who used moral suasion rather than an appeal to authority as the basis for leadership. It would also be interesting to see the Catholic reaction to such a gesture if it were to occur.

All that aside I do believe that just as the early church found ways to use the benefits of the Empire in the service of Christ, likewise, Christ’s will for the church will go forward in the multitude of changes happening now.

As for the logical end of protestantism argument, I believe God has made it quite clear that there are two tendencies at work in existence: one of coming together in unity (like the church of Acts) and one of dividing into an unhealthy individualism (like that typified by my more infamous namesake).

I find both tendencies in Catholic and non-catholic persons alike (there’s really not much difference between a fundamentalist who “separates” from everyone who “compromises” and a Catholic who won’t speak to anyone in his parish or go to mass because of their “apostasy from the true faith”).

It really depends on whether Christ or self is at the core of one’s belief. If self, atomization, if Christ eventual unity, even if some bonds needs to be broken in favour of stronger ones.

That’s it for me, I’m off to bed. Good reading to you, Pneuma!

 

[AnAtheist]

So you’re saying they are really still in communion with the Church?

Hooray! :bounce:

Well, they think that the church is the community of all christians and not identical with the Catholic Church.
I grew up in a more or less evangelic environment, and there Catholics were always regarded as nothing else than christians just like themselves (“simply Christian”, so to speak), only a bit anachronistic and superstitious. What I always found arrogant and weird, as from my point of view they are as anachronistic and superstitious as anybody else, and after all Catholics and Evangelics believe basically the same things give or take some minor details, so I fail to see any major difference, except perhaps that an iconoclastic evangelic church (meaning the building now) is usually on the inside as charming as an air-raid shelter.
I suppose the situation in the US is much different with millions of Jack-the-Chick type geeks regarding the Catholic Church as an instrument of Satan.

 

[nsper7]

In response to the OP, the idea of ‘simply Christian’, while perhaps having a noble ring to it, seems like just the beginning of another denomination (or ‘movement’ as many non-denominationalists will call the group of churches affiliated with each other that they are involved in).

If you look at any doctrine of Christian theology, it quickly become very complex. These people who say we simply ‘follow Jesus’ leads to the question of: what does it mean to follow Jesus? After all, in the Gospel times, Jesus was right there incarnated and directly communicating and fellowshipping with people. During that period, ‘following Jesus’ might have been a fairly simple matter to understand (although difficult to undertake), but what is involved now?

To use an example of a key theology that becomes complex, look at Salvation. On the one hand, it is perhaps the important issue for an individual, but it is not a ‘simple’ one because, if you take Scriptures prima facia, you end up with conflicting ideas?

Is Salvation by belief in Christ alone? What does it mean to ‘believe’ in Christ? What is the role of works in the attaining and maintaining of Salvation? Is Baptism necessary? What about Communion? If one sins, have they lost their Salvation until they confess/repent (either directly to God or through a priest or other person)? Is OSAS or NOSAS true? If OSAS is true is merely thorugh ‘believing’, then why can’t some believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, but continue to live their life in a ‘pre-belief’ manner? Is discipleship (i.e. forsaking everything, etc.) necessary to attain or maintain Salvation?

Thus, just looking at Salvation (and I am sure there are more questions that could be asked), how can one claim to be ‘simply Christian’?

This ‘simply Christian’ idea seems an offshoot of Sola Scriptura Eisegesis, or the idea that the only thing necessary for faith is my personal interpretation of Scripture.

For example, I dealt with a guy who was firmly convinced that his Calvinist idea were not Calvinist, but the only correct interpretation of Scripture. When I kept challenging him on his ideas, he eventually said that we are not to promote dissent (as in, I should just automatically go along with his views) and he at one point (when I challenge him after he stated that we no longer listen to the Old Testament, even the prophecies which point to Jesus), he accused me of apostasy. Its one of the few times I have wanted to punch out a fellow Christian.

This is idea of ‘simply Christian’ just seems another way of elevating one’s own interpretation of Scripture and creating further division (we can now have denominations of one).

 

[pneuma07]

Since these people are no longer defining their faith in terms of Catholicism, it would seem to follow that they would also not be interested in defining it in terms of an opposition to Catholicism. Rather, they feel a freedom to look at some of the historical sources of piety, theology and worship and consider their relevance (for example Richard Foster’s Renovare movement as well as books by non-Catholics (non-Orthodox and non-Anglican as well) that address Mary, the church fathers and similar subjects for the “simply Christian” reader.

Dear Non Serviam,

    the growth  of   the number of believers who  do not fear Catholicism and , even  having arrived to doctrinal statements as far as ever from it, do not see their being "simply christians"  defined doctrinally and psychologically in terms of an opposition to Catholicism,  does appear to open  very interesting perpectives.

There can certainly be a complex plurality of “streams”, or maybe better attitudes, within our “just christianity” or our “elephant”.

Other attitudes should then be detected. Whether a significant segment among “just christians”
have a tendency to classify catholics as outside the borders of christianity, whether some shrink more and more those bordes just to their own garden, an so on. Which leads to your following post.

 

[pneuma07]

That’s why I suggest a familiarization with Barna. …

One of my presuppositions (I feel almost Reformed in saying that ) is that Jesus is working to bring his church into unity. I don’t feel qualified to enumerate all the means He is using to do this, but don’t most chemical reactions occur when weaker bonds are broken and new, stronger bonds are formed.

I believe that a reconfiguration is taking place and many individuals are leaving denominational bonds for other opportunities to express their faith. I think this bodes well in terms of them being more open to explore and consider what has been produced in the diversity of theological and worship traditions that make up Christianity. I also believe that these new "communities of belief and practice (for lack of a better term) are received more commitment and participation from many of these individuals.

Having said that I believe that there will also be individuals who will separate from denominational bonds who will not form new bonds for a long time or possibly at all, just as a chemical reaction can result in stray ions being produced.

The idea of that Catholicism’s ecumenical dance might end because of a lack of partners hasn’t occurred to me before-it’s a most interesting concept.

I will be most interested in seeing how the Catholic church’s approach to apologetics and ecumenism adapts to address this emerging trend.
It would be interesting to see who would follow a Pope who used moral suasion rather than an appeal to authority as the basis for leadership. It would also be interesting to see the Catholic reaction to such a gesture if it were to occur.

All that aside I do believe that just as the early church found ways to use the benefits of the Empire in the service of Christ, likewise, Christ’s will for the church will go forward in the multitude of changes happening now.

As for the logical end of protestantism argument, I believe God has made it quite clear that there are two tendencies at work in existence: one of coming together in unity (like the church of Acts) and one of dividing into an unhealthy individualism (like that typified by my more infamous namesake).

I find both tendencies in Catholic and non-catholic persons alike (there’s really not much difference between a fundamentalist who “separates” from everyone who “compromises” and a Catholic who won’t speak to anyone in his parish or go to mass because of their “apostasy from the true faith”).

It really depends on whether Christ or self is at the core of one’s belief. If self, atomization, if Christ eventual unity, even if some bonds needs to be broken in favour of stronger ones.

That’s it for me, I’m off to bed. Good reading to you, Pneuma!

I appreciate the picture of a chemical reconfiguration.
The situation of a large number of Christians which are churchless, or almost churchless appears a new one, as far as I can be aware, in christian history.
One has a tendency to create bonds, to form communities.

Think of the intergenerational transmission of the faith. You’re normally born into a community, or accept a community and its tradition. If I am churchless, I am the only one I can ideally trust in order to get a religious upbringing of my children ( if I care about that).

If I am successfull in passing my view, than I have created a community ( my children and me). I am no longer outside any community. From this point of view churchlessness appears almost self-defeating.
I could say I do not care about the religious education of my children, but then I’d see them entering churches and communities into which they can be lead by their teachers, or faith trasmission could fail at all, they could get no christian education.

I cannot pass churchless christianity stricto sensu. if you accept my views, I am no longer by myself. We’re forming a group, community, church or what you prefer.

While trusting the Holy Spirit for the survival of christianity, one can then hardly consider we can do
the best contribution through churchlessness.

Honestly I know no catholic as those you describe as negative example of individualistic closure. That sounds more a strong fictional extremization of real life characters. Maybe I am wrong.

Your final alternative is great: Christ or self.
Hence unity or disunity.
Maybe in “just christianity” the watershed is more
visible and more crucial than in other situations.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I appreciate the picture of a chemical reconfiguration.
The situation of a large number of Christians which are churchless, or almost churchless appears a new one, as far as I can be aware, in christian history.
One has a tendency to create bonds, to form communities.

Think of the intergenerational transmission of the faith. You’re normally born into a community, or accept a community and its tradition. If I am churchless, I am the only one I can ideally trust in order to get a religious upbringing of my children ( if I care about that).

If I am successfull in passing my view, than I have created a community ( my children and me). I am no longer outside any community. From this point of view churchlessness appears almost self-defeating.
I could say I do not care about the religious education of my children, but then I’d see them entering churches and communities into which they can be lead by their teachers, or faith trasmission could fail at all, they could get no christian education.

Hi Pneuma,

What you are saying has a lot of merit, as Scott Hahn often reflects the family is the first church one belongs to.Christianity as “the household of faith” seeks to bring about unity beyond one’s family, one’s gender, one’s ethnic background, etc. That unity is of course found in Christ, not Paul or Apollos or even Cephas, as Paul points out in his Epistle.

Those that lift up Christ will draw others to Him. By moving beyond the polemics of past generations and being able to view what has been produced by fellow believers of earlier times, a richness of teaching is available without the self-will and mistrust that was found on both sides of past conflicts.

Once again I hope that the approach of Peter in his Epistle, meeting others as a sumpresbuteros will have an impact on the approach taken by the Catholic church to engage with these people.

I cannot pass churchless christianity stricto sensu. if you accept my views, I am no longer by myself. We’re forming a group, community, church or what you prefer.

While trusting the Holy Spirit for the survival of christianity, one can then hardly consider we can do
the best contribution through churchlessness.

Agreed, although this concerns me less as I see it as a transitory phase, much like my chemical reaction analogy.

Honestly I know no catholic as those you describe as negative example of individualistic closure. That sounds more a strong fictional extremization of real life characters. Maybe I am wrong.

I’m glad to hear you can’t identify with this-some members of my extended family have been made heartsick by fellow Catholics they have known for decades who have decided that their archdiocese is now a “source of infidelity to the holy faith” (I was too tired to remember the word “infidelity” last night) and that the local SSPX and sedevacantist believers are also wrong, so they have simply “unplugged” and only interact with the church when they visit other dioceses.

Per your observation, they’ve encouraged others to do likewise, in order to form bonds and the nucleus of a group, but no one in my family has consented to join them, placing them among the “unfaithful” in the sight of the atomic Catholics. I hope you never have a similar experience.

Your final alternative is great: Christ or self.
Hence unity or disunity.
Maybe in “just christianity” the watershed is more
visible and more crucial than in other situations.

Interesting discussion-let me know when you’ve gotten through some of Barna’s books and perhaps we can discuss things some more.

 

[pneuma07]

In response to the OP, the idea of ‘simply Christian’, while perhaps having a noble ring to it, seems like just the beginning of another denomination (or ‘movement’ as many non-denominationalists will call the group of churches affiliated with each other that they are involved in).

If you look at any doctrine of Christian theology, it quickly become very complex. These people who say we simply ‘follow Jesus’ leads to the question of: **what does it mean to follow Jesus? …**To use an example of a key theology that becomes complex, look at Salvation. On the one hand, it is perhaps the important issue for an individual, but it is not a ‘simple’ one because, if you take Scriptures prima facia, you end up with conflicting ideas?

*Is Salvation by belief in Christ alone? What does it mean to ‘believe’ in Christ? What is the role of works in the attaining and maintaining of Salvation? Is Baptism necessary? What about Communion? If one sins, have they lost their Salvation until they confess/repent (either directly to God or through a priest or other person)? Is OSAS or NOSAS true? …I]

Thus, just looking at Salvation (and I am sure there are more questions that could be asked), how can one claim to be ‘simply Christian’?

This ‘simply Christian’ idea seems an offshoot of Sola Scriptura Eisegesis*, or the idea that the only thing necessary for faith is my personal interpretation of Scripture. …

This is idea of ‘simply Christian’ just seems **another way of elevating one’s own interpretation of Scripture **and creating further division (we can now have denominations of one).

Hi nsper7 !

Thanks for the contribution.
I see a lot of merit in it. In particular in the bolded passages.
You know I’ve proposed “super-protestantism” as a key to at least an element of the trend.

I’d like deacon 110 or other brothers who live the “simply christian” experience or attitude to reply. The fact that a simply christian aims at a “simple” christianity, escaping so called byzantinisms is nothing disputable in itself.
When they tell us “What matters is practicing and preaching the Gospel” I could hardly dissent.

But then … I cannot avoid the question:
" What does the Gospel say ?". Who tells me what the Gospel says ?

I guess now we need more contributions from simply christian brothers.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

The other day somebody mentioned in one of the threads here that Catholicism in America has become stationery and Islam is in the lead in growth. This is only because of the very simple tenets of Islam, while Catholicism and Protestantism, in my opinion, are immersed in Mysteries and their followers drop out confused and disgusted.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks