Since this is the
Liberal Christianity forum, a little voice/bell/lightbulb just buzzed, lit up in my head, or went
`ding' - and that is to say, that I think we've done an excellent job of arriving, in your last post, Neosnoia, with a fairly acceptable definition of what a Christian is,
in the conventional sense.
But we've also explored the broader, more accommodating sense of the word `Christian,' and personally, this is certainly the one
I prefer. It is also the one I think is more suitable/suited for
this forum, while the former (conventional) one,
also has a good place at CR.
Again, it's just an opinion ...
What I find, in looking at your early morning (6:06AM) post, leastone, is that I couldn't be in greater agreement, or feel that you've touched on a more
important nerve - hmmm, no wait, nerve
maybe, but if so, 'tis a muscle as well, 'tis surely the
heart - in providing the perspective that you do. I would argue that in this whole wide world, there are actually
dozens of men & women who are capable of "co-assessing" (I
hate the word judge,
even more than the word `hate') a person's spiritual status - with God, and with Christ. Dunno if it makes a difference, but the
"just men made perfect," also spoken of in
Ephesians 4:13, are
surely not limited to ONE man only.
(And a good thing, that.
)
This being said, I have not a shred of a shadow of an inkling of a doubt - that a person's spiritual "status" or standing
can be known by properly trained and qualified teachers ... and since you brought this up, I would add that the importance is
vital in more situations than we might realize. What course of action does a Teacher take, what
advice does she offer, for example, in a given situation, when a pupil (disciple) demonstrates a particular problem ... and seeks council?
It is here that I will
respectfully diverge from C.S. Lewis' approach, understanding and presentation of Christianity. While I do respect him as a wonderful and talented author, and a gifted, qualified theologian - not to mention a brilliant man in general - I am of a
very different mindset when it comes to this question of "seeing into men's hearts."
All that C. S. Lewis is
really qualified to say, is that HE isn't capable of assessing the
spiritual status of a man, in terms of the loosely phrased
measuring stick of
Ephesians 4:13. I DO agree that if we go about judging others,
for whatever reason, we automatically demonstrate our
meanness of spirit (in perhaps several readings of that phrase). But to say that NONE save
Christ Himself can so judge (or
discern, guage), is a bit presumptuous or narrowly focused.
It also undermines the significance and implications of St. Paul's admonition:
`Let that Spirit be in you, which was in Christ Jesus.' ANY one of numerous Teachers (I have met a few), in His or Her higher spiritual awareness, is as AT-ONE with the Christ,
as was Jesus of Nazareth following the Baptism. One of them that I have met, as an interesting trivial detail,
is a Baptist Reverend. But I don't remember her as well as another Teacher.
What I like about this discussion, is that I feel we've pretty well come to the notion that
either there are some pretty precise
tenets, or
articles of Faith, OR that there can be such a thing as a UNIVERSAL Christian ... by which I mean the
Christian in the eyes of God, which some of us will risk the proverbial lightning bolt in
attempting to discern,
or otherwise describe. I am more inclined to the latter view, as I am
certain that God isn't concerned
in the least with what faith we
profess ... She's 150% percent more concerned with
how we act, how we treat others, what kind of example we set, and WHY.
But can we then say, that a person is Christian, who holds up as her dearest ideal, the
example and teachings of Zarathushtra, or Orpheus the Lyricist? If so,
then why have terms like Zoroastrians, or the
Orphic Mysteries? Or
`Christian' at all?
The distinctions exist for a reason! And for me, as
fundamental as I am willing to get,
or as conventional, is to acknowledge
Christ Jesus as the incarnation of the 2nd Aspect. It is the
centrality and unquestionable
importance of Christ, which I would suggest makes Christianity what it is ... and the
entire value of the example,
for me, is just that. How, or indeed -
whether - it affects us (whether
Christ does, and
God through Christ), is actually OUR decision. Yet I also maintain that we
all ... have several lifetimes ahead, in which to
perfect that faith.
Now a good liberal Christianity, imo, certainly has room for
mystical interpretations, and should not deny that leeway or possibile understanding ... just as it should also not presume to define the
exact manner (or liturgy) by which a person choose to worship the
Lord God.
In this, I look to the examples of
Freemasonry, as well as to the
Meetings of the Quakers (or `Society of Friends'), as wonderful instances of
existing liberal Christian fraternal or religious organizations ... and the kind of "hands-off" approach that helps to move us forward, or
progress the Christian religion, since 2000 years ago.
I know that's poorly phrased - can't do better. Eyeballs slamming shut.
off to the dreamtime ....
peace,
taijasi
