From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Feb 27 2005 - 22:54:31 GMT
Sam, Wim and all MOQers:
Sam wrote to Wim:
'"Christian" definitionally requires some attention to Christ.'
Wim replied:
I agree, and quite a few (European) Quakers don't pay enough attention to
Christ to call themselves Christians any more. Quite a few do however, but
most of them would not equate Jesus and Christ as you do. They would prefer
to talk about something like a 'cosmic Christ' who can incarnate in
everyone, as shown in Jesus.
dmb butts in:
I'm jumping in here, Sam, because it reminds me of the time you objected to
my use of the phrase "christian mystic" to describing my position. If I
recall, you basically insisted that such a thing was for others to decide,
namely the guys in charge of the tradition. Maybe that's too simple, but the
idea was that such labels are in effect "owned" by the churches, no? Anyway,
I'm jumping in here because of that previous dispute.
And I think Wim makes a good point. Let's say we have to figure Christ into
the equation if we are going to call ourselves christian. That only seems
reasonable to me. But does that mean a christian has to put the unique,
historical and only begotten son of god into the equation? Does that mean we
have to put the Catholic Jesus or the Orthodox Jesus or the Anglican Jesus
into the equation? It seems to me that the Anglican view only defines the
Anglican view and that the word "christian" is very much broader than that.
It seems to me that being a Catholic definitionally requires some attention
to the Catholic Christ, but it doesn't bind me in any way. (As long as I'm
not calling myself a Catholic or a Lutheran or whatever.)
But what if my view holds that Jesus and Christ are not to be equated, or
deny that there is only one Christ. What if I'm also quite convinced that
the most important and essential point of his life story is to illustrate
how each one of us to become a Christ and that in this view the churches are
among the least worthy of wearing the label? It would be a bit ridiculous to
ask the Pope to refrain from calling himself a christian, of course, but you
see my point? Who gets to own the word? The ones with all the costumes and
credentials or the ones who actually understand what the story is about. And
are they necessarily the same ones?
Think about it. Who gets to decide and on what basis is that choice taken?
If a guy wants to describe himself as a christian and is willing to explain
why he uses the label, who gets to tell him that he's not the right kind of
christian or that he's not christian enough or whatever?
I realize these questions must piss you off to no end, father, but if you're
really a christian then you'll forgive me. ;-)
Thanks.
dmb
P.S. In my version of christianity, divine grace is equated with one's
ability to hold a grudge for eternity, which is not easy. And we've
re-arranged other things a bit too. We consider Eve to be the original
virgin, for example, and we hold that it was Mary was impregnated by a very
naughty apple. One might imagine that this revision would create a ton of
theological disputes, but in our circle it has mostly just produced a lot of
jokes about where to put the snake. Also we wanted to emphasize the mystical
message, but we also wanted to draw a crowd and add a little fun so we've
hired a carnival barker who plays the sitar. I'm sure you'll be greatly
relieved to learn that I most certainly do NOT claim that my version is the
only correct one. (For those who would like to join, please don't forget to
include the expiration date of your credit card.)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 27 2005 - 22:59:36 GMT