the divisions of Christianity

[McBell]

From this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42601

I believe there are two Churches, the visible and the invisible. One is strong, healthy, growing, and indivisible (guess which...) and the other is a flimsy creation of man.

My brother is a Lutheran pastor and his insight into how Christ views his church: with the fervent love of a husband for his bride, he protects, supports and defends her, nurtures, encourages and nourishes her.

Our problem is the 'visible' is the noisiest, and most focused upon, of the two... the invisible church resides in the heart of every true believer. That's his theory, what do you think?

The idea of two churches in and of itself seems to indicate a division, especially in light of the conflict the two are creating.

Hmm. There was an interesting poll on the board the other day regarding objectivity (but what really came out were people's opinions about the most 'persuasuve' experiences leading to faith: corporal, personal, psychological, supernatural. Something along those lines). Some agreed the supernatural experience to be the most persuasive. Anyway what I believe is that
A. All true believers in Christ are converts, many through supernatural experience
B. All true believers in Christ have a personal relationship with Him

A missionary told me this story. It was his last day in the field, after many years working and living in Papua New Guinea. A man in a loincloth carrying a spear came walking out of the jungle causing a stir in the tiny village; his tribe was one of the remotest. Having little contact with other tribes an interpreter was needed to understand his dialect but he was very animated. He insisted he was looking for the "man with hair on his face" and must see him immediately. The missionary was the only one with a beard so the people brought him over. He said "last night a man in white robes with flames for eyes awoke me and I said Master, what is your name - he told me many things about myself. He told me to come here and find the man with hair on his face, who would tell me the story of Jesus. Who is this Jesus? I want to know everything". And he broke down sobbing while the missionary told him the story of his savior.

Now, it's my sincere belief the man was a believer before he ever found the missionary. His heart burned to know more about him, but he had met him face to face and would go to the ends of the earth to see him again and experience his irresistible, powerful, unconditional love. It's also my story: belief in Jesus preceded my knowing who he was. I knew that someone had saved me, but I didn't know who it was. If I, or the tribal guy, had died on the journey to find out his name, we would have died believers nonetheless. I believe our story has been repeated throughout history. I believe there are many who belong to his flock this moment who may not even know his name.

I also believe that if Jesus walked into a mega church this Sunday in person, many would bow down and worship him but some would run away or call the police or want to kill him. That would be the real chaff-separator I think.


Along those same lines, I think true believers may be just as capable of engaging in heated doctrinal arguments as any 'whited-sepulchre' Pharisee out there, while holding to one core belief: faith and trust in Christ.

This is why I wish there was a Church of Mere Christianity. We love him, we worship him, we trust him, we want to be like him... we are his sheep and we know his voice.

Most of the church websites I visit have something like this in their We Believe pages:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. (or not)
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic (or Christian) church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.



or this:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
---------------------
(of course those are the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, and even the Apostles Creed in its antiquity and simplicity has its detractors but... most of us don't have a problem with it as a public declaration of faith)

It sounds to me as though you are relying heavily upon the "No True Scotsman" fallacy for your explanation of how Christianity is not divided.

 

[sojourner]

If we use Platonic thought here (widely used by Paul), we can view the "visible" Church as the tangible projection of the "real" Church, which is spiritual. Since the physical is always a flawed projection in some way, it only stands to reason that the projection might show many different facets of the one spiritual Church. But that in no way shows that there are more than one Church -- just more than one "idea" or "manifestation" of Church.

 

[!Fluffy!]

From this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42601

The idea of two churches in and of itself seems to indicate a division, especially in light of the conflict the two are creating.

Then you are not understanding the idea of a thing within a thing. A true blonde in a sea of blondes would understand the point... :angel2:

It sounds to me as though you are relying heavily upon the "No True Scotsman" fallacy for your explanation of how Christianity is not divided.

Not at all, as a matter of fact the opposite is true. You misunderstand the nature of that fallacy:

Using the context of culture, individuals of any particular religion, for example, may tend to employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

​

If you read my posts you will "get" that I understand quite well the propensity (especially on the part of non believers) for this too-broad and meaningless usage of the term and in so doing offered an acceptable context and definition for the discussion at hand.

Actually I wish I had your deleted post handy -- it seems you are misunderstanding the concept of unity within the body of Christ completely, perhaps deliberately. Please understand that while your opinion is neither unpopular nor unexpected, it appears to lack much beyond a superficial understanding of the basic concept of what it means to 99.9% of adherents to be a follower of Christ. Which is why I anticipatorily went to such great lengths to answer the question so thoroughly. Did you actually read the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and what I said about them? What do you think?

 

[Katzpur]

Actually I wish I had your deleted post handy -- it seems you are misunderstanding the concept of unity within the body of Christ completely, perhaps deliberately. Please understand that while your opinion is neither unpopular nor unexpected, it appears to lack much beyond a superficial understanding of the basic concept of what it means to 99.9% of adherents to be a follower of Christ.

I disagree. I think Mestemia hit the nail on the head. With 30,000 denominations each claiming to be interpreting the Bible correctly and with some of them (including mine) claiming a direct line of authority to the ancient Church, we can't possibly ignore the fact that we are very, very divided. I'm not saying that we're not all Christians and doing our best to follow Christ. In that respect, we're united. But the differences in doctrine that divide us are far too numerous to try to sweep under the carpet. Some of them are pretty significant. Just ask any one of the many fundamentalist Christians who seem to want to hold a patent on the word "Christian." I don't even accept the Creeds, but I do look to Christ as my Redeemer. So am I in or out?

 

[sojourner]

I disagree. I think Mestemia hit the nail on the head. With 30,000 denominations each claiming to be interpreting the Bible correctly and with some of them (including mine) claiming a direct line of authority to the ancient Church, we can't possibly ignore the fact that we are very, very divided. I'm not saying that we're not all Christians and doing our best to follow Christ. In that respect, we're united. But the differences in doctrine that divide us are far too numerous to try to sweep under the carpet. Some of them are pretty significant. Just ask any one of the many fundamentalist Christians who would prefer to exclude Roman Catholics and Latter-day Saints from the Christian family altogether.

But none of that -- none of that -- neither our differences, nor the desire of some to exclude, can diminish the fact that we all follow Christ, and that we we all are heirs of his kingdom. And in that basic, basic truth, we are united, whether some of us like it or not!

 

[Katzpur]

But none of that -- none of that -- neither our differences, nor the desire of some to exclude, can diminish the fact that we all follow Christ, and that we we all are heirs of his kingdom. And in that basic, basic truth, we are united, whether some of us like it or not!

I think it really gets down to whether we're talking about the visible, institutional Church or the invisible Church (i.e. the body of Christ). Those who don't believe in an institutional Church can get around this dilemma pretty easily, as you have done by referencing the invisible Church. I would agree that such a Church does exist, but I believe that the institutional Church exists, too -- an is not merely divided, but splintered.

 

[sojourner]

Well...splintered in a certain sense, I agree. One has only to look about to know it and see it. But...I maintain that the splinteredness is a false one. Look at it this way. We are told that if we aren't affluent, then we're second class citizens. One has only to look around at the plight of the poor: unsafe, unhealthy living conditions, the inability to live independently, lack of nutrition, lack of health care, lack of the generally-accepted hallmarks of self-improvement, self-discipline and self-esteem. But, in truth, most of the richest people I know are the poorest. They are, by and large, selfish, narcissistic, have an overblown sense of entitlement, etc. By contrast, the poor have a developed sense of reality that usually blows my mind. Who's more a second-class citizen? A filthy-rich stingy, mean person, or Ghandi?

Sure, we're splintered by our standards. But what about God's standards? Does God see us as splintered? Or does God see our splinteredness as a sham of our true selves?

 

[Comprehend]

If we use Platonic thought here (widely used by Paul), we can view the "visible" Church as the tangible projection of the "real" Church, which is spiritual. Since the physical is always a flawed projection in some way, it only stands to reason that the projection might show many different facets of the one spiritual Church. But that in no way shows that there are more than one Church -- just more than one "idea" or "manifestation" of Church.

sojourner, it sounds like you are referencing Plato's idea of the forms. If this is correct then you are misunderstanding the concept. Plato taught that there was a "form" for everything, for example a chair. and all physical chairs are only chairs inasmuch as they mirror the form of the chair. That does not mean that there can be many chairs and they are all share equally in the form of chair. It means there are many imperfect chair-like things and only one true form of a chair is possible. If one were able to find the one chair (if there was such a thing) that perfectly mirrored the form of the chair in it's physical form. You would have found the one true chair. If there were more than one chair that perfectly mirrored the form, they would necessarily all be identicle and indistinguishable from eachother. The fact that there are many many many churches, using plato's forms, just means that they can only be correct in whatever sense that they mirror the form (spiritual) of the one true church.
Any idea stating that there can be many varied churches and all are equally valid is to disagree with Plato completely or to say that they are all equally wrong on those points in which they disagree. Either way looks bad using the forms.

 

[Comprehend]

Well...splintered in a certain sense, I agree. One has only to look about to know it and see it. But...I maintain that the splinteredness is a false one. Look at it this way. We are told that if we aren't affluent, then we're second class citizens. One has only to look around at the plight of the poor: unsafe, unhealthy living conditions, the inability to live independently, lack of nutrition, lack of health care, lack of the generally-accepted hallmarks of self-improvement, self-discipline and self-esteem. But, in truth, most of the richest people I know are the poorest. They are, by and large, selfish, narcissistic, have an overblown sense of entitlement, etc. By contrast, the poor have a developed sense of reality that usually blows my mind. Who's more a second-class citizen? A filthy-rich stingy, mean person, or Ghandi?

Sure, we're splintered by our standards. But what about God's standards? Does God see us as splintered? Or does God see our splinteredness as a sham of our true selves?

If all of the differences are superficial and non-essential, why do all of the Christian churches not just do away with the superficial and join together as one church since you all are saying that you are all together on anything that matters. If that is true, I ask, why would you allow something that doesn't matter to cause such great divisions that you fight over which is right for hundreds of years. Obviously (to me) it would seem that the fact that a group decided to separate itself from another proves that it was of such importance that they were willing to leave and begin a new church. That doesn't sound so non-essential to me....

 

[McBell]

Then you are not understanding the idea of a thing within a thing. A true blonde in a sea of blondes would understand the point... :angel2:

Yes I do understand the concept of one thing within another.
It seems that you are ignoring that if one of the things is divided, then the whole thing is divided.

Not at all, as a matter of fact the opposite is true. You misunderstand the nature of that fallacy:

Using the context of culture, individuals of any particular religion, for example, may tend to employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

​

If you read my posts you will "get" that I understand quite well the propensity (especially on the part of non believers) for this too-broad and meaningless usage of the term and in so doing offered an acceptable context and definition for the discussion at hand.

Reading your posts I get the distinct impression that you are attempting to seperate the True Believers as not be divided and all divisions as being irrelevent because they are not true believers.

Thus my application of the "No True Scotsman" is accurate.

Actually I wish I had your deleted post handy -- it seems you are misunderstanding the concept of unity within the body of Christ completely, perhaps deliberately. Please understand that while your opinion is neither unpopular nor unexpected, it appears to lack much beyond a superficial understanding of the basic concept of what it means to 99.9% of adherents to be a follower of Christ.

From my discusions on this very subject on numerous other boards and with several different churches, It seems that it boils down to counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
The fact of the matter remains that there are numerous differences within the belief system that has been braodly categorized as Christianity.

Baptism, submersion vs. sprinkling, water vs. oil, faith alone, works alone, are all examples of areas within Christianity that has caused division.

Which is why I anticipatorily went to such great lengths to answer the question so thoroughly. Did you actually read the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and what I said about them? What do you think?

I think you are merely trying to brush the division under the rug, so to speak.

 

[McBell]

But none of that -- none of that -- neither our differences, nor the desire of some to exclude, can diminish the fact that we all follow Christ, and that we we all are heirs of his kingdom. And in that basic, basic truth, we are united, whether some of us like it or not!

It seems here that you are concentrating on the hits {we all follow Christ)and ignoring the misses (full submersion baptism verses sprinkling).

 

[!Fluffy!]

I disagree. I think Mestemia hit the nail on the head. With 30,000 denominations each claiming to be interpreting the Bible correctly and with some of them (including mine) claiming a direct line of authority to the ancient Church, we can't possibly ignore the fact that we are very, very divided. I'm not saying that we're not all Christians and doing our best to follow Christ. In that respect, we're united. But the differences in doctrine that divide us are far too numerous to try to sweep under the carpet. Some of them are pretty significant. Just ask any one of the many fundamentalist Christians who seem to want to hold a patent on the word "Christian." I don't even accept the Creeds, but I do look to Christ as my Redeemer. So am I in or out?

Sorry Katzpur, but "Christian" does not = "moron". Of course we all know there are denominations. No one is denying it. Please understand the context of the posts made on this thread as related to the initial question, the OP on the other thread. I speak of the invisible vs the visible church, as defined by Paul.

I'll leave it up to the individual to decide whether or not they follow and worship Christ, or a book, or a prophet, or a leader, or a label. If you tell me you follow Christ, then you know and I know he admonishes us to love one another as he loves us, and not to judge one another (I would think especially when it comes to each other's salvation status or membership within the body).

As a matter of fact I would say one of the evidences of a false witness is one who chooses to judge, rather than love, who divides and focuses on differences rather than unification of the body. One who loves Christ and emulates him and follows him would most certainly tend towards inclusion and acceptance in the name of Christ, and towards embracing one another as brothers and sisters.

It is these Mere Christians I was addressing in previous posts. They belong to many denominations, or none; but foremost are "fellow sheep" who know their Master personally. What they agree on is way more important than what petty doctrinal differences there may be.

It is up to Him ("sittest on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead") to separate the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, not ME. For the purposes of discussion, clairification, and mutual understanding I stand by my previous posts in this thread and the other.

'Kay?

:angel2:

 

[!Fluffy!]

It seems here that you are concentrating on the hits {we all follow Christ)and ignoring the misses (full submersion baptism verses sprinkling).

And it seems you are concentrating on the petty inconsequential doctrinal detritus rather than the most basic overwhelming fact of our allegiance to Christ.



Why?

 

[MaddLlama]

How much do differences in doctrine really matter?

 

[McBell]

And it seems you are concentrating on the petty inconsequential doctrinal detritus rather than the most basic overwhelming fact of our allegiance to Christ.
Why?

Because they are not "inconsequental" if there are whole groups of people splitting off from the main group and starting a whole new group do to these "inconsequental" differences. Seems that they are not so petty or inconsequental to those who have split off from the main group.

i can just as easily use your logic and claim that there is only one God and that every religion that is, ever was, and ever will be are just different paths to that one and only God. Because you know that all theists believe in God so the differences between these religions are merely petty incosequential details. And then to further follow your approach to the whole thing, I will make the claim that any and all differences/divisions are petty and unconsequential. It amounts to the same thing.

Sorry Katzpur, but "Christian" does not = "moron". Of course we all know there are denominations. No one is denying it. Please understand the context of the posts made on this thread as related to the initial question, the OP on the other thread. I speak of the invisible vs the visible church, as defined by Paul.

No, "Christian" does not = "moron," regardless of how many morons claim to be Christian.

I'll leave it up to the individual to decide whether or not they follow and worship Christ, or a book, or a prophet, or a leader, or a label. If you tell me you follow Christ, then you know and I know he admonishes us to love one another as he loves us, and not to judge one another (I would think especially when it comes to each other's salvation status or membership within the body).

Red herring.

As a matter of fact I would say one of the evidences of a false witness is one who chooses to judge, rather than love, who divides and focuses on differences rather than unification of the body. One who loves Christ and emulates him and follows him would most certainly tend towards inclusion and acceptance in the name of Christ, and towards embracing one another as brothers and sisters.

Interesting theory.
Ignore the division, no, rather, deny the division completely and concentrate only on the unity.
To what purpose?
Do you honestly think that the division will somehow just go away if you deny its existance long enough?

It is these Mere Christians I was addressing in previous posts. They belong to many denominations, or none; but foremost are "fellow sheep" who know their Master personally. What they agree on is way more important than what petty doctrinal differences there may be.

i can agree to this.
But not to the extent of completely denying/ignoring the fact that there is division.

It is up to Him ("sittest on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead") to separate the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, not ME. For the purposes of discussion, clairification, and mutual understanding I stand by my previous posts in this thread and the other.

See above.

 

[McBell]

How much do differences in doctrine really matter?

When group A says that you have to be fully submersed in water during baptism or you will go to hell and group B says that all you need is a light sprinkling of oil...

 

[MaddLlama]

When group A says that you have to be fully submersed in water during baptism or you will go to hell and group B says that all you need is a light sprinkling of oil...

But, since when does a particular denomination of church get to decide who goes to hell and who doesn't?

 

[Comprehend]

I think I would like to re-post my response in this thread (#9) since nobody addressed it and I think it is particularly relevant to the conversation....

If all of the differences are superficial and non-essential, why do all of the Christian churches not just do away with the superficial and join together as one church since you all are saying that you are all together on anything that matters. If that is true, I ask, why would you allow something that doesn't matter to cause such great divisions that you fight over which is right for hundreds of years. Obviously (to me) it would seem that the fact that a group decided to separate itself from another proves that it was of such importance that they were willing to leave and begin a new church. That doesn't sound so non-essential to me....

 

[Comprehend]

But, since when does a particular denomination of church get to decide who goes to hell and who doesn't?

I don't think the point is that one group or another has the final say. God does that. The point is that these groups do not view the differences in doctrine to be superficial. they are of enormous consequence. otherwise, they would not have split in the first place over something that is non-essential.

 

[MaddLlama]

Why are they so essential? And, which ones are essential and which ones aren't