Woke Christianity

[wil]

Hmmm

but when it comes to calling oneself Catholic, then some beliefs are simply a matter of choice, others are non-negotiable

The word Catholic, derived from the Greek, means "universal." Its opposite is sectarian rather than Protestant. 3. Many non-Catholic Christians insist on the use of the adjective Roman to describe the Church that is in union with Rome, because they also regard themselves as Catholic.

 

[Thomas]

Hmmm
The word Catholic, derived from the Greek, means "universal." Its opposite is sectarian rather than Protestant. 3. Many non-Catholic Christians insist on the use of the adjective Roman to describe the Church that is in union with Rome, because they also regard themselves as Catholic.

There was a time when the entire orthodox Church was Catholic. Today, there are some 20-odd denominations who refer to themselves as such. Largest is the Roman Catholic, a later qualification after the schism with the East. Then we have the Eastern Catholic denominations, with whom we share roughly the same theology – especially re Trinity and Christology. There is also the Anglican Catholic, a post-Reformation denomination (English), but again, a common belief in Christ and the Trinity, the teachings of the Fathers.

I don't know of any Christians who refer to themselves as 'Catholic' who reject Trinity and Christology, but I could be wrong.

 

[wil]

There was a time when the entire orthodox Church was Catholic.

conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

There was a time when the entire generally accepted tradition was universal.

Me? I always question when an entity decides to use a known word as its branding. I see it as a specific marketing technique to sway the masses into thinking something is more than it is (which in my mind means that it is less and needs external support of the nlp tools)

You know like "America", General Foods, Die Hard, EverReady

 

[TheLightWithin]

Ohh I may have come across as defensive but I did not mean to be. Just explaining myself and my process. I try not to preach and get on my soap box and I do crave the interfaith dialogue presented here. It's problematic that my faith is very intolerant of other paths to God and I can't help that. I am however very tolerant of people on their paths. It's hard to express love in text form but I truly feel love for all people as my Lord died for every single one of them. I'm a woman with a woman's heart soft and squishy. My gift is exhortation and it manifests in teaching and discipleship so please be patient with me!

Hi I'm new here and so intrigued by all these questions. I don't mean to sound obtuse, but what do you mean by "I'm a woman with a woman's heart soft and squishy" ? I know you don't mean anything medical or cardiac, you are referring to the proverbial heart, but I don't get it. I'm a woman and have never heard anything like that. Also, what do you mean "my gift is exhortation" what does that mean? And how do you know?

 

[TheLightWithin]

I don't understand why the focus on Constantine and this arian priest. I personally don't find any relevance to what men do or say apart from the Apostles as they were THE witnesses to Jesus Christ. One man's action that is opposite of what is taught in scripture doesn't negate what scripture teaches.. or it shouldn't. We see people today falling away from the faith why not in the 4th century. The word warns of it happening.

Fascinating. We all interpret and emphasize things a little differently I guess, but I definitely see the relevance of Constantine and the Arian priest (Arianism by the way is totally different from Aryanism but I think others have defined that already) Constantine and Arius, for whom Arian doctrine was named, as a HUGE part of early Christian history and early Church history. Had the councils ruled differently, in favor of Arius, for example, the Church would have taught non-Trinitarian doctrines. Please read the book When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during teh Last Days of Rom but Richard E Rubenstein. 1999 by Harcourt Press. It's a fascinating and well documented account of how the early church arrived at and settled on the doctrine of the Trinity, the controversy, the organizational politics and the Roman empire politics, the machinations, schemes, etc. Regardless of your theological position, and your committment to it, please do read it, it explains so much and will fill you in on why people are saying all these things in contrast to your beliefs. Plus the historical narrative is just so interesting.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Ok. But I was commenting on your statement that "It's not about church goers and churches it's about a relationship with God."

So the Church is God's Bride, but it's not about her? I think that in a relationship, the persons in the relationship are essential for the relationship?

I'm a late comer but have read through this thread and signed up for this forum just to answer.
So I think I might understand here... when someone says it's not about church and church goers, I always thought they meant it was not about the building, the polity, the church politics, the petty social and interpersonal stuff that happens at church, but that it is about a relationship with God. When they talk about the Church being the bride of Christ, don't they actually mean what they call "church invisible" that is all the body of believers with sincere spiritual connections to God and belief, and not necessarily formal church membership as such?

I wasn't brought up religious, not formally, anyway, and what I have learned and pieced together over the years has led me to believe that Church Invisible is important and that's what is meant in a comment like that.

 

[TheLightWithin]

This is where English translation is sadly lacking from the original Greek. Monogenes in Greek in reference to John 3:16 pertains to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 you can also see it in John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9.

Are you a Jehovah Witness by chance because they have the same belief as you?

It does help to use a Greek lexicon when studying scripture.

Christadelphians have a similar belief about Jesus not being God. But I think the Jehovah Witnesses may believe Jesus is Archangel Michael.

 

[TheLightWithin]

It's ok to voice your opinion. You however cannot convince me otherwise.

That's a good point which is one of those truisms everywhere.
If however you try to evangelize to somebody and they say this to you, what happens next?
I'm not trying to be cute about it I'm really asking? What do you do when someone you are trying to convince says this to you?
It is, after all, not wrong.

 

[RJM]

@TheLightWithin

So, who/what do you want Jesus to be -- to fit your own paradigm?

 

[RJM]

God speaks to every individual soul, imo

 

[TheLightWithin]

@TheLightWithin

So, who/what do you want Jesus to be -- to fit your own paradigm?

I'm not sure I understand your question. To me it sounds like you actually meant to reply to someone earlier in the thread? I didn't present any information or theories about Jesus myself. (I only offered the title of a book that goes into the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I didn't share any personal opinions which makes me confused by your question.)

This thread is long and fascinating. I'm brand new to the forum and I signed eagerly wanting to reply to some of the interesting comments here. I'm sure you meant to reply to someone else who expressed a commitment to a theological position about Jesus, or offered more theological or doctrinal content in their remarks.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Ok Wil. Since you won't let it go

I'm not going to copy and paste urban dictionary I'm going to flat out tell you what I feel is the mentality of a woke christian. This will not make me very popular but then again Jesus said we would be despised because of Him.

"feel good about yourself" or prosperity Christianity. God loves me so that means I get jets and fancy houses and cars.

Cafeteria style Christianity.. take what you want and leave the rest.. who cares what the bible says it was written by man and it's corrupted because I don't agree with it

I can do what I want all week and think about God on Sunday at church

Im a good person

I've read all these books but don't know jack about what the bible says but I'm so smart that I must be right.

Every single one of these are contrary to the bible and it's exactly what Jesus was referring to in Revelation regarding the church of Laodicea in wishing they were hot or cold instead of lukewarm. Causing Him to vomit them out of His mouth. Imagine that.

Well, Wil. God is gracious and merciful and like Him we love the sinner while hating the sin. There is no bigger sinner than myself and I need all the grace and mercy I can get.

Your observations and concerns are pretty accurate. However, I'm confused about the number of things you are conflating with the concept of "wokeness" I agree with you about the prosperity gospel. I don't think that's a woke things though? It's been around for awhile and I think often due to television evangelists. The idea of "cafeteria style" -- the phrase "Cafeteria Catholics" came from some prominent bishop I think in the middle of the last century. I'm not so sure that is wrong though... if believers are engaging in any kind of discernment and indepedent thinking -- which they should be-- they are often accused of being "cafeteria style".

All of the things you mentioned are, I think, common concerns about secular culture invading or dominating the church.

However, the term "woke" is about something totally different. It's supposed to mean "politically and socially aware" which is supposed to be about systemic injustice like racism and other social justice concerns. Hence the derogatory term "SJW" meaning "social justice warrior" being associated with wokeness. Today's "wokeness" seems to be the descendant of "political correctness" from 30 years ago.

I think your observations are good and worth talking about. But I also think using the term "woke" for them was confusing and woke refers to something else entirely.

 

[RJM]

I'm not sure I understand your question. To me it sounds like you actually meant to reply to someone earlier in the thread? I didn't present any information or theories about Jesus myself. (I only offered the title of a book that goes into the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I didn't share any personal opinions which makes me confused by your question.)

This thread is long and fascinating. I'm brand new to the forum and I signed eagerly wanting to reply to some of the interesting comments here. I'm sure you meant to reply to someone else who expressed a commitment to a theological position about Jesus, or offered more theological or doctrinal content in their remarks.

You seem to be asking me to read a book about Constantine and Arius and 'The Struggle to Define Christianity' and I am asking why you require me to do that, when I have a reading list and when the Constantine/Arius/Nicea story has been discussed and dissected minutely on these forums over the years.

Everyone has their own pet theory about Jesus. Am asking you what you think?

 

[RJM]

@TheLightWithin
Try these quite recent threads for Arius, Constantine and Nicea. There are many older threads on the subject too, often quite heated:
Arian Christology
Oral Torah, Sacred Tradition, Ahadith
The Trinity: Genesis of a Doctrine
Did Most Early Christians Believe the Divinity of Christ?
Try the Trinity

 

[Thomas]

Mispost

 

[Thomas]

Hi @TheLightWithin – welcome aboard!

@RJM has listed a number of threads, and I think I can say I'm a vociferous Trinitarian apologist here. So I won't rake over the bones of a well-discussed debate, but I would like to put in a couple of theological nuances ...

... but I definitely see the relevance of Constantine and the Arian priest (Arianism by the way is totally different from Aryanism but I think others have defined that already) Constantine and Arius, for whom Arian doctrine was named, as a HUGE part of early Christian history and early Church history.

Indeed, but largely in retrospect. At the time it was seen as a 'local' problem for the bishop of Alexandria to sort out.

The Western Church was not particularly engaged in the dispute, and nor did it play any significant part in its resolution. In the end, the Arian Question was a dispute in the Eastern Church, and was resolved by Eastern theologians, rather than by imperial coercion or papal ruling.

Of course, Constantine getting involved complicated issues, but we should not lose sight of the fact that on the ground, at the time, it was not seen to be as important as it subsequently became. Few Western bishops attended Nicaea, the Pope sent a couple of representatives, which says something about the relationship between pope and emperor ...

Had the councils ruled differently, in favor of Arius, for example, the Church would have taught non-Trinitarian doctrines.

I'm afraid that's not quite right – had the church ruled in favour of Arius, we would have had a distinctly hierarchical Trinity, but the Three Persons, Father Son and Holy Spirit, we well-established by then. He was not so much demoting Jesus as defining his nature/substance as different to the nature/substance of the Father, but nevertheless divine.

As much as Arianism seems influential, as a doctrine it ended with him. Later semi-Arians moved closer to what would eventually emerge as the orthodox position, but could never agree amongst themselves.

Please read the book When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome / Richard E Rubenstein. Plus the historical narrative is just so interesting.

Oh indeed! LOL, I could bang on about it for hours (be warned!), the nuances of theology are of great interest to me ... but please don't let your views rest on one opinion! I've looked at interest at reviews of the book, and I'm not sold, sadly to say ... but I do applaud any attempt to bring the issue to life, as it were.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm afraid that's not quite right – had the church ruled in favour of Arius, we would have had a distinctly hierarchical Trinity, but the Three Persons, Father Son and Holy Spirit, we well-established by then. He was not so much demoting Jesus as defining his nature/substance as different to the nature/substance of the Father, but nevertheless divine.

..so you claim..
I don't believe that .. that view is based on polemic by trinitarians,
inferring that so called Arians claimed that Jesus is a lesser God than the Father,
thereby making two gods.

It is a play on words, and the significance of the word Divine.
Thare is only One God, and Artans believed that it is "Our Father".
Jesus worshiped and prayed to our Father.

 

[Thomas]

...so you claim..

Based on the evidence.

I don't believe that ..

I'm amazed!

... inferring that so called Arians claimed that Jesus is a lesser God than the Father,
thereby making two gods.

To my mind, that would inevitably have resulted at some point had Arius won the day.

 

[Cino]

I'm a late comer but have read through this thread and signed up for this forum just to answer.
So I think I might understand here... when someone says it's not about church and church goers, I always thought they meant it was not about the building, the polity, the church politics, the petty social and interpersonal stuff that happens at church, but that it is about a relationship with God. When they talk about the Church being the bride of Christ, don't they actually mean what they call "church invisible" that is all the body of believers with sincere spiritual connections to God and belief, and not necessarily formal church membership as such?

I wasn't brought up religious, not formally, anyway, and what I have learned and pieced together over the years has led me to believe that Church Invisible is important and that's what is meant in a comment like that.

The Church Invisible. Yeah, I think I understand what you mean. The sense of being part of a larger group, both present and past and future, who are in on the real deal. It's a concept that pops up in mystical currents, and in down-to-earth exoteric ones. I like it, and I consider myself to be part of something like that, my fellow mystics of all times who share my bewildered joy at living a human life on this fantastic planet.

And yet, unless they are all solitary and never take students or preach a sermon, the constituents of the Church Invisible will want to meet and pray together, realign their sights, call each other on their BS and reaffirm their service to the common cause.

They will need a venue for this. And some house rules for what happens when and who does it. Someone to record the proceedings and distribute them afterwards. Someone to bring refreshments and put away the chairs.

This is where the Church Invisible overlaps in personal union with the Roster Committee.

 

[TheLightWithin]

You seem to be asking me to read a book about Constantine and Arius and 'The Struggle to Define Christianity' and I am asking why you require me to do that, when I have a reading list and when the Constantine/Arius/Nicea story has been discussed and dissected minutely on these forums over the years.

Everyone has their own pet theory about Jesus. Am asking you what you think?

I think I posted that thinking I was replying to someone else... I think it was the OP I thought I was replying to? Based on something she said I thought maybe she hadn't read those materials yet. Also I'm new to the forum and don't know the history of various discussions. (Believe me I wish I had been on the forum for years. I've been aware of this site for I don't know how long, I don't know how I didn't know about the forum. Unless I did sign up years ago and then lost track of it somehow.)

Anyway...

I'm not sure I have a pet theory about Jesus exactly. I need to go back to the source, with the knowledge I have now, to re-develop my impressions. I'm planning to re-read the Gospels and then the rest of the New Testament. It's been a long time since I've read that through. What I do know is that I was raised not religious at all. The adults in my family all had different beliefs, but the one thing everyone seemed to agree on was the notion that mainstream Christianity was dead wrong on a lot of things if not nearly everything. My grandfather was the most theologically minded, and when I was little he was into the Worldwide Church of God (Herbert Armstrong) They were very decidedly non-Trinitarian. I think I read somewhere that their beliefs were "binarian" though I wouldn't have been aware of those terms when I was little. When I went to a Methodist bible study at age 12, and they tried to describe "the Trinity" which didn't make sense to me, I asked about it at home and I was told to ask my grandfather about it as he "understood such things" of course he went on a rant about the "pagan abomination which isn't in the Bible and isn't the Truth" or something like that. Pretty classic grandpa rant. I don't recall what his explanation of Jesus actually was, but some form of what I now know is subordinationism I'm sure. I'm drawn to nonTrinitarian belief systems and am slowly making more sense out of how they are all different, from the "Jesus is only human" but "A priest on the order of Melchizedek" variety which I believe is held by Christdadelphians, to the idea that Jesus is a divine being but not God himself (Jehovah's Witnesses thinking he is the Archangel Michael, if I'm not mistaken) I need to do some more review of the source to refine any theory I may have.