“The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context” by Myron B. Penner

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

Don’t apologize for T-shirt or bumper sticker thoughts - they are to the “elevator pitch” what the “elevator pitch” is to the full text of an entire homily or book!

@Kendel

What keeps coming to my mind in this context is also the importance of constantly evaluating our lived out hermeneutic both in our individual lives and in the life of the church.

Or to add my own “T-shirt” phrase to chime in with your thought: Those who’ve decided they have “arrived” and therefore are fully commissioned as exclusively ‘sharers’ to the world have stopped up their ears and quit learning. Which seems to me to be a spiritually deteriorating, if not fatal position to be in.

(Okay - that’s not all gonna fit on a T-shirt. But oh well.)

[Kendel]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I find one of the opening quotes of ch. 5 intriguing, though I’m still holding it at arm’s length and trying to decide how to understand it.

The rejectability of the gospel is ironically what prevents it from becoming mere propaganda. Consequently, the Good News cannot be fully understood as good news unless the gospel is offered in noncoercive ways.
-Brad J. Kallenberg

I really liked this one!
Does this help? Particularly in light of the political (whose proper definition we also need to keep in mind) nature of witness discussed in this chapter?

Propaganda has been used for a myriad of reasons, like getting people to join in their country’s army, helping with a war effort on the home front, or in an election ad/campaign. The Soviet Union had a history of using propaganda to help convince their fellow countrymen, and the world, that they were the greatest nation in the world, that communism was the best form of government, that other nations and forms of government were weak, and that their leader was the most powerful and kindest, etc. Overall, the glorification of communism and the Soviet state, and the indoctrination of Marxist-Leninist ideology was the goal of their propaganda.
From: Joseph Stalin & the Soviet Propaganda | Overview, Method & Symbol - Lesson | Study.com
(bolding mine)

The Gospel is not some ideology we peddle. Well, it shouldn’t be, right? But if we mix it with colonial ideals, well, then it is an ideology as well as a tool for control.

Richard Twiss does give outstanding examples of what this introductory quote can mean in the video I linked in slide 510

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I think Penner said elsewhere (maybe in a prior chapter), that in a modernist world of alleged objectivity, we attempt to possess truths. In a subjective (and apostolic) world, the truth possesses us .

It’s all over the book, Merv. He’s been drumming it in for chapters. : )

@Mervin_Bitikofer

(Okay - that’s not all gonna fit on a T-shirt. But oh well.)

Maybe a tunic or a toga?

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Kendel

ideology we peddle

I’m so glad you used that turn of phrase, because it reminded me of another reaction I had while reading chapter 5 (and prior chapters too). I wonder if Penner doesn’t illumine a now-more-experienced response to something than the Apostle Paul himself adopts (I think in one of his Corinthian letters). Paul says effectively: “Yes - there are some who peddle the word of God for profit, but never mind that - at least it’s spreading the word.” And maybe Paul’s attitude here can be defended in that it’s still ‘early days’ of Christianity and the fledging sect is still ramping up into “explosive growth mode” in a kind of “there is no such thing as bad publicity” sense. But now, I think Paul today would not be so cavalier about all this. Which is how I would answer those who would charge Penner with taking the opposite tack that Paul seemed to endorse. Penner effectively responds: “Are you kidding me?! It’s very much about how you deliver the message! Even to the point of you completely undoing your own propositional content if you are not yourself living that truth.” I think Paul would agree with him now - and the case could probably be made then already too from Paul’s letters of that time, the one side-remark about ill-reputed peddlers notwithstanding.

@Kendel

The Gospel is not some ideology we peddle. Well, it shouldn’t be, right? But if we mix it with colonial ideals, well, then it is an ideology as well as a tool for control.

Okay - yeah. It’s probably just the book-long struggle I’ve been having of parsing out which parts of our enculturated convictions can be defended as “Oh - that’s part of reality or science or reason” vs. “this is just your modernist or colonial baggage here and can be jettisoned when you attempt to reach out to other cultures.”

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

I keep feeling I don’t have an equal stake in the outcome of this book or its discussion. My way of life isn’t wrapped up in the Christian project so I have no apprehension that Penner might any moment pull the rug out from under me if I allow myself to take seriously the ideas he puts together. So I think the discussion between you who do have more at stake is the more interesting one to attend to. But all along I keep thinking that everything he discussed has a correlate for any person with similar commitments even if not the same conceptualization of what it is that gives rise to God belief and makes it such a good fit.

At this point in the book I’m thinking about the abstract notion of “the powers that determine subject-hood”. For example, from page 156:

We are not in control of these powers* and in themselves they are neither wholly good nor wholly evil. They are what constitute us as subjects—as those who exist in relation to others, the principal relation being with God, but whose relations always exist against the backdrop of the powers and authorities that provide the context and trajectory for them.

And more so earlier on page155 where he says this in regard to being a prophetic witness but which surely is important to anyone regardless of religious standing:

to a significant degree I am shaped (including my consciousness, beliefs, values, and self-perceptions) by forces beyond my direct control. Iam not in full or direct possession of myself.

I think that is right. We are always already in possession of and possessed by points of views including convictions not all of which we can recall deciding upon. We have no neutral viewpoint from which we can rationally assess ourselves as a heap of beliefs and decide what to keep and what to chuck out. Being a subject and not a deterministic billiard ball is like this.

A side notion I keep returning to is the idea (which I reject) that rationality is an escape hatch by which we can leave the chaotic basis for our subject-hood, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and assume possession of ourselves. Obviously I have a lot buzzing around in my head right now so this has to be in-process patter.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

From p. 143-144

Coercion is the form our interaction with others takes when our main concern is with the possession of objective truth—whether we have it, whether they have it, and so forth. I attempt to coerce someone in this sense whenever I use rational arguments (or just flat assertions of objective truth) in order to compel others (by rational force, intimidation, or authority) to accept my way of understanding and speaking about the world (or God, etc.), without regard to their personal desires or volition.

Okay - so …question here - accompanied from my own real-life experience. So I encountered a hymn, one that many traditionalists today would consider provocatively progressive in that it referred to God with feminine pronouns. Theologically, this doesn’t disturb me as I realize that the mental association of female biology of God could not be one whit any more heretical than assocation of male biology with God. If we were going to scripturally nitpick about such things, the scriptures frown on any “imaging” of God after our own human selves. And yet, our languages (and Jesus and the apostles themselves) have settled into doing this through nearly all of history favoring the patrairachal leanings through most of it. So obviously there is some incarnational leniency for “personalizing” God so long as we always keep close the knowledge that “this male image” or “that female image” is only my imagination and not really God - and in fact the scriptures call it blasphemous for me to confuse any of my inevitable mental images with our actual Creator God - the great I AM.

So - all that said; any twinge of discomfort or awkwardness I may feel with hymns or poetry using female imagry for God has everything to do with my own tradition and upbringing, and zero to do with any actual scriptural support or spiritual leading. And given that there will be a large and vehement swath of traditionalists who feel much more than any mere twinge of awkwardness with this, then should Penner’s exhortation forbid anybody from trying to coerce a different image of God (say … a more feminine one) on them against their own enculturated comfort? I can certainly see this being applied the other way (that the male imagry should not have been so coercively forced along with all the power dynamics that accompanied that - that seems an easy no-brainer to the progressive mind.) But what about applying Penner’s thought consistently to both sides of that? Is there ever any place at all for “pushing” - dare we say “coercing” somebody toward a change of their enculturated imagry for God? Traditional patriarchalists everywhere might be said to be waiting with baited breath for how that is answered.

[Kendel]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

And maybe Paul’s attitude here can be defended in that it’s still ‘early days’ of Christianity and the fledging sect is still ramping up into “explosive growth mode” in a kind of “there is no such thing as bad publicity” sense. But now, I think Paul today would not be so cavalier about all this.

After having used up his life on the Gospel, Paul would be horrified at the way it has been misused, as an ideological tool to achieve someone’s social/cultural/colonial goals, certainly not Jesus’s.

Dear Reader, I understand that what I’m writing will read to some as highly political speech (ideological/party-driven/social gospel), which is precisely NOT what I think or intend. However, in having culturally framed speech, such as mine AS political, we make analysis of it emotionally charged and unacceptable for “polite” discussions. It’s easy to dismiss as “liberal” questions about or criticism of activities carried out by churches. However many of these have lead to outright rejection of the Gospel and christianity by whole groups of people for reasons of self-preservation, rather than objections to the Gospel itself.

There is no escaping Penner’s Bivalent Form from Chapter 4 (p. 130) Our words must square with our deeds. And others are very good at seeing when the do not or have not. If we are using the gospel as a vehicle for carrying out some personal or cultural agenda, we are not talking about the Gospel any more.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Okay - yeah. It’s probably just the book-long struggle I’ve been having of parsing out which parts of our enculturated convictions can be defended as “Oh - that’s part of reality or science or reason” vs. “this is just your modernist or colonial baggage here and can be jettisoned when you attempt to reach out to other cultures.”

It IS a struggle. It needs to be a struggle we in the church engage in constantly. Penner has talked frequently in the book about dialogue, and he usually refers to it within the church. This kind of dialogue within the church, where we can be edified by people with different perspectives like Richard Twiss, or most any Black American Christian, etc, etc. can help all of us witness more faithfully. This suggestion isn’t about changing doctrine per se, but making sure we are living up to that doctrine.

Part of the struggle you and I, Merv, have both felt with this book might be that Penner’s suggestions feel “liberal” at times, like he’s proposing giving up everything by leaning on subjectivity and encouraging not only dialogue but dialectic. It’s easy to miss that his conclusions simply refuse to fit neatly into those political/ideological categories. Praise God.

Instead of struggling, we have centuries of church history we can interrogate. And some of that interrogation doesn’t take that much work. SOME people have already done the work we just need to listen and evaluate.

(Maybe, by the end of this thread, there will a community sourced bibliography of works that cover the misuses of the gospel for social control.)

[Kendel]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

But what about applying Penner’s thought consistently to both sides of that? Is there ever any place at all for “pushing” somebody toward a change of their enculturated imagery for God? Traditional patriarchalists everywhere might be said to be waiting with baited breath for how that is answered.

This is a great example, Merv.
Penner’s book has been revolutionary for a few of us. Maybe 3? 5? Maybe a few more. It feels like the world has completely changed, doesn’t it? For that few of us, maybe. And we recognize that this will be a project to carry out for the rest of our lives.

My feel from my foxhole is that traditionalists will continue on in their same way. Powerful voices in evangelicalism will not notice Penner’s book from 2013, at least in any productive way. I see it as utterly providential that we noticed it. However we might come across other’s who might ask us, “What took you so long?”
All the while, we can be practicing dialogue within the church (I’m terrible at this). But I think we’d better ask our questions strategically (I’m terrible at this as well). Because dialogue leading to change is not a regular part of church, at least as I know it. “That’s for the liberal churches.”

We will plod on, praying to stay in this change, praying we can get better at it ourselves, praying Jesus uses us in this.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

That reminds me of a a point that has come to mind often, to the story early in the book where the one receiving the apologetic message replied when asked why he still rejected Christ despite the overwhelming logic of the argument, “Because I do not want to be like you.” Ouch. The irony of that!

[Kendel]

This is hard, isn’t it, @jpm? Just like anything new we learn.
It’s hard not to be “that guy”, not to be “that gal.”

“Oooh. I got this new thing. Everybody needs it, too. I have to go out and change the world.”

But no one knows what you’re talking about, because they didn’t read/study/hear/experience the same thing. They’re doing the best they can, just like most everybody else. Just like the rest of us have been, will keep doing.

And after Chapter 5, if there was any question about how to approach any of this change, it’s clear: WITH HUMILITY. And that will likely mean: SLOWLY.

But it also gives us time to breathe and study and think and talk with people. Eat pizza together. (Or better, pie!) Actually, I think genuine hospitality would go beautifully with Penner’s ideas.

Part of what I have loved in this book is that the stakes are lowered. We don’t have to feel responsible to go out and win over the world in one debate. We can operate at a deeply human and humane pace that actually allows people to smile at each other and enjoy each other.

I think about the people I work with. These are people I really love. And I’m going to be back volunteering at a local rural elementary school soon with little kids and teachers. I am not going to be in a position to engage in some kind of aggressive apologetic model (which I could never do anyway). And NO ONE in those situations would be receptive to even the gentlest form of a modern model. With the public school kids I will be talking and working on the alphabet, arithmetic, reading, fractions and eating lunch like dignified humans. These are the biggest groups of unbelievers in my life. Let my witness be edifying, even if it can only be small.

In church fellowship, I need to be far more graceful about dialogue. I am rarely edifying when I disagree. I offend (both meanings) way too easily.

How much better for me to learn to say, “Now that’s a great question! I need to give that some thought. Can we talk about this again sometime soon?” And then return to the matter again gracefully.

Because I sure don’t want to be the apologist from the story you referenced Phil. None of us does.

@jpm

“Because I do not want to be like you.”

[Kendel]

@MarkD

to a significant degree I am shaped (including my consciousness, beliefs, values, and self-perceptions) by forces beyond my direct control. Iam not in full or direct possession of myself.

I think that is right. We are always already in possession of and possessed by points of views including convictions not all of which we can recall deciding upon. We have no neutral viewpoint from which we can rationally assess ourselves as a heap of beliefs and decide what to keep and what to chuck out. Being a subject and not a deterministic billiard ball is like this.

These are really good points. We have to look at ourselves with more humility, when we recognize these things.

Nota Bene (maybe rather “Post Script”):
A while back you “gave me” the word “subject-hood”. (Did you realize that for some of us, words themselves can be gifts?) I’ve been savoring it ever since, and particularly in this book. Thanks!

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Kendel

We have to look at ourselves with more humility, when we recognize these things.

And as a bonus it helps in understanding and forgiving others.

“NB”?

[Kendel]

@MarkD

And as a bonus it helps in understanding and forgiving others.

Yes.

@MarkD

“NB”?

has been edited.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Kendel

The Gospel is not some ideology we peddle. Well, it shouldn’t be, right? But if we mix it with colonial ideals, well, then it is an ideology as well as a tool for control.

Is it that the Gospel isn’t just an ideology or not at all one?

Are we using it the same way? From a google search:

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

It does seem to me that Christianity is steeped in ideals with no shortage of ideas either. Now I wouldn’t say it is especially well suited to form the basis of a theory for policy in either economics or governance. But it certainly has much to say about the importance we ought to assign to wealth and something to say about what we should do with any we come by. Christianity also is deeply concerned with the importance we ought to place on neighbors and communities with some specific guidance, though admittedly less than enough for organizing a governing system. Perhaps it would be best to say Christianity is more than ideology?

[Kendel]

In both Chapter 4 and 5, the possibility of manipulation has been lurking in the back of my mind. Penners proposed mode of witness involves winsomeness, genuine relationships, sympathy, shared humanity, other-interest, and more. All of these characteristics are misused by manipulators to attempt to seem interested, and trust-worthy.

On the one hand, this opens up space for my witness to be a genuine attestation to truth that hopes to be in the truth, while on the other hand, it involves genuine concern for the other that precipitates a personal relationship. When truth is viewed this way, as Ricoeur so eloquently describes, it no longer dehumanizes and divides us from others, but is something illuminating and winsome that makes genuine relationships possible:

”The truth, not only formal and abstract, but actual and concrete, ceases to be asserted in a Promethean act of taking a position on the self by the self and of adequation of the self to the self. The truth is rather the lighted place in which it is possible to continue to live and to think. And to think with our very opponents themselves, without allowing the totality which contains us ever to become a knowledge about which we can overestimate ourselves and become arrogant.” (p.132)

Appeal

Appeal, on the other hand, is concerned with the more personal question of being in the truth and engages others on the basis of our shared humanity. When I appeal to someone, I remain sensitive to them as a spiritual being, a person, someone who—like me—has a project or task to be in truth. When I appeal to someone, then, I ask them to believe me because I am interested in what interests them and I understand how they see the world. I remain open to the person and acknowledge their presence as an other, as having a face—a face that calls me, summons me, implores me to acknowledge their presence as such. (p. 144)

Disposal

Sympathetic appeal involves this same mode of being with others in which I place myself at the disposal of the other rather than viewing them as objects in my world. This type of self-identification with others, Marcel believes, is the only way to eliminate the self- obsession that comes with the desire to achieve objective truth. Thus, appeal is a crucial extension of Marcel’s ethics of belief, in which I shift from “you belong to me” and I can dispose of you as I choose, to “I belong to you” and I am at your disposal.” The ethics of belief produces an ethics of witness that can be spelled out in terms of appeal. (p. 146)

All of the relationships described above involve the development of real trust, and if the relationship is to involve some of our most foundational interests related to the self, trustworthiness on the part of the apostle/prophet is essential.

One of my great concerns in this mode of witness (which I believe is the best possible mode) is our need to closely monitor our OWN motives and actions. Manipulation often presents itself as appeal and concern and being trusting and as vulnerable and as caring. But underneath the often overly lovey facade is not concern for the person across from them, but a self-focused demand for what interests the manipulator. It is worse than coersion (or can be), in that it is disguised in its self-centeredness, attempting to appear concerned for the needs of the other, allthewhile focused on its own personal goals.
We have probably all been the object of a manipulator at one time or another and know the feeling. We know the hallmarks and what to look for in ourselves.

On the other side of this experience, we have to recongize that people we are engaged with may have experienced or even fallen victim to manipulation or more aggresive forms of coersion. This is frustrating as witnesses to the truth. We recognize the need to be perceived as trust-worthy. But understanding that people may have very good reasons for withholding trust is also essential. If we are defensive, rather than humble, when someone clearly or even unclearly distusts us, we seem all the more unworthy of trust. We are at their disposal. And they may decide to have nothing to do with us, in spite of our best efforts at everything. However, if they decide to attempt to build a relationship that has room for trust, we had better make sure we honor the risk they take. We had better live up to our stated committment to live out what we claim to believe.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Kendel

And they may decide to have nothing to do with us, in spite of our best efforts at everything.

Kendel, you’ve mentioned Brené Brown, so I assume that you;re acquainted with her distinction between “shame” and “guilt”. If so, imagine a young woman that you’ve known since she was born, cared for, and helped raise–with other “most significant” others–whom you discovered, in her 40s, carrying a burden of shame so deep and intense, that she demanded not to be approached, so ashamed that–like Adam and Eve in the Garden–she hides from the sight of those closest to her.

Wicked stuff, shame.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I wonder how Jesus would edify a disingenuous hardcore atheist. Probably not in a personal discussion but in a parable to a group?

[Kendel]

Oh. Yes. I wasn’t even thinking in that direction. How heart-breaking.

As a librarian in state government, I work directly with the public and often some very psychologically scarred homeless people. One woman of a different race treats all of the staff as if we are her direct oppressors. Nearly all of the staff is of the dominant race; we have the right to tell her that her time on the computer has expired; and we are the living embodiment of “GOVERNMENT.” In her mind we are the obstacle between her and the access to power that she feels she would have, if we weren’t in her way. On good days, she’s merely dilusional. On her last bad day here, she was enraged and got herself banned by yelling at the staff. Yelling. Standing outside the elevators and yelling.

When I realized her level of distrust, I realized I couldn’t gain it by explaining things to her. I had to learn to put her seething disgust in my pocket, rather than reflect it back. It helped us function, until it didn’t any more. She has been on my mind a lot in this discussion.

Another person was a woman at my old church, who was the most classic manipulator I ever met. Schmarmy doesn’t begin to describe her tactics. Gushing, lovey, as she worked hard to make me feel guilty about my unrighteous choice for a library book her daughter didn’t like.

Sometimes we have to deal honestly and quietly with distrust that has a past, but we also need to watch ourselves closely not to create distrust. With the first one, there might be nothing we can do, beyond preparing ourselves not to be affirmed by someone. With the second, we have to watch ourselves carefully.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Kendel

Gushing, lovey, as she worked hard to make me feel guilty about my unrighteous choice for a library book her daughter didn’t like.

That evokes a spontaneous, though inappropriate, laugh.

@Kendel

As a librarian in state government, I work directly with the public and often some very psychologically scarred homeless people.

I remember them, and thank God for the internet… at home.

@Kendel

I had to learn to put her seething disgust in my pocket,

Called to be a “librarian minister of information”… who knew?

[Kendel]

Mark, this is a really important set of questions, and I hope I can do it justice with my answer.

@MarkD

Are we using it the same way?

No, we aren’t using the it the same way.

To begin with, the Gospel and Christianity are not equivalent. The Gospel is an announcement of salvation through Jesus Christ. The most basic form of it is stated in the New Testament book First Corinthians, Chapter 15, verses 1-6 (I Corinthians 15:1-6). It’s from a letter that the Apostle Paul wrote to the church in the city of Corinth:

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:

• that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

• that he was buried,

• that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and

• that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

The bulleted points are the Gospel announcement. This announcement is the heart of Christianity. It is what Christians see as the evidence of Jesus’ divinity, God’s presence among us in human form, the demonstration of God’s desire to be with people, and the gift of salvation that makes that possible. I don’t believe that this announcement is an ideology.

@MarkD

It does seem to me that Christianity is steeped in ideals with no shortage of ideas either. Now I wouldn’t say it is especially well suited to form the basis of a theory for policy in either economics or governance.

Here, I think we can agree on much. We could probably rework the Google search result you got a bit and have it fit Christianity a little more, and still fit with your point:

@MarkD

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis

of religious theory (beliefs/doctrines) and related practices.

@MarkD

Now I wouldn’t say it is especially well suited to form the basis of a theory for policy in either economics or governance.

I am more extreme in my views on Christianity mingled with economics and governance. I think we have enough evidence that wherever and whenever Christianity has been claimed to be used as the basis of government, it became one of any other religions that was used for social control.

The how of belief matters, doesn’t it? In fact it changes the thing believed.

When Christianity is used as a tool for governance, and particularly govern civil society, it is no longer Christianity. Civil societies are governed with coercion/force, competition, money, and the like.

In contrast, the heart of Christianity, the Gospel, shows us the power of weakness, service, generosity and humility. Those don’t form a very effective theory of government or economy.

So, while I agree that the religion of Christianity does include ideology and may be more than ideology, the heart of Christianity, the Gospel, does not.

You mentioned this in an slightly earlier post:

@MarkD

We are always already in possession of and possessed by points of views including convictions not all of which we can recall deciding upon. We have no neutral viewpoint from which we can rationally assess ourselves as a heap of beliefs and decide what to keep and what to chuck out.

And I agree with you. And this is true of Christians specifically. We come to the world with a point of view related to our systems (since there are myriad of Christian traditions and beliefs) of belief and webs of ideologies. And those play together in dialectical relationships as well.

But the Gospel, the announcement of the Good News through Jesus Christ is not an ideology. Speaking ideologically, the Gospel is supposed to be the rock-bottom message that unifies all Christians everywhere throughout time. For Christianity to actually function, the Gospel announcement (Jesus Christ, God’s Son saves!) needs to be our central focus, our attestation, not (mainly) a mastery of the beliefs of Christianity.

If I failed to answer your questions, ask away again.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Kendel

I don’t believe that this announcement is an ideology.

I see that now, thanks.

@Kendel

I am more extreme in my views on Christianity mingled with economics and governance. I think we have enough evidence that wherever and whenever Christianity has been claimed to be used as the basis of government, it became one of any other religions that was used for social control.

But here’s the rub. Christianity is one thing but Christians are any several of a wide range of things. Placing the value you all do in the church with a desire to bond as much as possible with those people in your church, is it any wonder that Christians in the same church who find they are of a like mind in their political affiliation look to one another to act together in their roles as Americans, conservatives, democrats or whatever? I doubt whether everyone in a church differentiates between the “stuff they find important”, preferring to reserve common cause with other church members for pursuits which are true to essential Christian causes. You, but only the few of you here, are so principled as that. And across the wide range of common causes, because these are found with members of your church, I’m sure the feeling develops that all these causes are Christian ones. The impetus toward us vs them feelings and thoughts, my team/tribe vs yours is almost inevitable. We would wish it otherwise but you know what say about those and horses.

Is church life too communal, or perhaps too strong a draw to submerge self identification into group affiliation? Maybe I’m just excessively wary of such forces.

@Kendel

The how of belief matters, doesn’t it? In fact it changes the thing believed.

It sure does. I think my Christian relatives would say it does, but then they’d be more concerned with getting it right than doing it right. The difference would elude them.

@Kendel

When Christianity is used as a tool

Boy and has it ever become the tool of the power hungry in this country. And for what? A few shiny symbolic trinkets.

You know I give Christianity credit for being the seedbed for keeping the importance of what gives rise to God belief alive in peoples hearts and minds. But unfortunately it has become a seedbed that can be exploited for much else, not all of it good. Do the benefits balance the risks? Who can say? But I root for you who are it’s better lights. Maybe it can be saved. But if people are to grasp the difference, they can no more be goose marched to it anymore than an atheist can be into sharing your belief.

@Kendel

@MarkD

We are always already in possession of and possessed by points of views including convictions not all of which we can recall deciding upon. We have no neutral viewpoint from which we can rationally assess ourselves as a heap of beliefs and decide what to keep and what to chuck out.

And I agree with you. And this is true of Christians specifically. We come to the world with a point of view related to our systems (since there are myriad of Christian traditions and beliefs) of belief and webs of ideologies. And those play together in dialectical relationships as well.

I’m sure that is true.

@Kendel

For Christianity to actually function, the Gospel announcement (Jesus Christ, God’s Son saves!) needs to be our central focus, our attestation, not (mainly) a mastery of the beliefs of Christianity.

And yet I wonder how many feel as my South Carolina cousin does. After coming to his house and visiting him and his wife a short while he began his monologue about his becoming a Christian. It felt like hours went by during which I was not allowed to ask clarifying questions, observe points of agreement or share any experience of my own. When he finally realized there would be no ah hah moment for me, he said well you might agree or not about that but frankly my meetings with my conservative Christian men’s group is far more important to me now. For some the Gospel may not hold the same importance. Worrisome. Are people actually up for Christianity done right?

@Kendel

If I failed to answer your questions, ask away again.

Those would be gold stars if I could find any.