Cooling Twilight

Tag: christian

NALT and Scotsmen

Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), The NALT Christians Project has come under fire from a variety of sides: atheists suspect we’re trying to convert them, fundamentalists think we’re wolves’ in sheep’s clothing trying to legitimize sin and sundry others declare that we’re continuing white male oppression by speaking at them rather than giving them a voice. It’s tempting to try and rebut all these claims, but instead I’m going to focus on one particular critique that was voiced on Twitter:

When you say “we’re not ALL like that”, this is a subtle (if unintentional) use of the No True Scotsman fallacy

The No True Scotsman fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that entails a shift of associations to arbitrarily exclude an individual from the group being discussed. For example, in the case of Christians and LGBT rights you’d be committing this fallacy if you made this argument: (more…)

September 7, 2013
Christians with a difference

While reflecting on the nature of evangelical Christianity, this quote from C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters came to mind:

My dear Wormwood,

The real trouble about the set your patient is living in is that it is merely Christian. They all have individual interests, of course, but the bond remains mere Christianity. What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call ‘Christianity And’. You know–Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing.

“If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference” — but of course we do have differences, and often important ones at that! I agree with the sentiment that we should seek unity, that we should cling to “mere” Christianity and that we should hold our differences with humility. But therein lies the rub: what for one Christian is a minor theological difference not worth quibbling over is, for another, a heresy that threatens the very foundations of belief.

What beliefs do unite us? What are the essentials? What defines someone as a Christian? Is it merely a self-designation that has a potentially different meaning for each person? Simply a follower of Jesus? A profession that Jesus is Lord? An affirmation that Christ died for our sins, was buried and was raised on the third day? Agreement with the Apostles’ Creed? With the Nicene Creed?

But moving past those essentials (whatever they may be), how do we negotiate our differences on other matters? How do we hold true to our deeply held beliefs while still respecting — and even welcoming — the diverse beliefs of others? How do we find unity as “mere Christians” when we have so many seemingly unbridgeable theological gaps?

July 24, 2013
Why Are/Aren’t You An Evangelical Christian?

The title of this post is an honest question that I’d like to hear your answer to: why are you or why aren’t you an evangelical Christian?

What does the term “evangelical Christian” mean to you? Is it a useful distinction that clarifies theological positions, or is it merely a word that furthers divisiveness?

If you don’t consider yourself to be an evangelical, what does it mean to you to be a Christian? How do you define your Christianity in a way that excludes evangelical distinctives but still holds true to positive statements of faith?

If you do consider yourself to be an evangelical, how do you understand your faith in relation to non-evangelical Christians? What makes you different? What makes you the same?

I think that all Christians are (or should be) evangelical … and the more I think about it, the less I see a way of being a Christian that isn’t evangelical. But I understand that term means many things to many people and is often encumbered by an enormous amount of baggage. And, when it is used to label a particular “brand” of Christianity, it is often entirely unhelpful in delineating essential differences. It either becomes a pejorative used to marginalize someone on the far right of the theological spectrum, or it is little more than synonym for “true, Bible-believing” Christian, as opposed to the so-called “Christians” whose liberalism destines them to hell.

So, for all three of my readers, what are your responses to these questions?

*Also see my follow-up post: Some thoughts on evangelicalism.

June 28, 2013
Hauerwas answers: What is a “Christian?” (video)

Stanley Hauerwas defines Christianity and talks about the signs of a baptized life and identity:

May 5, 2013
Why Are You A Christian?

Something Dr. Norman Ericson said many years ago has always stuck with me. Although I don’t remember his precise words, it was essentially this: “Why are you a Christian? For most of us, it’s because our parents were Christians, and because their parents were Christians and so on. Our faith was passed down to us by our families. And that’s ok. It’s ok to embrace the faith of your family.” (more…)

November 5, 2012