Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I wrote: "Christianity is deeply infused with *mysticism* and indeed a practitioner of Christianity is best understood as a mystic-of-sorts. It is a question of degree."

An interesting claim. Can you substantiate it?

Yes, it is not hard! Take the rite of the traditional Mass -- which has been at the center of the practice of Christianity since the early days. It is a mystical, even perhaps in some sense a 'magical' rite. It is infused with mystic metaphysical ideas.

I think that even for *modern* Christians that the nature of their relationship to God and Jesus Christ takes place through a mystical connection. That is to say the connection between a praying soul, ensconsed in the fallen condition, and metaphysical being(s) that exist outside of time and perhaps even causation. The very essence of the relationship is mystical.

The notion of being *guided by God* -- that God can intervene and act in time and space in favor of the believer -- seems deeply mystical. To believe in a Providential power that *enters down into* the world seems to me to be mystical and mysterious.

In the old view -- the Great Chain of Being -- it was understood that Divinity and the higher orders of being had their 'reflections' down in our world. Take for example gemology. The idea that a diamond was a manifestation, in some way or other, of a higher aspect of God. Or that gold had some sort of mysterious link with the Sun or silver with the Moon. These are mystical ideas.

So too is the idea of Mystic Love.

So also is the notion that certain people represent or manifest demoniac influence (Macbeth and his lovely blushing bride). That idea, and its opposite that some people manifest godly and angelic spiritual influence (Desdemona for example), is an idea that arises in mystical perception of the sort with which Christian concept is deeply wedded.

[promethean75]

"An interesting claim. Can you substantiate it?"

Holy moly look at what just happened here. Even the least knowledgeable of Christianity know it is riddled with mysticism throughout... but the guy who is supposed to specialize in it, asks someone else to substantiate what he should already know about it.

Instead IC should have jumped directly into action defending the legitimacy of mystical knowledge and practice.

Shirley he's not going to claim Christianity DOESN'T have roots in mysticism and claims of revelatory knowledge (as opposed to reason), is he?

Ah'ight sorry to interrupt. I'll see myself out, thank you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'll see myself out, thank you.

Be sure to stop by the snack-table on your way to the exit! (Is there an exit, I ask?) (I myself made the apple pie in accord with my own Mysterious American Insight into these matters.)

[Immanuel Can]

I wrote: "Christianity is deeply infused with *mysticism* and indeed a practitioner of Christianity is best understood as a mystic-of-sorts. It is a question of degree."

An interesting claim. Can you substantiate it?

Yes, it is not hard! Take the rite of the traditional Mass

Actually, the Catholic Mass did not exist until the Fourth Century.

I'm afraid you're making a mistake of exactly the kind I was pointing out: the Mass is not the Lord's Supper. But only somebody who has a deep interest in Christian theology is going to know that. The former is indeed infused with "mystical metaphysical ideas," but the latter is really not.

I think that even for *modern* Christians that the nature of their relationship to God and Jesus Christ takes place through a mystical connection. That is to say the connection between a praying soul, ensconsed in the fallen condition, and metaphysical being(s) that exist outside of time and perhaps even causation. The very essence of the relationship is mystical.

There is a sense in which this is true, but it's not a different sense than that in which the Torah is "mystical." All "religious" beliefs are probably going to be "mystical" in some sense; but that sort of begs the question of whether the "mystical" bits are arbitrary or real.

The notion of being *guided by God* -- that God can intervene and act in time and space in favor of the believer -- seems deeply mystical. To believe in a Providential power that *enters down into* the world seems to me to be mystical and mysterious.

Those also are Torah ideas. The Torah even has outright miracles, like the crossing of the Red Sea, and has formal "prophets" like Isaiah and Elijah -- to say nothing of two tablets of stone written with the hand of God.

I think you'll find it hard to indicate much to suggest Christianity is "mystical" in ways Torah is not. And that makes sense, of course, since the New Testament presents unabashedly a continuation of the Old.

[Immanuel Can]

Shirley he's not going to claim...

I am going to claim.

"And don't call me Shirley." (Somebody's bound to get that reference, I hope.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

"The catbird seat" is an idiomatic phrase used to describe an enviable position, often in terms of having the upper hand or greater advantage in any type of dealing among parties. It derives from the secluded perch on which the grey catbird makes mocking calls."

Actually, the Catholic Mass did not exist until the Fourth Century.

I'm afraid you're making a mistake of exactly the kind I was pointing out: the Mass is not the Lord's Supper. But only somebody who has a deep interest in Christian theology is going to know that. The former is indeed infused with "mystical metaphysical ideas," but the latter is really not.

Here, you put forth your own, and personal, interpretation. And I assume the reason why you do this is because you are a Protestant. Therefore, according to you, you have the special and unique insight into the *real nature of Christianity*.

But the actual facts, at least according to my understanding, is that the Mass developed out of worship-practices with roots in the first century. True, these developed and evolved, and those who developed the liturgical practices also brought into the religion a wide group of other, related ideas, notions, practices, etc.

What your manoeuvre seems to be, as I say, is to *hop over* all of this. But this act of hopping is revisionist.

For this reason I notice that you, an ultra-modern man who lives in and was raised in ultra-modern circumstances, redefines the Christianity you desire to have. This gives you an interesting *right* to state that only those who you recognize as *really and truly Christian* can be called Christian. The rest are, I gather, pseudo-Christian. It is such a unique position!

It is a quintessential outcome of protestant processes it seems to me.

Now, can all that I have just said be said equally well, or better, in ebonics?! This is 2022 and times have changed. I am uncertain and for now we'll just have to see how it done pans out when you hits me up the side o' my head with your retorts ...

[Alexis Jacobi]

Clearly, you have a theory of civilizational development: and in that theory, questioning the nature of the truly "Christian" is unhelpful and would possibly unravel it. So I can quite understand why you might now want to go there. Nevertheless, I don't think you're intellectually dishonest, so I think you'll find that eventually you have to go there anyway...that, or live with a theory founded on sand; and I don't think you're ultimately going to be content to do that.

If I have anything at all it is a realistic view of what Christianity actually was and also what it is now. I guess you could call it a *theory* but it is more a description. I certainly have not invented it and I do relay it, more or less.

I have no problem at all with your rigid definitions and your strict revisions. Naturally I would examine them as I do other declarative positions: What do they intend? Why have they come about? What will result from them?

I do not think my view of the (real) history of Christianity would unravel necessarily under pressure, and I do not believe my ideas about what Christianity has been and is to be founded on sand. And you are certainly welcome to continue forth to demonstrate why you believe this to be the case.

Now, if you do succeed I will organize a stately procession in your honor similar to this one.

(In keeping with the reference to films ...)

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, the Catholic Mass did not exist until the Fourth Century.

I'm afraid you're making a mistake of exactly the kind I was pointing out: the Mass is not the Lord's Supper. But only somebody who has a deep interest in Christian theology is going to know that. The former is indeed infused with "mystical metaphysical ideas," but the latter is really not.

Here, you put forth your own, and personal, interpretation.

No, not at all.

I merely put forth what the Bible teaches, whereas the other side puts forth what their traditions have added to that. And you can readily detect the truth of that if you were to compare the New Testament teachings with the Catholic ones. But as I say, this is not something a secular person is likely to invest a full inquiry into.

It is a quintessential outcome of protestant processes it seems to me.

You're not wrong entirely.

But what you have to understand is that Protestantism was, in many ways, no so much an innovation on Christianity as a correction of Christianity that the Catholic Church rejected. That's the implication of the word "Reformation." Note that it's not labelled "the Rebellion," or "the Rejection": it started out as an attempt to pull the Catholic Church back to roots it had long since abandoned, roots recovered by a principled examination of Scripture.

Luther, when he nailed his "theses" to the door of the church in Wittenburg, did not imagine himself to be departing the Catholics. Recall that he was, himself, a Catholic monk. He thought he was going to encourage reform, instead. It was only when the Catholic authorities rejected the reforms that the Reformation began. But it was no new thing: those ideas had been inhabiting both Testaments since they were written. That was how Luther was able to find them in the first place.

Thus, it was only when the rupture between Scripture and Catholicism became known, and the Catholic monopoly on literacy was over, that something like the Reformation could even take place. (Even secular historians will tell you Gutenberg was as important as Luther in that.) Earlier attempts at reform had simply been eliminated by the Inquisition. You can still read about them in the Catholic Church's own records of those incidents. But when the comparison between what Catholicism was doing and what Scripture taught became public knowledge, when people could read the Bible for themselves, the Reformation was on.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no problem at all with your rigid definitions and your strict revisions. Naturally I would examine them as I do other declarative positions: What do they intend? Why have they come about? What will result from them?

But these are not "declarative" positions: they're "definitional" ones. And in definitions, the more precision there is, the better.

I do not think my view of the (real) history of Christianity would unravel necessarily under pressure,

I think they are likely to, if only because they depend on seeing "Christian culture" as merely a "culture," and on not making any precise theological discernments. It's hard to speak of what "Christian culture" has or has not done, or can or cannot do, when one does not have an accurate definition of one of those key terms, "Christian."

...and I do not believe my ideas about what Christianity has been and is to be founded on sand. And you are certainly welcome to continue forth to demonstrate why you believe this to be the case.

Well, for the reason above.

It would render any generalizations made by the theory inaccurate, and potentially, even prejudicial and erroneous. How can one say what "the Christians" were doing at a given time, when one has no credible definition of what a "Christian" actually is?

Now, if you do succeed I will organize a stately procession in your honor

That seems excessive. I like a parade as much as anybody; but I'm just arguing for accuracy, no more.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I merely put forth what the Bible teaches, whereas the other side puts forth what their traditions have added to that. And you can readily detect the truth of that if you were to compare the New Testament teachings with the Catholic ones. But as I say, this is not something a secular person is likely to invest a full inquiry into.

But I do not take The Bible -- the specific New Testament scriptures I assume you refer to -- as the sole source for understanding what Christianity both was and is. I think our difference of opinion (or idea) is to be located here. I can well understand your position as, what appears, to be sola scriptura. Your position is rooted in Protestantism. And your position, like all positions, can be examined with a critical eye. If I were to say that Protestantism had productive aspects, which I think it did, I would still have to point out that it also had destructive aspects.

Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

I think I understand the sola scriptura position, and even the logic as to why it is right or necessary, but when I thought it through I concluded that that view was insufficient. I accept, and also understand, that further work (if I can put it this way) went in to the forging of Christian doctrines, and I do not reject that work nor what was achieved. But even with that said, and note that I have made some efforts in this area, I think it wise and necessary to carefully examine and try to understand *original Christianity*, and here I mean the first hundred years or so. The origins of Catholic liturgy all go back to that time.

I agree with you, at least in some way, that what you are attempting through your selective interpretive process is a sort of *reduction* back to something original. In your case it almost appears to me, at time, as a sort of judaizing. Please don't think I intend any disrespect, I don't, but I see Christianity as distinctly different from Judaism. As I say I am somewhat shocked to see you use Jewish terms like Torah. But then I admit that I see you, correct me if I am wrong, as a sort of Christian Zionist.

But as I say, this is not something a secular person is likely to invest a full inquiry into.

I have seen enough of the assertion to understand it, if only basically. It is true that I could select material to read and study, and this material would buttress your general view, but I am interested in the wider picture.

[Immanuel Can]

I merely put forth what the Bible teaches, whereas the other side puts forth what their traditions have added to that. And you can readily detect the truth of that if you were to compare the New Testament teachings with the Catholic ones. But as I say, this is not something a secular person is likely to invest a full inquiry into.

But I do not take The Bible -- the specific New Testament scriptures I assume you refer to -- as the sole source for understanding what Christianity both was and is.

That's the Catholic view. They believe the Popes and Councils are authoritative, and that Scripture can be rewritten by them. So you're sympatico with them on that. But it's not the Christian view.

I mean the first hundred years or so. The origins of Catholic liturgy all go back to that time.

They do not, actually. You can see this by comparison with the documents.

I know the Catholic historians would like you to believe that, that their "faith" is the oldest one; but it's really not until the synchretizing of the Roman with the nominally "Christian" in the fourth century that there even IS a "Catholic Church." Yet there were Christians before that.

In your case it almost appears to me, at time, as a sort of judaizing. Please don't think I intend any disrespect, I don't, but I see Christianity as distinctly different from Judaism.

I understand your thinking about that.

It's a real shock to come to understand that "Christ" means the same as "Messiah," and that Torah is just as cherished by Christians as by Jews. It's even more suprising for a Jewish person to realize that the subject of the very first Church council was the subject of whether or not a Gentile (not a Jew) could even be a Christian, and that before that, all the Christians were Jews. That's shocking stuff.

As I say I am somewhat shocked to see you use Jewish terms like Torah. But then I admit that I see you, correct me if I am wrong, as a sort of Christian Zionist.

I'm not on board with everything that gets attached to the term "Zionist," particular the sense people have that it would mean somebody who has an uncritical eye toward the policies of modern Israel. I'm not so naive, of course. I know that there are both good and bad policies in modern Israel, and that the political system there is not particularly favourable to Christians.

But I also know where Christianity really came from. And I'm conscious of the debt Christianity owes Judaism. As a result of my reading of the text, I'm an antisupersessionist, if you are familiar with that term. That doesn't make me a Zionist, per se: but it does make me grateful to the people who preserved Torah and the nation that gave me Messiah.

Moreover, since my hermeneutics are focused on the text, I could hardly read either the Old or New Testaments coherently if I did not give due place to Judaism in my thinking. These are Jewish texts: I would not really understand what the text was saying. Failure to structure a hermeneutic so as to understand Israel rightly is part of the root problem in Catholic hermeneutics, actually; and I think you'll find I'm quite right about that, if you should investigate. In Catholic thought, as even in some Protestant sects (like in Luther's later writings), "the Church" comes in to supplant and erradicate Judaism. That mistake has allowed a whole lot of nasty pseudo-religious antisemitism that naturally, I am keen not to see repeated, as I regard it not merely as "bad form," but as thoroughly heretical. And I'm sure that the goal of avoiding such an error is one you and I can happily share.

But as I say, this is not something a secular person is likely to invest a full inquiry into.

I have seen enough of the assertion to understand it, if only basically. It is true that I could select material to read and study, and this material would buttress your general view, but I am interested in the wider picture.

Well, "the wider picture" can err from the mistake of being too wide. And it is this that I am encouraging: a precise definition of what is genuinely "Christian" and what is not, before we make generalizing statements about "Christian culture" or "Christian history." And I think that's fair enough.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think they are likely to, if only because they depend on seeing "Christian culture" as merely a "culture," and on not making any precise theological discernments. It's hard to speak of what "Christian culture" has or has not done, or can or cannot do, when one does not have an accurate definition of one of those key terms, "Christian."

Here is what I think: the sort of Christianity that you posit, to put it quite directly, will not ever come about on the surface of this planet. What you define is so strict, so reductionist (I mean this in more or less the original sense of the world) and revisionist, that only a few very select sects practice your sort of Christianity.

Can you name one modern figure, preferably someone alive right now, who embodies the Christianity you define? I am very interested in knowing who you select. But if you avoid doing so you will, perhaps, prove my point.

I see all religions as highly imperfect -- because perhaps of some of the negative aspects inherent in religious modality itself. I have a friend, a Dutchman, who has pointed out that the religious mind is a sort of "madness". This is obviously why it is not hard to examine religion generally and to quite easily discern that *many of these people are nuts*. Those who step out of religious madness often step out into a sort of atheism or non-commitment, and it has often seemed to me like a sound choice, given what they stepped out of.

It may be that the entire question of religious commitment is being reworked. But I would not choose to say that this means that Christian doctrines should be put aside (nor theological ideas).

And yet I am, I think perhaps fundamentally, a religiously-oriented person. And some people are oriented like that, from the start. But what does this mean? I could only explain by referencing the people that I most admire, and these are generally the English Christian-Philosophers. I have in the past referred to them. The English Christian-Platonism school. So for me the high thinking of Christianity is best when it combines with the best of the artistic and literary traditions. The sort of person that is produced is what I would hope to aspire to be. (I could pull up some names if you'd like but Basil Willey is one who I admire tremendously).

I think that you are on a good track to suggest, even to insist, on precise theological discernments. This is one reason why I often say that what you do does not cause me to flip-out (when others seem to flip out in relation to you). But even with all your precision, and all your discerning effort, you will end up making interpretations, and others, similarly inclined, will differ with you! Myself, I accept these differences, and I can work with them.

I tend to think that each people, even each *race*, will necessarily create their specific Christianity. I have referred to an English school for example. This school is unique and singular, and particular to that people. A Japanese Christian, or Catholic, or a Chinese Christian or Catholic will do, necessarily, the same.

But here is what I think the really important thing is: the sincerity of one's internal and private relationship with God. But these are matters that are not amenable to a public discussion, given the sort of wide gulfs that exist between people these days.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's the Catholic view. They believe the Popes and Councils are authoritative, and that Scripture can be rewritten by them. So you're sympatico with them on that. But it's not the Christian view.

Oh it is, or better put it can be, if one considers the Holy Spirit as something real. There will always be modifications and evolutions because people occur in mutable circumstances.

[Immanuel Can]

That's the Catholic view. They believe the Popes and Councils are authoritative, and that Scripture can be rewritten by them. So you're sympatico with them on that. But it's not the Christian view.

Oh it is, or better put it can be, if one considers the Holy Spirit as something real. There will always be modifications and evolutions because people occur in mutable circumstances.

Torah says not. God is a covenant-keeping God, and men mess with His words only at their own peril. Jesus Himself declared that it would be "easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away" than for one word of Torah to fail. (Matt. 5:18)

But the Catholic Church has not taken this to heart. They have made the dicates of the Popes and Councils their definitive authority, and all of God's word to be maleable in their hands. Is that "Christian"? Well, not if you take "Christian" to mean "following Christ" in a matter.

[Immanuel Can]

Here is what I think: the sort of Christianity that you posit, to put it quite directly, will not ever come about on the surface of this planet.

Oh, I'm certain you're wrong about that.

Can you name one modern figure, preferably someone alive right now, who embodies the Christianity you define?

Well, a caveat: Christianity is aspirational. That means that nobody does it perfectly. We are, after all, according to Christian theology, in a fallen world that cannot be redeemed until the actual presence of Messiah. If it could be perfected before that, then what need have we of Messiah?

That being said, there are a wide range of people who, though not perfect, represent the kind of Christianity I am talking about. They come from a wide variety of denominations and backgrounds, and do not always agree on every matter: but they all do agree that Scripture is authoritative, and that Christ is the center...among other things. They are sometimes called "evangelical," though that term, too, has sometimes come to be susceptible to being misunderstood. But if you want a name, I'm very sympathetic with W.L. Craig. I'm a long-time fan of C.S. Lewis. Whom else shall I name? Oliver O'Donovan...Craig Gay...Soren Kierkegaard...I could go on, but that will do.

it's true that "Christian" is a very precise thing. However, I'm not nearly so stringent in my definitions after the fundamental one as you might imagine. All I want is for people to get their first definition right, and after that, I'm prepared to allow a great latitude in regard to the particulars of what one believes. There is room for debate. But there is no room for getting the basic definition of "Christian" wrong, because that error sends people to a lost eternity.

I see all religions as highly imperfect -- because perhaps of some of the negative aspects inherent in religious modality itself. I have a friend, a Dutchman, who has pointed out that the religious mind is a sort of "madness". This is obviously why it is not hard to examine religion generally and to quite easily discern that *many of these people are nuts*. Those who step out of religious madness often step out into a sort of atheism or non-commitment, and it has often seemed to me like a sound choice, given what they stepped out of.

Well, "religion" itself is a secular word. No "religious" person is ever content with simply calling himself or herself "religious," with no more said. To classify all different ideologies as "religious" is really just a convenient way of keeping them all in fuzzy focus, usually for the purpose of doing what you friend just did: dismissing them as a block.

There are certainly "mad" religions. But that's far from saying that all, or even most, are "mad." The people who hold to a particular view often believe they have reasons for doing so; and the problem with simply dismissing them all as "mad" is that it discourages us from drilling down on what it is they really believe and why they believe it.

...I would not choose to say that this means that Christian doctrines should be put aside (nor theological ideas).

I would suggest they are the only way one gets deeply into the matter.

(I could pull up some names if you'd like but Basil Willey is one who I admire tremendously).

I haven't encountered him. I'll look him up.

Myself, I accept these differences, and I can work with them.

Likewise. I find your manner reasonable and your questions genuine and inoffensive, even when abrupt. I'm happy to discuss matters with you.

But here is what I think the really important thing is: the sincerity of one's internal and private relationship with God. But these are matters that are not amenable to a public discussion, given the sort of wide gulfs that exist between people these days.

That's our fault.

Talk about faith and God did not always seem shameful and private. The modern world made it that way, relegating one's "religion" to matters that are not polite to discuss. Faith became like underwear -- something everybody might have, but nobody felt comfortable discussing in polite company. But that squeamishness is something we ought to get over as Modernity recedes...at least, one can hope.