Definition of Christian

[Chuck Naill]

I'll share a recent experience. As family member disappointed me and it hurt. I had recently come to a prescription of humility that teaches,
1. Never pretend.
2. Never decide how others should treat you.
3. Never push.

I knew that my feelings were not the kind I wanted to entertain, but I was still having them. I was frustrated. I rose the next morning and asked for a way to never expect others to treat me a particular way. Within my spirit I recalled an incident with King David where he was not allowed to do something he wanted. What he did was to prepare the materials for his son to use. This was comparable with my situation, and it allowed me to rid myself of the hurt feelings completely. Actually, I was surprised how completely those feeling left.


The disciple of Jesus has an opportunity to communicate minute by minute while they are living their lives doing their job, living with others in their community, paddling whitewater, riding a bike, and even while exercising. One way to look at this relationship is the relationship you have with people you love, like your family, your children, and your friends. Communication with God should not be unexpected. As one writer noted, he speaks to those who are not necessarily listening.

This same writer states that we need not consider those people in the scriptures any different from ourselves. They are not super people and are just ordinary. However, hearing God does not make us right or special. As Paul notes, knowledge can lead to thinking we are special, it can puff us up. A disciple will love more automatically as a result of having spent time seeing that doing so is better for them as well as their neighbor.

[Chip]

Old news, perhaps, but when I see present-day examples of "Christian" writing, I can't help but notice that the quality has declined.

C. S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien Argued Over Christian Theology

Austin Cline
June 25, 2019

Many fans are aware that C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were close friends who had a great deal in common. Tolkien helped return Lewis to the Christianity of his youth, whereas Lewis encouraged Tolkien to expand his fictional writing; both taught at Oxford and were members of the same literary group, both were interested in literature, myth, and language, and both wrote fictional books which propagated basic Christian themes and principles.

At the same time, though, they also had serious disagreements--in particular, over the quality of Lewis' Narnia books--especially where the religious elements were concerned.

Although Lewis was very proud of his first Narnia book, The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, and it would spawn a massively successful series of children's books, Tolkien didn't think very highly of it. First, he thought that the Christian themes and messages were far too strong--he didn't approve of the way Lewis seemed to beat the reader over the head with such obvious symbols referring to and Jesus.

There was certainly no missing the fact that Aslan, a lion, was a symbol for Christ who sacrificed his life and was resurrected for a final battle against evil. Tolkien's own books are deeply imbued with Christian themes, but he worked hard to bury them deeply so that they would enhance rather than detract from the stories.

Furthermore, Tolkien thought that there were too many conflicting elements that ultimately clashed, detracting from the whole. There were talking animals, children, witches, and more. Thus, in addition to being pushy, the book was overloaded with elements that threatened to confuse and overwhelm the children for whom it was designed.

In general, it appears that Tolkien didn't think very much about Lewis' efforts to write popular theology. Tolkien seemed to believe that theology should be left to the professionals; popularizations ran the risk of either misrepresenting Christian truths or leaving people with an incomplete picture of those truths which would, in turn, do more to encourage heresy rather than orthodoxy.

https://www.learnreligions.com/c-s-lewis-and-j-r-r-tolkien-christian-theology-249783[/URL]

[Chuck Naill]

In what ways has the quality of Christian writing declined from your reading experiences?

[TSherbs]

As a kid, I didn't like Narnia either. I didn't see the Christian stuff (I was 10). I just thought it was corny.

[Chuck Naill]

I mentioned the C.S. Lewis book Mere Christianity before. During a previous re-read I noticed his concepts were similar to some of Dallas Willard's reasonings. Lewis is fresh and inventive, never legalistic.

Over the past 30 years I have read several books on Christian thought and mostly authors who have passed. For me, Dallas Willard has become the most influential. I would also include A.W. Tozer and Lewis.

I've gathered the resources to conduct my own word studies and try not to use commentaries. I find that commentaries can lead down the wrong path if one is not grounded in the scriptures. Error that is not just wrong, but that promotes a system of Christian thought can minimalize God's intent. What I appreciate about Willard is that he never pushes his interpretations upon the reader or listener. He says repeatedly that God made humanity with a unique ability to make decisions about what they want to believe, and he does not want to do anything that disrespects what God has created. Lewis does the same in Mere Christianity.

What Willard did for me in 2013 was to redefine how I thought of discipleship. Jesus famously told his followers to make disciples. When I was a new believer, my discipleship was based on learning how to objectively approach the scriptures. What I appreciated from those teachers is that they never said I had to believe something just because they said it. Willard provided me with what I think Jesus had in mind, to become an apprentice of Jesus just as a plumbing apprentice becomes like the master plumber they are working beside. Not only is this practical, it allows the apprentice to be themselves and use their individual skills to do a task.

The fiction writers would include Frank Peretti.

[Chip]

In what ways has the quality of Christian writing declined from your reading experiences?

Given the fantasy orientation of both Tolkien and Lewis, probably the most popular example of contemporary "Christian" writing would be the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyers (a Mormon.) She treats sexual and racial themes in a way that seems to resonate with present consumers of genre stuff.

I find her work gag-inducing.

[Chuck Naill]

I have no idea about the quality of “Christian Fiction” , but since Dr Willard died in 2013, that’s recent enough to say theology literature is as good as ever.

[Chuck Naill]

This is a good example of Lewis' writing style in Mere Christianity. It shows his own, probable, thoughts into how he came to believe what he did.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

This is consistent with Willard's interpretations.
"…Saying Jesus is Lord can mean little in practice for anyone who has to hesitate in saying Jesus is smart…he is not just nice, he is brilliant, he is the smartest man who has ever lived. He is now supervising the entire course of human history while simultaneously preparing the rest of the universe for our future role in it. He always has the best information on everything and certainly on the things that matter most in the human life.”

Neither writer, notice, pushes themselves upon the reader. This is the sort of person with whom I can consider reading. They do this out of respect for human's reasoning individually.

Now, is what they said true? Can we prove it wrong? Are there other options for us to consider? All too often I hear and read atheists flat out deciding it is not true without actually doing with Lewis did and making an effort to study for themselves over a reasonable time period.

And, I do not think either man decided on Jesus as the best option among other available choices as if they were deciding between a Subaru or Toyota.

[Chip]

Lewis seems rather hysterical. I feel no obligation to choose whether Jesus was a poached egg or a devil from hell. Or any bloody thing whatsoever.

This sort of teapot-scale tempest means nothing to me, nor has any bearing on what I believe.

What it demonstrates is the unfortunate tendency of Christian believers to force their context on others.

[Chuck Naill]

Why are posting here, Chip? Don't we already know your position on such spiritual matters?

[Chip]

Why are posting here, Chip? Don't we already know your position on such spiritual matters?

I don't have a clue what you know, sport.

I've likewise noted your positions on the subject, stated ad infinitum. So– why are you posting here?

[Chuck Naill]

Why are posting here, Chip? Don't we already know your position on such spiritual matters?

I don't have a clue what you know, sport.

I've likewise noted your positions on the subject, stated ad infinitum. So– why are you posting here?

I have skin in the game. My name isn’t sport. I’m posting because I am a disciple of Jesus which is related to the topic.

Why are you posting?

[Kgbenson]

My experience is that the instant someone does something in the name of Christianity that others find distasteful or worse, the first thing we hear is - they are not a real Christian.

[TSherbs]

....Now, is what they said true? Can we prove it wrong? Are there other options for us to consider?

If you are interested in a non-believer's replies to these questions, I can provide some.

[TSherbs]

Why are posting here, Chip? Don't we already know your position on such spiritual matters?

I don't have a clue what you know, sport.

I've likewise noted your positions on the subject, stated ad infinitum. So– why are you posting here?

I have skin in the game.

We all have "skin in the game," Chuck. Not just Christians. There are billions of others on the planet, even athiests, who care a whole lot about these questions and think long and hard about them. Your suggestion that only Christian believers (or Christian writers) have thought about these questions is to ignore all the thought on these questions that came before the time of Jesus and in parts of the world that follow other Gods and other philosophical thinking.

If you respect the thinking of logic and all persons equally, then I think that you would give more acknowledgement of their work. You suggest that you aren't proselytizing, but I think that you are. To tell someone that you can't understand why they would post a response to a believer's claim simply because they are not believers themselves is rather restrictive, no? Why can't a non-believer have an opinion on something about what you post about Jesus or Christian belief? As each of us posting here has said, we have had personal experience with Christian life and teachings. Besides, we swim in a culture saturated with Christian sayings, teachings, values, and history. We are all touched by it, and we all have "skin in the game." Christianity is not some obsure practice in the dark corner of the internet that no one has heard of.

[TSherbs]

My experience is that the instant someone does something in the name of Christianity that others find distasteful or worse, the first thing we hear is - they are not a real Christian.

I think that this has been stated on this thread (although it may have been elsewhere) about Vladimir Putin (who is a professed Christian).

[Chip]

Your brother in Christ.

[Chuck Naill]

Why are posting here, Chip? Don't we already know your position on such spiritual matters?

I don't have a clue what you know, sport.

I've likewise noted your positions on the subject, stated ad infinitum. So– why are you posting here?

I have skin in the game.

We all have "skin in the game," Chuck. Not just Christians. There are billions of others on the planet, even athiests, who care a whole lot about these questions and think long and hard about them. Your suggestion that only Christian believers (or Christian writers) have thought about these questions is to ignore all the thought on these questions that came before the time of Jesus and in parts of the world that follow other Gods and other philosophical thinking.

If you respect the thinking of logic and all persons equally, then I think that you would give more acknowledgement of their work. You suggest that you aren't proselytizing, but I think that you are. To tell someone that you can't understand why they would post a response to a believer's claim simply because they are not believers themselves is rather restrictive, no? Why can't a non-believer have an opinion on something about what you post about Jesus or Christian belief? As each of us posting here has said, we have had personal experience with Christian life and teachings. Besides, we swim in a culture saturated with Christian sayings, teachings, values, and history. We are all touched by it, and we all have "skin in the game." Christianity is not some obsure practice in the dark corner of the internet that no one has heard of.

I have skin in the topic of this thread, Ted. When you started a thread about your atheist views, I tried but was all but prohibited from discussing why you felt your faith improved humanity. When you and Chip take swipes at Christianity within several threads, you think that's fine, but now you complain when I simply ask someone who is not interested why they are posting on a thread specifically about what it means to be a Christian.

What I am most interested in is making sure others might consider taking a fresh look at Jesus Christ. What he said and the people he addressed most and followed him were spiritual zeros, misfits, sick, and poor, people just like me.

I am not interested in get getting someone saved, baptized, or joining a church. Since there are those Christian sayings everywhere, what was actually said gets unsaid. Would it surprise you to know the message from Jesus was "change your mind because the kingdom of the heavens is right in front of your face"? When did you ever here a preacher say make such a pronouncement?

Jesus told his followers to make disciples not to make Christians. Maybe you had a mentor as a teacher. You watched them and studied them to some degree. I have had mentors and apprenticed myself to them in order to learn by watching and listening. So, if anyone here is the least bit interested in being an apprentice of Jesus, I would hope to make a few suggestions for them to consider.

What doesn't help the seeker is for someone who had a poor or no experience with something unrelate constantly mudding the water. This includes the comments you make. However, if you want to engage so that I might humbly offer some possible things to consider, I am most available.

[TSherbs]

This sounds like a topic for a new thread. You might cut and paste this post of yours as the opening statement. And give it a title that sums up what you want the discussion to be. You might even state openly, "please don't disagree. Christian believers only, seeking new outlooks on faith." Or something like that.

[dneal]

Chuck - You might pause for a moment and consider TSherbs' position(s).

He couldn't follow, and still misses the point of the OP; which was simply a question on trinity doctrine and Jesus' divinity and Christian history (and dogma). Apparently he fixated on "Christian" and thinks anything "Christian" belongs here (except your posts, which need a new thread).

He proposes "Atheism" as a comprehensive philosophy or world-view, when it is merely an assertion that God does not exist. There is no new ethic that is derived, although he pretends there is - and it happens to be full of opinions that align perfectly with his own (when he asserts those).

Atheism is the least logically tenable position, since it forces the proponent into proving a negative; but TSherbs wants to lecture on logic with ponderous and nonsensical sentences like this:

If you respect the thinking of logic and all persons equally, then I think that you would give more acknowledgement of their work.

Note that this none of this is new. See Jar's posts HERE, HERE and HERE as clear examples.

So now TSherbs wants you to move your comments to yet a different thread, and let everyone know that you want to keep the subject to... well, the actual topic (as if he does that in any thread).

And TSherbs can't figure out why there's a lack of conversation here.