Is “Christian agnostic” a valid term?

[TotalVictory]

Heard a friend of a friend make the observation that, more and more, they consider themselves a “Christian agnostic”. This from their previous consideration of themselves as “Christian”.

What? Is this category valid?

Some nuance: I’m very new here, and already I am stunned by how often I hear things like this…
As for the idea of X, I am agnostic…
or
as to the notion of X, I am undecided..,
or
as for how the idea of X fits here, I am just not sure…

Next, it can, maybe must be said that to be a Christian is not a denial, not a declaration of what one does NOT know, but what one does know. Jesus is Lord and redeemer and creator and saviour and so on. If you don’t know, at least, that, then it’s somewhat improper to place oneself under that banner… Christians then, in some ways, deny agnosticism.

Last, in a discussion with another friend (ok ok -- it is true; anyone with whom I have a conversation I consider to be a friend!) he confesses to standing amazed at the fathomless love and grace of God. And he says; it is likely that God is so much more than what I’ve held Him to be that in reality I’m probably be, perhaps 99.44% wrong in my beliefs.
So my point then is; can’t we say he is “agnostic” in some measure when it comes to God? (Just as we are?)

(And yes, I realize that we can define things in such ways that anything is possible, but that’s not where I’m headed here.)

So what do you think; thumbs up or down on the category of "Christian agnostic"?

Full disclosure here as to my own bias on this; I'd much prefer to hang the title of Christian (I see that as a compliment) upon an honest seeker and fair thinker such as our own Jeff A than to see it don the sort of bigot whose use of the name Christ is promiscuous and disrespectful. That is; Give me a sober and serious agnostic who is drawn to the Christ yet is leery of Christ's followers any day over one whose profligate use of Christ renders Him only as a prop for his own narcissism. (or maybe this question is too obvious to ask)

TotalVictory
Bobx3

TotalVictory
Bobx3

[JeffA]

Bobx3

Another good topic (I am still looking at material relating to the question of the recency of writing post).

As usual my initial reaction is to have lots of bits of things that I think about a subject which seem to refuse to coalesce into anything coherent - but in the meantime here are a few snippets from The Church Times
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=12074 about this very topic.

Is the description “A Christian agnostic” helpful?
“Agnostic” means “without knowledge”, and to an extent every Christian exists in this state this side of eternity. But militant agnosticism insists that knowledge of God, the supernatural, and life after death cannot be obtained, and therefore it attacks as superstition or credulity the beliefs of those who make any claim to know of them.

A position that would typically be described as “Christian agnostic” is that of a person who is committed to following the ethical teaching and example of Jesus as the greatest teacher of love, while rejecting the Gospel accounts of his miracles as added by gullible followers, and his teaching on God and the afterlife as being subject to the influence of contemporary beliefs. Indeed, Jesus admitted that there were things about which he, too, was “without knowledge” (Mark 13.32).

While I do not completely share this viewpoint, I, for one, would not be prepared to deny such agnostics the right to label themselves “Christian”.
Christopher Haffner (Reader)
East Molesey, Surrey

An agnostic says you cannot know God in the certain way you can know material things, but such a person could, none the less, choose to follow the life and teaching of Jesus. He could quote St Paul that we now see in a mirror dimly (I Corinthians 13.12), and walk by faith not sight (2 Corinthians 5.7).

Though you cannot give a scientific proof of God, some Christians assert that their personal experience assures them of his reality. Nevertheless, we need the humility that admits there is much we do not know about God and his will, and we may be mistaken.

At the same time, being a Christian means committed response rather than sitting on the fence.

The combination of limited knowledge with confident behaviour is illustrated in 1 John 3.2-3: “We are God’s children now, it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope purifies himself.”
(Canon) John Goodchild
Norwich

[JasonPratt]

From a sociological perspective, I think "Christian", as an adjective describing the flavor (so to speak) of an agnosticism, would have to mean that the person would like for some substantial amount of the religious propositions of "Christianity" (in this or that form!) to be true--substantially enough that the person couldn't be feasibly considered a Wiccan agnostic or an atheistic agnostic or a Hindu agnostic or whatever--but cannot yet bring themeselves to "believe" thhose propositions to be true (in whatever sense they understand it means to "believe" something in assent to the propositions.)

While historically the kind of person described in Jeff's second quoted paragraph might be called a "Christian agnostic", I think it would be more accurate to call them at least a naturalistic Christian, and probably something more detailed than that even. "Naturalistic" insofar as they deny the existence of the supernatural. (Or maybe deistic or dualistic if they only deny the operation of the supernatural, not the existence.) Maybe "naturalistic Christian atheist" if they're also denying (which I can't quite tell from the description) the existence of God per se.

The point is that this person is not at all agnostic: they are quite sure that the supernaturalistic parts of the story and belief-set are false, and that the explanation for the data falls somehow within a prescribed worldview system of some sort.

However, by the same terms of the description, they are also following Jesus as their leader in some real sense. If they accept "Christ" to be his name, that would make them "Christians". If they don't accept that Christ was anointed by someone to be something, then it would probably be more accurate not to call them "Christians", but still they're following Jesus in some real way. The "Christian agnostic" I described earlier hasn't gotten yet to the point of choosing to follow Jesus in any real way; otherwise she would be better described as an "agnostic Christian", broadly speaking. Her distinction as an "agnostic" would still apply as not having a belief yet one way or another on whether a broad range of doctrinal topics (including those taught by Jesus) are true. Maybe also not having much belief yet on what doctrinal topics Jesus was even teaching! But if she is choosing to follow Jesus as at least a teacher, then by that point she ought to have at least a little idea though significantly so what she believes Jesus to be teaching; and (in choosing to follow Him, or him, as teacher) be in some substantial agreement with that. Either of which would seem to need a crucial shift in a description of her.


The rebel on the cross might not have had any knowledge or opinion or belief on doctrines about Jesus; but he did believe that he and the other rebel were being punished for their crimes and that Jesus was innocent. And whether he believed Jesus could actually do it or not, he must have at least thought it would be kind to Jesus to agree with Jesus about Jesus being a king who would be inheriting a kingdom (despite the hopeless appearance of things).

Would he be a Christian agnostic, or an agnostic Christian? I don't know. (Insert irony as applicable. ) But Jesus promised that that very day, the penitent rebel would be with Him in paradise.

I'm inclined to go with Jesus on that one.

[rainzbow]

Well, what's faith? Is faith, is reciting Christian creeds just re-hashing over and over head knowledge of a particular doctrine. Or is faith uncertain, but reliant. Someone who would label themselves a Christian Agnostic may say that while they feel that they cannot know for sure that the various Christian doctrines are true, they trust in them and will base their life on such doctrines. I for one often feel that even when my faith is strained by incredulity, I am strengthened by letting it go and simply trusting that Christ loves me anyway.

Mark 9:24B
'Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!'

[JeffA]

Is it in Hebrews where it says that faith is the hope of things unseen?

[Melchizedek]

There is one thing I'm certain of, and that is that faith is not mental assent to a set of ideas...

Christians can certainly be agnostic about some things, but I'm not sure that they could be agnostic about other things and still be Christians. Precisely defining those parameters, however, is the tricky bit.

[zaida]

I cant speak for anyone else, but for myself, I kind of understand the whole "christian agnostic" idea. I am very VERY pulled to Christ - the story of Christ is the most inspiring I know, and the more I read about Him, the more I love him.

But I have many many moments when Im just not sure - is it the greatest story ever told, but just that a story? Was Christ an amazing man, but only a man? Was He really the son of God, or a part of the trinity? I dont "know". There are moments when I "believe" and many other momnets when Im just in a wide state of confusuion. There was a time when it really bothered me, I was in "angst" over it - but Ive come to accept my stare of un-knowingness.

Sometimes I call myself a Christian - some of my very wonderful Christian friends, however, think because Im a universalist (If there is a God, I believe we ALL end up with him in the end) think I am not a "true" Christian. Whether Im a christian universalist is even in question, given I love Christ and go to Christian church, but I dont discount the possible truth of other religions, or feel the need for evereone to follow Christ, to eventually come to God. So, what am I? I dont know! Maybe a Christian agnostic?

Tamara Zaida

[JeffA]

You are honest and that's all anyone can ask of you. Welcome by the way.

[Aaron37]

Zaida.

you said: but I dont discount the possible truth of other religions, or feel the need for evereone to follow Christ, to eventually come to God. So, what am I? I dont know! Maybe a Christian agnostic?

Aaron37:I believe you are confused and need to put your faith in Jesus alone for your salvation. Jesus said he was the Way, The Truth and the Life.. Nobody comes to the Father but by Jesus. (John 14:6) In other words, Zaida, everyone must go through Jesus by faith to come to God, no exceptions.

[TotalVictory]

I kind of understand the whole "christian agnostic" idea. I am very VERY pulled to Christ - the story of Christ is the most inspiring I know, and the more I read about Him, the more I love him.

Tamara Zaida

Hi Zaida:

I want to affirm you and the post you've written; and affirm you strongly. I really do get what you are saying in your post of March 18. (My 31st anniversary by the way!!! )

Between you and I, I found A37's comment rude, insensitive, arrogant, and... irrelevant. If you are prone to ignore it, do so.

When you say you are drawn to Christ... Did He not say He would draw ALL to Himself?
So, when He does draw, will He not speak to the one drawn in terms and language that THEY comprehend? That seems not only practical, but axiomatic. God talks to us in language WE understand. Emanuel; God WITH us. It is in His nature to reach out -- across the abyss -- to touch us and give us a glimpse of Himself. And thereby draw us.

In this process of course there are stages. And, as one might expect, some of the early stages may in fact appear somewhat "immature" to a longtime person of faith. What I so love about UR is that if affirms for us that God is ALWAYS working and He's doing so everywhere and with everyone. Given the vastly disparate backgrounds and world-views of all this vast throng, one should not be surprised at all that perceptions of God would vary. But the vision is only partial and we know that as time marches on our view of God becomes ever clearer. For me it is HUGE comfort to know that God is out there working overtime, 24/7, to reunite His created family.

Sadly, too few Christians allow the space for others to grow into their personal understanding of God as HE directs and instead insist on fairly immediate acceptance of the rote and fomulaic dogma that makes sense to THEM...

Jesus said, My sheep KNOW my voice. I think maybe that's what you are expressing huh?

TotalVictory
Bobx3

Oh a PS: Do not fear when you detect what you discern to be truth in other religions or faiths. Since ALL truth is God's, might that mean you are witness to the footprints of God?

[Aaron37]

Total victory.

you said: Oh a PS: Do not fear when you detect what you discern to be truth in other religions or faiths. Since ALL truth is God's, might that mean you are witness to the footprints of God?

Aaron37 : What possible truth can there be in other religions that lead to eternal life? Answer: None! Footprints of God? Look no further but to the Word of God ( the bible) for the footprints of God. The Word of God does not say discern what little truth there is in other false religions to find the truth of salvation through Jesus Christ. Again, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.. nobody comes to the Father through the truth of other religions, but by Jesus alone!

[zaida]

To Bob, Jeff and others - Thanks for your supportive comments. The more I read, go to church, and try to understand God, the more I realize it is all so big - so beyond total human understanding - that I cant possibly discount other people's experiences of God, their way of seeing and hearing God, etc. I do think God speaks to people in ways they can understand, and through various means, and I agree, that he is at work 24/7 with ALL of his children!

I suppose I would never say I "know" the "Truth" with a capital T. I "believe" Jesus walked this earth, and taught us a whole new way to love God, to worship, and to treat each other, and very often I "believe" He is the son of God, and part of the trinity. Thinking about Jesus, talking about Him, trying to live like Him (as much as I fail), and worshipping Him has become very important to me. But I also believe that God chooses to speak to people and move them in infinite ways, in His own time, and I cant pretent to "know" His plans .

I went through a great struggle the past 5 years about my faith - and Ive finally come to understand that its okay to "believe" without "knowing" and its certainly uplifting to believe that every one of us will be with God in the end - and allow God to work out how that is going to happen.

Tamara Zaida

[JeffA]

I think that's a very mature attitude.

[Aaron37]

Zaida.

God has a plan and purpose for everyone's life and it starts with believing and receiving Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. Zaida, God has a specific calling on your life for you to fulfill and its up to you to seek Him to find out what it is.( 1Cor 12:27-28.)( praying in tongues, fasting, meditating the word of God, etc). We are all growing in grace from glory to glory..growing in spiritual maturity is a process.

Btw, All who put their trust in Jesus' finished work on the cross will spend eternity with Him. Those who do not receive Jesus' gift of salvation will willingly spend eternity separated from the God they separated themselves from on earth.

[TotalVictory]

I went through a great struggle the past 5 years about my faith - and Ive finally come to understand that its okay to "believe" without "knowing" and its certainly uplifting to believe that every one of us will be with God in the end - and allow God to work out how that is going to happen.
Tamara Zaida

Your honesty and humility are refreshing. Thanks!

Early on in my journey ('95, '96ish) I read a book called "The Myth of Certainty" by Daniel Taylor. I think you'd enjoy it and find much to agree with there.

TotalVictory
Bobx3

[Aaron37]

Zaida.

I recommend you meditating the Word of God.. There is a book called " The Walk of the Spirit- The Walk of Power by Dave Roberson..it will change your spiritual walk with the Lord. God bless.

[Rastamom]

It's logically valid, and I'd say I fit into the category at this point, but I may be mistaken.

I think of Christianity as the belief in Christ and God. Not necessarily as mentioned biblically, but the same general concept. Agnosticism is just not being 100% sure. I tend to learn on the "Probably something more" side of Agnosticism at this point, as in, I believe in something, I just don't know what, how to define it, or if it can be defined. I do feel some of the parables in the Bible and points of Christianity make sense and are what I truely believe, though. I think that would make me a Christian Agnostic.

[stellar renegade]

It's logically valid, and I'd say I fit into the category at this point, but I may be mistaken.

I think of Christianity as the belief in Christ and God. Not necessarily as mentioned biblically, but the same general concept. Agnosticism is just not being 100% sure. I tend to learn on the "Probably something more" side of Agnosticism at this point, as in, I believe in something, I just don't know what, how to define it, or if it can be defined. I do feel some of the parables in the Bible and points of Christianity make sense and are what I truely believe, though. I think that would make me a Christian Agnostic.

I'd agree with this. There seem to be infinite variations of belief in the world. I think that this category actually fits quite alot of people, even those who have been Christians for years, to an extent. All honest seekers have doubts. That's an indication that you have a desire to know the truth and aren't just playing with concepts like they're toys.

Also, I forgot to mention (even if you wouldn't ordinarily see his posts now) that Aaron37 is pretty judgmental, but he's been banned from these forums awhile back, so no need to worry about his presence. He consistently opposed universal reconciliation, too, and eventually became so insulting that we had to keep him away.

[Bob Wilson]

Hi Tamara!

FWIW, I'd call you "cool." I'm sure serious believers vary in their measure of certitude and questioning. But you sound to me like a hopeful Christian believer with an overlay of agnostic feelings like that to which most of the saints have testified. I sure relate to that. And our wonderful master appears to me to be one who clearly did not put a lot of stock in labels anyway.

[AllanS]

"God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see."

If God dwells in unapproachable light and cannot be seen, we must be agnostic. A finite creature can never be absolutely certain about an infinite creator.

"...as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” From first to last.

[stellar renegade]

"God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see."

If God dwells in unapproachable light and cannot be seen, we must be agnostic. A finite creature can never be absolutely certain about an infinite creator.

"...as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” From first to last.

There IS a certainty that comes with that. Once you have a glimpse of the Father (which only comes late in your spiritual walk) you'll never be able to doubt again.

But through many trials and tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God...

[AllanS]

Once you have a glimpse of the Father (which only comes late in your spiritual walk) you'll never be able to doubt again.

You might be hallucinating. Or it might be the devil in disguise. How will you know you are glimpsing the true Father and not a very clever counterfeit? What test will you apply that will be powerful enough to distinguish True God from Fake God? What if True God doesn't look or feel or sound as we imagine he should?

It's happened before...

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?..."

[nimblewill]

I am a Christian in the sense that I believe that the only hope for the World is what Jesus did while on this planet. I am an agnostic about a lot of things. For instance I don't know exactly what He did on the cross. There are many theories that I could buy into but in the end I simply do not know.

[Rastamom]

I don't think any of this has a finite answer. I mean, look at the Bible and various translations. In that alone you can't be dead sure which one is the right one, and even one or two poorly translated words can shatter the foundation of your belief. As Christian Agnostics we accept that Christ was here and all that jazz, but Christ isn't synonymous for God. While some believe in the trinity and that they are "equal" they are not the same: Jesus did not create this, but God did. At least some believe that. I'm not entirely sure if I believe God created all, either, but someday I may be.

Ultimately, I don't believe it's even possible to see God before death, at least physically. We can see him or her in what we do and experience, but not physically with out vision.

I feel like Christian Agnosticism is just a different flavor of Christian, just as any other "sect" of the category. And there are different types of Christian agnostic, too, so it's not something that can clearly be defined. Every relationship is different and what "religion" is, at least, should be, is a relationship with God. Some relationships require more work and what not. Others are very lax. It doesn't mean non-agnostic Christians are less or more Christian than an Agnostic one, it just means it's different.

[stellar renegade]

Once you have a glimpse of the Father (which only comes late in your spiritual walk) you'll never be able to doubt again.

You might be hallucinating. Or it might be the devil in disguise. How will you know you are glimpsing the true Father and not a very clever counterfeit? What test will you apply that will be powerful enough to distinguish True God from Fake God? What if True God doesn't look or feel or sound as we imagine he should?

The True God isn't a look or feel or sound. It's an internal knowing, an experience in a heart that has become one with its Maker. You can only come to that through spiritual progression. When I first saw the Father, it was a gradual realization, as I was looking at the sunset and felt this all-encompassing love coming from everywhere, wrapping itself around me and flowing through me. That love didn't seem like a definite, distinct personality at first. Only as I began to focus on it did I realize.

It's happened before...

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?..."

Exactly. This is such a beautiful picture of how we come to know the Father. The whole time we're looking for God, the Word (through all of creation) is crying out, "But this IS God! I'm showing God to you right now!" And this same Word said the same exact thing in human form when it came to live amongst us.

The only way to bring people along is to allow them to feed off of the experience you've had, the power of Spirit that you've been given in your own life. I can't point to anything definite or absolute that IS the Father, because it all expresses Him, but Jesus Christ His Son expresses Him most clearly (not divorced from the context He was found in, of course...) but that's because the Father is no object but is completely transcendent, even while finite subjects and objects express His invisible nature.

And of course there's the clever paradox from Jesus' own words,

And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
John 5:37-38

No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
John 6:46

At first he says that the Jews should've seen his Father, and then he acts as if no one can except for himself. What gives?

Well, apparently there's a way that the Son can see the Father in which no one else can. Yet there's another way to see and know the Father, through the Son, which awakens an inner knowing.

Without that absolute knowing and believing, one could never feel fully loved by the Father... because one would never have the absolute security and comfort of the Father inside of them and as a part of them. They would still, to some degree, feel immensely alone.

[thelastvanguard]

I can totally relate to you on many points about "Christian agnosticism." I grew up in a pretty conservative household with quite dogmatic beliefs about "being Christian." When I went to a Christian university, a lot of my theology was blown out of the water. I started questioning what are the fundamental beliefs of Christianity and I've been thinking about what it means to be Christian, given how people followed Christ in the synoptic gospels (ie: Matt, Mark, Luke).

I am more drawn to Christ's teachings, and Christ's status as the Messiah (and Son of God...which means something very than what we think about today), then I am to so many doctrinal ideas attached to "Christianity." I do somewhat believe in the trinity (though I still don't understand it) and the idea that Jesus is both man and God, but I really don't see so much emphasis on the divinity of Jesus, but the point that he is God revealed to man.

I do think that people from other religions can be saved and there are truths in other religions that Christians today could learn from.

My point is that I call myself Christian, but I wouldn't associate myself to thinking that the Divinity of Christ or the trinity, as dogmas that one necessarily has to include in order to be called "Christian." I believe that it is sufficient to just say "Jesus is Lord" and to Love God and Love your neighbor, is the point of being Christian. Part of this is I think there has been so much dissension and wars between Christians in early Christianity, arguing back and forth that I think we've missed the point of what Jesus came for and what he taught about.

[Kelly S]

I am struggling with the use of the word Christian. I see these "word labels" being used to try to describe what we believe, what we understand about God, or ourselves. I am thinking perhaps we should reconsider our usage of these word labels. Perhaps we should use them to say WHO we are not, what our changing ideas are. For instance, maybe the word Christian should not so much define our belief that Jesus died for our sins, etc., but, perhaps reflect the idea that, we are, and are wanting to be like Him. That fits everyone who is desiring to be, in any way, like Him. I'm not a big fan of labels at all. May be overly simplistic of me but, maybe we should say (in a sense) I am. I am who I am. My aim is to be like the great I AM. Or, if we must use labels, we could all call ourselves "fellow travelers", or something like that.

[Michael Thompson]

I think it depends on the kind of agnostic. If it is the kind that dogmatically says that no one can know God or Christ, then I would say no, but if it is one who is seeking to know , but just cannot seem to get fully convinced, well thats me! I consider myself a Christian, but if I am honest I have to admit I am not sure it is true.

MT

[Melchizedek]

I am struggling with the use of the word Christian. I see these "word labels" being used to try to describe what we believe, what we understand about God, or ourselves. I am thinking perhaps we should reconsider our usage of these word labels. Perhaps we should use them to say WHO we are not, what our changing ideas are. For instance, maybe the word Christian should not so much define our belief that Jesus died for our sins, etc., but, perhaps reflect the idea that, we are, and are wanting to be like Him. That fits everyone who is desiring to be, in any way, like Him. I'm not a big fan of labels at all. May be overly simplistic of me but, maybe we should say (in a sense) I am. I am who I am. My aim is to be like the great I AM. Or, if we must use labels, we could all call ourselves "fellow travelers", or something like that.

I think we were originally "followers of the Way". Christian was a term that was coined a bit later in the scriptural record, and judging by the number of things now labeled "Christian" it is no longer helpful in defining what one is or believes, as this term covers a very wide range of things, including (according to Eddie Izzard) "followers of Chris".
Jesus wasn't even a Christian, unless we believe the absurdity that he was a follower of himself...
BTW, "christ" just means "anointed", a word left untranslated that should have been translated. There are too many people that think Christ is Jesus' last name...

[firstborn888]

Once you have a glimpse of the Father (which only comes late in your spiritual walk) you'll never be able to doubt again.

You might be hallucinating. Or it might be the devil in disguise. How will you know you are glimpsing the true Father and not a very clever counterfeit? What test will you apply that will be powerful enough to distinguish True God from Fake God? What if True God doesn't look or feel or sound as we imagine he should?

It's happened before...

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?..."

I see there are still great/honest conversations going on around here!

I also think we sometimes misdiagnose our experiences.

I think a part of us wants absolutes, but another part of us knows that the intangible things we believe in are only as absolute as our perceptions of them allow them to be. So what we "know" constantly shifts.

One evidence of the strong desire for absolutes is the widespread belief in "infallible" books - yet (generally) even those who believe a book is infallible believe that a special perceptual gift must be given to understand what is written. At that point the book becomes only as infallible as the reader. right?

[pilgrim]

One evidence of the strong desire for absolutes is the widespread belief in "infallible" books - yet (generally) even those who believe a book is infallible believe that a special perceptual gift must be given to understand what is written. At that point the book becomes only as infallible as the reader. right?

Well said firstborn!!

[Melchizedek]

Evidently, Christian atheist is a valid term, as well as Christian anarchist. Interesting new post at: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/

[Cindy Skillman]

I can identify with Stellar Renegade. I am no agnostic, but this was God's doing, not mine. Jesus' sweet peace came on me one day; I was lying on my bed, not sleeping, just having a rest. It was tangible, like warm, spiritual honey. So kind, so pure, like a thick cloud of love. I could hardly bear it. I don't know how long it lasted, but it has become the thing my thoughts turn to when I'm not otherwise occupied. I have no doubt about my Lord. About doctrines, etc., I am often uncertain, but never more about Him. He is the absolute love of my soul and I am smitten.

We are all of us on a journey into the Son, and we will travel different paths. I'm not talking about different religions -- all religions are only detours, including Christianity. I've always said that it's all about relationship, but I never really understood this saying in any intimate way until the last five years or so (and I've been a "Christian" all my life, and I'm 52, which seems ancient to me!)

Why did He make me wait so long? I don't know. It doesn't matter. I'm with Him now. He is my guide on this journey, which I figuratively see as a wooded trail through the mountains, sometimes glorious and other times grueling, but always with Him. Perhaps sometimes I may not see or sense Him, but He's only gone scouting ahead, and will return to me at just the right moment.

As for those who've posted saying they're not sure, that doesn't matter either. They're on their journeys wherever they are, and Jesus knows and is leading them, too, whether they can sense Him yet or not. My journey will go one way and someone else's may twist around the other side of the mountain, but they will all end and find their ultimate consummation at the throne of the Anointed One.

I will say that I have given some study to a few non-Christian religions, reading their sacred materials, and while there is of course some truth in the writings of all humans, it is foolishness to say that the sacred writings (the ones I've read, anyway) are speaking of the same YHWH we read of in the Bible. It sounds good to say it, but if we take the time to check it out for ourselves, and if we know the Jewish/Christian scriptures, it is obvious that these writings are not talking about the same Person. Nevertheless, this is a part of those folks' journeys, and Jesus will eventually lead them through the wilderness into His presence.

Knowing this is such a great relief to me. I find great joy in knowing that every person I meet or will meet will ultimately stand before Him and rejoice!!! And having all the ages without end to do it, I intend to get to know and love every single one of them. What a beautiful, wonderful, magnificent, all-encompassing Savior we have in Jesus!

[firstborn888]

Evidently, Christian atheist is a valid term, as well as Christian anarchist. Interesting new post at: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/about.php
As far as anarchists - anarchy is a broad concept. Literally meaning "no ruler" it can be applied to Christianity because leaders are to be servants - NOT rulers. Jesus taught that the way of peace is not through ruling hierarchies but through servants leading by example and followers following voluntarily through a change of heart. From there though we see a steady digression (in Christianity) back to bosses and domination, beginning with Paul and worsening until the papacy claimed absolute rule.

Today we have pastor bosses who run their little kingdoms as they see fit, and all the while claiming that they are called by God to do it as they are. Even as they are all doing it differently. (Now THAT'S anarchy!)

So an ultimate society is envisioned where no laws are needed and no government is needed. Make's sense to me.

[WE ARE ALL BROTHERS]

Evidently, Christian atheist is a valid term, as well as Christian anarchist. Interesting new post at: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/about.php
As far as anarchists - anarchy is a broad concept. Literally meaning "no ruler" it can be applied to Christianity because leaders are to be servants - NOT rulers. Jesus taught that the way of peace is not through ruling hierarchies but through servants leading by example and followers following voluntarily through a change of heart. From there though we see a steady digression (in Christianity) back to bosses and domination, beginning with Paul and worsening until the papacy claimed absolute rule.

Today we have pastor bosses who run their little kingdoms as they see fit, and all the while claiming that they are called by God to do it as they are. Even as they are all doing it differently. (Now THAT'S anarchy!)

So an ultimate society is envisioned where no laws are needed and no government is needed. Make's sense to me.

I would identify as an anarchist myself. Firstborn, you said that bosses and domination began with Paul. I understand this is a popular position amongst some of the "Jesusist" anarchists who disliked his complicated theologizing (Tolstoy and Hennancy). But I know of no Biblical reason to suspect that Paul ever promoted rulers. Paul taught universal subordination through and through and was finally executed, in opposition to Empire, by Nero (ca. AD 69). Domination infected the Church outside of Paul's influence.

[firstborn888]

Evidently, Christian atheist is a valid term, as well as Christian anarchist. Interesting new post at: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/about.php
As far as anarchists - anarchy is a broad concept. Literally meaning "no ruler" it can be applied to Christianity because leaders are to be servants - NOT rulers. Jesus taught that the way of peace is not through ruling hierarchies but through servants leading by example and followers following voluntarily through a change of heart. From there though we see a steady digression (in Christianity) back to bosses and domination, beginning with Paul and worsening until the papacy claimed absolute rule.

Today we have pastor bosses who run their little kingdoms as they see fit, and all the while claiming that they are called by God to do it as they are. Even as they are all doing it differently. (Now THAT'S anarchy!)

So an ultimate society is envisioned where no laws are needed and no government is needed. Make's sense to me.

I would identify as an anarchist myself. Firstborn, you said that bosses and domination began with Paul. I understand this is a popular position amongst some of the "Jesusist" anarchists who disliked his complicated theologizing (Tolstoy and Hennancy). But I know of no Biblical reason to suspect that Paul ever promoted rulers. Paul taught universal subordination through and through and was finally executed, in opposition to Empire, by Nero (ca. AD 69). Domination infected the Church outside of Paul's influence.

I love Paul. He has AWESOME insight into the plan of the ages and the fruits of the Spirit. But keep in mind that he hardly ever quoted Jesus and never really knew the man. He had his revelation but his ego is also obvious.
Jesus spoke of no book to come and no special future apostle who would write the bulk of the NT. Food for thought. Paul laid out a way for church "ruler-ship" to be set up, and methinks that Jesus would not approve. So basically I'm saying - don't read Paul's letters (or any other letters) as infallible truth.
All that said, Paul seemed to grasp the bulk of what AGAPE is about, which accounts for why modern Christians are (by and large) very loving people (as demonstrated in these pages).

[revdrew61]

I love Paul. He has AWESOME insight into the plan of the ages and the fruits of the Spirit. But keep in mind that he hardly ever quoted Jesus and never really knew the man. He had his revelation but his ego is also obvious.
Jesus spoke of no book to come and no special future apostle who would write the bulk of the NT. Food for thought. Paul laid out a way for church "ruler-ship" to be set up, and methinks that Jesus would not approve. So basically I'm saying - don't read Paul's letters (or any other letters) as infallible truth.
All that said, Paul seemed to grasp the bulk of what AGAPE is about, which accounts for why modern Christians are (by and large) very loving people (as demonstrated in these pages).

Interesting point of view fb888, but in my opinion you are overstating your case! Bear in mind Luke and Acts are by the same writer and he is clear that Jesus gave a specific remit to Saul/Paul:

The Lord said to him (Ananias), "Go, because I have chosen him (Saul) to serve me, to make my name known to Gentiles and kings and to the people of Israel. And I myself will show him all that he must suffer for my sake." Acts 9.15-16

and

I (Paul) asked, 'What shall I do, Lord?' and the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told everything that God has determined for you to do.' Acts 22.10

and again

You are to tell others what you have seen of me today and what I will show you in the future. I will rescue you from the Gentiles to whom I will send you. You are to open their eyes and turn them from the darkness to the light and from the power of Satan to God, so that through their faith in me they will have their sins forgiven and receive their place among God's chosen people. Acts 26.16-18

As for Paul laying out "a way for church ruler-ship to be set up" I don't think that was his intention, except in the context of the letters he wrote to particular churches to deal with specific situations. I don't think Paul would have approved of the way his words have been used any more than Jesus would. But his letters have been considered SCRIPTURE since the very earliest days of the Church - see 2 Peter 3.15-16. I could also say a lot about the teaching of Paul and Jesus, but I'll leave it there.

[firstborn888]

his letters have been considered SCRIPTURE since the very earliest days of the Church - see 2 Peter 3.15-16.

Exactly, as I said - we see the digression right away. It was a steady falling away until a structured hierarchy became everything and we still haven't broken out of it. Over the decades I spent countless hours in "church government" teachings and seminars and it became clear what an absolute waste of time and resources it was.

Carnal thinking wants structure and conformity and shies away from spontaneous agape. Carnal thinking wants a perfect book to tell us everything we need to know about everything.

An "atheist" manifesting Christlike attributes is a minister of Christ just as surely as a "believer" manifesting the attributes of satan is a minister of satan.

In reality it is good fruit (loving others as self) which reveals where an individual is at spiritually.

And yes, I know this is all crazy talk in our "proper beliefs and doctrine" based Christianity.

[revdrew61]

Hmmm. I agree with a lot of what you are saying but also think the followers of Jesus need to work together and organise ourselves. And organisations of people need structure, rules and, I think, hierarchy. We are not capable of doing any of these things perfectly or without some mixed motives, but that's no reason to reject church completely and just function as lots of inspired individuals. That seems naive to me and a bit of a cop-out from the hard work of getting along with imperfect people and imperfect organisations. Does what I am saying make any sense?

[WE ARE ALL BROTHERS]

And organisations of people need structure, rules and, I think, hierarchy.

I have increasingly less time for "inspired" individualists myself. But I don't generally believe people need structure, rules or hierarchy. Especially not within the Church.

Firstborn, you might also appreciate the following excerpt, which I heartily agree with:

In essence, [true Christianity], when it comes to us, cannot be organized. We can have neither stability, routine, collective permanence, association, nor group cohesion if we want to live by revelation, if we put [true Christianity] at the center as the sole truth. It cannot be lived out socially. When we are told that the Holy Spirit constituted the church at Pentecost, we like that. But when we learn that the Holy Spirit is like the wind that blows when and where it wills and we do not know where it comes from or where it is going, we do not like it. The church may say that it has the Holy Spirit, but if it does it betrays its truth and legitimacy. When we are told that the church consists of those whom God calls, we applaud, but who are they? Who can trace the boundaries? We may say that the church has a center, Jesus Christ, but it has no circumference. We can give assurance to none and exclude none. We may believe that we have found a solution in baptism. Church members are baptized, and the baptized are the church. Well and good. But unfortunately the New Testament very clearly distinguishes between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit. The two do not coincide (except when the church falsely decides that they do!). We are thus back in the same difficulty.

When we are told that the church has ministers, and its life is organized around them, well and good. But at once we have to remember that these ministries are a gift of the Holy Spirit and not permanent or organized thing. This leads us to invert the biblical movement. We set up pastoral positions or benefices with rectors and bishops, etc. We then fill these posts with people we think are suitable. But this is the opposite of the movement presented in the Epistles, in which the Holy Spirit gives to the church people who have the gifts of love or the word or teaching, and the church has to find a place for them even if it had not anticipated doing so. If, after a while, the Holy Spirit does not give someone who has the spirit of prophecy but gives someone who has the gift of miracles, then the church must change its form and habits!

No doubt some will reply that God is not a God of disorder, incoherence, or arbitrariness, but a God of order. Of course he is. Unfortunately the whole of the Old Testament shows us that God's order is not that which we conceive and desire. God's order is not organization and institution (cf. the difference between judges and kings). It is not the same in every time and place. It is not a matter of repetition and habit. On the contrary, it resides in the fact that it constantly posits something new, a new beginning. Our God is a God of beginnings. There is in him no redundancy or circularity. Thus, if his church wants to be faithful to his revelation, it will be completely mobile, fluid, renascent, bubbling, creative, inventive, adventurous, and imaginative. It will never be perennial, and can never be organized or institutionalized. If the gates of death are not going to prevail against it, this is not because it is a good, solid, well-organized fortress, but because it is alive; it is Life — that is, as mobile, changing, and surprising as life. If it becomes a powerful fortified organization, it is because death has prevailed. Thus even on the humble level of the church, revelation cannot be organized or experienced socially.

I try to make an effort of not slagging institutional churches. Especially as some of the most independent of churches are just as tradition-heavy and fascistic as any high church could possibly be. All churches are imperfect. But I do think we are generally mistaken about the "organization" of the Christian community more than other areas. I think there are groups that have done wonderful work in this regard, those from the Radical Reformation made some great reforms, but I think of the contemporary Emergent movement — who in my opinion, whilst certainly not perfect, are doing wonderful work on re-imagining what it means to give expression to the Church.

[firstborn888]

Hmmm. I agree with a lot of what you are saying but also think the followers of Jesus need to work together and organise ourselves. And organisations of people need structure, rules and, I think, hierarchy. We are not capable of doing any of these things perfectly or without some mixed motives, but that's no reason to reject church completely and just function as lots of inspired individuals. That seems naive to me and a bit of a cop-out from the hard work of getting along with imperfect people and imperfect organisations. Does what I am saying make any sense?

Absolutely makes sense. I am not suggesting that anyone pull out of anything but people who operate in pure unconditional love are automatically organized and have the most disciplined hierarchy at work internally. So what I am saying is: Don't confuse those external systems with the reality of our unseen source and don't hem Christ in to what we call Christianity (which is actually not the unseen kingdom but is simply a belief system). AISI the real kingdom is not contained in any external system and it's hierarchy is 100% in the heart (and no where else) so when you see the fruit you see the evidence of the unseen kingdom there (and nowhere else).

I'm happy to work in step with Christian fundies, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, wiccans - ANYONE who is operating in the love which lays down it's life for a friend. Or stranger.

I'm not really anti-Christian as it helped to bring us to where we are but we can't remain little children forever and need to move past the traditions, dogma and superstition into reality. The reality transcends all belief systems and all delusions about separation from God (which AISI is the strongest of delusions and is largely aided by current religious systems).

[firstborn888]

Hmmm. I agree with a lot of what you are saying but also think the followers of Jesus need to work together and organise ourselves. And organisations of people need structure, rules and, I think, hierarchy. We are not capable of doing any of these things perfectly or without some mixed motives, but that's no reason to reject church completely and just function as lots of inspired individuals. That seems naive to me and a bit of a cop-out from the hard work of getting along with imperfect people and imperfect organisations. Does what I am saying make any sense?

Absolutely makes sense. I am not suggesting that anyone pull out of anything but people who operate in pure unconditional love are automatically organized and have the most disciplined hierarchy at work internally. So what I am saying is: Don't confuse those external systems with the reality of our unseen source and don't hem Christ in to what we call Christianity (which is actually not the unseen kingdom but is simply a belief system). AISI the real kingdom is not contained in any external system and it's hierarchy is 100% in the heart (and no where else) so when you see the fruit you see the evidence of the unseen kingdom there (and nowhere else).

I'm happy to work in step with Christian fundies, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, wiccans - ANYONE who is operating in the love which lays down it's life for a friend. Or stranger.

I'm not really anti-Christian as it helped to bring us to where we are but we can't remain little children forever and need to move past the traditions, dogma and superstition into reality. The reality transcends all belief systems and all delusions about separation from God (which AISI is the strongest of delusions and is largely aided by current religious systems).

Does this resonate with anyone here? Much?

[TotalVictory]

Does this resonate with anyone here? Much?

Oh My - Yes!!
And can't really say it much better than you, or revdrew has...

The temptation to "leave" the group which we feel has strayed far far from it's original meaning and intent can be very strong. I struggle with this all the time!
But I have a good friend who keeps me from "leaving" by saying things like "If you leave, you just increase the concentration of bastards who messed it up in the first place! STAY, Bob, and help make it what you KNOW it should be!" -- you get the idea...
And besides, history is littered with movements that once began with very sincere folks who wanted to return to "original purity" -- only to find that, in time, ALL human movements and organizations fall to the same sorts of dynamics...
Christianity must be discovered anew by each soul, each day, and in new ways.

Also, when we read in Gal 5 that the fruit of the Spirit is "Love, Joy, Peace....." and we FIND those qualities in folks who do not self identify as "Christians", should we not still celebrate the presence of the Spirit then too??
I think so...

Bobx3

[firstborn888]

ALL human movements and organizations fall to the same sorts of dynamics...
Christianity must be discovered anew by each soul, each day, and in new ways.

Also, when we read in Gal 5 that the fruit of the Spirit is "Love, Joy, Peace....." and we FIND those qualities in folks who do not self identify as "Christians", should we not still celebrate the presence of the Spirit then too??
I think so...

Bobx3