In light of a number of recent posts dealing with a range of topics on the nature of Christianity, I came across an observation that I think offers a bracing challenge to much that is American Protestantism today.
“Stanley Hauerwas has said that modern Protestantism has been the only form of Christianity in history to suppose that one could be a Christian by virtue of things which happen entirely inside one’s head. This supposition is true of modern Protestantism’s conservative and liberal versions alike—here Friedrich Schleiermacher and Dwight L. Moody basically agree.”
Do you agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
February 13th, 2010 | 1:11 pm | #1
Well… I would agree that Moody and Schleiermacher would both agree…
But I would want a careful explanation of what is meant by “inside one’s own head” before agreeing across the board. If by that is simply meant “Christianity is a personal relationship between Christ and the sinner that begins in the soul”, the I think there’s some theological solid ground to be found.
February 13th, 2010 | 4:01 pm | #2
Coyle, no, in fact, the personal relationship between Christ and the sinner does not begin in the soul, it begins outside the sinner with Christ.
February 13th, 2010 | 6:22 pm | #3
Protestantism has been the only form of Christianity in history to suppose that one could be a Christian by virtue of things which happen entirely inside one’s head.
Does he want to imply that we will be true Christians if we are out of our minds?
February 13th, 2010 | 6:51 pm | #4
Does he want to imply that we will be true Christians if we are out of our minds?
YESSS!
If this is what he means, I withdraw my caveat and agree wholeheartedly :)
February 14th, 2010 | 12:30 am | #5
No, I certainly wouldn’t agree. But then I’m Orthodox. But even as an evangelical protestant I supposed that there was some mysterious grace related something going on that wasn’t inside my head, because it seemed fairly obvious that one can’t have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” without somehow coming into contact with Christ, who is obviously also outside one’s head (assuming we’re not simply delusional).
February 14th, 2010 | 8:35 am | #6
Does the church happen inside one’s head?
Good post.
February 14th, 2010 | 6:49 pm | #7
Rev. McCain,
in fact, the personal relationship between Christ and the sinner does not begin in the soul, it begins outside the sinner with Christ.
Absolutely no disagreement there- Christ initiates the relationship with the sinner. My (admittedly poorly stated) point was that this relationship is something that we subjectively encounter first in the soul, rather than it being mediated through a church structure or institution. Objectively the relationship began with Christ’s substitutionary atonement on the cross.
February 14th, 2010 | 7:29 pm | #8
Coyle, I think you are actually proving the point of the comment. We subjectively first do not encounter God’s grace in any way other than outside of ourselves. “You did not choose me, but I chose you.” The calling of Christ through His Gospel *is* our subjective encounter with Him. When you say it is not “mediated through a Church structure or institution” I am not sure how you are defining “Church” — if by Church you mean that flock of God of sheep who hear His voice, there is no salvation outside of, beyond, or before the Church, which is His body.
February 15th, 2010 | 10:23 am | #9
[...] I don’t think I could disagree more. [...]
February 15th, 2010 | 10:25 am | #10
[...] I don’t think I could disagree more. [...]
February 15th, 2010 | 10:33 am | #11
Paul,
Having linked this (and noted I disagree) I should clarify.
I’m not sure I’m in a position to agree or disagree whether this is a position taken by conservative/liberal Protestants. What I disagree with is that the statement that Church one’s relationship with Christ is or can be entirely noetic is wrong and that is that which I disagree.
I’ve read in a number of places that there is a crucial difference between the inner spiritual traditions of religions, the Sufi, the Eastern (Asian) meditative traditions of Buddhism, and so on when contrasted with the Christian traditions. And that difference is the Eucharist, which demands of the spiritual ascetic participation in the community of Christ and in the act itself which prevent the notion of ones relationship with Christ and His church to be a purely noetic one, i.e., only “in one’s head.”
To put it more bluntly, Christ was a man. Not an idea or revelation.
February 15th, 2010 | 10:40 am | #12
Mark, I agree with you. The entire history of God’s relationship with his people is filled with examples of God choosing to relate to us through tangible means, most notably the incarnation of His Son, our dear Lord Christ. The majority of Christendom throughout the ages has held to a very high view of the Sacraments, regarding them as ways God is actually working among His people, in a way that begins from the outside and works into the lives of believers, by objective means of God’s grace. This was, and is, the way of the First Evangelicals, but not among those influenced by Zwingli’s notions, picked up widely throughout the Reformed traditions, that fundamentally the finite is not capable of the infinite, a view which, if followed to its inevitable conclusion, would preclude the very Incarnation itself. It is precisely this attitude that Phil Lee’s book Against the Protestant Gnostics deals with so capably, and is as relevant now, if not more, than ever before.
February 15th, 2010 | 10:59 am | #13
modern Protestantism has been the only form of Christianity in history to suppose that one could be a Christian by virtue of things which happen entirely inside one’s head.
Well, there was gnosticism, but we all know that wasn’t Christian. That literally was all in their head — all about special revelation.
I think the problem is that some people (who ever the shoe fits — it’s not just one team in the camp) want to make the faith all about one thing. It turns out that the faith has many consequences, and when we miss any of them we are missing a large chunk of what it means to be in Christ and of Christ and under Christ.
February 16th, 2010 | 4:10 pm | #14
Well said, Frank.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact