Thanks for sharing this with me, Brandan. It's a very thoughtful piece that will help many people better understand the theologically liberal perspective. Many questions arise for me. I'm not clear why modern "concepts of religion" were so important for the purpose of this article. Seems like unnecessary anachronism. Regarding modern Christianity, as the great historian Jaroslav Pelikan points out, Nicaea 381 continues to unite all the diverse Christian groups you listed (except LDS and Unitarian of course). You're right that there are endless variations across the 2.6 billion confessional Christians globally today of course, of which the average Christian is not a Western, white, English-speaker but likely a 20-something black or brown female with a passion for Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, to love her indigenous culture well. And that kind of Christianity is spreading the fastest in the countries Western colonization never really hit, i.e. Iran and China. Many other questions abound as well. Peace to you, friend.
First, this was written for a PhD level course on the history of the study religion- that's why the framing is that way. I would note that Nicean Christianity doesn't united modern Christianity- there are thousands of groups that do not claim Nicea as an authoritative creed, and there is no reason to think Nicea is an accurate representation of Jesus' own theology- I think most historians would argue it is not. So the question becomes, are you trying to be a Christian or trying to align with Jesus? The two are very different and mainstream, "orthodox" Christianity certainly doesn't represent Jesus or the Apostles.
I wonder if essentialist Christianity stems from an hierarchical understanding of public life, one that privileges individualism, civilization and empire over community. I think about pre-contact indigenous peoples who never separated “religion” from what we’d call civic life and who never went to war over “religion.” Steven Charleston describes Native American Christian theology as community based: “Truth is played out in the democratic spiritual dialogue of the community. . . . they may be core truths of a spiritual nature, but they do not exist independent of the interpretive process that constantly flows over them, that refines, polishes, and re-presents them to succeeding generations. Each speaker of a sacred truth, like that truth itself, must stand within the active presence of the community. There are no disembodied messages from on high, only intimate messages from within.” (“Theory—Articulating a Native American Theological Theory” in Coming Full Circle: Constructing Native Christian Theology, 7.) What you call essentialist Christianity seems dualistic compared to Charleston’s triadic understanding, which emphasizes the need for an interpretant. Thanks for giving me new ways of thinking about these matters.
Thanks for sharing this with me, Brandan. It's a very thoughtful piece that will help many people better understand the theologically liberal perspective. Many questions arise for me. I'm not clear why modern "concepts of religion" were so important for the purpose of this article. Seems like unnecessary anachronism. Regarding modern Christianity, as the great historian Jaroslav Pelikan points out, Nicaea 381 continues to unite all the diverse Christian groups you listed (except LDS and Unitarian of course). You're right that there are endless variations across the 2.6 billion confessional Christians globally today of course, of which the average Christian is not a Western, white, English-speaker but likely a 20-something black or brown female with a passion for Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, to love her indigenous culture well. And that kind of Christianity is spreading the fastest in the countries Western colonization never really hit, i.e. Iran and China. Many other questions abound as well. Peace to you, friend.
Thanks Evan!
First, this was written for a PhD level course on the history of the study religion- that's why the framing is that way. I would note that Nicean Christianity doesn't united modern Christianity- there are thousands of groups that do not claim Nicea as an authoritative creed, and there is no reason to think Nicea is an accurate representation of Jesus' own theology- I think most historians would argue it is not. So the question becomes, are you trying to be a Christian or trying to align with Jesus? The two are very different and mainstream, "orthodox" Christianity certainly doesn't represent Jesus or the Apostles.
I wonder if essentialist Christianity stems from an hierarchical understanding of public life, one that privileges individualism, civilization and empire over community. I think about pre-contact indigenous peoples who never separated “religion” from what we’d call civic life and who never went to war over “religion.” Steven Charleston describes Native American Christian theology as community based: “Truth is played out in the democratic spiritual dialogue of the community. . . . they may be core truths of a spiritual nature, but they do not exist independent of the interpretive process that constantly flows over them, that refines, polishes, and re-presents them to succeeding generations. Each speaker of a sacred truth, like that truth itself, must stand within the active presence of the community. There are no disembodied messages from on high, only intimate messages from within.” (“Theory—Articulating a Native American Theological Theory” in Coming Full Circle: Constructing Native Christian Theology, 7.) What you call essentialist Christianity seems dualistic compared to Charleston’s triadic understanding, which emphasizes the need for an interpretant. Thanks for giving me new ways of thinking about these matters.