Doug was kind enough to tag me on an interesting meme:
List 5 doctrines that are taught within the Christian church that you believe to be deeply de-Christian.
De-Christian? This makes me think of defrost, deceive, denounce, delight, determine. What exactly is “de-Christian?”
I think the term anti-Christ might be closer to the spirit of the New Testament writers. Interestingly, while we might think that the spirit of the antichrist is the denial of Christ’s divinity, it’s actually quite the opposite:
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
I often marvel at how hard the Gospel writers work to show Jesus’ humanity. People in the time of Christ had no trouble believing in gods taking on the appearance of a human, but the idea of a sinless divinity residing fully in sinful flesh was tough for them to swallow.
After looking at other people’s answers I’m having a hard time thinking of anything else to add. One position on this topic is that Christ said he would build his church so anything Christian is how he intended. There’s something appealing about such diversity and also it accords with actual experience and is a good reason not to judge others. Not sure I buy it, though.
Let me try to throw some cats in the dog house:
- The Hebrew Bible is pre-Christian: Finding Jesus in every passage of the OT sometimes requires a lot of twisting.
- Expository preaching: The NT model of preaching is very Christ centered. OT is backstory to the Good News of Jesus Christ.
- Clown evangelism: I suppose even clowns need Jesus…
- Church building programs: The hillside and the dinner table worked for our Lord, why do we need multiplexes?
- Personal devotions: “When they were all together in one place…”
I’m not sure I even think these are all “de-Christian.” But it’s interesting to think about.
If you’re a reader of this blog consider yourself tagged. I always like to hear what other people come up with on strange questions like this.
[...] Keen, David Ker and Doug Chaplin have been posting on “5 Deeply De-Christian Doctrines”, a meme for [...]
Five Deeply De-Christian Doctrines…
A meme seemingly got started with 3-D’s: David Keen, David Ker, and Doug Chaplin—5 Deeply De-Christian Doctrines. Newly wed PeterKirk tagged me for this one: The challenge of this latest meme is: List 5 doctrines that are taught within the…
dave–
i probably can’t think of five, but here’s a thought…
the jesus documents tell us quite compellingly that when we minister to those in need, we minister to jesus. that discussion is incentive enough to pause and reflect and act. then a few verses later, we are hammered with heaven and hell, carrots and sticks, coercing us to minister to out neighbor. why the heavy hand? why isn’t the compelling, evoking plea enough? how can the same faith documents rooted in parables and compelling stories resort to such over the top bullying?
seems de-christian to me.
A wonderful thoughtful comment. Think and wonder I will.
Hi David – This meme was started by me a couple of weeks ago. (see http://evangelistchanging.blogspot.com/2009/10/5-deeply-de-christian-doctrines.html andhttp://evangelistchanging.blogspot.com/2009/10/5-deeply-de-christian-doctrines-meme.html).
The reason I chose to use ‘de-Christian’ rather than ‘anti-Christian’ was because I felt it was a bit like saying ‘de-humanising’. Some doctrines strip away from the Christian faith its beauty and liberty and turn it into something removed from its original purpose.
I really like your list! No.1 is spot on.
Thanks, Joe. Your explanation makes sense.
Hmm, something the church gets its teeth into and invests time and money in but which has little or no Biblical precedent. How about Bible translators?
After all the LXX was inter-Testamental and doesn’t get a specific mention in the NT. When Ezra read the Hebrew Scriptures in his roaring revival, it was the Levites who simply interpreted the meaning as he went along. In fact when Nehemiah found some children who didn’t understand the language of Judah, he didn’t order a fresh translation. Instead he ordered that the men be beaten and their hair pulled out by the roots.
Maybe we should call upon all Bible translators to repent and find something more canonical for them to do. What do you reckon???
Greetings to the kids!
Absolutely terrific! Can I go home now?!?
Hmmm – not sure Dave can go home quite yet (as much as he might like to
. Ezra 4:18; Esther 1:22, 3:12 etc; Daniel 3:29, 4:1ff, 6:25 – as different languages are explicitly mentioned, doesn’t that imply translation? And if you’re so inclined, you could construe something out of Zechariah 8:23, 1 Corinthians 14:11-13, 2 Corinthians 1:13, or Revelation 14:6.
If that’s not convincing, okay, then go home.
Otherwise, all those directly or indirectly involved in BT may have to become Hebrew language teachers … at least viewed from a Biblical precedent … *lol*
I could not understand how this would mean that we should throw out Bible-translating. If translating on the fly is the only allowable thing, then it would not be firing Bible translators — it would be giving them a monopoly.
Unless I’m misreading here. And I probably am.
[...] De-fending the de-Christian | lingamish Lingamish suggests that “If you’re a reader of this blog consider yourself tagged.” So, I consider myself tagged and will contribute some thoughts on this topic. However, I am not necessarily listing real doctrines but ways of thinking that I believe to exist in many Christian circles but are not necessarily biblical. [...]