Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 5:27 pmAt the same time, your description also reinforces the key difference between our approaches that I identified in my summary: namely, that you undertake analysis at the cultural or macro level, and I at the spiritual and existential, or personal level. Each of us sees our respective levels of analysis as not only the most revealing and informative, but also as the determinative one. I believe that no progress is possible without reconstruction of the individual man (or woman), and you seem to hold that social reconstruction will somehow issue in any progress of the individual man, assuming you suppose such is necessary at all.
In short, you're attempting cultural analysis, and I, spiritual analysis. Two conservative viewpoints (essentially), but different styles of analysis.
You are somewhat drawn to a form of cultural determinism, in that culture "determines" the outcome for the individual; I am not convinced of that viewpoint, but rather would say that human freedom, as exercised by the unpredetermined choices of the individual, is the important force to engage in any attempt to improve things.
Have I pegged your position aright? Is that not the difference you perceive as well?
In order to respond to you, intellectually and to a degree abstractly, I have to define that there are two general but distinct issues here. One has to do with the question of *What Christianity is* and the other has to do with *What sort of Christian you are* which also has to do with what sort of person and personality you are within this conversation. You resist any focus that shines light on you as a person and as a representative of your
specific religious and existential Christian philosophy and often complain (whimper, sulk, act out) when you are complained about. Yet everyone complains about you. And they say pretty much the same thing.
So the problem I face is that I perceive in the brand of Christianity that you seem to me to represent (I say it is Protestant Evangelism though to be more precise it is
Non-Denominational Protestantism).
I find this paragraph interesting because, as you know, I came to a similar conclusion about your (strange and tendentious) Nondenominational Protestant position:
Presbyterian dogmatic theologian Amy Plantinga Pauw writes that Protestant nondenominational congregations "often seem to lack any acknowledgement of their debts and ties to larger church traditions" and argues that "for now, these non-denominational churches are living off the theological capital of more established Christian communities, including those of denominational Protestantism." Pauw considers denominationalism to be a "unifying and conserving force in Christianity, nurturing and carrying forward distinctive theological traditions" (such as Wesleyanism being supported by Methodist denominations).
This is why I say that you have a unique position in which you have *hopped over* everything that Christianity actually was, culturally and historically, and take up a fundamentalist position which allows for a near-total revisionism. I find this thoroughly dishonest. And I notice that this doctrinal or theological dishonestly, a tremendous flaw, seems to me to be reflected or in any case present in your person. So I must mention that every person who speaks to you develops the impression that you are dishonest. You have lost nearly all standing. And I must say that you have lost standing in my eyes. In short I find you fundamentally dishonest and incapable of genuine introspection.
So it is in this sense that I am faced with a problem. I will try to expand on this while I make the effort to respond to your observations/questions. It is a hard area to sort through though and I find it daunting to a degree.
"The key differences in our approach"
Well, in my view, the major key difference is that you are *running a scam*. I will carefully explain what I mean. Yet note that when I use the second person
singular I actually mean a far wider second person
plural. I have to speak beyond you and to a generality. Why do I say this? Rather simple: you tendentiously resolve to separate out from what Christianity really is a gleaned grasp of Christianity, and you separate out its real doctrines and history, and the different currents that have made it what it is (a very wide thing and certainly not just one thing), and thus present a idealized Christianity which you claim as the only true one. The root of Non-denominational Protestantism has its origins in the Restoration Movement:
The Restoration Movement (also known as the American Restoration Movement or the Stone–Campbell Movement, and pejoratively as Campbellism) is a Christian movement that began on the United States frontier during the Second Great Awakening (1790–1840) of the early 19th century. The pioneers of this movement were seeking to reform the church from within and sought "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament."
The Restoration Movement developed from several independent strands of religious revival that idealized early Christianity. Two groups, which independently developed similar approaches to the Christian faith, were particularly important. The first, led by Barton W. Stone, began at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, and identified as "Christians". The second began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia) and was led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell, both educated in Scotland; they eventually used the name "Disciples of Christ". Both groups sought to restore the whole Christian church based on visible patterns set forth in the New Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832 they joined in fellowship with a handshake.
The following is important:
Both groups promoted a return to the purposes of the 1st-century churches as described in the New Testament. One historian of the movement has argued that it was primarily a unity movement, with the restoration motif playing a subordinate role.
This is what I call a
manoeuvre: you-plural resolve, with an act of your will, to deny what Christianity really was and is through a negation-manoeuvre. This allows you-plural to establish a Cat Bird's Seat -- a unique perch -- that provides you with a critical platform to separate yourself from historical Christianity while determining for it a very different, and as I say tendentious, direction. Hence this explains or sheds light on American Non-Denominational Christianity of the Mega-Church variety, and a sort of arrogance and presumption through which you-plural determine yourselves to be 'true Christians' and, concomitantly, that all other are therefore false to one degree or another.
"I believe that no progress is possible without reconstruction of the individual man (or woman)"
What I need to point out to you is that this is more, a great deal more, than what it appears. One has to examine the statement and, also, see behind it, to get to the content purported.
It may be, and it certainly is true in my estimation, that reconstruction of the individual' is paramount in all cases. But reconstruction according to whom? And in relation to what 'reconstruction doctrines', ideas, ideals? So within your Mega Churches (though you may attend a smaller one), yes, a whole program is outlined through which the *rebirth* you evangelize for takes place. I am not at all convinced that I see the program you represent as being any sort of
final statement about what is needed -- spiritually, socially, culturally and religiously. But I do admit that it ia a huge cultural force (mostly in America).
But what you say is
This is what Jesus Christ says is solely important! And if you do not care to listen to what Jesus Christ says you will soon be in Hell! This is actually what you say. And you constantly resolve to this statement. You've said it to me and you have said it to everyone. You earn (justifiably) the contempt of everyone you use it on. Though of course you use the *there is a train speeding at you and I, in my goodness, only want to alert you to the accident you will soon face*. This is basic,
low-level, Christian evangelical apologetics.
I regard you and the *Christianity* you represent as a
farce. I do not say this with
ad hominem anger. I am trying to make careful and rational statements about you and you-plural in order to clarify the differences between us. You asked for this, right?
"Each of us sees our respective levels of analysis as not only the most revealing and informative, but also as the determinative one"
Our 'respective levels of analysis', in fact, have next to nothing in common. They are so different that they cannot be examined as being on the same, nor a similar, plane. You have no real and honest way to understand what I talk about because you exist in and think within a System that completely determines your *Christian* view. Yet you are so involved in it, committed to it, invested in it, that you cannot see outside of it or around it.
But this is not, in any sense, my position. Basically, you cannot understand (comprehend) much of what I talk about. Like *water off a duck's back* any idea that does not conform to the tenets of Nondenominational Protestantism cannot get through to you! Any pertinent comment is pushed away. All bullets miss" is the way you put it. And that is how I define the
Cat Bird's Seat.
"Have I pegged your position aright? Is that not the difference you perceive as well?"
First, I do not think you can "peg" me because your perspectives are so limited. You cannot "peg" me because you cannot
see me. You interpose various interpretive lenses when you
look. Any issue or problem or situation that we view will be viewed very differently. You through your unalterable limitation, and me through an attempt to see in far wider terms, including a great deal more. So for example I bring out many things that are, indeed, important to consider and think about, but all of these are so many irrelevancies for you, with you mono-focus and your fanatic focus.
Still, I am interested in you and you-plural (mainstream Christianity generally and post-Christianity in the Nietzschean sense) because you certainly have your place. For example Lauren Witzke (I linked to an interview of her above) has more in common with you than she does with me. She describes her recovery process as
a personal renovation from the ground up. In accord with Biblical Christian principles (and she would certainly include Jesus and the Holy Spirit as part-and-parcel of her salvation). And unquestionably this was done in a Protestant Christian context and with the Bible at the core.
I do not dismiss any of this. I do tend to see it in a way different from how she would describe it though. I do not see it as 'false'. But speaking about that would be suitable for another post.