Historically, Christians have rarely if ever seen eye to eye on all points. Our understanding of God, Christ, Salvation and other subjects were not laid out in a systematic manner for several centuries after Christ gathered that first small band of followers together. So Christians have struggled to come to an understanding of what they believe God's will is, on particular matters. Some of these conflicts were described in early writings, some of which made it into the Christian Scriptures. (Paul and Peters issues around Jewish Law and Gentile Christians).
We have argued, fought, and excommunicated each other over these concerns.. Sometimes we have even killed one another other over "points of theology". Statements of belief about important issues like the nature of Christ, the canon, church polity and organization, etc. were sometimes so fraught with conflicts that the political establishment would step in to help settle issues we argued over. Those in power have always tried to use these occasions to co-op the church and have the last word, except the discussions continue into our century.
I recently read a Blog where someone attempted to explain the difference between “real” Christianity and Gnostic Christianity. I though as I read it that folks who consider themselves “New Age” Christians might have a different take on what constitutes Christianity.
For decades I have witnessed Christians attempting to explain why their group or theological position represents genuine Christianity while others are in error and preaching a false gospel. I continue to read Blogs and post where one faction attempts to establish their position as orthodox and all others as error and heresy.
One particular effort involves identifying their current creeds and dogmas about the Bible and other beliefs with those of first century Christians in order to establish their authenticity. I find this association odd. Using first century Christians as our standard might get you circumcised but it would be a real struggle to find common ground, even if we could communicate in any meaningful way about what makes us disciples of Christ. It boggles my mind.
I believe people who call themselves Christians from other times and places would have a significantly different take on what constitutes genuine Christianity. It's my personal opinion that Christians from the first century would struggle to find a place in modern Christendom. We might fight for their approval, then excommunicate them for their heresies. My point is that our understanding of what constitutes Christianity is in the eye of the beholder. We are shaped by our times.
It was these early struggles that produced our Bible, hardly a systematic or organized theology in and of itself. The church created the Bible, so I believe we take great risks in elevating it to some supreme rule of faith and practice. It may serve many wonderful purposes, it might stimulate our faith and shape our discussions, but we are responsible, with God's help to grow in our knowledge of God and God's will for us. Conclusions arrived at centuries ago, embodied in creeds and dogmas by believers in other times and places are valuable resources, but unless we seek understanding each day we are mistaking orthodoxy with a living relationship. (John 15; Vine and branches metaphor)
It's my opinion, that Christ is a tiger who will not be caged by any rigid theological system or creed. Being a pragmatist, I am not a great believer in reinventing the wheel, but I am talking about relationships. They must be maintained and nurtured daily. What I believed last year might be really useful, but I must ask myself what do I believe and do today to cultivate my relationship with God, others and myself?
“A new command I give you, that you love each other, as I have loved you...by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you love one another” -John 13:34,35
That's my take on it anyway.
