(Ir)religiosity

I can't believe you didn't get loads of comments on this. I am just stumbling by. No way does Christianity have one single worldview. Not only is that impossible because the faith is held by people of many different worldviews stemming from their geographical (and other) orientations, but I also find evidence in the fact that there are constantly (no, not just recently) groups of people emerging from the current form of Christianity. Ironically, I have friends who think Christianity is and has one single worldview. Guess that is a view in and of itself! LOL

I was surprised too. I expected a lot of people to be upset at that suggestion because in my experience it seems that too many people couch Christianity as a worldview in itself. Like Rollins, I tend to think that it is bigger than that; that instead of giving me a set of proposition to believe about the world, I am given a trans formative way to be in the world. I think we've tended to conflate the two in the past and forgotten about the transformation.

I popped it out in a post to clarify a bit. Any idea of in v. out to socially differentiate is intrinsically political. In other words, to be gnostic is as much a political act, as it is a religious proposal if you will. This is compounded by the reality that any gnostic community by its nature cannot be open to others but by careful selection and initiation in order to receive said knowledge. Where I differ is that I think the social differentiation is the root source, and the idea of a special knowledge is more or less an effect of that - at least in terms of our continued path of global modernization.

i do not have my mind made up on every doctrine and question most of them since they were man-made by power hungry controlling men like we have today. Call me a heretic and i am happy! :)

Drew's post is well-said imho!

Thanks as always for provoking my thoughts, Blake! Keep it coming! :)

Adele

As long as the other is affirmed and walks away from the convo with the thought "I can see that as helpful for some as a way to God", maybe a good thought is something Niebhur wrote long ago. "I no longer believe I have to have my mind made up on every single point of doctrine". Somehow I think that method of sharing theos about logos is OK with God , who is God.

Perhaps the phrase "all the basic tenets of traditional Christianity" is no long valid in the new world. It seems to me that thought is continually morphing, regardless if how we label it (Tradition, tradition, custom, routine, emergent...). Doesn't that have to be OK if we are to share a globally relevant Christ that diverse cultures of the world can receive both now and into God's future?

I actually think calling it gnosticism gives it too much credit in a way. It's not so much a matter of getting everything epistemologically tidy as it is an exercise of maintaining social structure. If it is this, then it ia politically motivated problem of ideology first that drives what the correct knowledge or teaching about God is. I like re-framing it this way because if it is political and ideological, it can be changed by enough social actors who want it to change. Politics invites protest.

I would agree with that though I would still like terming it gnosticism as well as political and ideological. If anything it denotes that some secret, special knowledge is required in order to "get it" and be "in the group." I think these may be two different ways of dealing with the same reality -- one that deals with mental assent and one with the social structure from which that results. And I think you're spot on in suggesting that the larger system be broken down first.

Thanks for the input!