Monday, August 10, 2009

What I mean by "Christian"

A commenter on my blog suggested that, in the interest of honesty (which I'm all for), I should not use the word "Christian" or "Christianity" as I have thus far, since, in his opinion, too many different philosophies with almost no common ground all bear the label "Christian".

I am sensitive to this problem. On the other hand, the suggestion that I should say that this blog is about my personal beliefs and philosophy is overly narrow. Obviously, since I'm the author, my beliefs will come through, but I hope to fairly represent alternative points of view, including several on which I have no solid opinion. So the topic is in one sense broader than my personal beliefs. In another sense, it's narrower, since I won't be talking (on this blog) about my views on programming practices. The topic of this blog really is Christian apologetics, but then, once again, there's the problem of how the word is used.

Well, at the end of the day, I don't feel too bad using the term in the way I do, since several encyclopedias define Christian beliefs in a way that is compatible with my usage. Nevertheless, I can do better. In this post, I will try to shed a little more light on how I am likely to be using this word. There will still be unfortunate vagueness and ambiguity, but I will try to minimize it going forward. Questions about what I mean in a particular case are always welcome. This post is not the final say on the subject, just the first step in clarifying myself.

One sense in which I use the word "Christian" is to refer to all those who have saving faith in Jesus Christ (whether they know Him by that name or not--who fits this description is not for me to decide, but God, I simply affirm that the description is valid for some set of people). Whether or not you believe in salvation doesn't matter, I do, and this may sometimes be how I use the word. In one way, this use is very unfortunate, since it is somewhat odd to speak of people in the Old Testament who possessed saving faith as "Christians". Of course, a pretty widely held Christian doctrine is that these people had faith that looked forward to Christ, the messiah, and that was the faith that saved them. This weirdness is somewhat mitigated by the fact that none of these people are alive on earth today, so I won't be referring to them when I'm talking about people living in the world today. Anyway, for a variety of reasons, this usage is problematic. I can and will also use the term "believer" similarly at times. I don't know that that's much better. If anyone can suggest a better, succinct term, I'm open. Otherwise, I'll just try to be clear when I'm using the word in this sense. Fortunately, for purposes of this blog, I don't think this use will come up as much as the next.

A more important sense of the word "Christian", for purposes of this blog, will refer to Christian beliefs. In general, when I say "Christian beliefs" I'll usually mean "orthodox Christian beliefs" (little "o"). By "orthodox Christian beliefs", I mean at least the beliefs expressed by the Nicene Creed. Most other major creeds are similar--I choose the Nicene Creed because of it's official acceptance by nearly all Protestant denominations, the Catholic church, the Anglican church, nearly all (if not all) variants of the Orthodox church, and so on. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that, for example, the Apostle's Creed is as widely acceptable, but the Orthodox church does not officially recognize it, so I'll stick with the Nicene Creed. If I find a need to expand my definition, I'll make sure to do so loudly.

I will also tend to assume that most of these Nicene Christians believe the teachings of Jesus to be true and right (I don't know how they could affirm the Nicene Creed without believing that), and accept a largely overlapping Scriptural canon. I understand that, despite this, there are a wide range of interpretations even of the common parts of the canon, and, insomuch as these interpretations are in line with the Nicene Creed, I will consider the differences to be under the wide umbrella of Christianity.

I understand this little post does not resolve all potential vagueness about the word Christian. That would be hard to do in a single post. This is just the first step in what will be a continuing battle for clarity with sufficient expressiveness. Going forward, please continue to let me know if I am being overly vague. I promise it is not intentional, and I will correct it when I possible.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The cardinal sin of philosophy

The cardinal sin of philosophy is dishonesty. The severity of the transgression is proportional to the degree to which one is conscious of dishonesty.

At present, I still feel like I'm forming the general tone and conventions of this blog. Today, I'm establishing the central ethic of this blog. Dishonesty will not be tolerated. I will seek out dishonesty related to the issues covered by this blog wherever I can find it, and call those responsible to account. I invite readers of this blog to hold me to the same standard. The only appropriate response to public dishonesty is public repentance, and that is what will be expected.

I believe dishonesty accounts for most of the distrust and misinformation related to the issues I plan to cover in this blog. I have seen dishonest statements made by atheists, christians, and everything in-between and to either side. Dishonesty comes in several forms. Some of the most common are:

- Quotes taken out of context.
- Outdated quotes, where new discoveries may be relevant.
- Intentionally leaving out known information that hurts your argument or claim.
- Using information once commonly believed, but now known to be false (assuming you know of and agree with the current consensus).
- Pretending to be an expert on things you are not.
- Ascribing beliefs or motives to people that you either know they don't have or don't know that they do have. In the second case, it might be OK to say "I think A believes P".

I believe that, whatever your goal, dishonesty is a foul means. Over time, I believe dishonesty has created far more animosity and closed more doors than it has made converts. I also believe that it makes the most hardened anti-converts, who, having been lied to, will no longer entertain anything that sounds like what came out of the liars' mouths. Dishonesty turns the fertile landscape of rational discussion into a choked, twisted wasteland.