thabet
-
12:31:58 am on May 27, 2008 | # | |
Possible ’streams’ within Christianity:
- evangelical*: the emphasis on the Bible as the reference for correct belief
- catholic: the need and importance for tradition
- liberal: the need for individual human intellect
- charismatic: the need for prophesies, miracles and the workings of the Holy Ghost
*not to be confused with fundamentalism
-
Tag this post
Comments
Leave a Comment
razib 12:49 am on May 27, 2008 | #
some catholics are wont to say that protestants believe in the bible/jesus, catholics believe in the church. i can see the rationale for all these categories, but the “charismatic” definition seems the one that is rock-solid. i just can’t think of a major criticism, and it seems you’ve hit upon the central element of charismatic christianity.
i think liberal is also pretty much spot-on, but i would add one twist here: i think one could say that “liberal” trends in christianity have a tendency to pelagianism. that is, universalism and the emphasis on the grace of god to redeem all human beings, and a deemphasis on the augustinian skew toward sin and human depravity. additionally, liberals tend to be somewhat pluralistic in rhetoric in regards to theology and practice. in other words, liberal and latitudinarian are intersecting subsets.
as for catholicism, certainly the tradition as encapsulated in the church is critical. but since tradition and reason are often contrasted, it is important to note that the catholic church has a strong rationalist stream, most exemplified by thomism. i would say that it is institutional authority as a vehicle for christianity is the essence of traditionalism for catholicism (note that the church has changed its positions in regard to issues such as abortion within the last two centuries).
the evangelical definition is the one i would quibble with the most. as you correctly note, fundamentalists are usually considered a subset of evangelicals. but it is important to note that ‘biblioators’ (sola scriptura) often look to scripture for more than belief, rather, they look to it for practice. some of the arguments that calvinists have in regards to the bible closely resemble the arguments some muslims have (e.g., are only things mentioned in scripture permissible? or are only things impermissible if they are banned by scripture?) additionally, there is a strong stream of evangelical christianity which “breaks free of the bible.” e.g., in the USA charismatic christianity is an outgrowth of evangelicalism and low church protestantism. many hallmarks of american evangelicaism, such as temperance, have no biblical basis.
aziz 5:23 am on May 27, 2008 | #
clearly I need to fix the stylesheet for list items.
I agree with Razib, and would go further in arguing that in many ways (modern) Catholiscism might be best described as having a “rationalist tradition” - or perhaps as being traditionally rational. Anecdotally, a significant fraction of Catholics tend to “salad bar” their faith on certain doctrinal issues, notably sex-related ones. There is the orthodoxy of course but at the individual level Catholics seem to be excercizing ijtehad freely.
thabet 6:08 am on May 27, 2008 | #
I don’t see ‘tradition’ and ‘reason’ as necessary opposites. So the need for tradition can include the entire edifice of Catholicism, its ‘mode’ of reasoning included.
That is why under ‘liberal’ I included ‘individual’ human intellect. The emphasis is on the ‘individual’ rather than ‘human intellect’ (which I completely agree Catholicism does not exclude at all, but rather works right into its own make up).
Evangelical — point taken. It is probably my Muslim prejudice that sees Christianity (I am willfully generalising) as less inclined to be concerned with ‘praxy. However, I also think evangelism is trans-historical.
One thing I couldn’t fix on at all was Orthodox Christianity.
Lastly, I called them ’streams’ for a reason: they can commingle (contradictions included).
Lawrence of Arabia 7:55 am on May 27, 2008 | #
sacramental-incarnational xty (esp. orthodoxy/catholicism): reason-revelation is historically mediated (i.e., as tradition)…[locus: christ-church]
protestantism/evangelicalism: revelation is mediated through the bible…
pietism/charismatics: revelation is given immediately to the individual [this allows you to distinguish between the classical wing of the reformation and other groups that relativize(d) the bible through appeals to direct experience]
liberal protestant: reason-revelation mediated through the individual
————
technically pelagianism is the idea that we possess, of ourselves, the capacity for salvation. THIS has not been a particular characteristic of liberalism. schleiermacher, who is generally thought of as the father of liberalism, is certainly pertinent in this regard. other than karl barth, it is hard to think of a modern theologian with a comparable emphasis on the sovereignty of god and the absolute necessity of grace. i would say pelagianism is spread quite widely throughout all of christianity and reappears regularly throughout its history.
i would say razib was right about the tendency towards universalism in modern thought, but this is not confined to liberalism (though maybe they hold the position more consistently). it is a move away from augustine’s idea of the massa damnata. such a trend does NOT though necessarily indicate any move away from the augustinian understanding of original sin (e.g., it encompasses not only schleiermacher, but barth, rahner and von balthasar…of the latter only rahner might be considered ‘liberal’; all of thinkers hold a version of original sin…rahner’s, not surprisingly, being the weakest in my estimation). the attack on original sin on the other hand IS largely from within liberalism.
thabet 1:05 pm on May 27, 2008 | #
Anyone want to attempt something similar for Islam?
Talk Islam 6:54 am on July 27, 2008 | #
[...] post: “Possible ’streams’ within Christianity” [...]