Is this a Christian Identity philosophy?

[arunma]

On another forum, somebody said this:

Christianity works well in the west,
but always in third world countries like india,
the people start to blend their own non-christian religious ideas with christianity. African voodoo is one example, santera is another.

Now, the poster who made this comment has a history of demeaning Jews as well. Is it just me, or does this sound like the philosophy of the Christian identity movement?

(For those who don't know, "Christian Identity" is the movement with which many Ku Klux Klan members associate.)

[HumbleMan]

I don't think it sounds like CI.

I don't know about India or Africa, but in Latin America, there are instances of animism and other native religions that have historically been mixed in with the Catholic Church. It's a blend of trying to win converts while still allowing them familiar ideas and traditions. I personally think it's wrong, and I've heard that the RCC is trying to clean that up, but it still goes on.

[Gold Dragon]

The mixture of aspects of a convert of other religions into Christianity is usually referred to as syncretism.

There is always the fuzzy line of what is religion and what is culture with the belief that all cultures can mix with Christianity but not religions.

Some previous mission controversies of this type include the Chinese Rites controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy) and Christian missionaries to Native Americans.

[Crazy Liz]

On another forum, somebody said this:



Now, the poster who made this comment has a history of demeaning Jews as well. Is it just me, or does this sound like the philosophy of the Christian identity movement?

(For those who don't know, "Christian Identity" is the movement with which many Ku Klux Klan members associate.)
Rebut or discuss the statement in its own right, rather than getting involved in guilt by association.

I think this statement can be seriously addressed in terms of Paul Hiebert's famous article The Flaw of the Excluded Middle (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14692.htm). That would be a much more authentic and nuanced way to address the fallacies of this statement than associating the person who made the statement with some fringe group.

[arunma]

I think this statement can be seriously addressed in terms of Paul Hiebert's famous article The Flaw of the Excluded Middle (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14692.htm). That would be a much more authentic and nuanced way to address the fallacies of this statement than associating the person who made the statement with some fringe group.

While I disagree with the statement, my intention here wasn't to debate it. On the contrary, I'm concerned about prematurely judging others. This statement seemed to leave the taste of Christian Identity in my mouth, and I wanted to see if it was just me, or if others also get the impression.

Furthermore, I think it is important to judge statements based on the people who made them (at least when discussing religious issues), because God judges our thoughts as well as their actions. The spirit in which we say things matters just as much as what we say. If this critical statement about churches in Africa and other third world nations were made by a person whose only intention was to bring his Christian brothers back to the true faith, then it would be righteous in the eyes of God. But if it were made by a person who simply makes a distinction between anglo-saxons and other races, then clearly God would be displeased.

As a case in point: one of the pastors at my church is highly critical of many black churches because of the prosperity gospel theology which has begun to pervade them. If you were to judge some of his statements in a vacuum, you'd probably think that he's a racist. But as it turns out, the pastor himself is black, and all of our pastors (especially this one) preach racial harmony and diversity. So ultimately, the meaning of the statement is influenced by the person making it.

But as long as we are discussing the statement according to its own merits, HumbleMan brought up the point of the same thing happening in Latin America. It sounds to me like this is more of a problem with the Roman Catholic Church than it is with Africans or Latins. Indeed we know that certain circles in the Catholic Church embrace paganism and secularism, so this explanation seems more plausible to me.

[Crazy Liz]

But as long as we are discussing the statement according to its own merits, HumbleMan brought up the point of the same thing happening in Latin America. It sounds to me like this is more of a problem with the Roman Catholic Church than it is with Africans or Latins. Indeed we know that certain circles in the Catholic Church embrace paganism and secularism, so this explanation seems more plausible to me.
I hope you will be able to look up the article and read it. If you know anyone who has taken the Perspectives (http://www.perspectives.org) course, I think the complete article can be found in the Perspectives Course Reader.

I think the issue is more complex than Catholic vs. protestant missionaries. Protestant and Catholic missionaries may deal with the "excluded middle" in different ways, but the "excluded middle" is definitely at the core of the issue.

[indra_fanatic]

"Christianity works well in the west,
but always in third world countries like india,
the people start to blend their own non-christian religious ideas with christianity. African voodoo is one example, santera is another."

Let's see... where do we start with this? To begin with, I don't see what so-called "African voodoo" and Santeria have to do with Indian Hinduism.

I also really strongly doubt that the Third World has a monopoly on cultural adulterations of pure Christianity. What about the entirety of Western Europe, where generally speaking the entirety of our faith has been strongly influenced by polytheistic Greek Stoicist philosophy? Do I really need to cite German Catholicism and Lutheranism, which both had Norse nationalistic paganism barely under their skins, as the world sadly found out in the 1930s?

What about America where middle-class comfort has become all but synonymous with "proper", conservative Christianity?

Of course, even the true cultural originators of Christianity (the Jews) were known for various deviations from it, as can be easily seen through Judaization efforts, continued adherence to the Law, and the reverence for various myths and angel-worship, as pointed out by Paul. There is no such thing as a nation or culture that has not diluted the true faith, just like there has never been a time or place in history where a 100% pure Biblical faith has ever been practiced.

It's easy to throw stones when your neighbors' houses are made of glass. However, if your own domicile is composed of a thin layer of stucco, methinks it isn't too wise to get too carried away with the projectiles you are chucking.

[arunma]

"Christianity works well in the west,
but always in third world countries like india,
the people start to blend their own non-christian religious ideas with christianity. African voodoo is one example, santera is another."

Let's see... where do we start with this? To begin with, I don't see what so-called "African voodoo" and Santeria have to do with Indian hinduism.

I also really strongly doubt that the Third World has a monopoly on cultural adulterations of pure Christianity. What about the entirety of Western Europe, where generally speaking the entirety of our faith has been strongly influenced by polytheistic Greek Stoicist philosophy? Do I really need to cite German Catholicism and Lutheranism, which both had Norse nationalistic paganism barely under their skins, as the world sadly found out in the 1930s?

What about America where middle-class comfort has become all but synonymous with "proper", conservative Christianity?

I agree completely. Every part of the world has had its share of heretics. We must always understand that the cross is the end to all racial and ethnic divisions. Heresies always arise when someone attempts to prove that the Gospel is more suited to his culture. This has been done both in the East and the West.

But to be fair to the Lutherans, I think Martin Luther's theology was quite sound. Adolf Hitler, on the other hand, was anything but Christian, and he had to fight Christian theology to advance the worship of his false Norse gods.

[indra_fanatic]

But to be fair to the Lutherans, I think Martin Luther's theology was quite sound. Adolf Hitler, on the other hand, was anything but Christian, and he had to fight Christian theology to advance the worship of his false Norse gods.
Luther's theology overall may have been sound, but he himself obviously struggled with his own anti-Semitic and nationalist tendencies. You are 100% correct about Hitler, but don't forget the German Catholics and Protestants who eagerly gobbled up his venom without even a second of questioning.

[Gold Dragon]

I hope you will be able to look up the article and read it. If you know anyone who has taken the Perspectives (http://www.perspectives.org/) course, I think the complete article can be found in the Perspectives Course Reader.

I think the issue is more complex than Catholic vs. protestant missionaries. Protestant and Catholic missionaries may deal with the "excluded middle" in different ways, but the "excluded middle" is definitely at the core of the issue.

Excellent course which I highly recommend as well. Yes it is definitely more complicated than Catholic bad, Protestant good.

[arunma]

Luther's theology overall may have been sound, but he himself obviously struggled with his own anti-Semitic and nationalist tendencies. You are 100% correct about Hitler, but don't forget the German Catholics and Protestants who eagerly gobbled up his venom without even a second of questioning.

Well I don't know about nationalism (you may be right; I honestly don't know either way). It is true, however, that Martin Luther wasn't very fond of the Jews. At that time, who was? It's rather unfortunate that such things as the Holocaust were required for us to recognize the problem of anti-semitism. I do try to keep in mind, however, that at the time, anti-semitism didn't conjure up images of genocide. So let's not judge him too harshly.

[JPPT1974]

When I think of these words, they are bring up the KKK or White Supremecist movement. And that this "religion" is anything but Christian at all.
For people who promote violence and tolerance.

[arunma]

When I think of these words, they are bring up the KKK or White Supremecist movement. And that this "religion" is anything but Christian at all.
For people who promote violence and tolerance.

Well, it's good to know that it isn't just me after all.

By the way, "violence and tolerance" may have been a typo on your part, but I think it was rather fortuitous. The Christian Identity people I've spoken with believe that Jesus is not the only Name by which we can be saved. It's interesting to see that those who abandon Christian orthodoxy for "tolerant" theology now count racists among their ranks.

[MrJim]

mmmmm, Christian Identity. The europeans are the 12 tribes of israel...you do know that saxon originally comes from isaac (isaac's son = saxon). I was on a mailing list from a church that taught this stuff and every newsletter let it be know that the 12 tribes were the germanic/scandinavian/english folks. Even had maps showing the routes that they traveled from the middle east and where they settled in europe. It's a strange world. I think I still have those things somewhere...