The Camerado Chronicles -- Part One -- Chapter II

Printer-Friendly

10 June 2004
en route to Orem, Utah

What I must now illustrate is the difference between belief in Christ, and belief in the Bible-and-Christ (and though it will be denied up and
down from now to Armageddon, the latter means following the Bible primarily and Christ secondarily, in practice if not in theory,
because the Bible is always allowed to define Christ, and is the primary, if not sole, source of information and understanding of who He
is-- therefore, for sake of clarity, Ishall henceforth call the latter system of belief
"Biblianity," with the enormously important caveat that this is never to become a
derogatory term, at least not uniformly. Biblianity is a perfectly legitimate, God-ordained
denomination, and belief in Christ exclusively via the Bible --what distinguishes them from
other Christian believers-- does not make their faith wrong or misguided; it just
makes it what it is: Biblian)

(What I do find wrong or misguided, however, is the popular Biblian doctrine
that, frankly, it is their way to heaven or the highway to hell. This will be
covered in due time, but I find that all of the most repugnant, exclusivist
doctrines that tarnish the good name of Christianity come from the sub-
denominations that comprise its Biblian branch)

I've somehow managed to answer my original question, at least partially, within
these two sets of parentheses. So far, though, I have only extrapolated on the
one, more familiar side, and I must coin a new phrase so we can look directly
at the other side, leaving "Christianity" as the umbrella term both "sides" fall
under. For now (and for lack of a better term), how about....Christotheism.

Now: Christotheism (and it is probably safe to say that the Quakers are among the most well-known representatives of this branch) does
not hold that the Bible is the exclusive word of God; thus, we are not bound to it as our sole arbiter of truth on matters of God, Christ
or mundane, everyday life. The Bible is, on the other hand, one of the purest, most powerful VERBAL expressions and sources of the
Word of God (which I am going to leave mischievously undefined for the moment) --for some Christotheists, perhaps (myself not
included), the only verbal source.

But (and here's the crux of the matter) since Christotheism does not equate the Word (Greek: Logos ) with our concept of "words", it does
not place a particularly high value on verbal expression. The Word/Logos of God is not a verbal concept in Christotheistic belief--
words can be a finger pointing to the Word of God, the Truth, but cannot be the Word of God itself.

Most Biblians I talk to or read about would agree to this right up to a certain point, right up to where their Biblian perspective feels
threatened I imagine. For instance, all Christians would agree that God Himself is greater than words can express, or that the Trinity (in
which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, at the same time, distinct and one) cannot be explained or understood through rational (i.e.
logical, or verbal) terms. But suggest to the average Biblian that the reality of Jesus Christ might be greater than we have come to
understand Him through tradition and verbal discourse, and that this might not coalesce with a literal reading of the New Testament, and
he/she will zoom back to "the words" to explain why it cannot be so ("Yeah but the Bible says...")

Again, I have no problem with that whatsoever, theologically or otherwise, as the basepoint of a Christian's faith, and it is not coming from
a place of falsehood. But there are two subsidiary falsehoods --or perhaps, false corollaries-- to which I vehemently object: 1) let's call a
spade a spade: that is Bible-centered faith, not Christ-centered. However close the Biblian's subjective experience of Christ lies to the
center of his faith, it is held there by the gravitational pull of the "objective" truth of the Bible at its core, if in fact he won't even entertain
an idea that seems to contradict it (and ideas do not contradict each other as often as we think they do). And 2) that widespread belief,
especially among Protestant Christians, that Biblianity is the only way to know Christ. What a truly Orwellian twist this is: given
power and influence, the pigs start running the animal farm, and Christians turn into Pharisees.

Biblians even squabble amongst each other on the same terms, hence the dizzying array of denominations under their tent. A great
anecdotal example: I was in north Georgia, at the orientation for my first tour with US Xpress. My roommate at the hotel, Wayne, was
from Clarksville, Tenn., and he belonged to a "fellowship" that has "contemporary worship" in its service (a church that plays rock songs,
for those not in the know). I don't remember the denomination, but I would bet good money that it was the kind of place that bills itself as
"casual, non-denominational, Bible-believing, Christ-centered"--in short, just like our home church in Oregon, the Ashland Christian
Fellowship (ACF, an affiliate of the Calvary Chapel network), perhaps with the increased fervor that usually accompanies a Bible Belt
twang.

So Wayne and I were at Wendy's for a late dinner, and somehow (I

forget why) he starts

talking shop with an older

Christian feller from the

local hill country. It didn't take long

for me, the utterly silent observer

(and probably

leaning-toward-agnostic at the time) to

realize this was not

Sunday morning fellowship. Yes, I remember now--Wayne had

a T-

shirt

promoting the Christian music at his church, or something very similar.

And the

local feller took it upon himself

to inform Wayne that God does

not approve of all that

caterwauling during a church service. Naturally

Wayne thought that

was rubbish and

defended his worship service. It

got pretty heated as I recall.

At some point the conversation turned to

pastoral authority: Wayne

believed the

congregation should follow the lead of its pastor and be

accountable to him (surely

not

"/her"). But the local guy was actually

more of a loose cannon, sort of a free agent

fundamentalist preacher in

his own

right. He said pastoral authority is not scriptural, that

each

believer answers to no one but Christ the King Himself. This appealed to my

anarchist leanings (as any reader of

The

Peasant and the King

will likely attest) and he

definitely had a fire burning for God in there, but I couldn't relate then, not

could I now,

to how he kept the flames stoked. Everything had to be scripturally validated for him

to even consider it; the fact that Paul, for instance, did not endorse the performance of songs by Audio Adrenaline and Jars of Clay in the
Corinthian church was enough to convince him that modern music has no place in "God's church." At one point --this was the vivid
memory that got me started on this now longish aside-- he was talking about a time that someone tried to tell him what was surely a
crackpot idea about something Christ-related, and his response was "BOOK, CHAPTER, VERSE!" (You have to picture this man: about
sixty, long and lanky, more than a little weather-beaten, his back stiff and his chest puffed out, barking these words while doing something
menacing with his bony index finger). In other words, if you can't pinpoint the validation for your idea with a specific Biblical verse,
buddy, you're full of malarkey or something worse. It reminded me of the way soldiers ID themselves in the military: name, rank, serial
number. If a soldier is captured by the enemy, that's the only information he/she is supposed to give. I guess if it's good enough for the U.
S. government, it was good enough for him.

The two combatants kept it civil, but barely, and when they parted I am certain that each of them felt he had won the argument based on
the inscrutable, objective truth of the Scriptures as he understood it. Wayne certainly wasn't swayed. Our friend had given some kind of
indication that he had done some prison time, and for that, among many other things, I think Wayne dismissed him as kind of a wingnut.
Which he probably was. But the guy did make some valid points, especially valid to one who seeks to be a "Bible-believer". There are a lot
of uncompromising statements in a literal reading of the Christian scriptures. The God of the Bible may be chockfull of mercies and
overflowing grace every moment that you breathe, but quit before you confess Jesus of Nazareth as your Savior and His only begotten
Son, and he instantly becomes a serious hardass.

I think I just overstepped my self-imposed bounds, so I'd best stop mocking the Loyal Opposition and get back to what I intended to
present here. I want to address some Christotheistic ideas in a context where it will be clearly evident that they are not anti-Biblical --they
just refuse to be kept within Biblical bounds. There are two real good ones I have for now. I'll get to them tomorrow.

HC-Salt Lake City

© 2004 by Hermit Crab
a Fish Out of Water production

Next--Chapter 3