.

Dear Spencer (the author),

.

You ask :

« Does it occur to these researchers and the Millennials that they replaced the centre of Christianity with a bogus doctrine? »
.

You indicate in your brief bio at the bottom of this article on OLO that you are, inter alia, a Christian minister, but there is no mention of the particular Christian denomination to which you belong. A Christian denomination, is, of course, defined as a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organization, leadership and doctrine.

Though there is no consensus among experts as to just exactly how many different Christian denominations there are in the world today, most estimates put them in the tens of thousands, give or take a few thousand. Whichever way you look at it, that makes tens of thousands of distinct Christian doctrines.

Seen in this context, your question (and that of Laura Fitzpatrick, whom you quote) is not surprising. Irrespective of whether you, or Laura, actually chose your particular Christian denomination or, like most of us, were simply endowed with it as part and parcel of your cultural inheritance, it is perfectly understandable that you tend to consider its “distinct doctrine” as being at “the centre of “Christianity” as you know it.

Perhaps the question one should ask oneself is why there are so many “distinct doctrines” within Christianity ? How can that be ? What justification is there for so many differences ? Why is each denomination convinced that its particular doctrine is at "the centre of Christianity" ?

I have often seen it suggested that the English word “religion” derives from the Latin “religare”, “to bind”. At the same time, I have observed that the exact opposite is also true. Religion separates, divides and opposes. Some doctrine is dogma and dogma is inflexible, uncompromising and intolerant.

Cicero provides a different version of its origin : The treatises of M.T. Cicero On the nature of the gods, …/literally translated … by C.D. Yonge. (Bohn’s classical library) 1853, book 2, section 28, page 71

.

Banjo,

I've observed some of your habits in responding to religious topics on OLO. You've done it again with your narrative here:

<<You indicate in your brief bio at the bottom of this article on OLO that you are, inter alia, a Christian minister, but there is no mention of the particular Christian denomination to which you belong>>

My topic had nothing to do with my denomination or the many Christian denominations in the world. By the way, are you aware of the many denominations/sects within Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and the 'no religion' category?

Instead, you give us your your beefs with Christianity. It's a red herring!

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Many thanks for your response. I appreciate it.

As you may have noticed, I have never had the honour of receiving a response to any of my comments from your Anglican deacon colleague, Peter Sellick, who has been publishing his monthly sermons on OLO for the past 17 years.

You indicate :

« My topic had nothing to do with my denomination or the many Christian denominations in the world »

Well, you did write :

« The replacement for Millennials (aged 21-37) is Jeremiah 29:11, "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future'" »

You also went to some length to describe what you claim to be “millennial fake theology”, concluding with the question :

« Does it occur to these researchers and the Millennials that they replaced the centre of Christianity with a bogus doctrine? »

So there you have it : “a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organization, leadership and doctrine” – a distinct Christian denomination, movement or group ? Call it what you will.

That said, if, as you now state : “my topic had nothing to do with my denomination or the many Christian denominations in the world”, what exactly are you referring to when you compare the Christian doctrine of the millennials – which you consider to be “bogus” – to [something] at “the centre of Christianity” ?

Is neither your own Christian denomination’s doctrine, nor that of some other Christian denomination, at the centre of Christianity ? If not, what exactly is it, in your view, that the millennials’ “bogus doctrine” is replacing at the centre of Christianity ?

Naively, I felt you were simply preaching in favour of your own Christian denomination’s doctrine.

However, the crux of the matter, in my view, is “belief”, on which stands all religion and all doctrine – whether religious or otherwise.

Let's face it, there's nothing, in this world, more subjective than belief.

.

Banjo,

I appreciate your interaction and hope we can go somewhere with it.

It's true that I asked in my article, 'Does it occur to these researchers and the Millennials that they replaced the centre of Christianity with a bogus doctrine?

Your reply was:

<<So there you have it : “a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organization, leadership and doctrine” – a distinct Christian denomination, movement or group ? Call it what you will.>>

No, I don't have it! You've jumped from my question about the centre of Christianity to bogus doctrine as your understanding I'm talking about a religious body that has 'a name, organization, leadership and doctrine” – a distinct Christian denomination'.

Sadly, that's your false assumption. It was Rev Dr Peter Phillips of the Research Centre at Durham University who stated, 'Whereas once John 3:16 was the "poster-boy" text of the 20th century'. He regarded it as a 'poster-boy' text for Christianity in the 20th century. He was not discussing any particular denomination. Neither was I.

<<What exactly are you referring to when you compare the Christian doctrine of the millennials – which you consider to be “bogus” – to [something] at “the centre of Christianity” ?>>

I'm referring to all Christians who proclaim the centre of Christianity, which we celebrate every Easter - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. That's what John 3:16-18 highlights. It's the crux of Christianity, no matter what denomination. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16-18&version=NL

The bogus is the feel-good Millennial false interpretation of Jeremiah 29:11 replacing the Gospel of God's good news (John 3:16).

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

If I understand you correctly, you deplore that those Christians who are “Millennials”, i.e., in the age bracket 21-37yrs, have developed their own distinctive Christian doctrine by placing Jeremiah 29:11 (instead of John 3:16-18) at the centre of Christianity.

You emphasise that your article is devoted solely to the theological signification of this particular innovation which you qualify as a “false interpretation of Jeremiah 29:11” and a “bogus Christian doctrine”. It does not address the intractable prospect of further major schisms within Christendom, which, in this instance, involves a generation of devout Christians in the prime of their lives.

If that is, indeed, the point you are making, I think it is still true to say that the crux of the matter is “belief”. All religion and all doctrine (including dogma) stand on belief and belief alone – call it faith or conviction if you like.

The fact remains that neither belief, faith nor conviction are objective realities – until proven otherwise. They are subjective hypotheses. Metamorphosis from belief to reality requires good solid evidence.

Perceptions can be delusive, especially when core beliefs are at stake. Our mind constructs the reality we perceive.

Allow me to suggest that this is an important factor to be taken into consideration when embarking on the perilous task of judging the value, not only of other people’s beliefs, faiths convictions and interpretations but also, and should I say, especially, your own – including those which you obviously hold dear and consider, rightly or wrongly, to be at the centre of the pantheon of Christianity.

.

Banjo,

<<If I understand you correctly, you deplore that those Christians who are “Millennials”,>>

Nowhere in the article did I state or infer that. I have a number of Christian friends who are Millennials. The issue at stake was banishing John 3:16-18 for a false interpretation of Jeremiah 29:11, a verse that was for the Israelites and not Christians.

<< I think it is still true to say that the crux of the matter is “belief”. All religion and all doctrine (including dogma) stand on belief and belief alone – call it faith or conviction if you like. The fact remains that neither belief, faith nor conviction are objective realities – until proven otherwise. They are subjective hypotheses>>

Yes, faith is involved. So is faith to know I can take the tilt train from Brisbane to Bundaberg, Qld.

You have made this kind of presuppositional error about Christianity and other belief systems in a number of your posts. My Christian faith is NOT built on faith that is not objective.

How you describe faith is a leap of faith into the unknown that has yet to be proven. That is not the Christian faith I have. My faith is based on the truths of:

+ God's existence, made evident in the world He created (see Romans 1:18-20);

+ The fact of Jesus Christ's life, death and bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-11);

+ The fact that both the Old Testament and New Testament have been demonstrated to be reliable historical documents.

+ The fact of human lives being radically changed through being born again (born from above) - John 3:3-8;

+ The spread of Christianity worldwide, not based on a subjective faith, but faith with its foundation in facts.