Martin you said
You'll notice relda(sic) I said nothing about Sells salvation, only that if we are to communicate words must retain their commonly understood meaning.

It is interesting that you make the distinction between 'being Christian and 'being saved'. One can only assume therefore that 'being Christian' is not necessary for salvation and therefore is merely a cultural affectation and of little real importance.

You also said
Someone who believes God did not create the universe and is not transcendent and who is not the source of all being is simply not a Christian, the person may be correct but they are not Christians. This is not controversial :)

Technically, what makes one 'Christian' is Baptism. The term 'anonymous Christian' is a somewhat ungracious acknowledgement that salvation in Jesus Christ is universal and not the exclusive privilege of any particular Church or religious sect.

The ability to give intellectual assent to one or another dogmatic proposition neither makes one Christian nor effects salvation. Salvation is a Divine prerogative and far be it from us to judge such matters. Actually, to be concerned with your own salvation is one of the few ways Jesus identified as a certain path to losing your life. If you would follow Jesus then consider carefully what implications this has for your priorities!

Grace and Peace.

relda,
<<'..to rock the boat ... in the hope of reform or restitution..'>>
Exactly, just “in the hope of” is what I am suspicious of. I never claimed the “boat rockers” always wanted to sink the boat they were rocking, the negative consequences were mostly unintended (probably with the exception of those who brought about the Nazi rule). The political, social and economic disaster in the countries where communists ruled for decades were not “hoped for“ by the naive Marxist, or rather Marx-Leninist idealists and dreamers, not even seen by some of them living in the “free world” (as we called it then) when this disaster already became a reality. Neither did the “gentle boat rockers” of the sixties and seventies foresee the weekended West having difficulties with defending the West (except militarily) against the Islamist threat.

Returning to our topic, neither did the post-Vatican II “boat rockers” aim at emptied churches when they introduced all sorts of shallow zeitgeist-following liturgical and other practices, thus leaving the field free for evangelicals and other emotional forms of religiosity divorced from the rational backbone of faith. They probably did not foresee that neither would the ecumenical rapprochement help too much, since the traditional non-Catholic churches would empty (in the West) even faster than the Catholic ones.

Please note, I do not feel bitter about Vatican II. On the contrary, it was an overdue correction brought about by knowledgeable, still a bit too conservative and cautious but responsible elders of the Roman Church. I feel bitter about the liturgical, and other small innovators, driven by the zeitgeist who saw an opportunity to rock the Church, weakened through the post Vatican II transition, from below. There are many other unintended consequences of these boat rockers that neither they nor I shall live to see.

Your view of Dark Ages is the standard one, although with somewhat darkened anti-Catholic glasses, but certainly based on facts. And another thing: Freedom of conscience is certainly no invention of the Catholic “boat rockers”; it has always been part of the Catholic moral teaching, though with different emphases.

Relda,

What is to be read literally and what is to be contextualized is dependent on some outside authority – experts in the environment of the ancient near east, archeologists, historians, biblical scholars and theologians. You just prefer non-Christian authorities who want Christianity to affirm their worldliness.

For example those who believe in Jesus’ Resurrection are sometimes called fundamentalists or literalists, but this is simply prejudice. Two hundred years of modern biblical scholarship (the various quests for the historical Jesus) has ended in greater historical confirmation of Christianity.

One of the greatest living Biblical scholars:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

relda a dedication to philosophical naturalism decides for you the parts of Christianity you accept and reject, don’t pretend modern biblical scholarship supports naturalism, it supports orthodox Christianity and therefore supernaturalism.

You misunderstand the difference between explication and disputation. The time for disputation about the Trinity is over, consequently we now can say Christianity is some thing and not another thing. We can improve our explication of Christianity by growing in understanding and ability to teach the faith, but one cannot be a Christian and simultaneously deny its essential identity. One cannot be half pregnant. I’m sorry if Sells thinks he can still be a Christian without theism!

I’m angry that he uses a Christian platform to undermine orthodox Christianity. Sellick must not call himself a Christian or teach under its auspices – with ready made congregation, status, buildings and resources.

Sellick’s line that Christianity needs to accommodate this present age is narrow and provincial. Christianity is growing faster now than at any time in its history. Global Christianity is predicted in fifty years [Jenkins] but orthodox biblical Christianity not the Frankenstein Sellick proposes.

Because some white people have apostatized and are dying out (see fertility levels in Europe) ultimately will have little effect on the continued global impact of Christianity. Church’s who are committed to time tested orthodox Christianity have flourishing congregations, those that accommodate secularism (which really means assimilation by secularism) are dwindling.

George,
Perhaps 'Rock the Boat' is a poor use of metaphor. The prime motivation for most is to preserve the status quo.True enough, the risk of 'rocking the boat' might just make it worse. The vehicle bringing a change in Russia to Communism in 1917 surely 'rocked the boat' but it was based on a false premise, coupled with assassination and terror. The ideology governing Lenin was, as with Marx and Engels - that history was merely a logical and scientific process. The myth of proletarian October is the myth of the triumph of the alienated and dehumanized masses over all their sufferings and deprivations. As you'd agree, the Communist Party apparatus was the most gigantic Mafia the world has ever known.

My anti-Catholic shades could also extend to a good part of Protestantism with Luther's vehement anti-Semitism in later life. Luther's blindness (or should I say, ignorance ) was based on his reliance toward the Bible as the sole source of Christian authority which fed his later fury toward Jews over their rejection of Jesus as the messiah. For Luther, salvation depended on the belief that Jesus was the son of God, a belief that adherents of Judaism do not share.

Luther did, however, form a significant part of a 'revolution' resulting in the Catholic Church no longer legitimately holding vast tracts of land it taxed and defended, and whose justice it administered; it was no longer legitimate for its bishops to hold temporal offices under princes and kings; nor would the Pope be able to depose secular rulers through his power of excommunication; most importantly, the Holy Roman Emperor would no longer legitimately enforce Catholic uniformity.

It appears Vatican II splits the traditionalists within RC ranks from a more modern approach. Amongst other things, it appears to challenge:
• the belief that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Christian church founded by Jesus Christ;
• the belief that the modern idea of religious liberty is to be condemned;
• the belief that the books of the Bible are historically inerrant;
Cont'd...

..Cont'd
These challenges are hardly revolutionary but certainly appear as a major improvement to old RC dogma. I'll also note, the contradiction of "infallible" doctrines has caused some very conservative Catholics to believe that John Paul II is not a valid pope, and the Second Vatican Council was not a valid council. It has also caused some very liberal Catholics to believe that Pope Pius IX taught doctrinal errors. To the simple man in the street this religion business must seem all a little messy and confusing and not worth the bother - I'm quite empathetic toward this but do enjoy both the intellectual and spiritual challenge of the polemic.

Martin,
The 'authority' to which you refer belongs in an age before the Reformation and the Enlightenment - I don't live there. Neither do I attend to the naturalist philosophy of Bloom in his, 'The Lucifer Principle'. Rather I'm happy to partake in a culture where rationalism, self-criticism, freedom of thought, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state with the rule of law and equality under the law - are all grounded in a uniquely significant Judaeo-Christian heritage.

relda,
I think we have somewhat deviated from the original theme of the article, but I m grateful to you for bringing up these not easy to resolve controversies in hoping to broaden my own perspective on them.

You are right that beside those who “rock the boat“ without thinking much about the possible consequences, there are also those who just want to preserve the status quo. What the two have in common is their obsession with the past, which they either want to preserve or just change, and see what happens; in both cases at almost any cost. There is a third way, and the case you mention is a good example: Beside those who wanted to preserve the status quo of 19th century capitalism and the Communists who wanted to do away with it without much thinking about the viability of the replacement they were suggesting, there were also those who worked gradually on improvements (e.g. the social democrats) bringing about (in the second half of 20th century) a situation in the West not perfect but much better (not only economically) than the one achieved by the Communists.

However, I agree that working diligently on gradual improvements is much harder than both, do nothing, or just do away with the unpleasant features of the existing situation without much thinking of what to replace them with, or what will move in by itself if they create a vacuum of opportunities.

I think, retrospectively, there is no doubt Luther did a lot of good for Christianity and even the Roman Church itself. I am no historian, but I think his “antisemitism” should be judged in the context of his time.

The split of traditionalists vs those who prefer a modern approach is somewhat of a simplification. For instance, I am a liturgical traditionalist, conservative in the sense of refusing to sacrifice the timeless (often expressed just in symbols) to the ever changing zeitgeist, but would probably be considered a heretic by the good souls who cannot understand me. The three items that you say “appear to be challenged”: (ctd)