John H writes:
How big’s /what/ circle?
IMO, the problem here is the whole exercise of drawing circles in the first place, not the question of how big or small we make the circle. One group says “the circle is defined by this very detailed set of doctrines”, another says “it’s defined by this shorter and/or less detailed set of doctrines” (the Nicene Creed, “mere Christianity”, etc). And so it goes on, .
This is why I keep going back to the concept of a “centred set”: the church being defined by its centre, not by its boundary. Now of course, the centre of the church is Christ, but in this discussion we’re concerned with the centre in terms of the church’s confession of Christ. (I also apologise now for my unsettling use of British spelling for “centre” (sw).)
This allows us to be both very detailed in describing the centre, but also very broad in who we accept as Christians (even if we regard them as “off-centre” to a greater or lesser extent.
To put this in concrete terms: if I’m asked to say where I think the centre is, I’m going to use a definition that will not be accepted by everyone. I’m going to choose the teachings set out in Luther’s Small Catechism, which I regard as the best exposition of “mere Christianity” ever written.
That would justly produce howls of outrage from those who disagree with Lutheran teachings on the sacraments, were I saying it represents the boundary outside which no-one can be called a Christian. But I’m not: I’m saying this is where I believe the centre to be. I’ll leave it to God to decide where the boundary is and who is on or other side of it, and indeed who is closer or further away from the centre itself.
