It strikes me that the first quote from Kreeft is rather static and objective, whereas the response from Trott is all about action. Kreeft is substance without movement (okay, we have the nature of God over here and the nature of man over there, but so what? what, if anything, do these two things have to do with each other, or with the people who believe in them?), whereas Trott is movement without substance (he says "Christianity" follows "Christ" but doesn't say what those things *are*).
So I don't necessarily see Trott as "dissenting" from Kreeft, just coming at the definition of Christianity from a completely different angle. The second Kreeft quote bridges the gap somewhat, at least, by pointing to some sort of *relationship* between the nature of God and the nature of man -- a relationship that begins with action from God that invites a reciprocal action from man (or humanity, as we would say nowadays).
Well … perhaps Jon dissents from Kreeft (or at least Kreeft’s frame of mind when he formulated the first definition) with respect to whether “substance” or “movement” constitutes a more appropriate starting point for understanding or explaining Christianity! :-)
So, what do you think of my attempted definition(s)? And how would you define Christianity?
Let's just say it isn't easy to define Christianity in a single sentence, and I note that in your second attempt you ultimately used *two*. :)
If I were going to offer a single -- hopefully pithy -- sentence, the one that comes to mind is St. Athanasius's statement that "God became man so that man might become god," which obviously begs for further definition (what is "God"? what is "man"? etc.) but does, at least, point to the Incarnation and to the action that we are called to as a result of the Incarnation.
Oh hey Peter, I was just reminded that on Twitter I once responded to a prompt to express my theology in ten words or less with a sentence that exceeded that account by one word: “God became human to unite humans to God and one another.”* I think like that statement slightly better than Athanasius’s, although it’s slightly less pithy! I’ve modified the post to include this. :-)
* (Edit: “and one another,” not “and TO one another,” which kicks it to 12 words!)
It's less prone to potential misunderstanding than Athanasius's statement, for sure. Plus, it neatly sums up the two greatest commandments (so it points back to more easily identifiable teachings of Jesus *and* to the Jewish tradition his teachings were based on).
Hey, in my *first* definition I used *three* sentences! :-) The “first” one-sentence definition above was just the beginning of my original first attempt, which was on Facebook.
So, yeah, as high a premium as I put on pithiness in principle, my goals here were somewhat different. To start with, I wanted a certain defamiliarization; I wanted to minimize the element of religious jargon, like the “revealed by God” in Kreeft’s first definition (or even “following Jesus” in Jon’s description, despite a somewhat qualified use of that phrase in my “first” definition). Hence circumlocutions like “the unfathomable Power behind the universe” and “the ultimate reality we call God,” not to mention “impaled on a Roman gibbet.”
I also wanted something more concrete than either “God’s marriage proposal to the soul” or even Ratzinger’s “an encounter, a love story, an event.”
St. Athanasius’s maxim is indisputably an excellent “material” summary of Christian faith. And it does, as you say, point toward action in a very general way, though here again I wanted something a bit more concrete, especially some indication of the ideas of faith, hope, and love.
I wonder if tying a definition to the structure our foundations found in some of the old creed's could fill out a definition of Christianity. Either way, good writing here!
It strikes me that the first quote from Kreeft is rather static and objective, whereas the response from Trott is all about action. Kreeft is substance without movement (okay, we have the nature of God over here and the nature of man over there, but so what? what, if anything, do these two things have to do with each other, or with the people who believe in them?), whereas Trott is movement without substance (he says "Christianity" follows "Christ" but doesn't say what those things *are*).
So I don't necessarily see Trott as "dissenting" from Kreeft, just coming at the definition of Christianity from a completely different angle. The second Kreeft quote bridges the gap somewhat, at least, by pointing to some sort of *relationship* between the nature of God and the nature of man -- a relationship that begins with action from God that invites a reciprocal action from man (or humanity, as we would say nowadays).
Well … perhaps Jon dissents from Kreeft (or at least Kreeft’s frame of mind when he formulated the first definition) with respect to whether “substance” or “movement” constitutes a more appropriate starting point for understanding or explaining Christianity! :-)
So, what do you think of my attempted definition(s)? And how would you define Christianity?
Let's just say it isn't easy to define Christianity in a single sentence, and I note that in your second attempt you ultimately used *two*. :)
If I were going to offer a single -- hopefully pithy -- sentence, the one that comes to mind is St. Athanasius's statement that "God became man so that man might become god," which obviously begs for further definition (what is "God"? what is "man"? etc.) but does, at least, point to the Incarnation and to the action that we are called to as a result of the Incarnation.
Oh hey Peter, I was just reminded that on Twitter I once responded to a prompt to express my theology in ten words or less with a sentence that exceeded that account by one word: “God became human to unite humans to God and one another.”* I think like that statement slightly better than Athanasius’s, although it’s slightly less pithy! I’ve modified the post to include this. :-)
* (Edit: “and one another,” not “and TO one another,” which kicks it to 12 words!)
It's less prone to potential misunderstanding than Athanasius's statement, for sure. Plus, it neatly sums up the two greatest commandments (so it points back to more easily identifiable teachings of Jesus *and* to the Jewish tradition his teachings were based on).
Hey, in my *first* definition I used *three* sentences! :-) The “first” one-sentence definition above was just the beginning of my original first attempt, which was on Facebook.
So, yeah, as high a premium as I put on pithiness in principle, my goals here were somewhat different. To start with, I wanted a certain defamiliarization; I wanted to minimize the element of religious jargon, like the “revealed by God” in Kreeft’s first definition (or even “following Jesus” in Jon’s description, despite a somewhat qualified use of that phrase in my “first” definition). Hence circumlocutions like “the unfathomable Power behind the universe” and “the ultimate reality we call God,” not to mention “impaled on a Roman gibbet.”
I also wanted something more concrete than either “God’s marriage proposal to the soul” or even Ratzinger’s “an encounter, a love story, an event.”
St. Athanasius’s maxim is indisputably an excellent “material” summary of Christian faith. And it does, as you say, point toward action in a very general way, though here again I wanted something a bit more concrete, especially some indication of the ideas of faith, hope, and love.
I wonder if tying a definition to the structure our foundations found in some of the old creed's could fill out a definition of Christianity. Either way, good writing here!