THE COMMUNICATION EQUATION

One big question is how we are to define Generic Christianity. I suspect that a synonym might be "authentic Christianity, but I also suspect that doesn't help us much. Perhaps the question should be stated more like: How do we figure out just what generic Christianity is. One thing that comes to mind is (don't jump down my throat here): I think the postmodernists have a point when they suggest that human communication is essentially on a par with language at the time of Babel; i.e., understanding each other is pretty difficult because we all come with our own dictionaries, as it were. Nearly every word we store in memory comes with baggage: experiences that shape not just the Webster definition, but our interpretation of those words. For instance, take the word "father." My definition and interpretation of that word is shaped by whether my father was a good, kind, loving father, or a brutal, drunken, abusive father; not to mention other fathers I may have observed in my life. There also judgments I make about the value of that relationship. Consider the person who might be inclined to say, "If God is anything like my father, I don't need Him."

Think about the process of communicating: first there is a gut feeling  that rises inside of me to the point of my being conscious of it. then I have to translate the general sense or feeling I have into words out of the combination of standard dictionary (Webster) and my own personal dictionary, and I have to put them together in a way that makes sense, and if I can get that far (have you ever heard someone say, "I know what I mean, I just can't put it into words.), the next step is to speak them out into the air where they fly off in your direction, hopefully to land in your ears (are you listening?). From there they have to push their way through the grid of your dictionary, which may be significantly different from mine, especially with respect to specific words (like "father"). You, then, have to dissect that incoming sentence, in order to decipher its meaning, parts of which may get lost in translation, or may be misinterpreted, possibly because of the nuances of inflection which can introduce negative or positive revisions of what you have received. Surely it is by God's grace alone that we are able to overcome any of the P/S+D and begin to really touch each others' hearts and minds in such a way as to balance this communication equation; so that what was sent on one side of the equation resembles anything close to what was received on the other side of it.

OK, so back to the original question: how are we to define Generic Christianity, to which I will now add the word "together." How shall we go about, cooperatively, defining Generic Christianity? Doesn't the above tell us - compel us - to approach the whole process cooperatively - never competitively, with the grace of kindness and thankfulness for each others' input. This, it seems to me can only happen if we begin by acknowledging that, in spite of hundreds of years of dogma and doctrine, none of us has all the answers. The baggage of history on that score is fraught with the horrors of the Inquisition, and killing off one another, over presuppositions - presupposing that we've got it, and "they" don't. If we have an open market of ideas, then it would seem that we should "presuppose," that we can all add insight to the whole, without claiming that our insight is immune to any sort of revision should God choose to open up areas of His plan and purpose that we haven't yet seen. It rubs against our P/S+D nature to want to be in control, which often means we have this urge to claim the final word on some subject. Seems to me the only one with the final word is the One who gave the word in the first place (In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God..." (John 1)
Oh, and by the way...what do YOU think?
More later.