Walter commented:
“I recently skimmed a blog post by C. Michael Patton over at Parchment and Pen where he created a diagram showing what he considered to be the essential and non-essential doctrines that comprise orthodox Christian belief.
“The fighting began almost immediately in the comments section.”
This is not a problem unique to Christian or religious identity. Consider:
What beliefs do you have to hold to be a:
Republican
deep ecologist
Chicago school economist
libertarian
naturalist
scientist
atheist
Ask questions about these identities and immediately you’ll find yourself mired in disputes.
Now let’s make it even more disputatious. Ask yourself:
What beliefs must you deny to be a:
Republican
deep ecologist
Chicago school economist
libertarian
naturalist
scientist
atheist
Once again, the answers will quickly mire us in raucous debate.
Now ask:
What beliefs do you have to hold (and deny) to be an exemplary:
Republican
deep ecologist
Chicago school economist
libertarian
naturalist
scientist
atheist
Nobody escapes these kinds of debates without significant bruising.
What irks me is how people sometimes focus these kinds of essentialist questions on communities widely recognized to be religious as if the lack of consensus on precisely the set of beliefs one must hold (and deny) to be a minimal (or exemplary) member of the community is somehow a special problem for religion. But it isn’t. Essentialist questions relating to complex social identities are always contentious and will always be fuzzy on some of their edges.
