It's really a good idea to have a check list to go through as a "fail safe" mechanism when determining matters of faith- Church Fathers, Councils, Apostles, and Scripture. When we preempt those 4 criteria and do our own thing, we get into all kinds of messes. I think that check list would have stopped Mormonism and Islam for one thing. For me, Mormonism is like Taoism, Hinduism or Buddhism is here; it calls to me only because my mother's side of the family is Mormon/ has a LDS mindset. I have a soft spot for Mormon people, but even as a teenager couldn't believe in the Book of Mormon; now I know why. It would never make it past one of the checkpoints and is no way Christian. I read yesterday that there are now 135 million Pentecostals and Charismatics in Asia out of a total 313 million Christians, meanwhile there are only about 7 million (I can't really remember this exact total)Mormons outside the US.
I only hope all those Pentecostals and Charismatics are using some sort of a check list to keep their faith Christian. It's easy to see if they don't, with so many of them out there, each thinking the Holy Spirit is talking to them, what we are going to wind up with is a whole lot of churches that are sort of Christian, but aren't at all (like the Mormon Church).

I was talking with someone from class who said they couldn't support certain stances we had discussed. But I don't think the important thing is agreeing. Sometimes difficult ideas need to peculate in our brains until they make sense. That means we have to sit with uncomfortable ideas awhile before we decide they are incorrect or correct. For me it is important in the long run to say that an idea logically makes sense; that is the westerner in me. I just don't think that seeing the logic is instantaneous. Of course, if the guy who said something is a bozo, I would probably not bother to process what they say. But if the person who said something disturbing is someone you respect, then you owe it to yourself to explore what they think until you come to terms with it one way or another. So maybe I start with an Asian approach as a screening method, but ultimately end up with a western one.

Sometimes it is easy for me to forget the cultural divide because in Malaysia there are a number of common reference points. Maybe Asian Americans identify for good or ill with American culture, but Malaysians are "truely Asian". Every now and then I am jolted back into reality. Like what I think about marriage is so different. I was talking to Alex from Burma last year, and he was saying his mom was picking out a wife for him. I was shocked, but tried not to act like it. For me love is important, and I hate to think who my mom would have picked out for me. Charles in our class also went to a matchmaker. And I have friends in KL who had arranged marriages that seem really happy. But then I have a friend from Burma so unhappily wed- really. And the funny thing is, she says in all seriousness that if they had not gone to all the trouble to go to an astrologer and a matchmaker, just think how bad her marriage would be! I kept thinking, lady they are the ones who messed you up sticking you with your impossible husband.

I looked up Moravians, and they are Protestant with, "...an emphasis on Ancient unity as well as Renewed unity." This is their motto: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, love." This fits into the class discussion on Tradition (fundamental basics) vs traditionns (whatis not crucial to observe) So they are not Orthodox, but their hearts are in the right place.

Bultman makes me sad; I think he is wrong about creeds; he is honoring the outer form of a creed but not the reality it represents. He doesn't believe them, only believes them because he needs hope. That is a very half hearted approach to faith. He might as well leave offerings at all sorts of pagan statues, if he needs hope so much. That's a shotgun approach to faith, that one of those pellets might hit home.

I never realized the definition of "church" would so contentious.
Webster's Dictionary has several definitions: 1) a building set apart or consecrated for worship 2) religius service or public worship among Christians 3) all Christians considered as a single body 4) the ecclesiastical government of a particular religious, or its power as opposed to secular government 5) the profession of the clergy 6) a group of worshipers; congregation

Then of course there are the Protestant , Catholic and the Orthodox definitions. The Catholics and Orthodox definitely make the rest of us look bad because they have given the issue so much thought and we look shallow in comparison.

Jesus said that whenever 2 or 3 are gathered in his name, he will be in their midst. So this is my most basic conception of "church"- people coming together in the name of Jesus, which envokes his presence. I'm not really sure why we have to make things more complicated than that.

The image of the church being like a container of cookies that have gotten spilled onto the floor, then dusted off and put back into the container- It is something I will remember; like Forest Gump saying that life is like a box of chocolates.