ASSIGNMENT 1 | FORUM QUESTION | THE OTHER

Does Christianity require an "other" or outsiders so that Christians can clearly understand who is a member vs. who is not a member of the church?

The answer is no.

Christianity is not a club. It has no secret handshake or required oath to belong. In fact, Jesus’s teachings stand in full opposition to that kind of mentality. Christianity is an offering. A pathway out of many that one can take to find meaning in life. The message is, all are welcome. It helps to find a community of others who have chosen this path in order to deepen the experience. But, it is not exclusive. Having an appreciation for other faiths and practices can only enhance ones journey. Othering is a false doctrine. It is a tool of those who want to obtain and maintain power over. It is used to control the masses. The powerful are threatened by diversity because in diversity it is made clear that only God is all powerful and as God’s creation, we are all one.

M. Cross

Christian History & Social Change

Bernard Schlager, PhD

Lesson 2 - Assignment 1

Does Christianity require an "other' or outsiders so that Christians can clearly understand who a member is vs. who is not a member of the church?

Let me just flat out answer "No!  

With that said, I think the idea of "other' is more related to human nature than Christianity or any other religion. In nature and religion, we assess, categorize, and determine how and if we will relate. Unfortunately, historically, sometimes religion uses "the other" for comparison (we're better than them), criticism, judgment, subjection, and then utilization.

Even sects of the Christian faith consider different denominations "Other", and it is usually based on a minor, simple difference. Yet, the attitude is accompanied by shaking the head. "Poor things, we're the right ones. We have it, you don't."

And why do we need to understand who is and is not a member? As Christians, our job is not fruit inspection but sharing Christ and Christianity with 'whosoever will, let them come."

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

Selah!

That is a hard no.

I don’t consider myself a “good” life-long Christian, though I came up in the east coast Protestant tradition, and most of what I understand about the faith I have learned in the last five years or so, having just joined church for the first time in my adult life. But what I understand from my all my readings about Jesus is that Christianity is a club that welcomes every single body in the name of love, especially the marginalized and downtrodden. In meeting every body where they are the teachings encourage each of us to do the same. To be inclusive. To stare down injustice and exclusion (of others or outsiders). It seems to me that othering is a way to consolidate and hold on to power, and true Christianity is not about building power so much as spreading love. And in that, the power is with the people.

Clark Kellogg

Christian History, Prof.  Bernard Schlager, Ph. D.

Week Two, December 5, 2025

Assignment 1 | Forum Question | The Other

Does Christianity require an "other" or outsiders so that Christians can clearly understand who is a member vs. who is not a member of the church?

Christianity is a big tent with different types of memberships. In the 15^th century, Christianity was used to enslave indigenous people for the purpose of creating wealth for the Church and Royalty of Europe. Enslavement is not membership.

Creating contrast to define who is and who isn’t a member is, I believe, a weak criteria of membership. This relies on making negative judgments about the “them,” to define the “us.” “Membership by judgment” also requires those who are members to believe and behave like the people on top of the hierarchy. So, membership is conditional on staying within boundaries defined by Church leaders.

The “other” in Christianity, and many other institutions, is surely a convenient way to define being a member. But is it a good way? Are there other ways of becoming a member of Christianity?

To me, this is a question of where the idea of membership comes from. Is it from without, conferred by the Church, or is it from within derived by our beliefs and behaviors? I believe Christian “membership” comes from within. It is fueled more by questions than answers; curiosity more than judgment; openheartedness instead of close-mindedness.

In other words, one is a member less by what others do and more by what one does. My interpretation of the readings, and Las Casas in particular, suggests that being a member of Christianity, then and now, is more about our internal relationship with God and our actions, than by our relationship to the institution of Christianity and its dogma.   

Rev. CJ Dunford

Christian History & Social Change, Week 2

Assignment 1, Forum Question: the Other

5 December 2025

Does Christianity require an "other" or outsiders so that Christians can clearly understand who is a member vs. who is not a member of the church?

This question brings up a lot of questions around clarification for me. What does it mean to “be a Christian”? Is it baptism? Confession? Perfect behavior? Attempting at perfect behavior? Attempting to be Christ-like? Knowledge? Practice? Is there value in this label “Christian?”

Once we have that definition, then I suppose we might classify (as western/colonial knowledge is wont to do) the “other” as that which/those who do not fall under that definition of “being a Christian.”

Based on the lecture and our reading, it seems like that definition of “being a Christian” is up for debate, especially as pointed out by de las Casas. “Barbarity” seems to be one characteristic of the "non-Christian other", however, he indicates many times, those who proclaim to be “good” Catholic conquerors treat indigenous peoples with barbarity (torture, murder, mutilation, enslavement, among others) so that the supposed objects of conversion—indigenous peoples—certainly see Christians as barbaric.

Bringing this reasoning alongside the brief presentation of Moore’s Formation of a Persecuting Society and the early history of Christian teachers and communities seeking to distinguish themselves from Jews, it would seem that the Christian church has always sought to establish an “other.” While I do not call myself a Christian, I am familiar with Jesus’ teachings. I consider him a Bodhisattva, a being who put the liberation of all beings over their own, and I don’t recall Jesus trying to other anyone. Rather he sought reconciliation and called out avarice, fear & discrimination, and the foolishness of thinking ourselves separate and non-reliant on one another for liberation.

To proclaim oneself “the Way,” is a bold statement, but based on many Buddhist Sutras, I’m not sure that it’s outlandish for a Bodhisattva to proclaim something like that, and what Jesus taught is not entirely dissimilar from the practices of many lay Buddhists. Even the idea of unity, oneness, or—as Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh puts it—interbeing, with Christ (and all other beings, sentient and non-sentient) taught during the Last Supper is what I appreciate as a teaching that can be highly Buddhistic.

All this is to say that, maybe the institution of Christianity seems to require an other, however Christ certainly does/did not.

Deb Anderson

Christian History & Social Change, Week 2

Assignment 1, Forum Thoughts on the Other

Dec 5, 2025

Throughout history, dominant-culture Christianity has often relied on drawing lines between who’s “in” and who’s “out.” Those boundaries gave a simple sense of identity — usually by centering the culture and values of the majority and pushing everyone else to the margins. That may have felt useful for maintaining unity and control, but it was rooted more in fear than in faith. When we define ourselves by excluding others, the church stops looking like Jesus. So does Christianity need an “other”? No. But Christians often act like it does. The Gospel calls us to drop the lines and widen the table — not protect belonging, but share it.

Does Christianity require “other” or outsiders so that Christians can clearly understand who is a member versus who is not a member of the church?

Christianity does operate with insider/outsider dynamics but does not require a “other” to know who belongs. This contrasts with what Christians have often done historically to millions around the world in the name of God and being a Christian. Each social group maintains some distinction between inside and outside. There are markers of belonging to identify others like themselves. What you believe…in Jesus. What you do…prayer, baptism, worship. How you behave…caring for the sick, the shut-in and giving to the church. Who acknowledges… leadership, membership, stand-up profile. Who you associate with…fellowship, community. The insider/outsider aspect is used for both positively identifying membership and negatively towards exclusion.

Amanda Weaver

Christian History & Social Change

Lesson 2: Reflection

Christianity does not require an “other” to understand who is or is not a part of the church. In fact, Jesus’s teachings are the opposite. There is no “other,” only people who should be loved and cared for, regardless of their relationship to you, and, by extension, to the church.

 That said, “othering” is an easy out. Having a set definition of who you should love, who you should distain, who is deserving, who deserves nothing, etc. allows you to proclaim and practice faith on the surface while not actually engaging with it. There is no need to sit in discomfort, no need to grapple with scripture, no need to do anything other than show up and sit in a pew on Sundays. This is the type of faith that the “Christian” church has embraced throughout much of history and that significant portions of it continue to embrace today because “othering” serves those who are in power. People who are given an “other/others” to fear or to save are people who are easily controlled. 

R. Lomax

Christian History and Social Change

Lesson 2

Does Christianity require an "other" or outsiders so that Christians can clearly understand who is a member vs. who is not a member of the church?

No. 

Christianity does not require an “other” or outsiders so that Christians can clearly understand who is a member vs. who is not a member of the church. Christianity is not a club that requires a membership for exclusion purposes but we should be promoting inclusion. As much as we know this is what Jesus desired for his church, we would be naive to suggest that people have not made Christianity something to exclude those that do not look alike, talk alike or think alike. Jesus himself instructed us in Matthew 22:39 “And the second is like unto it, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself.” If we are to treat our neighbors no differently than we would like to be treated then there is no “other” there are no “outsiders.”

Ogundipe

Christian History - Reflection

Week 2 (12/6/25)

Does Christianity require an "other" or outsiders so that Christians can clearly understand who is a member vs. who is not a member of the church?

I believe that the answer to this question is complex.

When we say Christianity there are many related but not always fully aligned elements that we are discussing.

Most significantly, Christianity represents the teachings of Christ and the organizations that serve as the authorities on these teachings.

Organizations often have to engage in an othering dynamic in order to stand out and grow. For instance, for administrative reasons organizations must be able to clearly determine who is in the organization and who is not. For instance, this is an important question to answer if the organization provides resources to people. If the organization is not able to draw lines then this could lead to insolvency. Additionally, organizations sometimes must compete with each other, in this instance they must distinguish themselves from one another, and sometimes the ability to do so effectively has serious consequences (it could lead to greater resources and influence or lesser resources and influence). And so on.

The point is that religious organizations are no exception to organizational dynamics, in real-time. They are incentivized to other and many times the survival of the organization rests on the ability to do so.

The other deep concern is that organizations are often unable to respond dynamically on a continuous basis because of bureaucracy. Additionally, the basis of an organization is to reproduce a specific output. When tides change and history moves forward organizations are often faced with the reality that they can’t move as fast as the tides of history without the potential of facing organizational collapse. Most, if not all, large organizations reach a point where they are forced to choose between the spirit of what inspired the organization and the perpetuation of the organization at the risk of betraying elements of the core impetus that served as its seed.

Organizational Christianity and all religions are influenced by this reality.

Having said this, if we are viewing Christianity as the teaching of Christ then the answer is clear: an other, at least in the classical sense, is not needed. The Kingdom of God is available to all who follow Jesus as the way. There is a level of othering in this statement, but it cuts across all social barriers. In this statement the only othering is an othering of faith, those that have faith and walk in that faith, and those who don’t.

Christianity does not necessarily require an “other” or outsider in order for Christians to understand who belongs to the church, but historically many Christian communities have often defined themselves in contrast to those outside the faith. The New Testament presents the church as a community united by belief in Christ, shared practices, and commitment to love and service rather than simply by opposition to outsiders.

At the same time, boundaries have always existed within Christianity. Baptism, communion, doctrine, and communal values have traditionally helped define membership. These distinctions can help preserve identity and accountability, but problems arise when the idea of the “other” leads to exclusion, judgment, or hostility. Jesus frequently interacted with people considered outsiders by society, including tax collectors, Samaritans, and marginalized groups, which suggests that Christianity at its core is meant to be invitational rather than isolationist.

In my view, Christianity functions best not when it defines itself primarily against outsiders, but when it focuses on embodying the teachings of Christ through compassion, justice, humility, and community. A healthy understanding of the church should create belonging without depending on division or fear of those outside the tradition.