Please forgive my piecemeal response; you made some great points here.
The way the religion is set up, one may only know Christ through ministers such as evangelists, pastors, teachers.
I would agree that this is often the case. I wouldn't say this is the only legitimate configuration. But I do understand why, based on the above premise, you've come to the conclusion you have. It makes sense.
Therefore, I find it impossible separate Christ from His earthly representatives. The only way to do so, would be to posit a "Christ Consciousness" which does not depend upon Bible, apostles or even Christianity itself, which can be experienced in all religions even if they don't recognize it as "Jesus".
Understood, and not a stretch for me. Even within the institutional traditions there is a whole lot of eternity and a great deal of human history before what Christians know as the incarnation of the Son of God, outside its Judaean context, and after the fact too. I don't think the institutions account for these issues very well.
That is the only way to get around the notions of authority and obedience that are set forth in Scripture, Ecclesiastic structures and evangelical ministries.
This made me smile. I was reading some aikido philosophy the other day... over and over the writer challenges people to work through the energy of attacks and challenges rather than to spend energy meeting or circumventing them. Naturally, some people seem to be more comfortable with that approach than others... and for this and other reasons, there are several martial and nonmartial arts, lol.
The Christ is no better than the messenger representing the Christ.
I can agree and disagree, perhaps because I perceive the All as both the sum of all things and as more than the sum of all things. In a comparable way, I can agree that Christ is no better than his messengers -- though for me, this is only part of the story. Christians use the representation issue as one of mnay warrants for their ethics -- living in the fullness of one's "in-Christ" identity.
Btw, I've always found your comments on revelation below the level of God to be completely sensible.
Revealed truth is not necessary the problem itself, but rather Christianitys historic insistence that it alone represents the source of absolute truth which must be universally applied and assented to.
This dogmatism challenges me too. (And I do think Pearson's case sad. A missed opportunity for his former "friends" to demonstrate the human value of their belief.)
If this were not so from the very beginning, guys like Justin Martyr would not have been arguing with others about how Christianity supersedes and is better than Judaism and paganism.
I know you know that even as Christianity has refined a kind of tribalism for this society, Christianity is not the source of tribalism.
How is it possible to find out what is in Christ, without first digging through the polemics and politics of Christianity?
I think this is a great question, and worth exploring further.
If I ever see evidence that people around the world are coming to believe on the Jesus of the Bible without reading a Bible or hearing a sermon, then I will suspect that Christianity is indeed a universal religion revealed supernaturally by a specifically named God who wants humanity to accept Jesus as the embodiment of Absolute Truth.
I've heard such stories. I've also heard stories told in the inverse -- of people being called out of Christianity into other systems of belief and/or none. In many of these cases, the system being left describes it as apostasy and the system being joined calls it enlightenment, lol. Often these things are a matter of perspective and scope.
Otherwise, I have no choice but to recognize there are multiple and often contradictory Christ(s) revealed by various preachers, teachers, evangelists, patriarchs and Bible translators.
I can respect that, and do.