The Essence of Christianity

Jay, I absolutely agree and only wish that you had shared this with me 30 years ago.  It would have saved me a lot of prayerful struggle.  Then again I would not have been in a place to hear your words of wisdom then.

Of course, we are still left with the more ticklish question of salvation, which is related but not necessarily the same. 

Thank goodness God has these questions figured out for I can no longer claim to have absolute answers to either.

Blessings,

If love is primary to Christian unity, then it would seem all who respond to the Spirit in love share in some form of Christian identity.  In this way Christian unity seems to extend past the Church.

For about a year now, I have been wondering whether the difference between essential and non-essential beliefs might have to do with the practical implications of a given belief: Does this or that belief promote a life-style of love (e.g., the fruit of the Spirit)?

If a belief has no compelling implications for our demeanor / behavior, it is non-essential (e.g., how many angels can dance on the head of a pin). But to the extent that a belief tends to promote Christian behaviors / dispositions, it is essential.

That many Christians have not considered the behavioral implications of their beliefs may not indicate that these belief are non-essential. We may simply not have thought seriously enough about these articles of faith. (Maybe we teachers and preachers are responsible for this failure to connect faith and life.)

Whether or not this hunch is / is not helpful in this discussion, it seems to me that most average Christians have not thought rigorously about the practical implications of their faith. They tend to treat beliefs as merely personal opinions and behaviors (etc.) as if they are arbitrary and disconnected divine commands.

Thanks for the question.  Our assumptions about such things leave us all thinking we agree with one another.  When we start to actually wrestle with the words “we assume everyone understands”, we discover our thoughts are actually very different. 

However, it seems to me that the quest for a definition of “essentials” is tricky business.  I think it is what lies behind, at least in small part, what we have come to know as the “fundamentals of faith”.

I once saw an Elvis impersonator.  There were a couple of problems…he didn’t look at all like Elvis, he didn’t sound like Elvis, in fact, he didn’t even move much like Elvis – consequently, it didn’t take me long to figure out that he wasn’t Elvis.

If our understanding of the word “Christian” is correct and it is defined as “Christ-like”, then we know that we are “Christian” when Jesus can be seen in us (and we know that we are not “Christian” if we don’t look at all like Christ).

Being Christian…

…is not about saying a particular prayer, it starts with believing that Jesus was sent out of God’s love and His blood serves as the sacrifice that we need for our sins to be forgiven.  We are transformed as we repent from our selfish ways and learn to deny ourselves, pick up our cross and follow Jesus.

…has less to do with the method of water baptism and more to do with learning to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit and learning to keep in step with the Spirit.

…has nothing to do with loyalty to this system of beliefs or that one; it has to do with loving Christ and keeping His commandments.  Too many believe that loving others requires us to embrace tolerance, but Scripture shows us that Jesus was not tolerant of sin and He expected people to change their lives and their lifestyle in order to follow Him.

…isn’t affiliation with a particular group of believers.  Clearly the fellowship of other Christians is essential to maturity and encouragement, but going to church doesn’t make one a Christian.

Being Christian means that I abandon my selfishness (and my self-righteousness) in order that the Holy Spirit can mold, shape, and change me into a reflection of Jesus.  I allow the Scriptures to reveal areas of my life that do not fall in line with God’s will and I seek the accountability of other believers to help me mature and grow in grace.

It might sound simplistic, but the essence of following Christ is walking as Jesus walked, forgiving as He forgave, loving as He loved, and teaching what He taught.  There is no point in overcomplicating it.

Dr. Oord.
The complex question: “Who is a Christian” should stimulate a variety or responses? This is an important topic, to get people thinking, especially when there are so many different world(ly)views on the subject?

The view I most prefer is the Biblical definition of a Christian that Luke wrote about in Acts [11:26] where the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. They were called Christians because they took Christ’s teachings as their doctrine of belief and were willing to follow His rules of life.

Christians are not made, by the life-style they choose, as if they could affect moral change on their own, but must be born again as Jesus told Nicodemus which can only occur in Christ.

I believe that once someone has made Christ Lord of his life all those attributes that you mentioned are evidence of our witness to the world. Yes the world can counterfeit much of the Christians behavior, but they can’t pass for the genuine because the blood has not been applied. One should read: John [3: 18,36] I John [5:10, 12] 2 John [1:9] Luke [4:41] Matthew [18:11]

I agree that this is an important issue, but my initial reaction to the question, “What are the essentials to being a Christian” cause me to think of the turn toward fundamentalism back in the early 20th century, which I think many would argue has been a divisive turn for the church.  Of course, I suppose it could be said that what is lacking in much of today’s fundamentalism is the lack of charity, though I doubt any fundamentalist would agree with that assessment.
 
Basically, my view is that it is a tricky question, not because the question itself is inherently tricky, but because of the historical baggage.  For example, the question of participation in Christian community was historically not even a question, it was a given.  But not so since the modern Enlightenment.  Modern and even postmodern Christians assume they can be a Christian outside of Christian community, whereas that most likely was not the case in early Christian (or Jewish) history.  In my view, the recent trend within evangelicalism back toward a communal approach to Christianity is a move toward a more biblically faithful and God-intended direction. 

Even regarding the issue of right beliefs, it seems to me that Christians today, regardless of their respective tradition, have such a developed theology compared to what the early Christians in scripture appear to have had that it is hard to argue for much more of a litmus test than what early Christians confessed, that the beginning of the good news is found in Jesus Christ, the son of God (Mk. 1:1), that the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:17), that God has called us into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Cor. 1:9), that Christ died for our sins, was buried, was raised, and that he appeared to the twelve and others (1 Cor. 15:1-8).  According to Christian history, it appears that even this simple Christ-centered confession was enough to produce all kinds of early heresy and division.

Also, it is interesting to note that 2 Cor. 13:5 suggests that there IS a test that Christians must meet, which seems to be defined by the crucified life of Christ as the pattern for our own lives, outlined in v. 4. 

Finally, for myself, as one who is part of the Wesleyan-holiness tradition, any understanding of what makes a person a Christian must at least wrestle with the meaning of Rom. c. 8, particularly statements such as, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (v. 9b), or, “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (v. 14).

A worthwhile discussion.  Thank you.

Discussions about essentials often devolve because they’re usually about two different subjects. There’s a big difference between gaining entrance to Heaven and living as God intends.

If one asks “what should Christians do?”, then we have the entire New Testament as a starting point.

If one asks “what is the minimum requirement for getting into Heaven?”, that’s another matter entirely. I don’t, of course, have the answer.

One clue might come from Hebrews 11:6, where we read that “he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” Regardless of whether one understands the nature of the trinity, or has discerned the proper theory of the atonement, or has rightly judged whether the gifts of the Spirit are operative today, it appears that simply believing that God exists and coming to Him for what He has to offer is a starting point. After that, I can only rely on this truth: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

A good topic for discussion, Tom!

Tom,

You have written on a difficult subject. We are called to be followers of the Way—Jesus. That means there are certain things we are to believe—about Jesus, God, the Spirit, etc., certain responses we are to make to the claims of the Spirit, certain life-style and attitude changes that have to be made. Yet, what is the level of these beliefs, responses, and changes that qualifies one as Christian? Some persons by temperament, opportunities, and actions seem to be excellent models of what it means to be a Christian. Yet most of us have work, family, and community obligations that take our time and energy away from “spiritual” endeavors. We can’t all be monks or nuns.

I think it is important for the leaders in the Church to teach what we are to believe, even some of those items we might think are unessential. It is important for them to help us to be sensitive to the call of the Spirit and to inform us of actions that are not in keeping with a Christian life-style.  Yet I see the vast majority of laity striving to live a Christian life but who also must balance the demands of work and family. Who am I to say that this one is a Christian and another is not. Let us remember that Paul warned us about judging one another (Rom 14:4). 

I think that in final analysis we have to cast ourselves into the arms of a loving Father who knows our limitations, faults, and failings, and plead for mercy and not justice.

Tom,
The difficulty you are describing regarding the identification of essential and nonessential attributes of Christianity seems to me rooted in the question. That is, it seems your pursuit is for the essentials of “generic” or “general” Christianity. Yet, Christianity, like all religion, is always contextualized. Ultimately, there is no “single” Christianity, and therefore, we are incapable of identifying a “single” set of essentials. If, for example, the essentials of Christianity are proper belief, the question then becomes, what is orthodoxy? Who decides? It seems to me that orthodoxy (in today’s context) is always determined by localized communities. Therefore, we can only identify the essentials of Christianity “for us” (a particular community of believers). This is where denominations can be useful. As you mentioned, denominations are a sign that we do not all agree on the essentials. However, denominations are also a clear sign that “we” (meaning those consisting of a specific community) do agree on the essentials. So, perhaps a better question for those of us in the Church of the Nazarene would be – what are the essentials of Christianity from the perspective of the Church of the Nazarene? I expect that by localizing the question, we are more apt to discover a substantial answer – though I do not pretend that even in a localized context that the question is a simple one.

Thank you for this post. It, and all these thoughtful comments, got me thinking through some issues in one of my own writing projects. After a bit of pondering, I’ve a definition I’d like to contribute to the conversation. In my mind, this is what constitutes essentials worthy of unity:

A Christian is a person who pursues love through every means available, according to that person’s present capacity for devotion to the beautiful paradox who is Christ.

Every spiritual tradition, and every tradition within the Christian sphere, has its own perspective on love (as well as its own disagreements about love): what it means, what it looks like, in what ways it is of value to our lives. But a Christian looks at the example of Jesus, and feels a desire to participate in the ongoing way of life Jesus offers, and accepts that the suffusing presence of this Jesus the Christ is real and relevant to the present moment. This is discipleship: to want to love like Christ loves.

So by all means, let’s honor and respect love wherever we find it. Let’s support love as other religions experience it. And if we name ourselves Christians, let’s learn how to love from Christ.

Belief and community and commitment, then, are ways to involve ourselves in such learning. The ways and means change over time. Funny how Christ, as a present-tense reality, keeps wriggling free of any and all past expectations for a living faith. Tradition lets us love without requiring us to reinvent the wheel every time someone finds new life in Jesus. However, when thoughtless rigidity hinders belief, or hypocrisy damages community, or unloving representations of God wound commitment, I think we must loosen our hold on such means in order to cling to the possibility of our chosen end.

I place love at the center of Christian faith. Everything else is essential in that it imparts a recognizable flavor to that love—if we want to call it specifically Christian. If, as the Apostle Paul puts it, I have all the trappings of transcendent faith, “but have not love, I gain nothing.”

Blessings,

Tiana

Hi Tom,

I think we can safely say that if it were possible to track down every bit of love or goodness in the world (regardless of its source), we’ll find it originates from God’s immeasurable and impartial love. (Matt. 5:45)

As to your question, both John and Paul give us the short answer. John said, “By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.” (I John 4:13)Paul said, “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” (Rom. 8:9)

Their criterion points to the personal presence of God’s Holy Spirit as the indisputable proof of sonship. And the Spirit makes His presence known in different ways. (Gal. 5:22-23) But the NT also emphasises my need to co-operate with the Holy Spirit in God’s endeavour to transform my self-centred character to a Christ-centred character. (Gal.4:19; Eph. 4:13)

As a Wesleyan I understand that this process can be stunted or even thwarted because we are all responsible moral beings who have a measure of freedom in exercising our will, therefore it is possible for me to “grieve” (smother or block) the Spirit’s efforts at morally transforming me in the image of Christ. The Corinthian church is not a very good example of Christianity, yet Paul still called them “brothers” and he urged and cajolled them to get back on track and re-focus on Christ.

The real measuring stick is internal (the Spirit) (Rom. 8:16), which ought to be corroborated by supporting external evidence. (Gal. 5:22-23)

Another way to approach this question is to ask, “Who or what is a Christian disciple?”

It seems to me that Jesus taught His disciples at least six things which He instructed them to pass on to us. Periodically, I measure my personal discipleship against them, which can be a scary thing at times! Here they are as I understand them.

1.) God’s love must be the supreme motive for all my thoughts and actions.

2.) I can always rely on God’s Word to guide and sustain me.

3.) Faith is entrusting myself completely into God’s loving care regardless of my circumstances.

4.) Prayer is the means by which I am to nurture my relationship with God, as well as the means by which I discern and accomplish God’s will.

5.) Sacrificing my life for God’s will is the only way I can experience fullnes of life and fulfill God’s purposes.

6.) God transforms my selfish human nature through the cross of Jesus Christ and in no other way.

Thanks for reminding us of the essentials.

Roy (SA)

I was struck by your comment on love. I think that as Christians we like to believe we have some sort of magical penetrating love that far outweighs love shown by those outside our faith. However, your point is very true. I certainly don’t think I can say that I am more compassionate than the Dalai Lama. Of course the bigger issue is that many Christians are not conveying genuine Christ-like love. While it may not set us apart it would certainly restore our credibility in the eyes of the world.
I am reminded of the quote from Mohanda Gandhi, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
It is something to think about.

Part of the difficulty of the subject comes from a lack clarity regarding the question. Are we asking, “Who is saved?” or “What are essentials of a Christian life?” Although we should be able to give a biblical description of how one can be saved,as many have pointed out, who is saved must be left up to God.

It seems that most of what is on your list addresses what we must do to be genuine Christians: believe right doctrines, act right ways, hang out with the right people. But much of who is a Christian depends on what God has done in the heart of the person in question. I am not a five-point Calvinist who would say it all depends on God—it is dance, but God leads with prevenient and saving grace. It seems more things on the list need to begin with “Those in and for whom God has . . .”
  I agree that it is important to identify the essentials of following Jesus, but this is different from identifying who is a Christian. The essentials of our response to God’s work in us will include much of what those above have mentioned. But essential for what? For the fullest expression of God’s purpose for the redeemed? Or essential for the name Christian to be meaningfully applied? Some of the above answers address the first question and some the second. And many of the fears regarding the question’s fundamentalist tone assume we are asking about the bare minimum of what it is to be genuinely Christian. Although this question may arise occassionally when considering organizational and denominational questions regarding associations, the question is of little pastoral value. Identifying the essentials to following Jesus fully and faithfully is a much relevant and fruitful question.
And of course with all this we have the chicken and egg problem. What comes first, God’s grace, our faith, God’s Spirit, our good works? I have been helped by watching how trapeze artists catch each. Each hand grabs other’s wrist at the same moment. It impossible to tell who grabbed whom. Grace grabs faith; the inner life of Spirit becomes the outer life of kindness and mercy.

For me, one of the foundational essentials is does one believe that Jesus Christ is the crucified, resurrected Son of God. These two aspects of our Christian faith are essential for if one does not believe this about Jesus, then He is just another good teacher and model of a good moral life lived. In Paul’s many descriptors of what it means/takes to be saved, he say’s one must “Confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead” in order to be saved.  In his first letter to the church in Corinth, Paul emphasizes the essential nature of believing in Jesus’s resurrection by stating, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith . . .your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” Thus it seems, before we can even talk about the other essentials of Christianity, there must be a life-transforming belief that Jesus Christ died on a cross for our sins, and was resurrected from the dead.

Dr. Oord,

I totally agree with the first bolder statement that you made through this particular blog. You were saying that love is not a definitive characteristic of being a Christian. Or, at least that’s the way I read it. I also think that that everyone can love and that not only Christians love. You continued on to ask if the “sinners” prayer is the essence of Christianity. I feel like I can answer that question with a big fat no. I know many people from my high school years that were my Church friends and they prayed that prayer. They definitely don’t live out that Christian walk, or not that I can see.

I think that having the “right” beliefs, or traditional Christian beliefs/doctrines are extremely important in being a Christian. Does it make us Christians? Probably not. But, having beliefs helps us grow as Christians and understand our own faith better. Along with this, I think that community also brings us closer to God and helps us grow. Community is important to spiritual growth. But, again, does this mean that we are Christians because we are in a community of believers?

I don’t think it’s any one of these essences that make us Christian. I think there are many essences that make us Christian. I don’t even know if we could “label” them all. I think there are many variables of ways we can be considered as Christians. I think we have to know in our heart that we are followers of Christ, that Christ will judge whether or not we are Christians, and the Church helps us in understanding if we are Christians. There are many variables to understanding if people are Christians. I am in agreement with you in that I don’t know the right answer here. But, it’s important to think about it and understand better.

Like any identified group of people, there are several aspects that define what it means to be a Christian. I think that the four aspects that you discussed in your blog that are part of those essentials aspects, such as love, community and the sinners prayer.  However, I think that there is more than just these. I also think that having the right beliefs are not necessarily essential. There are core beliefs such as salvation through Jesus Christ and the Triune God that are necessary in our beliefs, but there are several other beliefs that are continually debated and reformed. Just because two Christians disagree with each other and a theological topic does not mean that one of them is not a Christian. You made a point in your blog when you said “there’s little or no agreement about which set of beliefs are essential and which aren’t.” personally I think that this is a problem. I think that there needs to be fundamental core beliefs that all Christians agree.
 
There are five essentials that I would use to define what it means to be a Christian. First, being a Christian requires faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and the Salvation of sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Secondly, being a Christian requires a relationship with Jesus Christ. Thirdly, it requires the action of loving God and loving others as you explain in your blog, but it also requires the action of going into the world and proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Christians we are commissioned to spread the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. Fourthly, it requires spiritual growth and the transformation of the Holy Spirit in our lives. We cannot simply conform to our faith, but we must be transformed by our faith. Finally, being a Christian involves being a part of the body of Christ or the Christian community. This is essential because we have to be held accountable for our actions and our theology.

Tom,

Thanks for this thought provoking topic. I know you and I have had this discussion on several occasions and I have an article on this being published with Holiness Today. I think the bigger question in this discussion is “what are the essential beliefs/dispositions/behaviors to being a Christian?”  For example, how does belief relate to practice and behavior. Are we measured by the essentials of belief or on behavior? Most Christians affirm that belief is essential for right behavior.  Being a Christian is more about following the “way” of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus than giving accent to certain beliefs.  As you indicate a person can believe the wrong things but still practice a life of love—which as you indicate is central to Christian faith.  Certainly people of other religions can love in this same way, the question is what makes Christianity distinct from these other religious traditions?

Since all religion is social (John Wesley) it seems that the Christian community or church community that gathers around word and table is very formative in shaping a persons faith story. I believe this to be essential to faith because faith cannot exist without being in relationship to self, God, and others.

Enough of my musings…I guess I am saying that the essentials is relational with self, God, and others—and through this process of living and practicing faith we become people who express more clearly the “way” of Jesus, or as you indicate a life of love.

Dr. Oord,
I would have to agree with Nichole in saying that I completely agree with your first statement. One of the first characteristics people label about the Christian faith is love, but what makes the Christian love different from the non-Christian love? Is there really a difference? 
Moving on to if the “sinners” prayer is the essence of Christian and I would have to say no. like Nichole I have known a number of people who have said the “sinners” prayer and they do not live out their lives as a Christians.  Also going back to love, I know many people who say they are Christians but they can’t seem to love and accept people within their own families.
I don’t know if I would consider any of these essences that make us Christians. Do they really set us apart to label us as Christians? And if they are to set us apart than why don’t we follow them more closely? I seem to be finding that I am asking more questions than finding answers, but it’s okay not to have all the answers.  That’s why I live by faith not by proof and answers.

It seems to me that repentance is central. 

No matter what factors color our personal slants (upbringing, denominational loyalties, political leanings, theological positions, etc.) if Biblical repentance is recognized, believed, and practiced one becomes a Christian because the “about face” acknowledges Christ is in control of and guides the actions of my personal slants.

I agree with your rationality about saying a sinners prayer and then thinking that is enough. It can’t be enough to mentally claim alliance through and single thing. This too leaves out an understanding of prievient grace. Does not God move in ways that which we do not know? How then can we say to those who have been convicted in their hearts without words to describe their experience. Is our view of God so small that we think God does not desire to include all of creation in loving and redeeming?

I would say that the essentials of Christianity revolve around the belief of Jesus. I would assert that the core to the belief in Jesus is that he was a man/god that fully loved the world. He loved everyone and everything. We are to follow him by loving God with our full being and love humanity. I do not think that anything else is essential to the Christian. There are important aspects of the Christian faith but none as important or essential as believing in Jesus, loving God, and loving others.

Tom Belt writes…

Like you said, these are all-important questions, and the answers we give in turn determine our whole approach to other faiths.

After spending 25 or so years in the Muslim world, I’ve come now to ‘presume’ the presence of God at work in other worldview on some level. So I definitely don’t agree with those who assume that Christians have 100% of the truth and everybody else has 0%. In the end, the divine image is indelible, and I understand that image in terms of an insatiable desire/disposition toward personhood. We’re hardwired for it. So I rather expect that ‘image’ to function on some level essentially on autopilot in all of us regardless of faith (or atheism even). We still are free to choose to relate lovingly, etc., but we’re not free to escape an existence which a) is essentially a ‘desire’ or longing to belong, for fulfillment/meaning, etc., which b) confronts us with the choice to love, and which c) is only ultimately fulfilled in the most supremely personal being, the ground of all being, the triune God.

So… what ‘unique’ claims and contributions can Christianity make? Let me offer an analogy.

Let’s suppose there’s a body of beautiful music (scores to symphonies, sonatas, etc.) which is anonymous. Everybody recognizes it as sublime and beautiful, the work of a master. But nobody knows who the author/composer is. Let’s suppose too that these works fill homes and offices throughout the world and are enjoyed by everybody. They’re beautiful and we all know it. Musicians all interpret these works as best they can. No two musicians play the music exactly the same way. But all try.

Now let’s suppose that evidence was produced identifying the composer. There’s some dispute over his credentials though. For example, he’s not a well-known composer; he didn’t attend the best schools or train up under established authorities. His origins are obscure and his circumstances humble. But it’s his work. What happens now? How do we relate the anonymous music we all enjoy to these new claims of authorship?

My question is this: Why would somebody who loves the music in its anonymous form object to identifying it (viz., the music, its beauty, its origin and authorship, its creative source…) with the author? Who would not transfer to the composer their affections for music when adequate reasons are given identifying him as the author and source?

Perhaps you can see where I’m going. It all depends upon the nature of the evidence identifying Jesus as the incarnation of the “love” (i.e., the music) that we all agree is the greatest thing around, the meaning of life and the purpose of existence. Yes, atheists, Hindus, and even Wiccans experience giving and receiving love to greater and lesser degrees.

But when it comes to defining the essentials of “Christianity,” it seems a bit minimalistic to just define the essentials in the same “anonymous” terms: i.e., just love. No doubt, it’s true on one level. But Christianity does claim to identity the composer in historically particular terms. “Christ” should have more than anything else to do with defining the essentials of “Christianity.” He’s got to be mentioned, for Christianity is the claim that this anonymous work of music that enriches us all without our knowing who is responsible IS the creative work of a particular man, Jesus.

Many will say Jesus is just a man who succeeded in appropriating the music on a level more transforming and freeing than any other. In this sense, Jesus reveals God. But even if one takes this view, it still constitutes the ‘essence’ of Christianity in ‘historical’ terms. You still have to name the essentials by identifying Jesus, i.e., “HERE is where humanity best approximates love,” or “THIS particular man BEST interprets the music,” and then go on to offer whatever understanding of human transformation one thinks can be grounded in that sort of Christology. My point is just that that it’s still ‘essentially’ a historical claim.

What Christianity claims to mediate is that through Christ, God acts to secure means by which we can live the life God wants, and THAT life is, as you say, to love and be loved. That’s essentially the kind of life Christianity claims it is able to mediate. But it would be mistake to think that the essence of Christianity’s contribution to humanity’s search for “loving and being loved” is just to name the search as such and fail to relate what we’ve named to historical events where we believe the composer of “loving and being love” loved us in concrete form—this man, this story, this event, etc. Essentially, you don’t need Christianity to just say the purpose of human existence is fulfilled in loving and being loved. Christianity essentially says something about ‘loving and being love.’

Tom Belt

This is a solid overview of an issue / conversation that is going to become increasingly central in the near future, in my opinion.

The question of what it means to be a Christian comes back to the nature and content of the ‘good news’ that we proclaim as believers.

If we get the gospel wrong, we will almost inevitably get the Christian life wrong.  I believe that the starting point for Christian faith is still important (and the things that happen theologically) but we must not put all of our focus at ‘the decision’ when, as you point out, it is not a reliable indicator of true and abiding Christian faith.  By our fruit they will know us and much of that fruit is love.

I recently read Darrell Bock’s ‘Recovering the Real Lost Gospel’  He does a good job, I think, of reframing the aim of the gospel.

I’m also looking forward to Scot Mcknight’s new book, which I think will help move this centrally important issue forward.

Sorry about the length there, TomO!

I think I’d boil down my being a Christian to my being about Christ, i.e., my investing all my identity (and the meaning and purpose of my existence) in his identity and the events of his life/death/resurrection. So “being in Christ” would summarize it perfectly for me. That’s going to result in my loving, but it happens because I’ve identified in a particular way with Christ personally.

It is interesting how much interest is generated around the question of how to know if others are Christians.  God calls each of us to Love Him with all we are.  Beyond that, I feel more comfortable pointing a seeker to the Bible and letting the Holy Spirit teach him the essentials as he tries to love God with all that he is.

The question of who is, and who is not a Christian seems to be, not only a significant question for those who consider themselves a part of the Christian community, but also those who would consider themselves non-Christians. I think the difficulty sometimes is not in trying to define what a Christian is, but realizing too that even if we were, or we are able to do so, there is an image that has been created of what the word “Christian” essentially stands for. Sometimes perception is reality to such an extreme that, even if we had a definition of what it is to be “Christian,” if we did not follow the values or model others have created for themselves to define Christianity, we are still considered failures. What I mean is that if by saying the sinners prayer I do not become a Christian, if that is what the world sees as “Christian” sometimes it seems people are still turning away from a relationship with God because they have seen what they consider a poor example of his follower. Even if that is not what truly defines a Christian. Also I think it is still possible that God’s grace can work within everyone’s life, and so can the Holy Spirit. If so, can it maybe be possible that the love an atheist or Muslim has also shown is still reflecting the God they were created in the image of, even if they are not aware?

Being a Christian is not a hope-so feeling without proof, but a know-so confirmation by the Holy Spirit. If you do not know if you are a Christian (meaning having confessed your sins and received forgiveness in Christ) or not, then you are not.

Why does something be honored by other faiths exclude it from being a Christian essential?

Tom

Just wondering if you have seen Scot McKnight’s new book, “The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited” His themes seem to coalesce ones you are working through here in this post.

Do we truly follow Christ if we do not allow God to transform us from the inside out? What does transformation like that look like in a Christian community? Is it possible to follow Christ and not be transformed? I believe that love is an integral aspect of Christianity, but if you don’t allow God to radically heal you, transform you, and create in you a new heart through the love and grace of God then you can love just as well without believing in God or being a Christian. That is one of the differences.

Dr. Oord,

Thank you for once again raising a question that cuts to the heart of what it is to be ‘human’.  Increasingly, as I have watched Jesus in and out of the communion of Christ, I have wondered, so what is this evangelical need all about?

I walked in the Church sanctuary tonight and instinctively touched the water of baptism and made the sign of the cross.  I’ve only been doing that in the context of our Nazarene fellowship for a few months, fearing the perceptions and question that it evokes.  But it is a powerful and living sign that speaks to the communion of which I am a part from birth and re-birth and ultimately resurrection renewal.

As I have aged, the significance, surprises and privilege of being ‘in Christ’ have grown.  But so has the mystery and doubts about what sets us apart.  For I see many of my neighbors, those who live without benefit of rented or owned homes and those living in comfort and see ‘Christ’ in heart, soul and mission even though many do yet enjoy the fellowship of Christ, in the Spirit or by the grace of Story (rituals, history, life giving formation).  And I see many of my sisters and brothers, who understand intellectually their ‘knowing’ of the Trinity of God by means of worship, especially in the Eucharist, but who do not yet demonstrate the love of Christ that is surely the center of our joy and meaning. Further I have among my own parishioner’s men and women living together without benefit of marriage, but who exhibit the earnest, open search for Christ and evidence of the birth of their spirit, Christ alive in them.  What gives here?  I also painfully see in and out of the Church the horrific spirit of division and pride and the resulting wounds and evil which attend, even defining, for some, the center of their being.  These stand in need of the grace of Christ, no less than those who evidence a gentle and open love of heart.

Are some gifted with love by nature; the gift of good parentage or extended family or the result of personality orientation that is alert and healthy and alive?  Are others so wounded, that no matter how mature their journey into Christ and His Communion, no matter how deep goes the work of the new birth and the sanctity that attends, it is the wounded judgment and fear that is most evident in their spirit?  So what sets us apart?  …or should we be set apart?  Yet, to suggest there is no real distinction, as far as nature is concerned between those who are in Christ and those who do not yet know of Christ leaves us wondering; at best are we simply a little further down the human road (provisionally, at least).  Is that the only difference?

Some tentative thoughts. 

The writer of Hebrews tells us that we have come to “the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven” (Heb. 12: 23a).  In other words, if we are the first to see into the mysteries of God and what God is doing and going to do in the resurrection and renewal of all things, then there must be others who are not yet ‘inside’ this story, but who along with us will eventually be ‘born’ anew.  You can’t be ‘first’ born without a ‘second born’ or third born and so on, right? 

And, that indeed, may be the center of the mystery.  Entering into the waters of baptism (whether initially by nature or Spirit or both) allow us a privileged relation to ‘what God is about’ in the universe, especially our little corner of it!  Truth is, we can drink a small cup of grape juice and the tiniest of bread all day long, but until the mystery is born in us (by Spirit and within our own spirit) the consecrated host is ‘real’ apart from us, instead of alive in us!  And it is this relationship with the Church (Jewish and Christian) that indeed sets us apart. 

We can either be arrogant or humble and grateful. The latter (humility) is the result of grace (love) and leads deeper into this Love in which we stand.  The former (arrogance) is a wall that in the end, if allowed to stand leads us to de-evolve, away from our intended humanity.

When I shut this computer down and leave the sanctuary, I will once again touch the waters of baptism. In my heart I will pray, “Lord, make me aware of this special place I enjoy, but keep me from the arrogance which refuses to see you in others.” 

Terry Mattson