What is an Evangelical, Anyway?

Last year I attended an academic conference on politics and religion. Speakers included respected professors and researchers from across the country. Feeling mentally dwarfed by all that brain power, I meekly raised my hand and asked, "Would you define and explain the differences between 'evangelical Christian' and 'mainline Christian'?"

The heming, hawing and waffling I received in response to my seemingly simplistic question clued me into a couple things: 1) No one wants to answer this question, because 2) the question's probably not as simplistic as I thought it was.

Aside from making a list of denominations that identify as mainline churches (United Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal, American Baptist, United Church of Christ, and Disciples of Christ are the biggies), it's a challenge to define mainliners. That's because mainline churches aren't defined by a set of doctrines, but rather their moderate stance on doctrine.

For example, some members of these churches believe the Bible is literal and that the Holy Spirit directly provided words to its writers. Others view parts of the Bible as illustrations or analogies. Still others believe the Bible represents God but wasn't necessarily inspired by God. Some believe homosexuals should be allowed to serve as church leaders, some don't. Some believe Jesus is the only way to get to heaven, others think God may provide alternate means. The idea here is mainline members have theological latitude on these and other issues.

Once I figured out "mainline" meant an "attitude toward latitude" (polite laughter, please), it started to make sense why I received a rambling, evasive answer to my question. You see, when I posed my question at the conference, the two presenters I asked were both members of mainline churches. Their latitude allows them to accept a myriad of beliefs, including the evangelical stance. It's kind of hard to differentiate yourself from others when your concept is, "I'm right. You're right. We're all right."

Conversely, if an evangelical had been standing on that stage and heard my question, their answer might have been an immediate and direct, "We unwaveringly believe the following four points are certain, factual, God-given truth. The mainliners waffle on these points. That means they're wrong, wrong, wrong."

Now that I've poked fun at both sides, here are the four core beliefs of evangelicals. (There's ongoing debate about the definition of evangelicalism, but these points I lifted from Wikipedia well represent the concept.)

1) Biblical inerrancy.
2) Salvation comes only through faith in Jesus and not good works.
3) Individuals (above an age of accountability) must personally trust in Jesus Christ for salvation.
4) All Christians are commissioned to evangelize.

The problem with such definitions is they never seem quite complete. My friend Brooke feels evangelicals underemphasize the service aspect of Christianity, such as aiding the poor, sick, and hurting. Some scholars expand the definition of core belief #4 to activism, service, and social reform, but I know Brooke is right: Evangelicalism emphasizes evangelizing (telling people about Jesus) more than service.

I find problems with both mainline and evangelical thought, in both what they include and exclude. Yet rather than focusing on what's wrong with their approaches to Christian faith, I wanna give props for what's right.

Mainliners realize legalism hurts the church. Should we kick folks out of the church because they have a glass of wine with their dinner? Should we eject those who aren't Republican, who don't tithe 10 percent gross, who wear flashy clothes and jewelry, who don't attend church every Sunday? Mainline churches don't have a problem with any of this trivial stuff. They understand obedience to God is paramount, Jesus is our focus, and quibbling over small issues is generally a waste of time. Further, they recognize most "issues" are small. (More: Acts 10: Peter's visits with Cornelius; and 1 Corinthians 8: on eating food sacrificed to idols.)

Mainliners believe homosexuals belong in church. Regardless of how churches weigh in on same-sex marriage or gays as church leaders, I believe every church should have its doors open to the gay community. I'm not talking about an acceptance of gay lifestyle. I'm saying Christianity--and church--needs to be available to everyone: drug addicts and alcoholics, those who've had premarital and extramarital sex, women who've had abortions, men who struggle with pornography, pedophiles and murderers. (Truth is, all of these people are already in church.) We must reach out to them with love and forgiveness, just as Jesus reached out to prostitutes, criminals, and the lowest members of his society. (More: John 4:1-42: woman at the well; Luke 7:36-50: woman washes Jesus' feet; Luke 23:32-43: the two criminals.)

Mainliners recognize the God-given abilities of women--as do most evangelicals. Mainliners are particularly vocal about allowing women in church leadership. I've been blessed to attend evangelical churches where both women and men teach, preach, and lead worship.

Evangelicals know when to take a stand, and there's no compromise on salvation through Christ. In our tolerant society, it's a lot easier to say, "Well, maybe there are other ways to heaven." Many Christians will say this when backed into a corner, or because they don't want to offend someone. But this type of tolerance is actually a disservice to others. Say your friend's head is on fire. You're holding a fire extinguisher, but your friend says they don't think it will work. Instead, they're fixated on using a can of gasoline to douse the flames. The tolerant statement would be, "If it were me, I'd use this fire extinguisher. But since you don't want it, I guess that can of gasoline might work, too." If it was my head on fire, I'd hope my friend would tell me the truth.

Evangelicals don't keep faith to themselves. A mainline friend once told me, "I feel no need to evangelize. I leave that up to God." Now, I know plenty of mainliners who love to evangelize, and I'm sure there are plenty of evangelicals who keep mum about their faith, so I'm not trying to characterize mainliners here. Rather, I'm praising evangelicals for making evangelism a core value. Peoples' heads are on fire, and we Christians--evangelicals and mainliners--are all holding a fire extinguisher. Personally, I think we need to be offering it constantly.

I've witnessed and participated in plenty of cat fights between Christians about abortion, same-sex marriage, alcohol, political parties, dancing, having church bingo night ... the list goes on and on. Most often the fights rage on, opinions stay the same, and nothing gets accomplished. Do I think we should drop all our opinions and be indifferent about everything? No way. The thoughts in our heads are there for a reason. God's given each of us the ability to think deeply and rationally.

Therefore, I do believe we should be looking for the rational side of every opinion, and giving props for what's right. It's my hope women might look for alternatives to abortion. It's also my hope churches will reach out to women who've had abortions.

Admittedly, it's hard to see beyond my own ideas. (Maybe it would be easier if I was one of those tolerant mainliners!) But I think God can use this exercise to humble me, and remind me I'm not always 100 percent right.

To ponder:
1) Is it difficult for you to see another person's point of view? If so, why? If not, what do you think makes it easy?

2) Do you often find yourself getting wimpy about your faith? What situations cause this?

3) Do you find yourself getting defensive about your faith, and/or losing your temper? What sets you off?

4) Consider your responses to #2 and #3. Imagine yourself in a situation where you're feeling pushed around, or getting angry. Try to think about words you could use, or actions that might make this easier to deal with. For example, my friends who are hostile toward Christianity often begin conversations with hostile remarks such as, "Christians are such judgmental jerks!" When I'm having a conversation with a good friend, I've learned to ask them a question that reminds them I'm a Christian, such as, "You know I'm a Christian. Do you feel I judge you?"

Dirty Song Lyrics May Lead to Early Teen Sex

"Teens will try to deny it, they’ll say ‘No, it’s not the music,’ but it IS the music. That has one of the biggest impacts on our lives."

--Natasha Ramsey, 17, of New Brunswick, N.J. Ramsey is a teen editor for Sexetc.org, a teen sexual health website produced at Rutgers University.

A study by Rand Corp. found a correlation between exposure to sexually degrading music--where men are depicted as sex-driven and women as sexual objects--and early teen sex. For the study, teens were surveyed over three years on their music choices and sexual practices. Among frequent listeners of explicit music, 51 percent started having sex within two years, compared to 29 percent of those who said they listened to little or no explicit music.

Holly says: In this article, teen Natasha Ramsey says she sometimes listens to a song for its beat and doesn't initially realize it has sexually explicit lyrics.

We all have our moments of passively listening to music and watching TV and movies. A few weeks ago, I planned to show my youth group the movie "Signs." In my mind, it had perhaps one or two swear words, and it passed muster with some parents I spoke with--they agreed it was "clean." I even read a couple Christian reviews of the movie, which counted few swear words in it. So when I sat down to preview the movie, I was surprised at just how much profanity it contained.

Granted, "Signs" is an extremely clean movie by today's standards. While this blog post may be sounding like a suggestion to separate ourselves from pop culture, I'm actually in favor of the opposite. We should be tuning in. We should realize what songs are on the radio stations we listen to on our commutes. We should take note of how many suggestive jokes are on our favorite TV shows. We should examine which swear words are becoming common, acceptable language (When I was a kid, "butt" was foul language.).

Honestly, I don't know what happens next. I've got to prayerfully get my eyes and ears open to what's going on around me. Maybe once we do that, we'll know exactly how to respond.
_________________

For more on being a discerning viewer, look for Holly's article, "Is it OK for Christians to Watch Occult-Themed Television Shows?" in the September/October 2006 issue of Today's Christian Woman, which will be available on newsstands later this month.

Just in 'Time': Magazine's Readers Ponder Faith & Works

In light of our recent discussion on the definition of Christianity, I found the following letters to the editor of Time magazine quite interesting. Both letters respond to a Q&A with Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. Schori's original comment:
______________

Q: What will be your focus as head of the U.S. church?

Schori: Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development. That ought to be the primary focus.
______________

Now, I didn't blink twice at Schori's answer. Two Time readers were moved to write the following:
______________

I was saddened by your interview with Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. [July 17]. When asked about her focus as head of her church, she mentioned feeding people, providing primary education, promoting sustainable development and healing people with AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. She made no mention of God, let alone Jesus Christ. Her answers would have been more fitting coming from the head of the Gates Foundation than a national religious leader. For 2,000 years the church has taught that our works must flow from our faith. Sadly, Bishop Jefferts Schori spoke only of works and of a church whose focus doesn't include God.
(The Rev.) Canon Francis C. Zanger, Charleston, S.C.

I just about shouted hallelujah when I read that Jefferts Schori's focus will be to help right such global wrongs as hunger, lack of education for girls and boys and the fact that too many people die each day of preventable diseases. Ending suffering should be the top priority for all world leaders.
L. Patricia Arias, Atlanta
______________

Why would Zanger go ballistic over a seemingly benign statement? There's a lot of tension in the Episcopal Church right now, including battles over whether homosexuals and those who are divorced may serve in leadership. (At the church's June convention, a twice-divorced man--currently in his third marriage--was appointed to a bishop post in a split decision by committee members.) Entire churches and dioceses are distancing themselves from the denomination. Makes sense some members would take potshots at Schori.

But I think Zanger's letter may point to some lesser-known activity at the Episcopal church's conference, including dropping the language "Scripture is the church's supreme authority" from a statement about biblical authority, and shelving a proposal to declare Jesus "the only name by which any person may be saved" (full story). Schori made a seemingly Unitarianistic comment herself in the Time Q&A which raised more than a few brows.

I'm all for defending Jesus' place as the head of the church. But here's the scary thing: Zanger's letter makes Christians sound pretty loony, as if feeding the poor and aiding the sick are somehow not part of recognizing God. Now I truly understand my friend Brooke's point: Subtracting works from faith is just as wacky as removing God from works. Both components are necessary to complete the equation of Christianity.

Before Offering the Repair, First You Gotta Find the Leak

More thoughts on sharing Christian faith from Tina:
______________

I didn't grow up in the church; I became a Christian in my late 20s. I got the sinner part of the equation quite easily. It was easy for me to see the gap between (as Kevin puts it) "God's righteousness and my own weakness." I accepted that Jesus bridged the gap, but amazingly enough, that wasn't enough to make me a Christian.

What did was understanding about God's unconditional love. Understanding that soften my heart--yes, I felt convicted as a sinner, but not condemned. It wasn't the end, but the beginning of a new life full of blessings (despite occasional hard times). Love made all the difference for me.

Jesus approached people where they were spiritually, emotionally, and physically, and gently guided them to the truth.

Now, this may not work for everyone. For me, acceptance was an issue--once I realized God accepts me where I am, it was easier for me to embrace Christianity and to move forward and learning how to become more Christ-like. Others might need something else to get to that point.

That's why I liked that Jesus approached people where they were spiritually, emotionally, and physically, and gently guided them to the truth. I think that's probably our best chance of letting people know about our faith.

I have enjoyed reading the different perspectives on this issue. Thanks again for all the food for thought!
______________

Holly says: Two of my friends, a married couple I'll call the "Evereadys," have been dealing with a leaky roof for more than a year now. They've consulted with numerous inspectors and contractors, and spent a good deal of money trying to plug up the source of the leak. Many of the professional opinions they've received, and the resulting repairs, haven't helped resolve the Eveready's leak one bit.

I grew up in a home with a leaky roof, and remember my parents' frustration trying to fix something when they didn't know where the hole was. It's easy to say, "There's a hole--just patch it up." In reading Tina's comment, I once again realized I often apply my own experience when offering counsel to others. That's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, God has allowed each of us to have particular experiences for a reason. And our experiences are the ones we know best. We can speak of what we know with honesty and authority.

However, one patch doesn't work for every hole. We may share our faith to the very best of our ability, but (as you well know) it rarely causes hearers to instantly proclaim, "That's it! That's just what I needed to hear to follow Jesus!"

That's a good thing. If there were magic words or actions to change someone into a Christian, we'd probably begin relying on that process instead of patiently waiting for God to reveal himself.

After living with that leaky roof for many months, the Evereadys had a good idea of where the leak was coming from. They'd spent time with it. They'd observed it. What they learned helped inspectors pinpoint the leak.

In the same way, as Tina pointed out, we can help plug the God-shaped hole in others by spending time with them, learning where they're at spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

Thinking about our own experiences can help, too. Sometimes we forget what it took for us to follow Christ. Sometimes we don't reflect on why we continue to follow Christ. We may simply tell others, "Yeah, Jesus filled the hole in my life." Wouldn't it mean so much more to tell someone exactly where that hole was, and how Christ continues to fill it?

Three Blind Men and an Elephant

More thoughts on the definition of Christianity from Kevin C.:
____________

I think Brooke's definition = Holly's definition, plus time.

I believe that Brooke writes from the perspective of someone who, like me, grew up in the church, has lived with it their whole life, and feels constantly challenged to keep their faith vibrant and invigorated. For many longtime Christians, no less a definition of faith than Brooke's is necessary, or it wouldn't be authentic faith at all.

But I think it is important to introduce the notion of humility and God-dependence to the definition of what it is to be a Christian. I think of those vineyard workers who got in at the very last hour, and I feel that what all authentic Christians must have in common is a belief that they are not capable of pleasing God on their own merits. All Christians, whether recent converts or lifelong servants, must believe that they are completely dependent on God's provision and not their own works if they are to be in fellowship with God. I believe this is the quality that God has looked for in humanity throughout history, whether Old Testament saint, New Testament apostle, American philanthropist, or animistic tribesman. For each and every one of us, the question is, have we looked at the glory of the God who created us, and the shortcomings within our own hearts and then thrown ourselves on God's mercy and declared like Job, "There must be a mediator who can make peace between God and me, someone outside myself who can bridge the gap between God's righteousness and my own weakness."

This whole discussion demonstrates that a relationship with God is somewhat
like a prism--we're all examining the same gem, but it reflects back different
things depending on our perspective.

That to me is the bare minimum definition of what it means to be a Christian--to believe that Jesus Christ was that mediator and God's provision when we could do nothing redeeming for ourselves. For those who have never heard of Jesus, I believe that the stirrings of such a natural theology are what God responds to, and that He will move heaven and earth to introduce His Son to such a humbled heart.

And once we have become a Christian, the challenge is to keep humility and thankfulness at the forefront of our attention, motivating our actions, and that authenticates the reality of our faith.

This whole discussion demonstrates that a relationship with God is somewhat like a prism--we're all examining the same gem, but it reflects back different things depending on our perspective. That is why the Bible chronicles God's workings in the lives of hundreds of vastly different people--because it is possible to have vastly different experiences of the same God.

Liberal theologians use that as a stumbling block, and try to say that God is whatever you want him to be; I think what we are saying is that God is one clear thing--immutable--revealed perfectly in Jesus Christ--but once Jesus takes up residence in a human heart, He expresses himself in a thousand surprising and beautiful ways.
____________

Holly says: The best part of this discussion is we're thinking and talking about what it means to be a Christian. The more often I discuss this topic with other Christians, the more comfortable I become talking about it with friends who aren't Christians.

Thinking about it also gives me a greater confidence in what I believe, and what's important to my faith. It's easy to get caught up in the worldview of Christians: as crazed, hypocritical Bible thumpers, religious snobs who wear gold crosses around their necks and thumb their noses at the rest of the "lost sinners" of the world. Whenever I see someone with a "Jesus Loves You" bumper sticker who drives like a maniac and flips other drivers the bird, I think, "Boy, I gotta prove Christians aren't like that. I gotta counter those stereotypes." And I put my energy into trying to compensate, telling others, "Not all Christians are like that."

Rather, my focus should be on Jesus: who he is, how he's made a difference in my life, why I'm so affected by the things he said and did. When others hear about Jesus and see his effect on me, it will move them so much more than me constantly repeating, "Not all Christians are like that. Not all Christians are like that. Not all ... " (I know, you get the point.)

To close, here's a verse that popped into my head when I read Kevin's comment:

Now all we can see of God is like a cloudy picture in a mirror. Later we will see him face to face. We don't know everything, but then we will, just as God completely understands us.
--1 Corinthians 13:12, CEV

Following Christ Goes Beyond Mental Belief

More interesting thoughts from my friend, Brooke:
______________

It is interesting that you say your definition is for non-Christians and mine is more for Christians. I don’t see it that way. When Jesus called his disciples, he said, “Follow me.” At what point did they become Christians? When I converse with unbelievers about Christianity, I don’t reduce it to mere mental belief and spoken profession. I don’t lay out the four spiritual laws and try to save them. I always frame it in terms of following Christ.

In other words, I don’t just accept Him as someone who has the power to save me, but also as the smartest teacher who ever walked the face of this earth. Therefore, to be a Christ-one (Christian) is to demonstrate belief in all of what he said and did by striving to live according to his teachings. It is a belief that Jesus actually knew what He was talking about.

I have often found that non-Christians find this type of faith more interesting and attractive than a faith that is professed but not lived. You know the whole hypocrisy thing. Unfortunately many unbelievers see no need to believe in Christ because they see very little positive effect on His so-called followers. I think many non-Christians feel that it is the Christians who need to be saved.

Many unbelievers see no need to believe in Christ because they see very little
positive effect on His so-called followers.

Christianity seems detached from the earthly demonstration of its founder. If evangelicals talk so much about salvation by grace alone through faith, why then are we often so critical of those who fail to live up to being “Christian?” Why is it that we can tend to be so judgmental? We often sound more like Pharisees, who by the way, definitely did not believe in salvation by grace.

If a person merely needs to believe, why is it that when someone “believes” we tack on all kinds of other requirements later on? I guess we fail to inform people of the fine print. It seems sort of like a bait and switch. I tend to think the gospel is more attractive to people when they see it in action. That is why God invented the Church. It is so that when we proclaim the good news we can point to something and say, “Look there it is.”

Can we point to our churches and say that? In the early church, there was a definite display of good works and God added to their number DAILY those who believed. So faith without works truly is dead and I might add, like dead things, stiff, stinky, and very repulsive to non-Christians.
______________

Think I'm starting to come around to what Brooke's saying when he explains, "I always frame it in terms of following Christ."

I don't want to discount the importance of emphasizing the deity of Christ. Without this, it makes following Christ no different than following any other human teacher.

By the same token, who he is makes what he said just as important. Jesus could have come to earth, said, "I'm the Son of God," and then never uttered another word. There must have been a reason he spoke and taught and acted so.

Thanks, Brooke, for offering some good food for thought.

Faith Vs. Works: Let's Rumble!

At last! A little healthy debate, courtesy of my friend, Brooke. In response to my blog entry "Mainstream Media Offers Definition of Christianity," Brooke writes:
____________

Being a Christian is more than saying, "Jesus I believe You." I don't think the whole of scripture nor a wider than evangelical Christian orthodoxy supports that statement. Read the Sermon on the Mount. Read the book of James. What about this scripture? James 2:14-19 says, 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

If a person's life does not demonstrate their belief in Christ, perhaps there is no real belief to begin with. James is not preaching salvation by works. Jesus is not giving us a new law in the Sermon on the Mount. What they are talking about is a true righteousness of the heart that comes from a real acceptance of Christ and ALL that He did and said. Unfortunately Evangelicalism often has reduced salvation and Christianity to an "in" "out" status based on mental agreement and verbal profession. I think Christians need not be apologetic about following Christ by strictly adhering to the Bible and to His teachings. So in this case I don't think the reporter was that far off. She was perhaps off in her definition of American Evangelicalism which does not always insist on such.
____________

Brooke is referring to my definition of Christianity in "Mainstream Media Offers Definition of Christianity." (I was hoping it might cause some commotion!)

Our opinions often are shaped by personal experiences. I think Brooke and I represent an important concept: We interact with people who are on various points of their spiritual journey. When I think about discussing faith, I first think about my friends and family who are not Christians. I think about the words I'd use for seekers, and those who are just curious or even hostile about religion. Since Brooke is a church leader, I imagine his discussions are often with new Christians and those growing (or stagnating) in their faith.

I won't debate Brooke's point because I agree with his statements about faith and works. In John 14, Jesus says, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. ... These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." But I'm sticking with my definition of Christianity because it works in my conversations with friends who aren't Christians. And that's who I'm most interesting in defining Christianity for: non-Christians.

Granted, most non-Christians I encounter are a certain type of people: well-educated 30- and 40-somethings who believe Christianity is about completing certain tasks in order to earn a spot in heaven. One friend, I'll call him Thomas, candidly told me, "I'm a good person. I give to charities. I volunteer in my community. I do whatever I can to help the poor. I just don't want to go to church." Thomas believes there are requirements for Christianity, such as regular church attendance, studying the Bible, and devoting hours to prayer. So if Thomas were to read that Reuters reporter's definition of Christianity--"... a strict adherence to the Bible and personal commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ will bring salvation"--his theory would be confirmed. He'd say, "I knew it all along. Those Christians think they're better than everyone else just because they go to church and read the Bible."

So it comes down to this: I feel Brooke's points work well in defining Christianity for Christians. (The Scripture he references was James' instruction directly to the church; rather than saying "I'll be praying for you," and walking on, we're called to try to help the person in need.) My definition is for those who aren't Christians. Like I said, my friends who aren't Christians are highly ethical, moral pillars of society who feel it is their duty as human beings to do good. Essentially, they're already doing works. What they don't know/understand is: 1) Jesus said he was deity; and 2) Jesus provides a way to have a relationship with God. When I tell them this, it blows their minds. This is stuff they've never heard before, or at least, they never "got" it.

I was raised in the church, but didn't believe salvation was that simple. Believe in Jesus? Nah, there had to be more to it! I spent nearly a decade trying to figure out what I needed to do, what method I needed to follow, in order to have a relationship with God. My life was about works. I kept moving further and further away from Jesus until I was convinced he wasn't deity, that he was merely a wise teacher. Then, one day, I heard a Christian say, "Jesus is God." It was exactly what I needed to hear to realize, "Hey, Jesus is enough! Without Jesus, all my methods and to-do lists don't count for anything."

Now I know the statement "Jesus is God" isn't exactly theologically correct. We Christians immediately want to discuss the incarnation and the inner workings of the trinity. My Christian friend Mark pointed out we Christians like to be academic about our faith, to present logical--and often lengthy--arguments. He referred to a time in history when most Christians couldn't read the Bible for themselves because it wasn't available in their language. They had to take someone else's word for what it said. Once the Bible was translated, Christians jumped at the chance to study it, to think critically about Scripture and discuss faith in scholarly ways. We remain academically inclined to this day, Mark feels, but scholarly discussion doesn't win people over like it used to. People today want to know very simply, "Why are you a Christian? What does it do for you? How does one become a Christian?"

For that last question, I'm also sticking to my answer of saying, "Jesus, I believe you." Perhaps, to incorporate Brooke's idea, I'd add, "Jesus, I love you," for a Christian audience, with more of John 14 in mind, where Jesus says: "If you love me, you will obey what I command. ... Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." I understand that idea of loving (and obeying) Christ now because I'm a Christian, but wouldn't have comprehended it in the past.

My point, in case it wasn't clear, is we need to be able to communicate our faith to non-Christians. We use so much church language and assume it's understood. Even topics like "loving Jesus" or "Jesus loves you" can be quite complicated: "How can you love someone you've never met? Why would you love them?" an unchurched person might ask. So we first must explain: 1) Jesus said he was deity, and 2) Jesus let humans kill him. Then we must explain why Jesus let humans kill him.

As we grow close to God, the ideas of love and obedience become clearer. But relationships of any type don't begin with love. They begin with interest or attraction, maybe deep gratitude at best. To clarify my definition, becoming a Christian simply requires belief. And working off Brooke's ideas, being a Christian then requires love and obedience, as we are transformed by the Holy Spirit.

More thoughts, anyone?

Just One Way to Get to Heaven?

In a Q&A with Time magazine, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., was asked, "Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?" Her response:

"We who practice the Christian tradition understand [Jesus] as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box."


To ponder:
1) Do you agree or disagree with Schori's statement? Why? What Scripture backs up your thoughts on this?

2) How does her answer as a church leader make you feel? Do you think more church leaders should adopt this stance, or refute it?

3) Do you think most Christians share Schori's view?