This blog has focused recently on false examples of Christianity, and I will write more on that topic. Right now I feel led to dig into a question with the reader.
What version of Christianity is the right one?
I’ve seen athiests word this rather hopelessly that if you join a Church, you have a one in however many thousanths percent chance of being saved.
It’s honestly a tricky question, not because it’s unanswerable, but because the answer you will get will vary based on the type of Church the answerer is part of.
All Christians will gladly affirm the statement “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” Eph. 4:5-6
If you talk to a Roman Catholic, you will likely hear the emphasis on “The One and only True Church”- Emphasis on the word “One”. If you get one from the Latin Mass, no one outside the fold of Rome will be saved. Other’s I have talked to- Irish and otherwise have been willing to say that I, as a non-Catholic, will end up in the same place one day.
An Anglican or Episcopalian will affirm the Ephesians sentence but are less likely to say that only they are true Christians.
Protestants, Reformed, Baptist, Lutheran, otherwise, are going to look at this more like: You’re asking for a Yes or No answer, when the situation doesn’t give you one. In another manner of speaking, there is more willingness to say other Churches are likely still Christian Churches, even though disagreements may be pointed out and acknowledged. So to me for instance, this almost sounds like a trick question, because I can’t give you just one denomination that I would tell you is Christian.
This, to me, exposes what may be a point of weakness. How often have you seen one teacher calling another a “false teacher”, or calling a gospel a “false gospel”, and not known who is right between the two? I think part of the reason is that we do not have a shared set of clearly defined “boundary” teachings I’ll call them, outside of which one can’t be a legitimate Christian.
It would be a frustrating experiment today if you asked a Christian “At what point of doctrine is a Christian no longer a Christian?” Personally I would be afraid to ask that question, simply because I know the replies would vary so greatly. It’s an uncomfortable question, because most of us don’t know how to answer it, and we don’t want to lead someone who is new to the faith astray. If we can give you the reason for the hope that we have, it will often have more basis in experience than in the Bible. If it has it’s basis in the Bible, it likely doesn’t have much to say about a “boundary line” at which one is not a Christian anymore.
We don’t hear preaching on this on sunday morning. Different Traditions may have similar teaching, but we don’t have a shared understanding of where that boundary line is. So, I’m actually going to take the problem, and both present this to any Church that sees it, and also give the safe answer to the question in the Title.
Christianity is about the good news of Jesus Christ, and adherence to the Bible- first and foremost. Ok, big one out of the way. The good news we call the “gospel” is defined in Romans 1:1-6, explained in Romans 1-8, and more shortly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.
In case it needs to be said, the prosperity gospel is not on the list of legitimate Christianity, you can read one of my previous posts for the reasons why.
Second- The only shared set of Doctrines I know of are the foundational ones that are affirmed by every major sector of the Church in the world. Three creeds, affirmed long before most of the present denominations existed, and still affirmed in the midst of the current division.
The Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed, and The Athanasian Creed.
I have no doubt some readers will not like me lowering the standards of legitimate faith that much. I leave to you the challenge then, at what point of doctrine is the boundary line of legitimate vs non legitimate Christianity? If you figure out where it is, other than the three main creeds, please, share with me, I’ve never seen somebody try in protestant circles.
The goal of a legitimate Church is to be as representative of the universal Church as possible. That is all believers, past, present, and future, that Churches should be trying to be representatives of. The vast majority of them, if they are being honest, will tell you how imperfect they are towards that goal, but that is what they should be striving towards.
The exploring newcomer, honestly has more freedom to choose than we usually present to them. I firmly belive one does not need to pick “this specific” denomination in order to be saved, and I don’t know many Christians, other than my Catholic contacts, who would disagree with that.
The only options I for sure have to steer you away from are the Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Unitarians. I have previous post about Jehovah’s Witnesses if you are interested.
So I leave the question in the title with a Metaphor and a bit of advice I was graciously given.
The metaphor below comes from C.S. Lewis’ book “Mere Christianity” in the last page of the preface. I can’t post word for word at this time due to the Macmillan companies’ permissions on their website. Yes, I know his quotes are plastered all over the internet, I want to stay on good terms with the publishers, I will update if they give me permission.
C.S. Lewis wished to not offer anything different than what was already stated in the official Church Creeds and did not think the divisions within Christianity profitable for the new Christian to hear much about in evangelism efforts. He likened Christianity to a hallway in a house, that has rooms in it, places to sit, and comfortable fires, chairs, meals, and such. The hall is the entry place from which to try the various doors, and not a place to stay forever, though for some it may take longer to choose. Even in the hall, you need to obey the rules common to the whole house. Lewis says if he can bring someone into the hall he shall have done as he wished. If someone is wrong in their choice, they need your prayers.
Lastly, regarding the period of trying the differing doors, a word of advice that a Mennnite Pastor gave me years ago, and gave me permission to make public.
From Rev. Michael Gulker, President of the Colossian forum. The context here was about investigating other Christian traditions.
“Brent, I very much enjoy your inquiring mind and appreciate your exploration. In regards to engaging other traditions (I wouldn’t call them other faiths, as they are iterations of the same faith) I would advise humility and patience even if your interlocutors lack it. The major traditions (i.e. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anabaptism, Protestantism, Pentecostalism) are all deep and rich and varied and someone deeply steeped in any one of them will not feel a need for the quick and forced conversion of someone from another stream of the tradition. Rigidity in engagement is the mark of insecurity of faith, not deep and abiding conviction in a God who is always more beautiful and wonderful than any of our articulations will ever fully capture.
There are no “overviews” that will adequately convey the richness of the thought, wisdom and experience of any tradition or the saints from within those traditions. Each tradition is responding to deep historical pressures that are not immediately available via topical or catechetical survey. Moreover, the judging of a faith tradition is never a purely cognitive affair. To boil down any faith to a set of propositions betrays an even deeper and abiding faith in enlightenment rationality which is remarkable contrary to the Christian faith, as is the notion that a single individual can come to the bible and adjudicate what it says without being embedded in the practices of worship and the wisdom of the saints.
Your desire to explore other traditions is laudable, but I would encourage you to do so in ways that allow you to enjoy the various riches of each – get to know the deep thinkers of each tradition as friends and interlocutors who have walked this road before you and who are eager to see you succeed, not as adversaries to be defeated or devious threats to your own tradition. When you find something that offends your tastes, pose questions rather than making judgments. Ask how it is that someone seeking to be faithful would find it compelling to believe such a thing, and don’t take shortcuts or set up straw people. That will short circuit both your learning and your sanctification. Odds are the person writing it has thought about it longer and harder than you (despite your learning, you are still quite young). Try to think of how they would respond to your question, not just propositionally, but existentially. What pressures were they responding to that you don’t feel? And above all, seek to give thanks to God for those who have gone before you, even when you don’t fully understand them or agree with them.”
There need be no charge of Christian syncretism here. Syncretism is about believing in more than one religion or more than one God. These are iterations of the same faith and following the same God. It is generally accepted within Protestantism at least that you are allowed to disagree on some things and still become a member. The foundational teachings in the three creeds, are not so optional wherever you go.
Eventually though, you do need to pick one, and be subject to what the Bible calls your Elders and Shepherds, and not be under your own wings doctrinally.
This is a short answer to a big question. Comments and feedback are welcome.
Edifying Christianity 