Back to the basics, what is a Christian?

All of this time spent during the past week defending the modern Biblical text against KJV Only advocates was necessary, but unfortunate when so much work is needed for the kingdom of God.  With that in mind, let me return to a topic that has been close to my heart for years and about which I wrote a book several years ago:  What defines a Christian?  How do we know if someone is a Christian or not?  The source for these thoughts is exclusively the first letter of the Apostle John, one of my favorite portions of Scripture, during which he repeatedly states this three-pronged thesis in a variety of ways.  The three part standard of John is reflected in fifty-two statements in his letter that will confirm or deny that someone is a genuine follower of Jesus Christ.  Those fifty-two statements are easily placed into three categories: (1) Belief, primarily that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, (2) Love, primarily for fellow Christian brothers and sisters, and (3) Obedience, focused on keeping the commandments of God.
In his letter, John makes 17 statements about belief, 14 statements about love, and 19 statements about obedience.  All three are necessary, to be a Christian, one MUST believe in Christ, one MUST love other Christians, and one MUST become obedient to the commands of God.  None of this is optional, none of this can be excused in the name of some other cause.  In other words, to defend Christ by showing hatred to other Christians cannot be the proper path.  Likewise, compromising any one of the three will endanger our ability to have any real confidence in our own salvation.

For a full examination of this issue, as well as an attempted application of it regarding various groups that hang around the fringes of Christianity like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, please read my book.  And yes, I know the introduction needs to be updated to reflect my work here in PA and our newly arrived bundle of joy; I'll get to that at some point.

Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John

Are 95% of self-proclaimed Christians really still Lost? An answer to John MacArthur

The question of who is, and who is not, a Christian never seems to go away.  I know that the Bible goes to great lengths to define how a disciple of Jesus Christ thinks, what they feel, and what they do, but the vast variety of people utilizing the name of Christ continue to bring this question to the surface.  In my book, Christianity's Big Tent, analyzing 1 John, I relied solely upon his three tests of faith: Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?  Do you love your fellow Christians?  And do you obey the commandments of God?  For some, however, such a broad definition leaves too many unanswered questions.

            I was watching a couple of YouTube videos last night of John MacArthur, a man whose name carries a lot of weight among Evangelicals, in which he clearly threw both Catholics and Charismatic Christians out of the defined Church.  In both cases, MacArthur believes that the vast majority of people, who belong to those Churches, are in fact non-Christians still destined for hell.  As I’ve said before, this way of defining the Church leaves us with an end result where 90-95% of the people in the world who think they are a Christian are not, and leaves us with a Church that can only be described as a pathetic version of the triumphant Church that was supposed to take the Gospel to the whole world.

            In the case of the Catholic Church, the primary objection of men like MacArthur, such as RC Sproul and John Piper, is the way in which the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox, Anglicans, and to a lesser extent,  Lutherans and Methodists too) defines what is happening during Communion.  Because these followers of Jesus take his words “literally”, instead of seeing it as a symbolic act, they are doomed.  There is more to it than that, such as objections about the elevation of tradition to the level of the Scriptures and prayer to the Saints and Mary, but the heart of the objection to the Catholic Church has always been transubstantiation.  The Council of Trent is still a difficult thing to deal with, its doctrines in response to the Reformation were not helpful, but then again neither was the 30 Years War.  Even with that historical baggage, shouldn’t Vatican II mean something?  Should we let the failures of the past that brought the Church to the point of schism be perpetuated?

With that in mind, here is the tally of what the average Catholic believes that isn’t supposed to help save them due to a faulty understanding of Communion:

1. There is only one God, a trinity consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

2. The Bible is the Word of God, inspired and to be revered.

3. All of humanity is sinful; each of us must repent of our sins.

4. The only hope for us to overcome our sin is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

5. Prayer and worship are important parts of being a Christian

6. Obeying God’s law is important, as are acts of loving kindness.

            Can you have all of this, and still be a “Church of Satan?” as MacArthur concludes?  RC Sproul believes that praying to the Saints is belittling the desire of God to use his grace by thinking that you need an intermediary.  Whether or not this objection is valid, isn’t saying that 95% of would-be Christians have failed due to their theology, despite the fact that they affirm the Nicene Creed, an insult to the power of the grace of God?  Did Christ really die for the sins of the world only to have that power fail 95% of the time?

            The objection to the Charismatic movement follows similar lines.  In this case it isn’t any core doctrine that is being misunderstood but an objection to the idea that the gifts of the Spirit as seen in Acts are still in use today.  Once again, this is a question of interpretation of Scripture, with one side seeing God’s work as a temporary solution and the other as a part of God’s ongoing plan.  That there are legitimate reasons to be concerned with the Prosperity Gospel movement is no reason to throw all those who still believe in the gifts of the Spirit out the door of the Church.

            One last thing that I find troubling with John MacArthur’s view of the Church is that he believes that between AD 400 and AD 1500, there was no real Church, only an Apostate Church.  Thus for 1,100 years, the Church of Jesus Christ was only a shell that required any “real” Christians to not be a part of the community of believers, but instead to be rebels and martyrs.  The Church certainly had flaws during that time period, as it does today, but to dismiss the work of God in our world for over a millennium is a startling conclusion.

            Why do so many Evangelicals, of which I am one, prefer to think that the Church is a tiny persecuted minority, a frail and threatened thing that is dwarfed by apostasy?  Is this some sort of perverse glory in being the only ones who have it right?  Is this the result of dispensational theology, a pre-tribulation emphasis that almost hopes that the world is getting worse and the Church failing so Christ can return soon?  Whatever the reasons are, I can’t be on board with that attitude, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is far too powerful to be thought of as so very weak.

Things I've written you might enjoy.

Well, if you already read at least some of my blog it stands to reason that you might be interested in some of the longer pieces I've had occassion to write.  They're all already contained in individual blogs posts, but I figured it was time to make things easier and put all the links here on one post for any new readers.  Enjoy, use, cite if you're writing a paper for a high school or college class (which would be real cool, let me know if you do), think about what I've written, and then feel free to comment so I get some feedback.  Thanks.

A brief Theology derived from the Nicene Creed

This is just a short version of what a systematic Christian theology might look like when the Nicene Creed, the Church's oldest, most generally accepted creed, was used as the format.

 Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John

Christianity's Big Tent: Bibliography

This is an unpublished book that I wrote, 150 pages, about how we can define the Church through an analysis of I John.  The question of who is, and who is not, a Christian is answered on the basis of the teaching of I John.  The second link is the works cited page.

The Historicity of Asimov's Foundation Series

Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series is one of the best selling and most influential Science Fiction stories of all time.  It also has an interesting viewpoint on human nature and history.  That topic is explored in this paper that examines those aspects of the series from a Christian perspective.

The U.S.S. Platonic

The Platonic is a play that my wife Nicole and I wrote, directed, and starred in while she was working as a teacher at Saranac High School.  We began writing the play as friends and ended it as much more, it actually mirros the problems of the two primary characters whose friendship grows into something more.  A bit of art imitating life.  Feel free to enjoy its wacky humor, if you're thinking of directing a play, feel free to us it and let us know.

Relational Intimacy: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption

This is a paper I wrote about how intimacy between people was intended to be in God's original creation, how it was changed by the Fall, and how our redemption begins the process remedying it.

Young Goodman Brown: Analysis

Nathaniel Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown is a fascinating short story that is an allegory of the destruction of one man's faith.  This paper is an analysis of that story from a Christian viewpoint.  I recieved an "A" for it in college, and its the most viewed page on this blog, so I know that some of you may be tempted to cut/paste portions of it, or simply change the name, and pass it off as your own.  Rather than do that, simply use what I've written if it works for you and cite me as the source.  I was afterall, an English teacher for ten years.  

Caught between two worlds

One of the fascinating thing about study history is the chance to see patterns emerge that may lend insight into the world we live in today.  I understand that not everything would think this to be exciting, but I often find that an example or illustration from the past works wonders in helping people understand the present.
As I continue to read through Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, one of the things that keeps popping up is the contrast and conflict between men and women in Church history who desired certainty (in theology, morality, cultural norms, etc.) and those who valued ambiguity.  Sometimes the difference is one of personality; some people simply cannot abide ambiguity, they feel a deep need to categorize and label everything; others feel the opposite, being asked to take an either/or position makes them uncomfortable, it just feels wrong.  On top of differences of personality we have cultural differences.  Some cultures emphasize the need to take a stand, others value including multiple viewpoints.
Church history (and human history in general) has often been a case of two people who care about the same thing (on a host of different issues) not being able to see eye to eye because one is seeking certainty and the other is valuing ambiguity.
As you read this you may be thinking, "Of course we need certainty, only a Commie liberal would want that multi-cultural crap".  Or perhaps the opposite, "What kind of fascist jerk would assume he has all the answers to everything!"  That our politics often seems divided between similar viewpoints is no fluke.  Western Civilization is a combination of the heritage of two cultures: The Greek world of Plato and Aristotle, and the Jewish world of Moses, Jesus, and Paul.  The Greeks were forever seeking ultimate truth, unable to let an issue lie, they loved the constant questions necessary to peal away layers of uncertainty.  The Jewish mind on the other hand, disdained those who claimed to know it all in favor of consensus, including every opinion and letting a majority decide things but always leaving the back door open in case a change of mind was necessary down the road.  The very languages of which our Scriptures are comprised reflect that, the precision of Greek and the ambiguity of Hebrew shows itself in the very structure of the languages themselves.
As a result of our mix and match heritage, the Church (and Western Civilization) has always prized the search for ultimate Truth but at the same time has felt discomfort when we think we have found it.  We crave unity of opinion, but know that we should leave room for those who don't fit in.  We value diversity, but find ourselves hoping that all that diversity agrees with us.  Is it any wonder that there are more Christian denominations in existence today than we can even keep track of, and yet at the same time we still long for a universal big "C" Church to stand above the fray.
My own intellectual experience reflects these tendencies.  When I was younger I craved the neatness of certainty, but the more I learned and the more I experienced the more I came to realize that such textbook answers are rarely as cut and dried as people think.  When I was younger I hesitated to extend the term "Christian" to peoples and groups with whom I saw little in common, but as time went by I began to see the underlying bond we share beneath the surface disagreements.  In the end, I've come to a place where I can affirm ultimate Truth with confidence on the core issues of our faith (see I John, or better yet download and read my book for more on this topic) and yet remain open to the multiple of expressions of that faith that exist in the Church today.
Maybe you don't want to be caught between two worlds, maybe you want only one or the other, but I'm sorry to tell you that isn't an option.  Everything we think, say, and do is a product of our common heritage, a heritage God intended to be born of two worlds, a Hebrew Old Testament and a Greek New Testament.

Lessons from Lazarus

Tomorrow I'll preach the 3rd message in a row from the raising of Lazarus from the dead in the Gospel of John.  Those of you who know what has been going on in my life (and that of my wife Nicole) know that we suffered a setback this week.  Plans that we thought were God's will for us fell through and took us back to square one.  I've been on a quest during the last 15 years to discover how God wants me to glorify him.  When I was first starting down the road to becoming a minister of the Gospel I prayed, "Lord, make your name great through me."  It was the best way I could think of to ask God to use me in a mighty way without letting pride get involved.  Of course, in my mind, that meant God using me to lead a church whose ministry was a clear city upon a hill, or perhaps even at some point writing a book that would inspire and teach others.  I do lead a church, and the people there are God's servants, but we're not on a hill, we struggle to be a light in our small town.  I have written a book, but few have read it.

So how is God planning on using me to glorify his name?  The life and death of Lazarus points the way.  You see, Lazarus was a man of God, a friend of Jesus, but his contributions in life will forever be overshadowed by his contribution in death.  I'm sure it wasn't the plan that Lazarus would have chosen, nor one that his sisters Mary and Martha could have understood as they mourned his loss.  God's will to them was hidden; they had followed the Lord faithfully, but God hadn't answered their prayers.

And yet God did answer the prayers of his people.  The Messiah, his only Son, Jesus was here on Earth to show the make the way to God available to us all.  Lazarus was used by God for the noble purpose of showing those who knew Jesus his divine nature so that they might put their faith in him.  Imagine how many people in the last two thousand years have put their faith in Jesus in part because of how God's glory was revealed in the resurrection of Lazarus.  Nobody wants to volunteer for that role, but when we put our hope and faith in Jesus, we also put our trust in the will of the Father.  When we do, God will use us to make his name great, because we will help lost sinners find their way home.

I may not understand God's will for my life, and I wouldn't have chosen to take it in this direction, but the wisdom of God is at work because I have chosen to be God's servant, and he will make his name great through my life as long as I continue to follow him; and I will.

Where's a new Christian to start?

A long-time friend of mine asked me where in the Bible a new Christian should start reading.  In the beginning, at Genesis and just read it through?  At the start of the New Testament, in Matthew? 
My own suggestion would be to have anyone who wants to learn about the Bible, and new Christians in particular start with the Gospel of Mark.  Mark offers the easiest to understand account of the life of Jesus, and one that can be read in a short period of time.  You've got to start somewhere, and the account of who Jesus is and what he did for us should generate plenty of questions that will help spark the dialogue that leads to understanding and growth.
It also seems like a good idea to read the letter of James for its practical moral advice about living an active faith, and then perhaps the letter of I John because of John's teaching on what makes a person a Christian (oddly enough, the subject of my book; free to read, download, or print with a simple click; just click on the "documents you can read" topic in the index).
In the end, new Christians and those who are curious but not believers, both need help from someone who can explain the basics of the Gospel message who is also at the same time living that message in his/her life.  The Bible can work wonders, it is of course God's Word, but most people want to see that we take this Bible seriously, that we follow its teachings, and that we love each other if they themselves are going to join our family.
Where's a new Christian to start?  Hopefully, reading God's Word and spending time in a local church that can help him/her nurture that newborn faith.  In the end, perhaps where a person starts to read isn't as important as who is walking alongside them to help them.  We all should be eager to lend a helping hand to those who, like us, have found redemption in the blood of the Lamb.

For those of you new to my blog...

I suppose there may be some people who view my blog who don't know who I am, for that a trip to the bio. page will suffice, but there may also be some who don't know that I have bunch of documents (a few essays, a play, some sermon videos, and one book) that I've written that are available to read/download/print to anyone who wants to utilize them. I wrote them for a variety of reasons, but if they can be any help to you at all in your personal spiritual walk or answer any of your questions, I'm glad to share my thoughts...The book is entitled, "Christianity's Big Tent" and focuses on the question of who is, and who is not, a Christian. How do we know the difference? What makes a church a Christian church? What's really important about the Gospel message of Jesus Christ, and what isn't crucial? These questions are addressed using the first letter of the Apostle John as the backdrop. Please feel free to direct anyone to the link who has questions about Ecumenism (the issue of churches getting along and cooperating), and don't hesitate to e-mail me with any questions at pastorpowell@hotmail.com.

Christianity's Big Tent

Christianity's Big Tent: Works Cited

How we change over time

One of the things that continues to fascinate me as I grow and mature (as opposed to getting older, which sounds less appealing) is how my ideas and beliefs go through a process of
growth and maturation as well. Some of the things that I thought as a young man I now
know were misguided or wrong. Some of the ideas that I felt so strongly about have been
replaced by concerns that I now know are more important.
One example of that is politics. As a teen, I was very concerned with politics and interested in the political process. Perhaps I'm only more cynical about politicians now, but I just don't seem able to get as excited about the latest political development; I've also noticed that after my ordination such concerns have really taken a backseat to ministry needs/concerns; I won't go as far as Cal Thomas (columnist who advocates the Church's withdrawal from politics following his experience with the Moral Majority), but I certainly have refrained from offering my political opinions at church (believe it or not people; I can hold my tongue), I certainly don't ever want the Gospel of Jesus Christ being confused with any political agenda (however well intentioned)

The area in my thinking that has undergone the most radical change is easily my understanding of how to define the Church (that is, the universal Church, all believers regardless of their particular church; for a complete breakdown, see the posting on my book which deals with this extensively). When I was in H.S. we worked our way through Galatians verse by verse in our student Bible study. I clearly remember my comments on Galatians 1:7 "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned." With the fire and conviction of youth I told everyone that the Catholic Church was clearly preaching "another gospel" and was thus clearly condemned by the words of Paul. At the time, Mrs Sanford (the teacher who hosted our weekly meeting) asked me if I was sure about that, if maybe I wanted to tone it down a bit, but I was too sure of myself to listen.

A couple years later, at Cornerstone University, as I learned more about the history of the Church; about the variety within the Church; and especially about Paul's contention that the Church is like a body with many parts, I began to soften my stance to the point of admitting that the Catholic Church certainly contains many believing Christian in spite of the theology of the Church.

After College I worked for the Methodist Church and a Reformed Church as their youth pastor; more experience in the wideness of God's mercy. My understanding of the Church was in flux; I was considering the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church in a new light. Then God decided to put me to the test. He brought a young woman into my life as a friend whom I would not consider dating because she was Catholic. So far so good, then I fell for her. Those of you who know the story know that we've been married since 6/30/01. It was this relationship that forced me to get back into the Bible; to LOOK at all of the N.T. and to really ask myself the tough questions about who the Church really is.

Many of my answers were found in the letter of I John. In it John describes his own definition of a Christian as someone who acknowledges that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; someone who loves their brothers and sisters in Christ, and someone who obeys God's commands. Not a word about Baptism, Communion, church structure, etc. I eventually decided to use my own curiosity on this issue to write a book (yes, another shameless plug; please feel free to read it if you're interested in the topic) about Ecumenism and I John.

Over the years my ideas on a variety of topics have grown, changed, or matured in ways that I would not have anticipated from my the lofty perch I occupied as a teen. I guess that's the biggest lesson in all of this; don't walk around thinking you know everything because God has a way of waking people up and letting them see the light.

Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John

I wrote this 150 page "book" to settle the questions in my mind about Ecumenism that falling in love with Nicole raised. I decided to use the framework of the letter of I John because the Apostle spends a lot of time answering the question, "Who is a Christian, and who isn't?" I had some hopes of finding a publisher, but I really just want it to help anyone who wants to read it. The book also touches on the topics of what is important to the core of Christianity, and answers questions about groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. The book is in two parts, the book itself is one, the works cited pages is the other, please download them and enjoy. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

** Note, this book was revised and updated in 2006 and 2014.  Eventually, a revised introduction to include the portion of my life here in Franklin, PA will be written and an overall revision will take place as well.  Thank you. 4/4/14 **

Christianity's Big Tent 

 Christianity's Big Tent: Works Cited