Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    People claim to be things that  they are not all the time. David
    Duke and the KKK claim to be civil rights activists for example.
    It would be nice if we could believe everyone when they label
    themselves. In the real world though we have to judge them by
    what they do.
    
    		Alfred

    .1  True, Alfred.  I was astounded to find the Ku Klux Klan listed in
    the Yellow Pages of the Phoenix telephone directory under "Church
    Organizations" several years ago.
    
    But then, where do you put the KKK?  I doubt there's a category in
    the Yellow Pages for "Hate Groups"!
    
    Richard
    

>    But then, where do you put the KKK?  I doubt there's a category in
>    the Yellow Pages for "Hate Groups"!
    
    	I suspect the Yellow pages puts groups where ever they ask. I'd
    put them under political groups. Like NOW and the Republican Party.
    
    			Alfred

    Interesting question Mr. Christie .. however ... I am more likely to
    identify with the "reverse" of the question.  I claim to *not* be
    a Christian but a number of people (in this conference) have told
    me that I most assuredly possess those qualities which would make
    me a "good" Christian.

    Bubba

Re:  537.4

  >Interesting question Mr. Christie .. however ... I am more likely to
  >identify with the "reverse" of the question.  I claim to *not* be
  >a Christian but a number of people (in this conference) have told
  >me that I most assuredly possess those qualities which would make
  >me a "good" Christian.

Indeed.  You would hardly get that reaction from ...er another
conference where it is held that qualities don't make anyone a
Christian, good or otherwise.

Collis

    There is a perpetual question about what makes a person a Christian.
    Many of us who call our selves by that name like to believe that we
    can be identified by our works. That those works are Jesus living in
    and through us. However, few would claim that those works are unique
    with Christians. Such things as love, caring, sharing, truth telling,
    and the like are often found in those who do not call themselves 
    Christian. Does that make them a Christian? If I were to speak French,
    eat French food, and live in France would that make me French? No of
    course not.

    What than is a Christian? That is not a question for which definitive
    answers are acceptable in this conference. I believe a Christian is a
    person who has accepted Jesus Christ as personal savior. That for me is
    a basic stepping stone. It implies other things - like accepting that 
    Jesus was and is God. That He died for the sins of the world and that
    He is the only path to salvation. Others believe differently.
    Unfortunately.

    		Alfred

Note 537.6

>    There is a perpetual question about what makes a person a Christian.

Yes, I agree that character and deeds alone do not a Christian make.

I am disturbed, however, when someone remarks that another is not a Christian
because it doesn't match their agenda of what a Christian is.  Essentially
it says, "I am a true Christian and you are not.  Were you a true Christian,
you would believe A, B, C and D, exactly as I do."  This smacks of the
arrogance of intimating (as some do), "I am a true American and you
are not.  Were you a true American, you would believe A, B, C and D, exactly
as I do."   Having been in opposition to many of the beliefs of a majority
of my fellow Americans on occasion, I know that labeling me as un-American
because of my beliefs is nothing but a crock of road apples.

I'm not talking about blatant and obvious disparities here, such as that which
cull the KKK.  I'm talking about whether or not one fails to align oneself
with details of doctrine and dogma.

Peace,
Richard

    I didn't list  an agenda. I gave a definition. You are of course free
    to have your own definition. But not to force it on me. I do not demand
    that you use mine to pick out the Christians just that you don't demand
    I pick by some different one.
    
    			Alfred

    Wow ... getting a little testy here ... somehow I get the impression
    that it's a lot easier to be a "non-Christian" and that way one does
    not get into the arguments about what a "Christian" *really* is.

    Bubba

	Would you believe that Jesus said that the quality of love, amongst
	themselves, is what would identify his followers?. John 13:34,35 NWT 
	reads "I am giving you a new commandment, that YOU love one another, 
	just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love love one another. *By 
	this all will know* you are my disciples if YOU have love among 
	yourselves." As you can see this quality of unselfish love would
	be outstanding for they would show love just "as I have loved YOU",
	this would mean that they would be prepared to lay down their life
	for their own brother or sister.


	We live in a time, were people show selfish love in so much as
	as they show the "look after no 1" or "me first" attitude, as
	2 Tim 3:1-5 puts it "lovers of themselves". With this in mind,
	this quality of unselfish love should make Jesus' followers
	stand out as bright lights in a dark world and they will not 
	blend into the background as it were. This love would not be
	limited to the congregation but would even extend across 
	national borders. As the apostle Peter exhorted fellow followers
	of Jesus "Honor [men] of all sorts, have love for the whole 
	association of brothers," 1 Peter 2:17 NWT.

	So I believe 1 John 4:20 NWT answers the percieved question in this
	Notes string title "If anyone make the statement: "I love God," and
	yet is hating his brother, he his a liar. For he who does not love
	his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not
	seen." 

	So the question that professing Christians need to answer correctly
	is "who should be or really is my brother or sister?. For he/she 
	would need to know them so as to show his or her love, because
	Jesus said this would be an identifying mark of a true follower.

 	Phil.

    RE: .9
    
    Right on, Bubba.  I have never seen nor heard non-Christians argue
    about who is more non-Christian than the other.
    
    Mike

All those who are baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit and follow Jesus Christ have the right to be called Christians.

.12> All those who are baptized ...

    Is it possible to be a Christian and not be baptized?

    Suppose one possessed each an every one of the attributes of a
    classical "Christian" but was not baptized .. does that cancel
    all the other attributes?

    Bubba

    
    
    
    > I have never seen nor heard non-christian argue about who is more
    > non-christian than the other
    
       Not specifically no. When they brag about the number of babes they
    scored with, or how drunk they have gotten, this is in a sense saying
    (or arguing) that " My non-christian Status is bigger than yours."
    
    David
     

>    Is it possible to be a Christian and not be baptized?

No.

Anyone who possesses all the other attributes would seek baptism.

    If by "baptize" one means water baptism, then this requirement would
    mean that no Quakers are Christians, even the staunchly conservative
    ones who consider Jesus Christ their personal Savior.  I am sure that
    the evangelical Quakers within the Evangelical Friends Alliance would
    have a different opinion on that subject.
    
    -- Mike

    As long as you're asking about "tradition", let me explain.
    
    The virtues of faith, hope, and love are called the Christian virtues
    as they are constant themes of the New Testament.
    
    One can be a member of any religious faith or of no religious faith and
    practice these virtues.  If you want to describe such people as
    "Christian" be they Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, or Atheist, then
    that's your choice.
    
    Christian faiths define Christians as John just described, by belief in
    the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by action, namely baptism.

    So I guess that means Elton Trueblood and John Woolman were not
    Christians.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

   Funny thing, I was baptized and there are no shortage of those who
   would tell me I'm not Christian.  Strange rules.

   Peace,
   Allison

    Actually, I was baptized too, back when I was in sixth grade.  But
    then, I was taught by my church that emmersion was the only form of
    baptism acceptable to God. 
    
    Of course, since the time of my baptism, I have now become a "great
    evil", so that baptism is probably now null and void.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

I see a reading difficulty here.

No one said that baptism was all that is required.

Baptism + follow Christ is the requirement.

    I don't think there has been any reading difficulty here.  We all
    understand that you are claiming that baptism is a necessary, but not
    sufficient, condition for being a Christian.

    One implication of this is that Quakers, who have not in their 350
    year history performed water baptism, by definition cannot be
    Christians.  This would include many individuals honored within the
    Christian community, including Elton Trueblood, and the man (whose name
    escapes me) who wrote the fairly recent book "Celebration of
    Discipline". 

    -- Mike

    My definition of Christian is to be Christ-like, i.e. to follow the
    example that Christ set in the way in which we live our lives and treat
    each other.  Now I know that this is not the traditional definition that 
    many churches would follow.  Perhaps that is why I have a non-traditional 
    take on this.  I've seen too many "Christians" who have been baptized, 
    proclaim their own salvation, go to church on Sundays and live their lives 
    in fear, hatred and judgement rather than in the joy, acceptance and
    forgiveness that Christ taught through the example of his life.
    
    Nanci 
           

    RE: .14
    
    >   Not specifically no. When they brag about the number of babes they
    >scored with, or how drunk they have gotten, this is in a sense saying
    >(or arguing) that " My non-christian Status is bigger than yours."
    
    David,
    
    Are you saying that professed Non-Christians are drunkards and lead
    lives of licentious behavior by definition?  Further, are you saying
    that professed Christians don't indulge in this behavior that you
    describe above?
    
    Mike
                  

>    My definition of Christian is to be Christ-like, i.e. to follow the
>    example that Christ set in the way in which we live our lives and treat
>    each other.  Now I know that this is not the traditional definition that 
>    many churches would follow.

Sounds like the kind of definition I've always heard preached from the pulpit.

It's what the Church means by "follow Christ".  Make him your example.

/john

    .8 Alfred,
    
    I wasn't countering your comment.  Just adding my own observations.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re .25
    
    John,
    
    It has been my experience that most traditional church's follow their
    own self-imposed dogma more closely than the actual example of Christ.
    I was raised an Episcopalian and have regularly attended Presbyterian
    and Southern Baptist churches and Bible study groups so I haven't come
    to this observation out of ignorance.
    
    Of course, your mileage may vary.
    
    Nanci

    I finally remembered the name of the man who wrote "Celebration of
    Discipline".  It was Richard Foster, an evangelical Quaker, a
    self-described Christian who, like many evangelical Quakers probably
    wouldn't think much of my own unorthodox views, and whose book has been
    an inspiration to many Christians.  But since Evangelical Quakers, like
    Quakers in general, not practice a formal ritual involving baptism, he
    would by the definition proposed in this topic not be a Christian.

    -- Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    
      Of course not..
    
    David

    
    
    > of course, your mileage may vary
    
      :-) :-)

    RE: .29
    
    Okay, I'll accept that.  Can you elucidate a bit further on what it is
    you did mean in .14?  I would certainly appreciate it.
    
    Thanks
    
    Mike

    We could get into an argument about what baptism is. One ceremony
    that I'm fond of uses the line "baptism is and outward and a visible
    sign of an inward action." That action is the acceptance of Jesus into
    ones life. 

    			Alfred

    
    Mike,
    
    
     I will give it my best shot!
    
     I believe it was Socrates or Plato that talked about perfect forms in
    relation to perceived realities. The Myth of the Caves describes a man
    trapped below with the illusion or reality until such time that he
    journies(sp) above to the real world. At first his eyes hurt in the 
    light, eventually he sees shapes and distinguishes plant from animal
    etc etc.. Now your probably asking yourself what the hell this as to 
    do with what I said.. Simply put I find non-religious persons, scratch
    that, I find non-spiritual persons to be wholly concerned with the
    sensual. This crowd tends to scoff the spiritual crowd ( mormon,
    catholic, budhist, Hindu) that is to say they scoff those spiritual
    persons that they find are not living in the perfect form( Platos').
      
      Now as I see this they are saying of the spiritual person" Here is
    your claim of perfect form' " here is what we saw you doing" ...this
    does not match the perfect form.. " either the perfect form is wrong..
    or you are.. Sereptitiously(sp) saying that the non-christian
    (spiritual) are justified in there non-beliefs( or non-belief in the 
    perfect form suggested by the christian(or any spiritual traveller)...
    
    
    Not sure this helps Mike, but I did try :-)
    
    David
    

    I think that's what most devoutly Christian Quakers believe, Alfred.
    That is basically the point I am getting at--I am seeking to clarify
    what it means to say that baptism is a requirement for one to be a
    Christian.  If a baptism of the spirit is what really matters, rather
    than necessarily a specific formal ritual involving water, then Quakers
    can be Christians; but if a formal ritual involving water is what is
    meant, then they cannot.
    
    -- Mike

    re: .33
    
    You get A for effort, David.  Thank you for sharing the basis for your
    thoughts on this subject.
    
    Mike

    
    
     .......my second A this year, I am honored :-)
    
    
    David

Also see topics 214 "Baptism"
            and 373 "Baptismal formula??"

Richard Jones-Christie
Co-Moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

re: Note 537.32 by Alfred "Radical Centralist"

That's what I've heard to.  Often the "outward and visible sign" is immersion 
in or application of water.  Perhaps another outward and visible sign would be 
to love others as Christ loves us?  The fruit of the inward action.

Peace,

Jim

	All of mankind, with it's different religions, is capable of 
	practicing the virtue of love. However it is only Jesus that 
	commands his followers to display self sacrificing love, as he 
	commanded in John 13:34,35 NWT "just as I have loved YOU" which 
	could mean laying ones life down for another brother or sister.
	Jesus also said that non-Christians would recognize Jesus'
	disciples because they would be displaying this self-sacrificing
	love, "By this all will know you are my disciples". One such 
	non-Christian a Hindu, Mohandas Gandhi, once said "I love Christ, 
	but despise Christians because they do not live as Christ lived."
	He realised that professing Christians were not imitating Jesus
	and were falling far short of displaying the same self sacrificing 
	love Jesus had displayed to his disciples. And yet he saw the 
	benefit's of Jesus' teaching because he told the British viceroy to 
	India that "When your country and mine shall get together on the 
	teachings laid down by Christ in the Sermon on the mount, we shall 
	have solved the problems, not only of our countries but those of the 
	whole world." This would indicate that Ghandi realised that professing 
	Christians were not being taught to observe the teachings of Jesus 
	Christ.
	

	No doubt that Jesus is aware of this and is directing those who
	are conscious of their spiritual need to ones who are teaching
	Jesus' followers to observe  his teachings ( Matt 5:3;28:19,20).

	Phil.

    .39
    
    I have to agree with you, Phil.  Though love is not unique to the
    Christian faith, it has always been my belief that love *is* the
    Christian dynamic.
    
    Richard
    

    
    II Cor 11:12-15 NIV
    
    "And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground
    from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us
    in the things they boast about.  For such men are false apostles,
    deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no
    wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  It is
    not surprising then, if his servants masquerade as servants of
    righteousness.  Their end will be what their actions deserve."