I’ve been writing lately about what I see as the problem with the liberal/mainline/progressive church. I’ve talked about Liberal Vs. Progressive, why we’re not growing, and said that I think Mark Driscoll is right. Then I shifted a bit and raised the question “Why Christianity?” and offered my reasons as to “Why I Am A Christian.”. My next question was about a “Salvation Moment” and my answer. I want to continue in that vein of raising a question and then offering my answer on a variety of different topics. I’m not trying to provide definitive answers, but rather to raise what I see as the provocative and/or essential questions that the church needs to be able to have answer for (even if that answer is to say that this isn’t an idea we need).
Today’s question is: What does a Christian look like? 
I know this question is a dicey one. It’s one that I went back and forth on asking. In the end I am deciding to ask it in spite of it’s complicated nature. As a queer person I have often had people tell me that I can’t possibly be a Christian so I know how these questions are used to berate and belittle people. I know how the question sounds. It sounds like I am trying to draw clear boundaries around who is in and who is out. That’s not why I am raising the question.
In the tradition I grew up in, there were clear guidelines about how a Christian was supposed to look and act: no drinking (or at the very least no drunkenness), no swearing, no smoking, no pre-marital sex. In order to be a good Christian you needed to be a part of a “Bible-believing” church and attend regularly. You needed to spend time in the Bible daily and be sharing your faith with others.
I think a lot of us are familiar with that tradition. We are also familiar with the ways failing to live up to those standards caused heartache and pain. I know I suffered for years with thinking that I wasn’t good enough and that God couldn’t possibly love me because I kept screwing up. I am not interested in creating a new checklist of things one needs to do to be a “good Christian” but I do think it’s important that we raise the question of what it means to follow in the way of Jesus. I have long been of the mind that anyone who wants to claim the term “Christian” should be able to claim it for themselves, but I think that in the mainline/liberal/progressive tradition we have watered down the term “Christian” so much that now it doesn’t mean anything as far as behaviour goes. We have abandoned the checklist (which is a good thing), but there isn’t anything in its place except a general sense of “be nice” and “do good things”.
I should state that I don’t believe in eternal damnation, so when I raise this question I am not asking who gets to claim salvation or who gets to go to Heaven.
But shouldn’t those who claim to follow in the way of Jesus look different than the world around them? Shouldn’t they have different values, different allegiances? And if so, what does that look like? What does it mean to take the Jesus story and the Gospel message seriously? What does it look like to live into and work for the Kingdom of God?
Are there certain practices that we should be encouraging in Christians both on the corporate and personal level? Daily prayer, Scripture reading, being a part of a community of faith (whatever that looks like), working in the community?
If someone were to come to you and say, “How is being a Christian different than just being a good person?” what would your answer be? Are there certain behaviours that are definitely incongruent with following in the way of Jesus, and if so, what are they?
Tricky questions, I know. I’ll give my answer in post tomorrow. I would love to hear your take on whether or not you find these questions helpful and if so, what your responses are.
One day? Only one day? Some of us need that much time to warm up, damnit!
I think we shouldn’t pursue distinctiveness. It’s actively harmful, and does a wonderful job conforming us to the world in an opposition role.
Maybe it’s the intersection of Situationism and (my shaky low-fi grasp of postliberal) theology speaking, but… Christianity is our relationship and involvement with the Christian story. That involvement *looks* different – it might parse in terms of “values” or “allegiances” – but I think those are more symptomatic of… a paradigm?
(We seem to think and talk in narrative terms a lot: maybe Christianity’s a genre savvy?)
…as to stuff that I think we should do? In no particular order:
#1: traditioning. Living our story well calls for an understanding of our backstory. (Not supremacy, as you said, but specificity.) I don’t know ANY churches that do it well (not just mainline churches, either.)
#2: more accessible and advertised formation. I need and want more to do than showing up and throwing money in the plate, and growing up I didn’t even know I could *ask* for that. (Not necessarily orthopraxy, but… eupraxy: how do I learn to do this Christianity thing well?)
You can definitely reply later than just this one day! I generally need time to stew on things as well.
hmmm. I’m intrigued by your first statement. I think I understand the oppositional role (which is rarely helpful) but I wonder about not pursuing distinctiveness. I’ll unpack my response a bit more in tomorrow’s post; would love to go back and forth about it more.
And yes, definitely agree with 1 and 2.
You pretty much nailed it: “To be a Christian does mean that you will look different than those around you.” Totally agree with you, and it’s why I’m hesitant about pursuing distinctiveness: it’s… maybe not a fruit of the Spirit per se, but maybe the flowers? Separatism feels like painting the roses red.
Oh, and #3 on the list of things we need working on: sacramental logic. (I’m still not sure what I mean by that, but at the very least the Works of Mercy are *more* than volunteerism, and at very least it’s that difference. I’ll expand on this in a bit.)
I am having an increasingly difficult time answering these questions lately. I think the values and allegiances piece is important, but I feel like this excludes so many. I mean, I would certainly say that Christianity stands in contradiction to empire and invites followers of Jesus to a lifestyle of non-violence, community, mutuality, and compassion. But it is obvious that people do not have to identify as Christian to embody those things. Likewise, it is possible for people who identify as Christian to be bigoted, selfish, individualistic, and nationalistic/jingoistic. I believe that much of what passes as Christianity in popular culture is bogus. Is there a Christianity outside or apart from those who identify as Christian? Does that make sense?
The whole good person vs. Christian thing is tough for me.
I feel like dominant Christianity sets up a sort of venn diagram, with three circles representing Behavior, Values, and Belief. Where those three intersect is an individual considered Christian. This is a very narrow view that excludes so many. Salvation is treated like a cheat code in a video game. Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B = ETERNAL LIFE. If you believe in the right combination of dogma you unlock salvation.
So many thoughts rush through my head surrounding this concept. I think of pharisees, I think of James’ words on faith and works, and then there is grace. Grace!
Good thoughts. Look forward to your next post!
Totally agree with you. A follow up question: If one takes out of the mix the idea that only Christians can be “saved” does that change the answer for you? (and maybe you can’t go there, but for me that makes a huge difference in these conversations because then it’s not about who gets saved and who doesn’t, but the distinctive markers that mark followers of Jesus.)
Yes it completely changes it. The dominant understandings of salvation require no real ethic because it is rooted in forgiveness/mental assent.
Saved from what? As long as it is a “from” something as a personal gain our soteriology will be lacking.