I think that most who identify as Christians share a belief in The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

That is an interesting point.

Christ defined (what would become) Christianity as having two components: Love God, Love your Neighbor as yourself.

It seems to me as though most self-identified Christians have a definition that is pretty close to what Christ set out. Ironically, a great many “church folk” (of all brands) are convinced that they are the only REAL Christians and all those others who call themselves Christian as self-deluded.

Just this week there is a Bible Study War in the California legislature. One group is convinced that the other group disgusts God because they believe in religious tolerance.

sigh…

When I look at church demographics, I try to be attentive to which denomination the individuals claim affiliation with. And, it’s always interesting to note the difference between “Christians who attend church regularly” and “Christians who don’t.”

Another question I recall someone asking is “Are you a regular Christian or are you one of those born-agains?” It made me wonder just what they meant by a ‘regular Christian’. I didn’t get my answer from that person and, actually, it’s one question you often don’t get a straight answer to. Definition problems abound!

I think that most who identify as Christians share a belief in The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Once you move beyond there, the differences in belief and approach vary markedly. Consider that most every new denomination started because of some theological difference with the already existing denomination…and that it was a difference that was big enough to foster and sustain a split.

My mom’s side of the family was all Catholic; my dad’s dad (who passed before my mom and dad even met) was a travelling ‘fire and brimstone’ preacher; dad’s mom was a ‘dunkard’…an Amish or Mennonite sect. Raised Catholic, we lived right across the street from a large Evangelical Congregational Church. A few of my good friends from high school were Lutheran.

I went agnostic after high school, did a foray into Unitarianism and then went Assembly of God. Even there, there was talk about how to strike a balance between the Pentecostals and the Charismatics. (To an outsider, they’re pretty much the same thing but, if you’re up close, you begin to note the distinctions.)

Other subsets continued to emerge (or should I say I became aware of them). The ‘Oneness’ group who didn’t believe in the Trinity; a ‘holiness’ sect that was even more strict that my A/G church on ‘separation from the world’; “Jesus Name Only” who insisted you needed to be rebaptized if you were baptized ‘in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ because they really hadn’t said the name “Jesus” when they baptized you. There were those who believed we’d seen a Pentecostal revival in the early 1900’s and that it was over. There were others who believed we were in the midst of ‘a new outpouring’…and others who believed it was the original revival gaining new momentum.

In the polls, they show up as Assembly of God, Charismatics, non-denominationals. But still clocking in as under 15% of the total numbers.

So much diversity, so much difference of approach and theology and yet, to outsiders, all conveniently compartmentalized as “Christians”.

Mary,

Another great example – this is so important to remember – thank you – every term has a slightly different meaning to each person and nothing should be assumed!

It’s hard to pin down just what someone means when they say christian because there are so many expression for such. Sort of like sexuality. Nothing seems to fit into any really neat little box.